Is Hillary evidence that her Universal Healthcare plan cant work?

How does the Clinton mandated healthcare plan address insurance for an employer who is going out of business?

Like her campaign is? What would her plan do about her campaign? Seems like maybe healthcare isnt THAT big an issue to her.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/030...

Looks like all that plastic surgery worked out well for Hillary, shouldn't we all get the same benefit?

As ridiculous as her first failed plan was, at least she didn't say she would garnish workers' wages or "impose punitive measures". That last remark sounds like something right out of China.

It is always easier to get votes when you tell people that their problems are not their fault. You get even more votes by telling people that you will make sure they do not have to take responsibility for themselves and their own well being.

Healthcare is one such issue. It takes personal discipline and responsibility to eat right, exercise, stop unhealthy habits like smoking, and get regular check ups. Only the last one really costs you anything at all and even then the cost is minimal. Yet these are the most important things you can do to secure a healthy life. No amount of government control, short of mustering every citizen outside for morning exercises on penalty of law, will make this happen. You have to take responsibility for you.

There is nothing wrong with healthcare per se. In fact, we have some of the best healthcare in the world here in the US. You can walk into any emergency room in the country and get treated. And if you cannot pay for it, the hospital still cannot refuse you care and they eat the expense. That is why so many hospitals, especially here in Southern California, are going bankrupt. The problem is the cost of delivering this care. There are several factors that drive this and frankly, I do not see how nationalizing healthcare will have a serious impact on it.

Nationalizing healthcare would dramatically increase government costs. Not just in the actual cost of service, but also in the national bureaucracy needed to maintain the federal program. You are talking about hundreds of billions of additional spending. Free healthcare is, as you would expect, not really 鈥渇ree鈥? Also, since it would be so widely available, it would be used so much that the system, without the financial limitation on personal behavior, would be quickly overwhelmed. This is what causes rationing of services and delays. There are only so many hours in a day and so many doctors to see patients. One of the major complaints in countries that have a nationalized healthcare system is rationing; having to wait months for knee replacements and that sort of thing.

There are things that can be done to reduce cost, and thus make healthcare more available to the public without the burden of a government bureaucracy. For example, limiting malpractice lawsuits to actual damages is one way. Punishments for gross malpractice should not go to making plantiffs, and moreso the plantiffs attorney, independently wealthy. This drives up the cost of insurance to the point that many doctors are simply closing their practices. By limiting lawsuits, you limit the cost of the service, which in turn allows the service to be provided as a lower cost to the consumer.

Another option, reduce drug costs by changing patient laws. Currently, a drug company will spend billions of dollars developing a drug. Then they have only about 7 years to recoup that cost before the drug loses its protection and generic makers, who do not have a high research cost to recoup, can make it at a fraction of the cost of the name brand. But, if we were to expand th