Bill Clinton calls U.S. healthcare immoral

135

Comments

  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    mammasan wrote:
    Thank you. I merely thought that instead of running around in circle debating a topic to death, government funded UNC which will probably never happen in our lifetime, we could look to alternative way of providing the same benefit without having it forced on all.

    UHC will be a reality in this country in the next 15 years or so. There's very little standing in its way.
  • redrock
    redrock Posts: 18,341
    boxwine_in_hell wrote:
    Europeans get UHC but they also pay about 50-55% income tax. Granted they get like 6-8 weeks of vacation. It's a tough call. I'm not sure I want to give up 50% of my income so everyone can have healthcare. That may be callous, but I'm just being honest.

    Income tax in the UK (income after deduction of allowances)

    0 - £2,230 - 10%
    £2,231 - 34,600 - 22% (your average worker)
    Over £34,600 - 40%
    (note that if you earn £60,000, the 40% is applied the income over the £34.600 and not to the whole income as some countries do).

    So not as bad as the 50%+. Personally, I think it is worth it. The NHS (as it is called here) certainly has flaws and not enough funding but.. as an example, I was hospitalized a few years back as an emergency with chest pains. It was pulmonary embolism... I was in the critical care unit (more expensive obviously than normal wards), scans, etc. and under constant care for days... What did it cost me? Nothing!!!!!(well not directly... paid through my taxes obviously) Did I even have to think about going to the emergency room (after all, chest pains could have just 'passed') because I may not have been able to pay? No... How does this compare to:
    farfromglorified wrote:
    ......owns his own small business. he has a child and family he is supporting. insurance for him was WAY too expensive to carry, especially having to provide food for a family. so one day he gets hurt ar work, shoots a nail through his big toe. he goes to the hospital to have it removed. medical bill came, it was $10,000. he had to finance this, and is still making payments.

    If it costs $10.000 to remove a nail from a big toe, I would hate to think what the medical bill would have been for me. As said, as flawed as one may find the NHS, knowing that I can be treated without concern is a big relief.
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    farfromglorified wrote:
    UHC will be a reality in this country in the next 15 years or so. There's very little standing in its way.


    I don't know. I still see a lot of opposition to it. For one taxes will have to be raised simply because I don't see how we can fund it without doing so and you know higher taxes is not the most popular term in this country.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    mammasan wrote:
    I don't know. I still see a lot of opposition to it. For one taxes will have to be raised simply because I don't see how we can fund it without doing so and you know higher taxes is not the most popular term in this country.

    There is a lot of opposition to it. I was shocked the other day when my roommate (who is very liberal) was reading a speech by Obama wherein he mentioned UHC and she literally recoiled at the language and justifications.

    That said, the opposition is vastly outnumbered by the people who want "free" health care. People like Obama are going to be able to frame the issue such that the vast majority of people will see that they'll receive services greater than any value they have to pay. Plus, many corporations are going to start getting behind this. And that's about all it takes anymore.
  • redrock
    redrock Posts: 18,341
    mammasan wrote:
    I don't know. I still see a lot of opposition to it. For one taxes will have to be raised simply because I don't see how we can fund it without doing so and you know higher taxes is not the most popular term in this country.

    Higher taxes are never popular but if you know where your taxes go and what benefits you may get from them, you can live with it. Unfortunately, If a government puts up the taxes by, say 2%, because it wants to invest in heath care, we believe this money earmarked for health could really go anywhere. I think there was a survey recently done in the UK about the state of the NHS and the extra funding it needed and a majority did not have problems taxes being increased provided it WAS spent on the NHS (and not redistributed for other purposes).
  • binauralsounds
    binauralsounds Posts: 1,357
    He's the last person I'd listen to in regards to "immoral". That there is pretty dam funny
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    redrock wrote:
    Higher taxes are never popular but if you know where your taxes go and what benefits you may get from them, you can live with it. Unfortunately, If a government puts up the taxes by, say 2%, because it wants to invest in heath care, we believe this money earmarked for health could really go anywhere. I think there was a survey recently done in the UK about the state of the NHS and the extra funding it needed and a majority did not have problems taxes being increased provided it WAS spent on the NHS (and not redistributed for other purposes).


    You are probabaly right but our government doesn't have the best track record in regards to spending our money.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • redrock
    redrock Posts: 18,341
    mammasan wrote:
    You are probabaly right but our government doesn't have the best track record in regards to spending our money.
    That's the problem.. with any government..
  • hippiemom
    hippiemom Posts: 3,326
    mammasan wrote:
    I don't know. I still see a lot of opposition to it. For one taxes will have to be raised simply because I don't see how we can fund it without doing so and you know higher taxes is not the most popular term in this country.
    We are already paying for emergency and catastrophic care for the uninsured through our tax dollars. We are paying for those who go bankrupt or who simply can't pay their medical bills through our insurance premiums, or through our own medical costs when we pay them directly, since they are inflated to cover those losses. That's where the $5 band-aids and cotton balls come from. Under a universal system we wouldn't be paying the hundreds of dollars per month that most of us are spending on insurance premiums. I'm not at all convinced that UHC would cost any more money than what we're spending now ... in fact, if we could phase out the insurance industry, we'd be saving billions each year in unnecessary administrative costs and would actually SAVE money.
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    Staceb10 wrote:
    So is he saying it was good when he was President and now its "immoral" but his wifey poo is going to fix it? Give me a break. I like Bill and I don't disagree that there is a lot of room for improvement of the healthcare system but Billy boy was President at one time and I don't see any universal healthcare system him implemented.


    how do you feel about turning around good statements and truth... and a search for something better.. into your statement?
  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    binauralsounds wrote:
    He's the last person I'd listen to in regards to "immoral". That there is pretty dam funny

    i do not support a man cheating on his wife. but that doesnt take away the fact that he is right
  • surferdude
    surferdude Posts: 2,057
    my2hands wrote:
    i do not support a man cheating on his wife. but that doesnt take away the fact that he is right
    I don't care if he cheated on his wife it was the lies he told a Congressional hearing. I think he's right as far as healthcare goes, but given he was President for 8 years of prosperity and did nothing about it it's pure politicking for Clinton to now call it immoral. He's not in politics anymore, he should pretty much shut up on subjects that existed when he was in power and did not address.
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    surferdude wrote:
    I don't care if he cheated on his wife it was the lies he told a Congressional hearing. I think he's right as far as healthcare goes, but given he was President for 8 years of prosperity and did nothing about it it's pure politicking for Clinton to now call it immoral. He's not in politics anymore, he should pretty much shut up on subjects that existed when he was in power and did not address.


    1. I think cheating on your wofe is worse that lying to congress, but i dont supprt either

    2. he attempted to reform healthcare, prehaps you remember Hillary spearheading that agenda. but he was defeated by congress. he tried dude, no revisionist history please ;)
  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    surferdude wrote:
    I don't care if he cheated on his wife it was the lies he told a Congressional hearing. I think he's right as far as healthcare goes, but given he was President for 8 years of prosperity and did nothing about it it's pure politicking for Clinton to now call it immoral. He's not in politics anymore, he should pretty much shut up on subjects that existed when he was in power and did not address.



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan


    read up good friend ;)
  • surferdude
    surferdude Posts: 2,057
    my2hands wrote:
    1. I think cheating on your wofe is worse that lying to congress, but i dont supprt either

    2. he attempted to reform healthcare, prehaps you remember Hillary spearheading that agenda. but he was defeated by congress. he tried dude, no revisionist history please ;)
    Please he gave his wife a keep busy project so he could fuck interns. He has this issue that if it's not resolved is immoral and he leaves it to his wife, an unelected person with zero accountability to the public. Why didn't he just give it to Chelsea to handle?

    He didn't have the political gonads to take it on himself or to assign to an elected official. He was never committed to UHC and bailed on it. Using the "but my wife said whe was gonna do it for me" excuse ranks right up there with my dog ate my homework.

    It's not revisisionist history, it's reality.
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    my2hands wrote:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan

    read up good friend ;)

    I've been trying to find the full-text of the original HillaryCare plan. It was such an entertaining read back in the day, particularly the $25,000 fine it would have levied on anyone who purchased medical services outside of the government's plan......
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    surferdude wrote:
    Please he gave his wife a keep busy project so he could fuck interns. He has this issue that if it's not resolved is immoral and he leaves it to his wife, an unelected person with zero accountability to the public. Why didn't he just give it to Chelsea to handle?

    He didn't have the political gonads to take it on himself or to assign to an elected official. He was never committed to UHC and bailed on it. Using the "but my wife said whe was gonna do it for me" excuse ranks right up there with my dog ate my homework.

    It's not revisisionist history, it's reality.
    No, it's revisionist history, and you're ignoring it because you don't like Bill Clinton. The truth is, in 1993 and 1994 he didn't have the congressional support necessary to pass UHC, and by 1995 he had even less due to the Republican takeover of Congress. For a current events comparison, see George Bush's attempt to reform Social Security.

    I suppose it's unfortunate we don't live in a dictatorship, but as it turns out, many, if not most, presidents leave some of their biggest ideas on the drawing board because Congress simply won't have it.
  • surferdude
    surferdude Posts: 2,057
    RainDog wrote:
    No, it's revisionist history, and you're ignoring it because you don't like Bill Clinton. The truth is, in 1993 and 1994 he didn't have the congressional support necessary to pass UHC, and by 1995 he had even less due to the Republican takeover of Congress. For a current events comparison, see George Bush's attempt to reform Social Security.

    I suppose it's unfortunate we don't live in a dictatorship, but as it turns out, many, if not most, presidents leave some of their biggest ideas on the drawing board because Congress simply won't have it.
    Actually I liked Clinton as a leader. Sure he was devious but all leaders are andat least he had the good sense to pretty much not get caught.

    But on the healthcare he blew it. If it really was this big moral issue for him he would have staked his 2nd term presidency on it. He didn't. He loved the power more than the issue.
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    as soon as clintons name is mentioned people loose the original conversation.


    we have a poor health care system for such a rich country. period. thats the issue here folks. and i am persoanlly happy someone in the political arena has the balls to say it.

    people dont have a problem funding $1 trillion a year for the military, but when it comes to UHC they see it as a hassle, unfair, or fundamentally wrong.


    the thing that few conservatives can understand is that it will ACTUALLY BE CHEAPER, even with government involvement.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    surferdude wrote:
    Actually I liked Clinton as a leader. Sure he was devious but all leaders are andat least he had the good sense to pretty much not get caught.

    But on the healthcare he blew it. If it really was this big moral issue for him he would have staked his 2nd term presidency on it. He didn't. He loved the power more than the issue.

    Meh...RainDog is pretty much right here. There was no way UHC was getting passed in the second term. He had a shot at it in the first term, but couldn't get Congressional Dems to come to a consensus on the competing plans that were out there.

Categories