It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Hillarycare Through The Backdoor ?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 01:46 PM
Hillary failed in her attempt to control your life almost a decade ago, now shes at it again.

Knowing the American people cannot be sold on an already failed system such as the ones in Canada and the United Kingdom Hillary is now testing the waters to see if backdoor control can be instituted via control of your healthcare records.

Concern should be felt no matter what side of the political fence you sit-on, Privacy of your records prevents discrimination by Banks, Corporations, Insurance Companies and Government based on medical history. Serious inroads on your privacy have been made - we don't need more.

Consider this, The central database is set up and at some future date insurance companies are allowed access and cherrypick only the healthest to insure - the rest of us are told to either pay exorbitant fees or petition the government for relief. (I think this is what Hillary wants to happen)

If Hillary really did'nt want government control of healthcare records and thereby control of your vote she could present a bill in the Senate proposing a full 100% tax deduction for private health insurance allowing people to go out and find the best deal for themselves.

The poor and working poor have programs in existence such as Medicaid and Medicare, also every community hospital has a fund budgeted for people with no resources that you pay for in taxes right now.

NEWSDAY, NEW YORK -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton wants to create a nationwide electronic medical system that would enable doctors to access and share health records, research, prescriptions and other information, she said Monday.

Clinton says a government-created infrastructure, with special privacy standards and perhaps funding initiatives, could change that. She plans to introduce the legislation next week.

Clinton, who fought unsuccessfully a decade ago to expand affordable health care during her husband's administration, acknowledged the difficult road ahead.

"There will be losers in this system,"

Clinton did not offer specifics on selling the idea to opponents, but said she was purposely getting into the health care debate by focusing on improving quality, leaving for later the more thorny issue of how to cover the uninsured.

That was the crux of her 1993-94 initiative, which collapsed under criticism from industry interests and members of Congress, who called it a confusing bureaucracy.

Clinton has said she learned lessons from the failure.

The article basically sugercoats the idea of a central database in the guise of efficiency and convenience but really did'nt explain the darker side to this proposal and what it could portend for the future if ever passed as law.

posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 01:57 PM
The health care systems have not failed in Canada or Great Britian. Rush and fox news just tell you that so companies can rape the American consumer on health care cost. This country needs national health care. Its not any companys job to provide anyone with health care they know it and are starting to cut it. So what do you think we should do? Keeping our current system isnt going to work.

[Edited on 13-1-2004 by DiRtYDeViL]

posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 02:06 PM
Isn't the universal healthcare seriously drawing/requiring loads and loads of monies in Canada.
France and Germany having some difficulties with theirs?

A universal healthcare plan in the US would be great but some serious studies need to be done on this before a real acting on such a program.


posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 02:14 PM
Yes it cost money of course it does. I do not have time to look this up atm but on npr they where talking about this subject the other day. In Germany it cost something like 4,000 in Canada around the same in the USA it's actually closer to 6,000 or more. Someone look this up i wish i had the time i'm at work sorry.

posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 03:14 PM
DD, I have family that work in healthcare at the management level and have some knowledge of the great and I mean great inefficieny introduced by and for government programs, everything goes to s#it as soon as the government gets involved.

According to my direct source fully half of all labor time is spent on reams of government mandated paperwork.

The government has skewed the system as it stands today, heres a simple example:

Hospital has a $1000 procedure that gets reimbursed by private insurance, Next person gets same procedure done on government dole but government contract at hospital only allows 60% of the private insurance charge to be paid as reimbursement.

The hospital now raises their cost for the procedure to $1600(private ins charge) to cover the real cost of $1000 procedure they need to recover from government covered patients.

So next comes a person not covered by the private or public insurance or program, they say to hospital can't you cut me a deal ? - Unfortunatly the government mandated that no one can get charged less than the full amount or contact fraud would occur because % for procedure is now different.

Hospitals have to pay for Building, Doctors, Nurses, Support Staff and buy the latest equipment along with exorbitant malpractice insurance. (!@#$ trial lawyers)

hospitals are coerced into playing these games because of byzantine rules and laws made by our government.

I hardly believe national system for everyone would please anyone, I do however support reform that gets poorer people the minimum care required.

Less government = more dollars in this system not wasted on stupid effort.

My question for you is why would you call for congress and the senate to control your healthcare when the majority of them come from the profession that makes the most profit (clear easy money) from the system they skewed that way in the first place.

posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 03:24 PM
Nationalized healthcare in the United States seems to be an unattainable goal. Why? Because of the cost. No one can crunch the numbers. Sure the Dems can demand it from a republican administration because they know how unfeasible it is. How do they know? Well, the smartest woman in the world had 8 years and still couldn't make it feasible..not even with 14% tax hikes. I'm all for the government standing up for our rights to the corperate insurance companies but I also think its a bad idea to do anymore than regulation. Now, when we get screwed, the government is there to come in and investigate...but who's there to go to when the government is the provider? Nobody.

Ever had a problem at the DMV? Where do ya go when they make a mistake? Yeah, you got it..the back of the line..again.

posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 03:24 PM
#ing trial lawyers? What if a doctor screws up and causes someone to suffer the patient they #ed up shouldnt be paid? Put yourself in that womens shoes that was told she had breast cancer only to find the doctor read the wrong chart after cutting her tits off! The government will handle health care better then private corporations. Why you ask its simple profit wont be involved.

posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 03:53 PM
For everyone! But it's not.

This is the dead horse people love to beat more than anything. And the thing is, everyone is right in their own way. There aren't two side to this issue, there are dozens...and every solution has it's problems, but let's look at the way it is now.

Guess what, we already ACT like we have Universal Healthcare. Except for a few high profile cases where someone dies being ushered around between hospitals, we treat EVERYONE. Poor people, homeless people, illegal immigrants, cop killers with a bullet in their head even get priority to you or I?

Who pays? Cha-ching. Phoenix is right. We do. Specifically, responsible people. The middle class.

If not directly, your employer does by making your obscene insurance payements for you. Payments I might add, are considered part of your compensation and definitely come into play when it's time for a RAISE (or not). Yup, paperwork SUCKS! And the governement would be bogged down in it, no doubt.

But guess who is now? Ever wonder why every mid-sized company with 50 or so employees needs a Human Resources Director and a benefits assistant? HEALTHCARE INSURANCE? Guess who pays thier salaries? You and I do? That's PROFIT you and I never see going to huge duplication of efforts in each and every employer in this great capitalist land that could be easily replaced with ONE GOVERNMENTAL DEPARTMENT.

I know of what I speak. I've been both complained to (as an employee) about why no one gets raises, and complained myself (as an employer) about the god damn heroic efforts required to keep my insurance provider fat and healthy and my employees poor.

Beyond that, as I was saying, SOMEONE pays for all those people we treat anyway? It's US! The fools that work for a living, shilling out $4,000 to $6,000 EACH per year for coverage that is often DENIED, DENIED, DENIED.

I don't know about you, but if a blood test comes back negative, it's denied. I just got a bill for $425 because I didn't have Chrohn's Disease despite symptoms, but if I did, it would be covered. Same with medicine costs.

You all know how I feel about the disgusting manner in which my necessary insurance and medicine purchases indirectly fund the RNC to keep things from ever getting better (or if you don't, pay attention). But it goes beyond just that... it's the SINGLE MOST OBVIOUS EXAMPLE OF CAPITALISM GONE WRONG.

FOR PROFIT MEDICINE IS A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY. And an insult to any REAL conservative. I'm a liberal and I'll say it...


Acknowledging the very UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE system we ALREADY have will save YOU and I money!

Corporate profits be damned. I work for a living, I don't suck at the teet of Wall Street.

posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 04:33 PM
RANT, very well worded post and I agree with many points you made in it.

FOR PROFIT MEDICINE IS A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY. And an insult to any REAL conservative. I'm a liberal and I'll say it...


I do have a question maybe not so much for you but for others out there. This question may at first seem off post subject but it is one pertinet to the mentality of people that want my money and yours.

If Rants statement
quoted above is your belief then is it also true,

and of course an insult.

The comparison is not a hard stretch to make as we go on our merry way towards socialism.

posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 05:24 PM
I'm sincerely trying to figure out if anyone even still makes a profit farming. It's all subsidies isn't it? Or damn close.

I know hog farmers and cattle merchants are typically millionaires. But it's different for most farmers (except tobacco, where the government makes all the money). :shk:

Care to explain where you're headed with this?

posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 06:22 PM

Originally posted by RANT
I'm sincerely trying to figure out if anyone even still makes a profit farming. It's all subsidies isn't it? Or damn close.

I know hog farmers and cattle merchants are typically millionaires. But it's different for most farmers (except tobacco, where the government makes all the money). :shk:

Care to explain where you're headed with this?

Yeah - If everybody deserves equal access to medical treatment no matter their personal habits or choices, Logical extension inferred is that they should equally enjoy access to food and housing as it is known to the average middle class American - hence my reference to the slow but seemingly inevitable fall towards socialism in this country.............and yes I want to goad some of the members here to justify that.

And yes Farming is just another example of failed government meddling in another industry.

[Edited on 13-1-2004 by Phoenix]

posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 06:37 PM
It's hard to find anything not subsidized or falsely inflated or deflated these days.

Gas and energy are worse than farming IMO. I think the biggest lie that some in this country (USA) cling to is the one that we aren't already a socialist country. Have been for years. Everybody gets either a free education or prison...whatever you want. New Deal or bust.

Why fight it? I just choose to acknowledge it, and contend that the last bastions of capital corruption happen to be among the worst, like healthcare, clinging and fighting for their own dear life...not yours and mine.

Isn't Wall Street another subsidy? A form of lottery tax for failing companies? A fool and his money and all that? Or from another view, it's Capitalist dole for those afraid to really work for a living. Brokerage houses... damn them to hell.

Here's why so called "competition" in this country is a JOKE. Take one of our biggest van guard industries built entirely on govenment subsidies and infrastructure. TELECOMMUNICATIONS. Sprint didn't put up those telephone polls, my taxes did.

At least when we had Ma Bell, WE HAD MA BELL. Now the American dream is alive and well IN INDIA.

If you didn't see the 60 minutes piece Sunday showing Indians learning to pretend to sound it. No offense to India, they need the work, but I was both sickened at the homoginized globalization efforts of Indians to seem American AND one of our core industries selling American jobs down the river for their WALL STREET masters.

I can't say it enough...DAMN WALL STREET TO HELL!

I'll add this. Only ONE candidate "gets it". Laugh if you want, but John Edwards (that grew up in a defunkt mill town 15 miles from my own defunkt mill town) more than anyone knows this country needs it's manufacturing base and blue collar jobs and tech service jobs BACK. He knows Americans are more important than Wall Street and WalMart will not save us. Walmart is a communist whore, and retail jobs ARE NOT manufacturing jobs no matter what Bush would lead himself to believe.

And more and more, Iowans get it. Edwards just peaked from ZERO to 10% in Iowa and is quietly sucking the life support out of Dean. He's meeting caucus voters one on one and changing every mind he meets. Give him time. This is getting good!

[Edited on 13-1-2004 by RANT]

posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 06:53 PM
Yup I agree that there are a lot of leeches on society, the place I disagree on is that it is capitalisms fault, leeches exist on both sides of the fence. people no matter their politics are looking for that free ride.

posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 08:06 PM
As with practical technology existing that can let you have an SUV & 35 MPG, but we don't, corp. profit infrastucture is too deeply entenched.

posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 08:34 PM
Yeah,Yeah,Yeah........... but what about the darker side of a central database for everyones medical records?

new topics

top topics


log in