Are you confused about Hillary Clinton's proposed National Health Care?

Here’s a summary:

Hillary Clinton has unveiled the third part of her plan to ensure that all Americans have affordable, quality health insurance. Building on her proposals to rein in costs and to insist on value and quality, her American Health Choices Plan will secure, simplify and ensure choice in health coverage for all Americans. This Plan covers every American – finally addressing the needs of the 47 million uninsured and the tens of millions of workers with coverage who fear they could be one pink slip away from losing their health coverage – with no overall increase in health spending or taxes. For those with

health insurance, the plan builds on the current system to give businesses and their employees greater choice of health plans – including keeping the one they have – while lowering cost and improving quality. Specifically, the American Health Choices Plan will:

1. Offer New Coverage Choices for the Insured and Uninsured: The American Health Choices Plan gives Americans the choice to preserve their existing coverage, while offering new choices to those with insurance, to the 47 million people in the United States without insurance, and the tens of millions more at risk of losing coverage.

2. The Same Choice of Health Plan Options that Members of Congress Receive: Americans can keep their existing coverage or access the same menu of quality private insurance options that their Members of Congress receive through a new Health Choices Menu, established without any new bureaucracy as part of the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program (FEHBP). In addition to the broad array of private options that Americans can choose from, they will be offered the choice of a public plan option similar to Medicare.

3. A Guarantee of Quality Coverage: The new array of choices offered in the Menu will provide benefits at least as good as the typical plan offered to Members of Congress, which includes mental health parity and usually dental coverage.

4. Lower Premiums and Increase Security: Americans who are satisfied with the coverage they have today can keep it, while benefiting from lower premiums and higher quality.

5. Reducing Costs: By removing hidden taxes, stressing prevention and a focus on efficiency and modernization, the plan will improve quality and lower costs.

6. Strengthening Security: The plan ensures that job loss or family illnesses will never lead to a loss of coverage or exorbitant costs.

For more info click on this link:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcarepl...

Update:

AJ: Govenment is already very much in our lives if you consider all the social programs & benefits that I have no room to list here but nevertheless, we are already enjoying. However, you are right that holistic medicine should also be included.

11 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    It's about time America caught up with the rest of the western world in its health care. Socialist medicine as everyone keeps calling it work well in countries like France (all voted the best health care in the world), Denmark, Germany, Sweden, etc.

    Look at the advantages. Lowers infant moralities, longer lives due to preventive medicine, leading technology available to all, new and experimental treatment available to all (no insurance companies to say no), cheaper than paying current insurance prices (no deductible, office visit price, co co-insurance payment).

    Compare that to America which leads the world on Cancer. Yes you survive the Cancer but you crimpled with debt by having to pay the insurance companies. Your Employer made you redundant because you were a at will employee. You house has been repossessed because you couldn't afford to pay the mortgage having lost your job due to having treatment. At least you have the peace of mind that you at least didn't have to pay for any kids broken legs when you were still healthy and in full time employment.

    There are a lot of myths spread like less freedom (anyone can see any doctor and request as many specialist as they like compared to the few available on insurance plans), Long waiting times (Thing are done on a priority rather than first come bases, the child with the heart transplant is put before the 90 year old who needs a pacemaker) the government having to approve everything (external parties have less say compare to the insurance model where everyone has to be approved first).

    wikipedia even answers some of the criticisms given:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialized_medicine#C...

    America will keep its pro-rich system because children aren't important only the War on Iraq.

  • 1 decade ago

    Where is that a Mandate in our United States Constitution?

    1st it's not Realistic Nor is it affordable, unless you want Third World conditions in the form of an HMO...You don't get to choose your physician Or what is best for you in health care. You would get no more than what they give you. 2ND It is already Failing in the EU.Does anybody any the government mis managing Health care the same as it has done with Social Security? It's the same program Mitt did it in His state..That is Communism, when the government Controls everything, I don't care how good it sounds or how humanitarian it might sound. It's bad and raises taxes through the roof and is already at 33% of your earned income. Federal Taxes were never exceed 1-2% of your income by the way.

    Source(s): Freedom21.com blessedcause.org The Ten Planks of Communism NewWatch Magazine Dec 2006-present
  • 1 decade ago

    Yes, I've read that before and there are so many hidden complications to what she proposes, I can't get into it here. But in a nutshell, this plan won't simplify things, it will complicate them. Private sector businesses and the government do NOT simply co-exist. Once the Fed gets power over our health care, our quality of care will be decreased, not increased. For a variety of reasons.

    "Stressing prevention"? 'Stressing' is just another word for 'mandate'. Imagine the choices that will be diminished once the government realizes how expensive this will be. The opportunities for the Fed to get more involved in our personal lives would be staggering.

    Not to mention what this will cost individuals in increased taxation.

    I could go on and on but this is just frightening.

  • 1 decade ago

    The only PLAN should be to do away with private insurance plans.

    Make universal helathcare truly universal.

    Set the darn RED CROSS in charge of management of universal healthcare.

    Hire Romney as the financial manager of the entire plan.

    Have someone like Ron Paul or Kicinich in charge of oversight for the plan.

    And have Bill Richardson its CEO.

    But Hilary Clintons plan is just to get universal healthcare out there.

    Its not a way that truly helps offer the best solution for the people.

    I disagree with it completely.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I dont believe Hillary Clinton will make any Meaningful Health Care Reform being that the people involved in the Current Health Care system are one of her biggest campaign donors.

    If you cant beat them join them. Or at least take theyre money. Right Mrs Clinton.

    Source(s): C-Span 1 2 and sometimes 3. Biased Textbooks, and Biased media coverage
  • 1 decade ago

    Once you let Gov into a part of your life then its not yours any more. More is less remember that. An I see no inclusion for Holistic medicine .

  • John C
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    What I am confused about is why she thinks having government getting involved will help fix the problem that the government created in the first place.

  • 1 decade ago

    Yes, confused about how she or anyone else could think that this would not ruin the health care system while the middle class goes bankrupt paying for it. Can you imagine how horribly run it would be?

  • 1 decade ago

    I am wondering to myself, how do you improve health care my making insurance available for all?

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    What I'm confused about is that it is essentially what Romney instituted in MA, but Romney doesn't support it. How about them partisan politics apples?

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.