Comments on: Hillary Clinton’s Health Care Plan–A Detailed Analysis

By: DR

DR — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 10:41:35 +0000

Anne-Marie, it seems to me that there are no easy answers. When you say that “his country does not provide,” what you are really saying is taxpayers don’t provide. Right now Washington, D.C. is considering a $1.5 trillion health care overhaul. To pay for this bill, they plan to tax the “rich,” who already pay an overwhelming majority of taxes. Furthermore, we have social security and medicare heading toward insolvency. We’ll we tax the “rich” to fix those programs, too, and if so, where does it end? I think we can make substantial improvements in health care without socializing medicine. In fact, government needs to become less involved in health care, not more involved. But that’s not going to happen. The fact is that health care “reform” will pass, the senior citizen you speak of will get prescriptions for a lot less money, and the financial irresponsibility in Washington, D.C. will greatly lower the standard of living in this country. It’s sad, but politicians have proven time and again incapable of making tough decisions.

By: Anne-Marie Ritts

Anne-Marie Ritts — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 03:47:45 +0000

This comment is in addition to the above comment I submitted in 2008. Today, my daughter, who works in a pharmacy while attending college, filled two prescriptions for an white senior male American who had Medicaid Part D coverage. His total charge was $800 for a 90-day supply. Because he could not afford this mediation (one prescription for his wife, and one for himself), she had to reduce the supply to 30 days, which reduced the charge to just over $300. A Hispanic woman whose husband could not speak English came in to fill a prescription for her child who has Medicaid coverage. The prescription was for a brand-name medication. The cost was $0. I don’t believe in denying the child needed medication, but this is NOT FAIR. This man may well have served in World War II. Now he is poor because his country does not provide his basic need for health care.

By: DR

DR — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 01:38:18 +0000

Pat, somebody who is seventy is eligible for Medicare.

By: Pat Wyble

Pat Wyble — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 19:00:31 +0000

Saying its unfair for a twenty year old to pay the same for health care as a seventy year old is wrong. The twenty year old will become seventy years old, so it works out even. Otherwise, as the average person ages and really needs the care, its too expensive. ANNE-MARIE RITTS above Feb 10 2008 IS RIGHT ON.

By: DR

DR — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 11:28:10 +0000

Nick, if you are out of work with no health insurance, get a job at Starbucks. They provide health insurance to all of their employees. If you are looking for another country, I hear it’s easy to get into Mexico. And then you can really experience a disgraceful health care system.

By: Nick

Nick — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 00:02:51 +0000

Everyone here should not fear the unknown. Reform takes support, but with whats already a disgraceful healthcare system here in the US…..we should embrace any changes. I am out of work and was perscribed muscle relaxer pills (painful rotator cuff injury)…..i have no health insurance and can’t afford $130 for a 30 day supply, so my script just sits. This country sucks, maybe i will move to another country, which i am working on! Can’t believe i can’t afford anything in my home country. Everyone here should see SICKO by Michael Moore. Puts everything in perspective.

By: Sharon

Sharon — Wed, 14 May 2008 14:45:46 +0000

I appreciated this article and the links and am glad that you are willing to put the information out there for us to read and make our own decisions. I’m also thankful for people like you who are willing to take the crap from the “Marthas & Nicks” out there and still maintain your cool. I have worked in the healthcare field for 18 years trying to get insurance companies to pay for people’s office visits and treatments and it is a depressing task. Insurance companies do everything possible to deny/refuse payment, although folks have paid their premiums faithfully. If all the major insurance companies have so many ridiculous “hoops” to jump through, how much worse will it be with a government mandated policy? And the drs. aren’t all the wealthy people some might think (except the neurologists, heart surgeons, etc.). Ask your drs. what they have to pay in malpractice insurance each year and compare that to the greatly reduced payments they receive for treatment. I’m surprised the drs. don’t all just go back to a “cash only” basis when seeing patients. Hillary scares me on several levels, but her healthcare plan scares me the most.

By: Teri

Teri — Wed, 14 May 2008 14:23:14 +0000

So, what might Hillary’s “discrimination elimination” mean for a relatively healthy, young adult who has a physical disability? From what I understand, it’s difficult to get insurance if you have a “pre-existing condition” from birth–for someone who would possibly need some followup care and perhaps ortho surgery every 5 years. With talk about medicare and social security loss in the near future, there might not be anything else left for those people in this situation. Our son is currently covered under our program, but as he nears adult age, we have concerns about how he will manage to get his medical needs met for himself.

By: Flood insurance: Are you sure your home is covered? - Smart Spending

Flood insurance: Are you sure your home is covered? - Smart Spending — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 13:36:31 +0000

[...] “Hillary Clinton’s health care plan — A detailed analysis” Back to Smart Spending Digg this | Email this | Link to this Comments [...]

By: Nick

Nick — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 19:04:37 +0000

Your analysis reeks of bias and lack of understanding.