Hillary plan allows the 47 million uninsured to buy into medicare, fed goverment employee's plan

[Herman Munster]

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j3s8p4osFk88PUwaGyOU5ZldeXFw

For individuals and families who are not covered by employers or whose employer-based coverage is inadequate, Clinton would offer expanded versions of two existing government programs: Medicare, and the health insurance plan currently offered to federal employees. Consumers could choose between either government-run program, but aides stress that no new federal bureaucracy would be created under the Clinton plan.

[William769]

1. ...

[JTFrog]

2. Totally absurd.

47 million uninsured to buy into medicare,

Gee I wonder why they don't have insurance now. :eyes:

[Herman Munster]

3. the plan

will also subsidize insurance for the poor.

Basically, everyone who has their coverage through the employer will keep it. The goverment subsidizes insurance for the poor with them either getting their own coverage, getting it under the federal government employee's plan, or an expanded medicare.

[JTFrog]

4. It's a BS plan

that panders to the insurance companies. No big surprise there.

You can try to sell this steaming pile as a rose, but I'm not buying.

[William769]

5. Thats the great thing about it, you don't have to buy it, it's for the poor. NT

[stimbox]

53. And how do the poor afford to buy it?

:wtf: :silly: :crazy: :argh: :freak: :dunce:

[Maribelle]

17. Blaming insurance companies for the cost of health care is like blaming Katrina victims for storms.

Totally clueless.

[ThomCat]

56. Really? So insurance companies aren't profit driven

additions to the healthcare system?

Insurance companies don't exist to maximize their own profit about all else?

Who knew? :shrug:

[Maribelle]

Some are not for profit, and premiums are just as expensive.

Sorry.

[ThomCat]

118. Wow. From your posts here on this thread

I guess you work for the Insurance industry.

I hope it pays well.

[Maribelle]

123. Wrong again. However I did work for a large employer and went through the RFP process ...

to select the insurance provider for our employees.

It was a grueling process that took months. Just going through the RFP responses from the major carriers was a nightmare.

[ThomCat]

124. Good for you. We'll pat you on the back for being able to

review proposals. :eyes:

Only a illiterate fool would believe that the insurance industry isn't driving up healthcare costs.

[Maribelle]

133. They are not "driving up" health care costs. You're wrong.

However, there is a huge overhead to pay for the industry which could be minimized by a single payer system. But the health insurance providers are not "driving it up".

Have you ever read the detailed charges for a person receiving major surgery?

Do it some time, and you might think differently of the insurance provider that has to wade through that maze to determine what to pay the hospital.

Have you ever seen how hospitals totally screw up the claims they submit to the insurance provider?

Have you even had to get involved in the back and forth between the hospital and the insurance company for a loved one that has a major illness?

It's a nightmare, and it's the hospitals fault - - on top of their massive charges.

[ThomCat]

143. As a person with a major long term disability

I'm very familiar with hospital charges, and how insurance claims are processed, and how insurance companies create expenses that hospital and doctor's offices then have to recoup. I'm very familiar with insurance companies paying large numbers of people (and sometimes entire subsidiary companies) to redundantly check and counter check claims for ways to reject them.

I'm probably far more familiar with the medical and insurance industries than you are.

Your claim that insurance does not drive up healthcare costs is either naive or dangerously ignorant.

Or maybe you're a PR hack, getting paid to pump up the insurance industry online? ;)

[Maribelle]

153. You couldn't possibly be "far more familiar" than I am.

But it does seem you would rather throw out condescending remarks rather than discuss the details of someone that has an opposing view. Some might refer to that as being a bully.

Blue Cross, Aetna, and all the other major Health Insurance companies charge a set administration fee. And they all seem to charge the same percentage-wise, close anyway.

Each year the insurance company will review the claims of the participants in an employee group, and set the premiums for that group based on the claims they have paid for that group, and for THAT GROUP only. What happens at say Company "A" does not affect the premiums of Company "B", put in simplistic terms. And auditors at most large companies closely monitor these finances. A company with say 15,000 employees could be giving say $11,000,000 a month to one of the Blues. Of course they monitor it.

Health Insurance Companies do not "drive up" anything. They have done this exact process for decades. Back when many paid say $30/month for health insurance to today when they pay $1,400/month.

But some things have chanced dramatically, such as how the insurance companies get involved in the procedure approval process. This is wrong. This should be left up to the doctors. But it is the hospitals and doctors that have driven up the cost of health care. One 5-day stay in a hospital can cost over $50,000. One dose of Vextibix cancer drug can cost over $5,200, and multiply that times 12. And you, of all people, should know this fact from your "major long term disability".

[ThomCat]

170. You're the one who keeps insisting others are wrong

while clearly knowing almost nothing. :eyes:

We pay far more for our healthcare than any other industrialized nation, and we get less in return. The insurance industry is a huge part of the reason why.

The mere existance of an insurance industry is pure overhead. Every penny they take in and keep, whether it is counted as profit or not, drives up the cost of healthcare because we pay for the insurance industry. We pay for their salaries. We pay for their executive bonuses. We pay for their advertising and marketing campaigns. We pay for their lobbying efforts.

You have provided absolutely nothing to even realistically suggest that all the expeses of the insurance industry somehow do not come out of our pockets. Where do you think that money comes from? Do you think fairies wave their wands and pay for all of it?

The heath-insurance industry exists for the sole purpose of taking money from us and from heathcare practices in exchange for guaranteeing payments later for necessary heathcare. And as an industry they work to maximize what they take in while minimizing what they pay out. All of that money they succeed in extracting is cost that we have to pay. It adds to the cost of your healthcare.

And then there are all the extra efforts that they make to protect and promote their industry. All the advertising and all the lobbying. It costs billions of dollars per year. We pay for that too. It gets added into the cost of our healthcare.

And the entire bureaucracy the insurance industry has created, to review claims, reject them, analyze them, restrict access to this and deny that. We pay for the payroll for everyone one of those people. They deny our healthcare claims, and we pay them for it. Those costs get added into the cost of our healthcare too.

I know doctors who are barely making more money that I am, because overhead costs are eating everything they take in. Insurance costs, and the costs of paying staff to handle so many insurance plans and paperwork are a huge part of that overhead. And we pay for it. The costs get passed along to us.

You keep insisting that the insurance industry does not drive up prices. You're a fool.

[Maribelle]

180. And you have provided what?

You twist what I say, cannot respond to my questions, and provide merely a plethora of vague innuendos.

You are wrong about why the health-insurance industry exists.

I never said we do not pay for their expenses in our premiums. We of course do. That was a childish insinuation on your part.


And I know for a positive fact that the good doctors and their hospitals would charge us a hell of a lot more than they currently do if it were not for the health insurance industry battling over acceptable charges. Just ask any doctor.


I would, however, love to see a single payer system to do away with the nightmare the health insurance industry. I would even love to see socialized medicine.

[ThomCat]

182. "childish insinuation?"

:rofl:

You are the fool who keeps insisting that the insurance industry isn't driving up costs. I provided some clear examples of ways they absolutely do drive up costs.

By insisting that insurance is keeping doctors from overcharging us, you're in the odd and insane position of insisting that doctors are greedy and unethical but insurance companies aren't. Seriously, what drugs are you taking?

Yes, many doctors would raise their rates if they could. But if we had a single-payer healthcare system then the Government would be moderating the rates that doctors and hospitals could charge. You're falsely implying that there is no alternative to Insurance companies to control rates.

Then, in your next breath you say you'd love to get rid of "the nightmare the health insurance industry." Wow. Nice about-face. Inconsistent much?

:rofl:

You must really enjoy looking like an ignorant stooge.

[Maribelle]

191. "Driving up costs" is being done by hospitals and doctors.

I do not deny that there are expense involved in the insurance company that we pay for. Your insisting on driving this point is irrelevant. But the relative amount that impacts the premiums we pay is a small percentage compared to how medical costs impact the premiums we pay, and the skyrocketing costs of medical care lays squarely on the shoulders of the medical profession.

Lets say we did away with the insurance company altogether. How much of a percentage decrease in premiums would we end up having to pay, if we could say still go into a group for payments?

Ask one single doctor if they accept what the insurance company will pay and not what the doctor bills. Its a fact. You do not have to take my word for it. Take a look at the statement you receive from your insurance provider and see what the doctor charged and what they paid. Most times there are significant variances. Health insurance companies are keeping the doctors' fees down.

Your laughing at my saying "the nightmare the health insurance industry" is caused by your lack of grasping simple concepts. Nothing about an about-face or being inconsistent on my part. There are many reasons I made that statement, and they are not related to the health insurance industry "driving-up" costs.

This is not a laughing matter.

[Mojorabbit]

218. You are wrong

about doctors driving up the costs. My husband twists into a pretzel trying to find ways to decrease costs so he can treat people because they cannot afford the treatment after he diagnoses them. Free medicine samples. Begging specialists to see people he refers who are under or uninsured at a discount or for free. We pay two people to handle the labryinth of insurance billing and resubmitting denials of care. We have paid some patient's xray and lab bills out of our own pocket because the patient couldn't afford it. We can't afford it either as the need is too great. You cannot give good patient care with the system we have now. We need universal health care and we do not know any doctors who think differently.

[Zodiak]

223. You are right

Doctors are not the culprits here, although their political arm, the AMA, does try to push the line that it is the fault of the patients that healthcare costs are high. The AMA is apparently beholden to the health insurance companies, the drug companies, and the medical supply companies who are the REAL culprits here. Hospitals, too....insofar as the administration of hospitals (which mushroomed in the 80's and 90's) who setup this system to pad their own offices. But not the nurses and doctors who are overworked, underpaid, or both.

[Maribelle]

232. Of course there are doctors giving their hearts and souls to their patients.

I am sure you could tell us many wonderful stories, that should be told, about the great things doctors are doing. What comes to my mind are the "doctors without borders".

I am not wrong, though, about hospitals and doctors driving up the costs. A case in point is how the costs of uninsured are spread to the claims submitted for the insured. A major reason medical care costs are spiraling out of control is because doctors and hospitals are recouping the cost of underfunded government programs and trying to recoup the cost of providing care to the uninsured. And in Florida, arguably 22 percent of the population is uninsured - - that heavily depend on local emergency rooms as being their primary care physicians.

[Mojorabbit]

236. Of course

hospitals are trying to recoup costs. They cannot pay for supplies, equipment, nor staff if a large number of their patients are seen for free. I live in Florida too. We need universal health care or the whole system will fall apart. Patchwork plans like most of the candidates have put out will not fix the problem. People will still be denied care by their insurance carriers.

[Zodiak]

203. Yup...I can second that.

Not only that, but when they hire these paper-processors to do this, they pass the costs to the doctors and the customers, further reducing the quality of care and driving overhead up in the hospitals and doctor's offices due to lost man-hours. This is time that should be spent taking care of patients.

They are driving god doctors out the of business and then they blame that on patints who got shitty care and had to sue for malpractice.

They are leeches, and I hope the entire private health insurance industry collapses under their own greed. Lord knows they have killed enough people with their bean-counting.

[Doctor_J]

151. Um, the CEO of United Health (IRRC) took home 1.6 BILLION dollars

last year. Yes, payouts like that are driving up health care costs. Period.

[Maribelle]

157. Stock options, not cash. But I am not saying some are not corrupt.

United Health is corrupt.

Any employer that uses them needs to have their head examined.

[Doctor_J]

185. Regardless of the particulars, health care executives taking huge payouts

takes away from the care that their insurees get. Private health insurance cannot succeed, because their corporate charters require them, by law, to pay as few claims as possible. Their first responsibility is to their stockholders, not their patients. This is a fact, not an opinion.

United health may be more corrupt than the others, but privatized health care by its definition serves as few of its insurees as possible.

[Maribelle]

197. One thing we seem to agree on, is that health insurance providers should not be dictating care.

And they seem to be doing this more frequently. For this one reason alone, I would like to get rid of each and every one of them.

But not all health insurance orgranizations have stockholders, for instance not all of the Blue Cross Blue Shield organizations have stockholders.

[Zodiak]

202. Well, I worked for a supposedly "non-profit" health insurance company

And not only do they drive costs up with their little games (and believe me...they are games), but they also drive the quality of healthcare down with their arbitrary bean-counting denials.

I've been in backroom meetings with execs making inadequate policy and laughing to themselves at how clever they are with their "advisory" doctor who was not even liscenced to practice.

If you think these companies act in good faith and do not screw both doctors and patients to squeeze a few more dollars in profit, you are sadly mistaken. I've seen in industry from the inside, and they are parasites.

Not only that, but they pay their employees like crap and treat them badly.

[Maribelle]

204. I agree they are driving the quality of healthcare down

They have no right to dictate care.

[Zodiak]

219. And the way they do it is awful.

When it comes to serious issues like TMJ dysfunction, CPAP machines, and orthotics (which mean quality of life for many patients), they are stingy as hell.

But if you ask for a boob job or a nose job and you are a young woman....automatic approval!!

Breast reduction, which is a serious medical issue as well (can lead to serious discomfort and vertebral abnormalities), had all kinds of conditions that few women could meet.

Their explanation? The execs who negotiate the plans have daughters that need this crucual work done for their self-esteem, and women who have big boobs can just lose weight, so it is not medically necessary under most circumstances.

[Lucinda]

213. I''ve seen the markup at hospitals first hand

I went to a clinic here locally that provides treatment to those uninsured. I was sent to my local hospital for a CBC - the clinics cost was $ 1.50 and they charged me $10. I've seen the same test billed out to insurance at $350.00

Now i realize the clinic is getting a great deal by the hospital in order to help those who have no coverage....but thats a huge difference.

And thats not the insurance company setting the rate.
I think the hospitals get as much as they can to help offset other costs.
Its a mess all the way around.

[Zodiak]

221. It is an all-around clusterfuck

We have to factor in all of the drug companies and medical supply companies that jack up their prices, as well. If you get a pen from the grocery store, it costs 99 cents. You get it from medical supply companies and it is $8.50.

The same goes for bandages, aspirin, band-aids, etc., and a lot of hospitals HAVE to do business with these supply companies exclusively, for some reason.

All of this stuff I am mentioning in this thread is why I decided to get out of the medical racket (saw too much of it from all angles by working in a med school and insurnce). The losers in EVERY case are the doctors and the patients. All of the other bastards are scum-sucking leeches who are literally killing tens of thousands of Americans every year for the love of profit.

Doctors get screwed....and patients get screwed. What a system!

[tsuki]

230. Huge overhead. Is that what you call William McGuire's

1.7 Billion Dollars?

[Maribelle]

233. It seems corruption finds it way to all areas.

McGuire's case is obscene.

[tsuki]

235. Obscene? That is the sum of a lot of people's premiums that were

denied coverage by his company. That is a whole bunch of health care never realized.

[Mojorabbit]

59. Did you see sicko? eom

[Maribelle]

90. Yes. eom

[Solon]

83. You get the prize for worse analogy of the day...

Jesus Fucking Christ on a popsicle stick, did you even READ what you posted. You are saying the INSURANCE COMPANIES ARE VICTIMS. They are the PERPS, its the CITIZENS who are the victims. Jesus fucking Christ!

[Maribelle]

91. But that's not what I said. You get the prize for worse misreading then flaming.

I am saying insurance companies are not to blame for the skyrocketing health care costs. In fact, a good portion of the administration fees they charge go directly to pay for their expenses.

[Solon]

96. They are the ones who thought it was a smart idea to use the stock market to make money...

its not like their profit margins go down when the market fluctuates, they raise premiums to keep profit margins level, or to increase them. As far as I'm aware of, not many health insurance companies are suffering at the moment.

[Maribelle]

106. Major Health Insurance providers such as Blue Cross , Aetna, raise premiums when costs go up

Group rates provided to all the major corporations and orgranizations in the United States are mostly based on the experience of the individual group.

What would eleminate some of the additional expenses incurred via the insurance provider would be a single payer system, or something of that nature.

[Solon]

120. A single payer plan is the most practical way to control costs...

Give the government, through Medicare, the power to negotiate prices for medical care and drug prices. Damned near every single first world nation has this type of system, and so do many so called third world nations, why is it that WE are so fucked up?

[Maribelle]

129. I totally agree with you.

I think the reason we do not have it in this country is one: the power of the AMA. Rich, powerful doctors want to remain that way.

But I think their days could be numbered. When hard working middle income folks find their health care premiums cost more than both their home mortgage and their new cars, there is a desperate need for change. And not a slow change. Greased lightening.

[elias7]

152. Doctors are generally neither rich, nor powerful

My colleagues and my salaries have dropped or remained static. The average salary for primary care physicians is in the 100k-180k range, not doing poorly, but not rich. The money to be had in all this is the insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies. Check out their bottom lines and see record profits. These are the people making the millions of dollars and these are the people with the strong lobbies.

I will say that as a physician, I have encountered more stereotyping, generalization and misinformation regarding our motives, our incomes, and our sympathies than I imagine most groups encounter.

[Maribelle]

172. That's not true. The AMA is perhaps one of the most powerful organizations in the U.S.

Most doctors in South Florida are rich. One concern they have is their huge malpractice insurance premiums, however. Doctors run most medical organizations. Pharmaceutical companies are mostly run by doctors, aren't they?

And you are totally wrong about the insurance companies. Many of the Blue Cross Blue Shields are not-for-profit. Do you deny this?

One of our employees with a hemophiliac son had hospital costs of over one millions dollars for one year. My husband's medical costs last year were over $300,000. I could go on and on. All of this money was totally unrelated to the insurance provider. You are not correct when you claim "the money to be had in all this is the insurance companies". Nothing could be further from the truth.

[elias7]

189. I don't know where you get your information from

What do you mean that most docs in south florida are rich? What is your data and how do you define rich?

What does the AMA do that is so influential? Where do you get your information?

Pharmaceutical companies are run by businessmen. Doctors are often hired for research. But they are not the administrators. Doctors who have moved into administration may get rich or powerful as heads of organizations or businessmen, but they really are no longer doctors, and are not representative of the profession.

Most insurance companies are for profit. Harvard Pilgrim is not. Anthem/BCBS, Cigna, etc where I live are all for profit. Why do you say I am TOTALLY wrong, when you could easily look up their bottom lines for the last 5 years and check their profits for yourself.

Who received the >1 million dollars spent on your son last year? Hospital costs are separate from doctors costs. How much went for medication? I agree that this money is unrelated to insurance companies; they lost on your son but gain on most everyone else. Look at premium cost over the past five years compared to cost of living increase. Total inequity.

Malpractice is a separate issue that was driven up by multi-million dollar lawsuits beginning in the 90's and spurred on by an increasingly frustrated and litigious mindset by a dwindling middle class.

I will repeat: very few doctors are wealthy. If you want to be a millionaire, go into business.

[Maribelle]

209. I would define rich by the culmination of one’s assets.

And the annual salary for a family doctor here in the 90th percentile is $192,000.

Are you asking about the influential of the AMA because you don't know, or because you want to debate it? You said you were a doctor, I find it surprising that you are not aware that the power of the AMA is widely known.

Critics of the American Medical Association, including economist Milton Friedman, have asserted that the organization acts as a government-sanctioned guild and has attempted to increase physicians' wages and fees limit by influencing limitations on the supply of physicians and non-physician competition. They assert that these actions not only have inflated the cost of healthcare in the United States but also have caused a decline in the quality of healthcare.


The AMA has also received criticism for failing to adequately pursue health coverage for all Americans. It supports market-based changes versus a single-payer option and was a major opponent of medicare in the 1960s just as it opposes universal healthcare today. All other developed countries offer universal healthcare and boast equivalent or better health care systems as well as outcomes, including life expectancy, maternal mortality, infant mortality and much lower costs per capita (PNHP website).<10> The World Health Organization ranked the USA healthcare system 37th <"The World Health Report 2000--Health Systems: Improving Performance,">. While some studies show savings from initiating a switch to single payer health care, some people resist the notion that the US is a free market health care system in the first place and a truly free market health care system has never been truly implemented.

[Zodiak]

226. The AMA sucks

Period.

And it has for a long time.

But I do not confuse the political arm of the profession with the doctors themselves. Like most Americans, doctors have been fed a party line and swallowed it (because most doctors are not political at all).

In the same way that some unions do not act in the best interests of their workers (getty too cushy with management), the AMA does not act in the best interests of doctors most of the time. The same can be said about the VFW and the American Legion. Or the AARP.

[Zodiak]

205. By the way, I worked for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas

"Not for profit" is a joke with them. They are as ruthless as the rest of them.

They were scum, and I personally witnessed them destroy many lives with their denials of legitimate claims. Claims they knew were legitimate but denied anyways....just to see if the patient would contest it or give up and save them a few bucks.

[Maribelle]

211. Maybe not in Kansas. But many of the Blues are not for profit.

Regardless, they should not be involved in dictating care. For this reason, we should do away with them.

[eridani]

241. So, when did you start thinking that insurance companies don't deny claims--

--in order to boost their profits? Not to mention their assinine 30% overheads.

[redqueen]

82. Yay! Taxpayers subsidize fatcat bottom lines!

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY!

Now THAT's a plan I can support!

:crazy:

[Tellurian]

8. boilerplate BS as usual coming from you!

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tellurian]

13. Thats it?

No worthwhile well researched rebuttal?

Why am I not surprised?

[JTFrog]

16. Yeah your comment to me

was chock full of substance. I repeat what I said above.

[Tellurian]

20. You've learned nothing about net etiquette...

apparently an obstacle you have yet to overcome.

[William769]

14. When you have nothing of substance to add, thats the perfect response.

Thanks.

[Maribelle]

21. Why wonder?

Perhaps your attempt at sarcasim on an issue that is vital to millions is misdirected.

[Maribelle]

6. Has anyone a link to the actual plan?

I have not found one, and have not read it yet.

[William769]

9. It will be officially released this morning in Iowa.

But the rabid here on DU are trying to get their talking points ready and not very effective I might add.

[Tellurian]

12. Exactly...the more they squawk, the more you see how much THEY DON'T KNOW!

interesting contrast with Obama's non-health care plan, though!

[Maribelle]

15. Not very effective, indeed. Sad, isn't it?

How can anyone pretend they are actually involved in an honest debate over this critical issue when they don't even have all the facts?

And this issue is critical to millions.

[Tellurian]

10. Hillary is releasing a Third of the plan at a time..

there are two more parts to be released soon.

[sueh]

98. Here's the link...

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/summary.aspx

[Maribelle]

114. Thanks!! (n/t)

[Tellurian]

7. So far, Bold and Smart. Using existing plans to augment UHC..

more from the OP:


"The centerpiece of Clinton's plan is the so-called "individual mandate," requiring everyone to have health insurance — just as most states require drivers to purchase auto insurance. Rival John Edwards has also offered a plan that includes an individual mandate, while the proposal outlined by Barack Obama does not."

"It puts the consumer in the driver's seat by offering more choices and lowering costs," Neera Tanden, Clinton's top policy adviser, told The Associated Press. "If you like the plan you have, you keep it. If you're one of tens of millions of Americans without coverage or don't like the coverage you have, you will have a choice of plans to pick from and you'll get tax credits to help pay for it."

............

"For individuals and families who are not covered by employers or whose employer-based coverage is inadequate, Clinton would offer expanded versions of two existing government programs: Medicare, and the health insurance plan currently offered to federal employees. Consumers could choose between either government-run program, but aides stress that no new federal bureaucracy would be created under the Clinton plan."

"Aides said Clinton will propose several specific measures to pay for her plan, including an end to some of the Bush-era tax cuts for people making more than $250,000 per year. Edwards has vowed to completely repeal the tax cuts for high earners to pay for the cost of his plan, estimated at $90 billion-$120 billion per year, while Obama would pay for his plan in part by letting the tax cuts expire in 2010."

"Clinton is also expected to stress several cost-saving measures to help pay for universal coverage. She's already recommended several such proposals, such computerized medical record-keeping and a reduction in federal overpayments to hospitals and health maintenance organizations. She would also promote wellness and disease prevention as a way to reduce costs."

"Clinton is sure to court danger from the health insurance industry by proposing several industry reforms. Among other things, she would require insurance companies to provide coverage to all consumers regardless of pre-existing conditions."

[blm]

45. BOLD? Kerry pushed this in 2003 and Hillary showed no interest then.

Wonder why she would push it now for her own run?

Gee - just like withdrawal timetable. She was AGAINST it when Kerry submitted withdrawal timetables before her primary run, now she's for it.

Hillary proves she is no leader - she's a USURPER. She took the smart and most doable parts of Kerry's bill and will now pretend it's her proposal. Where was her support for thes proposals in 2003 and 2004? I didn't see her discussing her support for Kerry's similar plans on any of the news outlets then, did you?

[Tellurian]

47. So, you're saying IF Kerry had fought for us, we'd have a Heath Care Plan..

Thanks a lot!

[blm]

54. If the Dem PARTY had secured election process and Dems BACKED UP Kerry the way

the big name Republicans showed up every day to back up Bush.....

Guess by NOT being vocal in backing up Kerry would lend credence to the vote result that showed Bush won.

Gee - what we lost just because Terry McAuliffe spent four years on DC centric projects and left the party infrastructures of so many states to remain in collapse because 2002 and 2004 weren't worth it to him to get out into those states and strengthen the party infrastructure at all the points in the process where the votes get cast and where they get counted.

The RNC ran Ohio like the mafia and the DNC let them. Same way they let Florida be run by complete thugs for years.

It's Dean's 50 state strategy that is focusing attention and allowing the Democrats to get their votes counted.

[sandnsea]

60. Except the mandate and tax credits, this isn't Kerry's plan

He proposed subsidized insurance, a cap at 6-7% of income, and there were no mandates. Small business got an incentive to provide preventative care in exchange for removing catastrophics from the insurance pool. Kerry's plan was much much better than this.

On edit:

This is really usurping Edwards' plan, with the mandates and medicare buy-in.

[blm]

89. Which is why I said the best parts of Hill's plan were in Kerry's plan.

The over-riding theme she's using now for people to access the same healthcare as congress gets is absolutely Kerry's from 2002-4.

[sandnsea]

99. Oh, okay, I was thinking of the worst parts of her plan

and not wanting those confused with Kerry's. I can't believe she is proposing a mandate, especially on small business. That's political suicide. And tax credits are beyond stupid. I think his was subsidized directly. Kerry's plan is still the best one out there, although I like adding on the medicare buy-in from Edwards too.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

77. "Individual mandate"==yeah, that's like solving homelessness by

requiring everyone to buy a house.

What about those of us who have insurance that's unaffordable even with a high deductible?

[eridani]

242. Nothing mentioned at all about forcing them to stop denying claims

Unless you have been expensively sick, your opinion about how good your insurance is is absolutely worthless.

[antigop]

18. Yawn, no thank you. I'll take HR 676. n/t

[Tellurian]

19. Let us know when it gets passed...If we're all still alive by then..

[antigop]

22. Let us know when sHillary gives up her corporatism. n/t

[Tellurian]

24. Let us know when your candidate takes this race seriously...

[antigop]

26. HR 676 is a bill with 77 co-sponsors. Where is HIllary's bill? n/t

[Tellurian]

34. So, whats the holdup? Why hasn't it passed?

[antigop]

37. Nice deflection. You didnt' answer the question. Where is HIllary's bill? n/t

[Tellurian]

40. You proposed the (so called) solution.. Whats the holdup on getting it passed?

Honest question..

[harun]

42. The honest question is HILLARY IS A SENATOR, if she thinks

this plan is a good idea, make it into a bill and get it on the floor. Her party is the majority, it isn't like it wouldn't happen.

[Tellurian]

48. You answered your own question..

[eridani]

243. The fucking insurance companies that support Clinton n/t

[Clintonista2]

71. WOW, HR 676 sounds like a shoo-in! When will it pass?

:rofl:

[William769]

27. That will never happen.

If he took this race seriously, you would hear more from him.

[antigop]

28. So where is HIllary's bill? n/t

[William769]

29. Where is your candidate?

[antigop]

31. Nice try. Where is her bill? n/t

[William769]

32. Wheres your candidate?

[antigop]

35. Who says I have a candidate at this time? I said I support an ACTUAL BILL HR 676? Nice try. n/t

[William769]

43. Nice try.

So are you saying Kucinich is not your candidate? I have a thread that would suggest otherwise. Or is this just more disinformation?

ON EDIT: The search feature on DU is great, isn't it?

[sueh]

111. Where is her bill?

[William769]

117. Standing beside her, I would assume.

:shrug:

[durrrty libby]

23. So far, this looks reasonable. The health care crisis in this country has no easy fix

The high risk pool is very much needed
I like the fact that there is some flexibility. I look forward to hearing more from Senator Clinton


On the other hand, I am already bored to death with the knee-jerk reaction from the haters

They are so predictable. :scared:

I guarantee Hillary’s plan is 100 x better than anything they will ever see from the republicans

[Tellurian]

25. From what I see so far..

she is predicating her plan on existing mandates and not attempting to rebuild Rome from scratch..

Brilliant!

[durrrty libby]

30. Yes, That is impressive. She has not disappointed me yet

On the other hand......

" Go Cheney Yourself"??? Some people are just beyond pathetic and sad:spank:

[Tellurian]

33. Just another insight into the divisive, destructive force paving the way for a Republican Prez...nm

[harun]

41. H.R. 676 has a better chance of passing than Hillary becoming President (n/t)

[durrrty libby]

44. She will be a fabulous president.

[Tellurian]

49. I second that in the face of all the detractors..

[durrrty libby]

50. Joe Scarborough just said that Hillary will be on his show tomorrow

I imagine she will call in and discuss the health care plan

[Tellurian]

51. Good to know..can you post a reminder..

I seldom watch the talking heads..and would miss it otherwise..

Thanks in advance-

[durrrty libby]

52. I'll post one in the am

[DemocratSinceBirth]

68. Ya Thinkie

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

[Lydia Leftcoast]

78. Let me know when the Dem party gets behind HR 676 100%

as they should, if they really care about the American people more than about their corporate contributors.

[Bitwit1234]

36. I would also propose that the president, vice president and all

politicians have to use the insurance that this coverage would be. That they wouldn't get wall to wall care. That they would get the same treatment everyone else does. I bet when that happens they will be scrambling to get coverage for the average American.

I thank goodness I have Medicare and another insurance. I would not have to have Medicare, if my other insurance did not specify that after I retired I must pick up Medicare and they would be the secondary coverage. But still in all the supply my prescriptions and I don't have to pay the exorbitant price Medicare charges.

[antigop]

38. Sorry, folks. I gotta go. I'm not paid to post on DU all day. n/t

[Tellurian]

39. We're not paid either...

Say hello to DK for us in Hawaii!

Iowa? Not important enough...no beaches!

[William769]

46. DK is in a undisclosed location.

Or missing in action.

[stimbox]

55. I know you're an unpaid intern.

Hope it turns into a fulltime gig for ya! ;)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

57. That Wasn't Nice

And what you implied wasn't lost on me either...

[William769]

58. Either show your proof or be branded as someone who is untruthful.

Good luck.

ON EDIT: Or are you going to leave this thread like someone else did?

[Milo_Bloom]

61. This should comfortably end any chance of a Clinton presidency.

The centerpiece of Clinton's plan is the so-called "individual mandate," requiring everyone to have health insurance — just as most states require drivers to purchase auto insurance.

That's what people love to hear. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MANDATE. One could point out you don't HAVE TO have a car, thus you don't HAVE TO buy auto insurance. You also have the option of self-insuring with your car. I doubt you will have a similar option with this type of plan.

In the end, this doesn't address the problem, which is the middle man profit in the health care system and the fact that too many health care decisions are taken out of the hands of individuals and their doctors and placed into the hands of bureaucrats.

There is also a fundamental problem with the "lets get everyone covered, then we can argue about what type of system..." concept. That argument will NEVER happen. This is America. The only reason we are talking about this issue is because 47 million people aren't covered. Once everyone is covered, the urgency will go away and nothing else will get done and the real PROBLEM will never be addressed. Those 47 million uninsured people give us the leverage to have this debate.

We need to be talking about SOLUTIONS, not band-aid fixes that don't actually address the problems.

[William769]

63. Got to love your fantasy world!

:rofl:

[Milo_Bloom]

64. Says the one in denial. (nt)

[William769]

65. Who's in denial?

Anyone on the Clinton bandwagon is living life to the fullest. It just doesn't get any better. :)

[Milo_Bloom]

66. You.

Because your bandwagon has no chance of going to the big show.

[William769]

67. Like I said, got to love your fantasy world!

:rofl:

[Milo_Bloom]

72. Says the one in denial. (nt)

[William769]

73. Who's in denial?

Anyone on the Clinton bandwagon is living life to the fullest. It just doesn't get any better. :)

[Milo_Bloom]

75. You.

Because you are in so much denial, that you can't address the actual issue.

[William769]

86. What issue am I not addressing?

[Milo_Bloom]

92. The problem with the mandate, the fact that her plan doesn't address the actual problem...

The fact that any plan that continues to endorse for profit insurance companies is fundamentally flawed, as it just puts a band-aid on the problem and will lead to us not looking for a solution.

The only reason we can have this debate about health care is because the current system has left so many people out.

The REAL issue is that we have left our health care decisions in the hands of beauracrats, but tax credits and other similar solutions just continue to work in that fundamentally flawed system. However, everyone is so damned selfish that unless it is happening to them specifically, they won't want to change something that seems to be working.

47 Million uninsured is such a big number, that even the selfish people can acknowledge SOMETHING needs to be done. However, if you just stick a band-aid on it, the urgency diminishes and we wind up with the same flawed system.

Its like unemployment. If the unemployment rate were at 15%, everyone would be screaming about outsourcing and calling for NAFTA to be repealed.

HOWEVER, the cook the books a little. Don't count people who have been unemployed for more than 1 year... don't count people who had to take jobs at a fraction of their old salaries just to survive and VIOLA.. the unemployment rate is under 5% and it is not a public priority.

So, what I want you to address is how you feel that Clinton's plan of continuing to use for profit insurance companies for health care DOESN'T just get the real problem swept under the rug and bring everyone into a horribly flawed system.

[William769]

95. When the whole plan ir released and I can see it in it's entirety

I will be more than happy to discuss it.

[Milo_Bloom]

100. You don't need to see the whole plan to discuss the issue I raised.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/?sc=8

Everything you need to discuss the issue I raised is right there.

[William769]

105. Thats a synopsis.

I deal in facts with the whole picture.

[Milo_Bloom]

113. So the actual plan will not be anything like the synoposis?

Hmmm, interesting theory you have there.

[William769]

121. No yours is a interesting theory.

Putting words in my mouth. I know it irks you I will not discuss something before it is released, but I am prudent, what can I say?

[Milo_Bloom]

127. Its pretty cowardly.

All the facts you need to discuss the issue raised are in front of you, but you refuse to do so, wanting instead to only discuss minute details, instead of the big picture.

It is an interesting deflection technique, but that is all it is. You can't discuss the big picture, so you only want to talk details.

When you have the courage to handle the big picutre, let me know.

[William769]

130. You just don't get it do you?

Like I said your irked because I won't discuss something that has not been released in it's entirety. You can talk till your blue in the face, thats not going to change my mind.

You may deal in what ifs, I don't

[Milo_Bloom]

138. I deal with reality.

Black and white on the page.

If you don't want to talk about it, don't.

But, the fact that you keep replying to say that you don't want to talk about, reveals your true underlying fears.

[sueh]

108. Here's the link from her website:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/summary.aspx

[William769]

109. That is a synopsis.

[Milo_Bloom]

116. So, address the issue raised.

Because the issue raised is about the big picture, which is all the synopsis is.

[William769]

131. See post #130.

[Milo_Bloom]

139. Address the issue raised (nt)

[sueh]

136. But its from her own website. Wouldn't you think that would be

the best place to read about her plan???? Since she hasn't introduced legislation?? :think:

[Tellurian]

76. Milo...how can you have an opinion when you haven't ..

had the common sense to wait for Hillary's UHC plan's full release later today?

[William769]

80. And he says I'm in denial?

:rofl:


What more can I do but laugh?

[Milo_Bloom]

93. Because you are scared to address the issue. (nt)

[William769]

97. I have yet been given a issue to discuss in it's entirety.

People who talk without all the facts, are people I don't listen to.

[Milo_Bloom]

101. All the facts you need are right here.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/?sc=8

[William769]

107. See post #105.

[Milo_Bloom]

140. Address the issue raised (nt)

[Milo_Bloom]

88. I am addressing the issue raised so far.

The mandating part. I have the same issue with Edwards plan or ANY plan that doesn't address THE PROBLEM.

[sandnsea]

74. single payer would be mandated

If you have money withheld from your paycheck, you've got a mandate. Everybody will have to be required to be registered in any universal system in order for it to work. So the single payer people really have a pretty bad argument about mandates.

You are right, however. Mandated anything will sink her election. I can't believe she proposed it. That and tax credits instead of a straight-out subsidized program, well the whole thing sucks as far as I can see. And mandates on small business too, that's just beyond stupid. This is a political disaster.

[Tellurian]

79. So, tell us about Obama's UN-universal Health Coverage..

Obama's plan was doomed before he even published it, right?

[sandnsea]

85. This is pre-released by the campaign

There are problems with her proposal and pointing your finger at Obama won't work this time. And frankly, I'm not wild about his plan either. Kerry had the best plan and we need to just go back to that, add in the Medicare buy-in, and put it out there.

[Milo_Bloom]

87. The difference is that it addresses the PROBLEM.

In a single payer system, everyone will pay less and be treated equally in a single system. So just like paying for the highways, you pay for the health care system.

Mandating people to wade through a sea of health care choices is mandating a frustrating process that is flawed to its very core.

The bigger problem, as I mentioned, is that this plan does not address the PROBLEM of the middle man and once everyone is insured, we will never address that actual problem.

[sandnsea]

94. mandate is mandate

You can't object to it as political suicide with one plan, and praise it with another. It just doesn't work that way.

[Solon]

104. Wrong...

There is a key difference between individual mandates and single-payer, the difference is that under a single payer system, you are participating in a public system, under an individual mandate system, you are forced to increase someone else's profit margin.

[sandnsea]

115. Politically - it doesn't matter

In fact, most people will object to being mandated into ONE government system more than they will the variety of choices. Public and government are the same thing. Most people don't care about someone else's profit margin if they believe they're getting a better product as a result. In fact, most people believe it's the profit that drives people to produce a quality product that other people will buy. True or not, it's still the world we live in.

[Solon]

125. People tolerate it in other areas of life, why not health care as well?

We don't have a private highway system, nor private police or fire department, most utilities are public as well. This perception that Americans like our privatized health care system is a myth, most people don't like it and want a change, I think they are ready for publicly provided single payer health care.

[sandnsea]

135. Riiight

I agree it could all be delivered publicly - but don't kid yourself into believing that Americans want a change to a VA or County Hospital type health care system, they don't.

[Milo_Bloom]

142. Why does it have to be equated that way?

Seems like GOP talking point.

If you go with a single payer system, it will be just like going to a county hospital or VA clinic and you don't want THAT, do you?

How about, you can continue to go see the same doctor you have seen all your life and receive the exact same care, only you don't have to answer to an insurance company and it will cost you less.

[sandnsea]

148. Police, fire, roads

Because those are funded exactly the way the county hospital is, with employees paid by the county. Which is the direct question I responded to. Maybe you should tell that person to stop presenting single payer as the same as the police and fire dept.

[Milo_Bloom]

156. No one did that.(nt)

[sandnsea]

160. Yeah, they did

"We don't have a private highway system, nor private police or fire department, most utilities are public as well. This perception that Americans like our privatized health care system is a myth, most people don't like it and want a change, I think they are ready for publicly provided single payer health care."

[Milo_Bloom]

162. You misunderstand

The difference between a payment collection system and the actual system function.

The point is that people don't have a problem with public services, but that doesn't mean that it has to be done via a "PUBLIC CLINIC".

[Solon]

145. What the hell are you talking about?

Do you even know what a single payer system is, here's a clue, your PRIVATE hospital bills the Government for services rendered, that you paid for through your payroll taxes. Is that understood?

[sandnsea]

149. YOU referred to police, fire, roads

Don't call it public health care if that's not what you mean.

[Milo_Bloom]

159. You are confusing...

A method of collecting money with the system.

No one is saying health care should be run like the fire department.

The POINT was that people collectively pay for Police, Fire and Roads and don't object in droves... so why would they raise this objection to health care.

[Solon]

164. Exactly, someone gets it!

We have public services, or ways of paying for services through taxpayer's money, and people don't object to those.

[sandnsea]

167. I'm not, the other poster is

And people object because medical care is more specialized than police and fire work. There are differnt points of view and people want to pay to get the kind of treatment they want.

[Milo_Bloom]

174. Again, this is a GOP Talking point.

"There are differnt points of view and people want to pay to get the kind of treatment they want. "

Who is saying they can't get the type of treatment they WANT?

Or are you talking about purely elective procedures?

In short, what do you NOT GET in a Single Payer system where bills are submitted to a general fund, that you DO GET in the current system, where bills are submitted to a for profit insurance system?

[sandnsea]

177. There will be limits

You won't have completely open health care. We don't even have it with medicare.

I'm not opposed to single payer outright, I just think the promoters are being utopian in the implementation. I also think the arguments made will not convince most people and get in the way of progress.

You might start with the system that will guarantee health care won't deteriorate, instead of ending up there after running through all the other arguments that people will reject.

[Milo_Bloom]

183. They should be...

That is how a real negotiation works. You start from what you absolutely WANT and then give only what you have to.

When you start from the compromise position, you get crap.

As I also mentioned above, if you play the "lets bring everyone into the system and then decide" game, we will stay at the slow bleed for the next 100 or so years.

[sandnsea]

186. When one pays for what they choose

they are creating a market that might whither away otherwise. For instance, if you cap maternity stays at 24 hours, and no one can even pay to stay longer - you eliminate the idea that a negotiation even exists. The studies that prove longer stays benefit the baby, pfft, gone. It's a bad way to deliver medicine, in the long run. We need both, actually all 3. A core single payer system, subsidized insurance, and full pay. Nobody left out, specialty care for the rich which will actually ease the burden on the rest of the system.

Pretending that your single payer plan isn't going to negotiate away health care for someone is also dishonest.

[Milo_Bloom]

188. Its between doctor and patient.

And that is the way it should be without bureaucratic interference.

[sandnsea]

195. You already agreed caps would exist

What if a woman wants to stay a week and has a doctor who doesn't give a shit. What if another woman's doctor is the tight-ass kind always worrying about people getting 'free' govt money. What if that doctor never approves a longer stay, even though complications would usually indicate otherwise.

You think at some point there won't be outrage and a demand for bureaucratic "interference"? They've already had to do that with insurance companies.

Of course there will be regulation, mountains of it. Stop being naive.

[Milo_Bloom]

201. No, I didn't. You made that statement.

All your questions are answered with Doctor choice.


You are assuming doctors are going to try to game the system. I believe most doctors are honorable and will function honorably within the system.

[sandnsea]

207. Maternity care is gaming the system?

Gosh, the doctor who favored the mom is the doctor I was supportive of, old-fashioned guy who believed in old-fashioned care. Funny you would jump on that doctor as dishonorable - I was thinking the jerk who wanted to kick everybody out of the hospital was the dishonorable one.

yep, it will take regulation to sort it all out.

[Milo_Bloom]

208. Way to knock that strawman down.

Now, lets get back to the actual issue.

I wasn't expressing "support" for either doctor. The patients will decide what doctors succeed or fail based on DOCTOR CHOICE without the silly limitations from out current system.

The good doctors will have lots of patients... the bad doctors who don't think someone needs rest after giving a baby won't be getting too many patients, will he?

See... CHOICE.

What strawman will you create next?

[sandnsea]

215. lol, that's the free market

Why isn't it working with medicare and medicaid? Oh yeah, because the country is full of people who will jump right on top of the notion that someone is "gaming the system", just like you did and that isn't even what I was referring to.

But let's pretend that didn't happen, then what. Well maybe doctor nasty would say 'fuck it', and start letting all his mommys stay a week in the hospital too. We wouldn't be able to afford that either, so.... regulation.

There WILL be regulation. Single payer would have to be mandated in order to work at all. At this point in time, it will be easier to get people to accept a layered system with choice. And if the mandate has to come, it will be easier to get that through if it's attached to a system that offers choice.

[Milo_Bloom]

217. Its the regulation Strawman

People always claim someone is gaming the system. But a small group of people claiming nonsense doesn't change the reality.

"Well maybe doctor nasty would say 'fuck it', and start letting all his mommys stay a week in the hospital too. We wouldn't be able to afford that either, so.... regulation."

So the fact that he is now a good doctor is bad? And we can't afford it? Why can't we "afford it"?

And you keep ignoring the fact that the system I am advocating includes FULL CHOICE.

[sandnsea]

220. Why can't we afford it???

Why can't we afford week long hospital stays, or whatever extended care somebody decides they want? You really asked that?

I don't think you've considered the systemic realities of medical delivery at all.

[Milo_Bloom]

225. Yes, answer the question.(nt)

[sandnsea]

228. see below n/t

[Solon]

161. Those were examples for crying out loud!

I referred to the system as being publicly funded. It would be much tamer than most public utilities and those other services. It would be like the highway system, in a way, you have private contractors, hired by the government, whose job is running our health care system.

No one on this thread is talking about imitating Great Britain, but rather Canada.

[sandnsea]

165. They're bad examples

If you don't mean a city/county system, don't use it as an example.

[Solon]

171. You forget your own post on this subject...

Americans may be free market worshippers, but usually not to the extent that it interferes with the public good.

[sandnsea]

178. I haven't forgotten anything

People just need to get their shit together in making their arguments.

[Solon]

187. You're the one with the misunderstanding, not I...

You were the one who stated that Americans would prefer to have a private system over a public one. I assumed you meant in all cases, when that is NOT TRUE. Another example I can think of are community owned banks, some are in the most conservative areas of the country(small towns), yet we have an example of publicly financing of private institutions, through loans and grants, from those very same banks.

Americans like private systems when they see a benefit for themselves that outweighs the benefits of a publicly funded system, however, they also like public systems just fine when they benefit from them more than they do private systems.

The problem, I believe, is coming from the perception of what a Publicly funded Health Care system would involve. The problem is the inexact nature of the terms used, Single Payer is nice and concise, but we who advocate for it have a bad habit of saying using terms like UHC, simply because it entered the American lexicon. The key, however, is the fact that hospitals, doctor's offices, etc. will NOT be run by the government, they would be, for lack of a better term, Government Contractors. This isn't even that much of a problem, many of these hospitals and offices are members of non-profits already, in my area, there are two non-profits who run or own ALL the hospitals and are affiliated over half the doctor's offices in the area. One is run by some nuns, and other by rabbis. :)

Its not like our health care system was a free market to begin with, the problem is mostly in the form of funding and coverage, not care, so we should concentrate our solutions on THAT, and leave care up to the doctors. A lot of myths have arose around systems similar to the system advocated here, and we should debunk such myths. For example, on choice, most people don't CARE about who covers them they just want to make sure they can go to a doctor they are comfortable with. This would not be a problem under a Single Payer system, doctors, by default, would treat patients under such a system, there only other choice would be to get out of the business.

In fact, given current trends with insurance companies, you would have more choice under a Single Payer system than under the current system. I remember the last time I had insurance, I was given a thin book of "approved" doctors, it was surprisingly short. Even worse, none of them were within 45 minutes from where I lived and worked, which SUCKED.

[sandnsea]

192. Well I was actually talking about mandates

that people will reject mandates, subsidized insurance or single payer. The post that I responded to indicated supporting a mandate for single payer would be different to the public, and I pointed out it wouldn't matter. Americans like to choose, they like control over things that affect their personal life.

There are many things we pay for collectively through our taxes, but we're also allowed to go outside any public service if we want to. There are private schools, security, country clubs, colleges. You can even buy your own fire engine if you want to and I bet some people have. People will never accept anything less for their personal health care.

Then you bring up the issue of non-profit hospitals, and fail to mention there are also non-profit insurance companies. If profit were the sole problem in health care, then we should see a massive difference between these non-profits and the for-profits. Interestingly, we don't and very few people want to address the reasons why.

And lastly, I can't figure out why you'd think you wouldn't get a list of approved doctors with a single payer system. I live in Oregon where we have streamlined as much as possible to expand coverage through the Oregon Health Plan. Not only do we have approved doctors, but the state has eliminated many clinics by choosing to reimburse only one facility in a district. The only place a doctor can begin to go out of the system is in a large city, which effectively removes choice from the rural and the poor.

Single payer has its problems too. There will not be a utopian solution. That's why it's best, at this point in time, to add layers of coverage for everybody, and then see where it takes us in ten years.

Except, no mandates without real monthly subsidies for individuals and business.

[Solon]

199. Its not the profit that's the problem...

at least, not entirely, but the cost inherent in a system where a single hospital may have to bill as many as 50 or more different insurance companies at least once a month. The overhead and paperwork costs are huge, and "computerizing" the system isn't going to streamline it that much, no matter how many politician say otherwise. Data still has to be entered, bills still have to be printed up, etc. The Government also needs power to regulate the Pharmaceutical industry, particularly in price controls.

As far as a hybridized system, it depends on HOW its hybridized, first things first, the single payer system would have to be funded by tax dollars, whether you use it or not. Not everyone uses Medicare or Medicaid, yet they still pay. I have no problem with supplemental coverage, as long as it isn't for the EXACT same treatment as the public system. In other words, you can pay for that private room, or more dedicated and/or private care than what is available in the singly payer system, however the company paying for that care can't provide basic care that matches the single payer system.

Having a system similar to Canada's, which does have private health insurance companies, is fine, just not the bastardizations that most of our politicians are coming out with. Regarding Oregon, I wouldn't use them as a model, just like I wouldn't use Massachusetts either.

[Milo_Bloom]

206. But it would matter

This whole things reminds me of an episode of King of the Hill, "Americans like to choose, they like control over things that affect their personal life. " Spin the Choice.

No one is taking away choice. The only argument is how to pay.

"There are many things we pay for collectively through our taxes, but we're also allowed to go outside any public service if we want to."

This is completely, utterly, untrue. You CAN'T legally take the law into your own hands. Of course you can buy your own firetruck, but you still have to pay for the legal ones and you probably can't park it anywhere or operate it either... and if you interfere with the fire department with that truck, you will be arrested. You don't get to choose how your tax money is spent. Americans give up choice every single day for what they believe is the public good.

"Then you bring up the issue of non-profit hospitals, and fail to mention there are also non-profit insurance companies. If profit were the sole problem in health care, then we should see a massive difference between these non-profits and the for-profits. Interestingly, we don't and very few people want to address the reasons why"

Its because it is so easy to address that issue. You are still paying the people at the insurance company and although the COMPANY might not make a profit, it is still making money to pay for the services and thus, takes money out of the health care system and channels into a useless bureaucracy.

"Single payer has its problems too. There will not be a utopian solution. That's why it's best, at this point in time, to add layers of coverage for everybody, and then see where it takes us in ten years."

This is the "slow bleed" solution, because we will never end up addressing the real problem in the system.

[sandnsea]

212. The services will still need processing

doctors, hospitals, clinics, labs, radiology, equipment, pharmacies, there's a whole array of things that will still need payment. Somebody will still have to service the claims and payments. There will still be claims, as we saw in my maternity example above. And as I've also repeatedly explained, a single payer system can not be cost effective without regulated streamlining, which will eliminate choice. You will have a large defined benefit, and then you will have a process for doctors to process claims outside the defined benefit. That will be a single payer plan. It will eliminate choice, and be a mandate. And be rejected.

The best option is the layered approach, with no mandates until we know it's going to be affordable to everyone.

[Milo_Bloom]

214. That's incorrect.

Yes, payments will have to be issued, but is a very simple task, which actually can be set up electronically and managed by very few. In the internet age, companies with staffs of a few hundred can handle billions of transactions a year.

And absolute NO regulated streamlining will be necessary, as the free market can still tend to regulate itself.

[sandnsea]

216. Everybody bills, everybody gets paid

Is that what you're saying?

[Milo_Bloom]

224. In general, yes.

Its actually quite system to have a tic system to investigate outliers.

[sandnsea]

227. wow,

You really don't know the number of people providing medical services, do you? Or the system required to verify their qualifications for billing. Or the variety of treatments a person might "choose" if it were a free-for-all. You just think it can all be paid for by the wealth of the rich. The rich who, by the way, made their money from many of the same medical and pharmaceutical discoveries that you want to eliminate. Have you ever worked in the health care system?

[Milo_Bloom]

229. Yes, no, Yes (nt)

[sandnsea]

231. care to expand?

Or do you realize why many people don't support Kucinich. It isn't so much being against single payer as a concept, it's the total lack of thought that has gone into his proposal. Our health care system is gigantic. Every grocery store has a pharmacy. All the box stores have eye clinics and many have added quick care clinics. There's mental health and addiction. Should Britney get to go to her beach resort and bill $100,000 treatment to the government plan? Why not? We can afford anything, according to you.

You have not thought this through, and you need to. It's too important to let utopian fantasies pass for thorough analysis and sound judgment.

[Milo_Bloom]

234. The lack of support of Kicinich has NOTHING to do with this.

It all has to do with the electibility and the fears of the boogie man that you are giving voice to.

These seemingly impossible challenges are actually quite simple once you eliminate the middle man in the system and until we do that, we can't even attempt an actual solution, we just end up with these problem sustaining hyrbid solutions that don't actually address the problem.

Its like trying to control drunk driving by decreasing the speed limit. Yeah, lowering the speed limit may cause less fatal accidents b/c some drunks won't be going fast enough to kill anyone, BUT you will still have people dying of drunk driving.

First you address the REAL problem, which isn't that not everyone can afford insurance, it is why do we need a middle man in the health care industry who knows absolutely NOTHING about health care?

Any discussion that doesn't start with the proper identication of the problem, isn't a discussion worth having.

[sandnsea]

237. You don't know the problem

Because you haven't done a thorough analysis of the health care system. That is evident by the absence of the acknowledgement for a regulatory scheme, claims analysis, provider regulation, etc.

The public medicare inclusion, specifically, in Edwards and Hillary's plans IS the single payer you desire. It's an option. If you don't have a problem with the single payer, plus private pay option - then why do you have a problem when we get there through a different door?

[Milo_Bloom]

240. Because it includes the same problem. (nt)

[Milo_Bloom]

126. EXACTLY!!!!

This is exactly the point I am talking about.

Currently there are 47 million people uninsured, right?

MOST people understand that is a horrible number and that SOMETHING needs to be done.

However, if you use a band-aid solution that doesn't address the real problem (middle man profits) and get everyone "covered". No one is going to care. They are going to think, "yeah, they have crappy coverage, but they are covered and I pay more for my better product".

However, we can use the fact that most people know something needs to be done to address the real problem. That is what Michael Moore does in Sicko and that is what we NEED to be doing on a national level.

Just coming up with some lame hybrid solution doesn't address THE PROBLEM, it just gets it out of the public eye and thus allows the problem to continue.

[sandnsea]

134. because that's what people want

the right to choose to pay more for a better product. That's the country you live in.

And your argument has got nothing to do with the fact that both your plan, and Hillary's plan, are MANDATES, which has killed the Democratic Party for years. This was the argument against Hillary's first plan, mandating people into a govt program. She didn't learn a thing.

[Milo_Bloom]

141. But that system has failed

And that is the issue.

Those of us who want profit out of health care ACTUALLY have the upper hand right now, because people see where the system has failed and are willing to talk about real solutions.

That is the opportunity being missed by most of these people, in their rush to appease people's greed.

[sandnsea]

150. You started complaining about mandates

and all I said was, you'd be wise not to bring mandates into it when single payer would require mandates too.

The debate between single payer vs subsidized insurance is separate. And all I generally have to say on that is, hope you don't die waiting for it. Other people WILL.

[Milo_Bloom]

155. People die in the current system WITH insurance.

First, there is a huge difference between the active mandate and the passive mandate, as I explained earlier.

Second, the current system is broken and people ARE dying because of it. If we use a band-aid system, people will continue to die in the same way they are dying today, because health care decisions are not always being made by doctors.

So either one group of people die or another. Either way, people die. Isn't it better that we work to actually get the best system for the future?

[sandnsea]

163. Less people die with more coverage

To sit around and wait for utopia is just foolish. Would you support doing away with insurance altogether, since it's such a terrible system? To hell with those who wouldn't get care, because people are dying now anyway. That's about how much sense your argument makes.

A mandate is a mandate. People know they're being mandated into social security too. They're willing to tolerate that because they will control the monthly income when they get it back. If you were going to remove that choice, and replace the benefit with guaranteed housing and food, people would object to that too. Americans like to make their own choices.

[Milo_Bloom]

176. No, MORE people die with the current system...

They just do it slower and over a longer period of time. So we can bleed lives slowly over the next 100 years with current system expanded OR stand strong and get the proper system in place for the future.

It isn't about "sitting around and waiting for utopia" it is about advocating the BEST POSSIBLE SYSTEM and not starting the argument from an already compromised position.

"Americans like to make their own choices."

Exactly, and no one is taking it away from them. They still get to choose their doctor, hospital, caregiver... in fact they have MORE CHOICES, because a bureaucrat isn't making choices on their behalf.

[sandnsea]

179. I'm not advocating the current system

and you might want to know I live in Oregon where I do not get to choose unless I drive 60 miles away because in order to expand coverage, they created health districts to receive state funding and not duplicate services. They also restrict health care, just like the insurance companies do. And we don't even have single payer. You really don't know what the system would end up looking like by the time cost cutting was implemented.

[Milo_Bloom]

210. Sure you are.

The majority of these plans are just expansions of the current system, that include, the current problem... a completely unecessary middle man who has to be paid.

[Solon]

154. You are mistaking the Medical care system with a free market...

It is no such thing. You don't see people doctor's bidding on patients, you don't see patients negotiating with doctors, nor would such a system work. The "choice" you have is, MAYBE, for your primary care physician. As far as insurance companies themselves, well, across the board, you see people paying more in premiums for less in payouts. Most people don't shop around for hospitals to go to in the middle of a heart attack, they go to the nearest one, and pray that their insurance doesn't run out when they have to stay.

The only people who actually have a market, unto themselves, for health care are the wealthy, who have private doctors, can pay for a kidney with cash, etc.

[Milo_Bloom]

112. Sure it does.

There is a HUGE difference between mandating someone wade through a sea of choices with no idea of what is good, what is bad and ultimately spend money on something they don't understand...

AND

A fair simple system where everyone pays a % and receives the exact same thing in return that is simple to understand.


Also, in reality, we shouldn't have to "charge" any additional money for a health care system. The money is there, just being wasted on other things, such as a war we didn't need to fight, and tax cuts for people who didn't need them.

The problem with the mandate in the manner proposed is that it forces people to DO something. YOU HAVE TO MAKE A CHOICE. YOU HAVE TO PICK ONE. Let's call it an ACTIVE mandate, because it requires you to act.

The second type is a passive mandate. It doesn't require you to take any action at all. If we need to charge out of a paycheck, just like FICA x% of your check will go towards "health care" and you can then go see any doctor you want at any time. It doesn't require you to take any action.

And someone with a good plan and grasp of the issue, will easily show how cutting out the "middle man" will save people LOTS of $$$. The Average American pays X for health insurance each month. Under this plan, the Average American will pay Y. X>Y and you don't have to do anything!

That's the difference.

[sandnsea]

119. See #115

I don't think you understand the American people. They want to control their own lives.

[Milo_Bloom]

128. I already answered 115... It made my point PERFECTLY. (nt)

[eridani]

244. Which is exactly why I want single payer

I want to choose my doctor, and my employer will no longer pay for the HMO plan I am now in, so they are taking my doctor away from me against my will. This couldn't happen under single payer.

[HamdenRice]

62. I really can't stand Hillary; But actually this is one of the best proposals I've seen

The "can't stand" part is just to let you know I'm not one of DU's resident Hillary police.

Seriously, this is a good start toward national health care and far better than what she proposed as first lady.

One big problem with our current system is that if you are not poor, not elderly and your employer doesn't offer health care or you are between jobs, there is basically no practical or affordable way to get insurance.

Before hearing about this, I thought Edward's proposal was pretty good, but it, like Hillary's Clinton administration proposal, relies on the for profit health insurance industry.

Hillary's proposal is a quick and dirty way for the federal government to offer cheap, non-profit health insurance for any comers. It sidesteps the entire private insurance company juggernaut.

Despite Hillary being at the bottom of my list of Democratic candidates, credit should be given where credit is due for this proposal.

[Irishonly]

69. I Get So Frustrated By Insurance or Lack Of

My husband and I are both on Social Security Disability. Our savings went poof while I was fighting to get benefits. Every doctor I had ever seen stated I could no longer work but the government in its wisdom had a panel of lay people who thought I may be able to work a couple of hours a week and didn't need benefits. After a three year fight a judge apologized to me for what the system had done to me and I was approved. I have Medicare. I purchased a supplemental immediately. Since the "improvements" in Medicare coverage I have seen my prescription cap be cut by 1/3, co-pays for office visits double, and deductibles for lab and x-rays triple. If I ever had to be hospitalized we would be bankrupt after paying a $500.00 deductible a day. I accept responsibility for not shopping around but I choose to stay with the doctors who treated me for cancer.

My husband was approved in 3 1/2 weeks but does not qualify for medicare until next July. We are blessed that his psychiatrist treats and counsels him pro bono. He needs to see a medical doctor but we can't afford it.

We were able to obtain Healthy Families for our daughter finally. Before he received Social Security we made $10.00 too much a month.

People with health insurance probably will have a hard time relating to my story. Having no health insurance is one of the worst things that can happen to anyone. We should never, ever have to read about a child going deaf because of an ear infection or dying because of an abscessed tooth. Going to free clinics is an all day task and when you are sitting in a wheelchair it's damn hard.

I have not read Clinton's health plan but I will admit I see red when I see tax credit. If a family can't afford a monthly payment a tax credit means jack shit, How much a month would Clinton's health coverage cost? For someone on a fixed income an additional monthly payment can mean the difference between eating or not. Social Security payments have not kept up with the rising costs of living.

I will read her health plan when all of it comes out. There is too little information in the OP. Not everyone has an easy time meeting daily living costs. I also hope I don't get rethugicon responses questioning if I need internet or cable. I don't get out much. My computer acts as my eyes to the world.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

81. I'm not as badly off as you, but these candidates have NO IDEA what it's

like for the average American.

[Radical Activist]

70. Isn't this what Bill Bradley proposed in 1999?

Nice to know where 8 years of playing it safe has gotten us: nowhere.

[redqueen]

84. SurPRISE surPRISE surPRISE!

Profit built in, and it's taxpayer-funded, too!

:bounce:

:eyes:

[sueh]

102. Herman, read about her plan from her website. Link below.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/summary.aspx

[DemocratSinceBirth]

103. I'm Coming In Late

But I have a simple question...

Some here are arguing that mandates are the deathknell for any government controlled insurance plan... If that's the case how is any government controlled health insurance plan going to work?

[Solon]

110. Its INDIVIDUAL mandates that are the problem...

Under a plan such as H.R. 676, to the average and poor American, there is literally no difference in payment plans, they already pay into the Medicare system, they just get to use it now, even if before they didn't qualify. Under an individual mandate plan, they would be FORCED into buying some type of private or supplemental insurance, and, IF they qualify, may get a tax credit(useless), or subsidy(better be monthly), to help pay for the private insurance plan.

[sandnsea]

122. right now, govt mandates won't work

And this mandates individuals and business, a double whammy. I can't believe she did this.

Although you're right, eventually a universal plan will have to be mandated. I just don't think the people are there yet.

[Solon]

132. Define "Buy into"...

If they have to pay one cent above and beyond what is already paid into Medicare through taxes, then that is one cent too many.

[sandnsea]

137. Seniors pay Medicare premiums

in addition to Medicare taxes. Are you saying citizens shouldn't be required to do as much as seniors already do??

[Solon]

146. And that needs to change...

Medicare itself would need reform for it to be rolled up into a single payer agency. The first thing to get rid of the premiums, which shouldn't be necessary anyways. Instead the Single Payer agency, regardless of what its called, will be paid for through taxes, for most Americans, middle class and lower, there taxes won't be raised one cent. In addition, this agency will be able to, on a yearly basis, negotiate for prices of medical services and prescription drugs, in addition to, if need be, putting price caps on either one on a contingency basis if cost spike.

[sandnsea]

158. Maybe you should read Dennis' plan

"To fund the system, the act would repeal the Bush tax cuts for the highest income earners and establish a 5 percent health tax on the top 5 percent of income earners, a 10 percent tax on the top 1 percent of income earners, and a one-third of 1 percent transaction tax.

There would also be an employer and employee payroll tax of 4.75. Federal and state funding rates for existing health programs would remain unchanged."

http://www.atlantaprogressivenews.com/news/0134.html

The current medicare tax is 2.9%, so Dennis is calling for a tax increase on everybody to pay into a for profit hospital, pharmaceutical, medical equipment, doctors, etc., system. I guarantee you the wealthy are not going to pay a 5% or 10% tax for health care for everybody else either. The figure I've seen for other single payer plans is 6-7%. That's what it would cost each person to have single payer health care - in the real world.

[Solon]

169. Even 6 or 7% is MUCH cheaper than the cheapest premiums from insurance companies...

I had, at one time, paid almost one quarter of my income into insurance premiums, my father pays in close to 15% and he makes over 50k a year. I'd trade in my premium for a tax increase in a heartbeat.

[sandnsea]

175. So, since #132, you've changed your mind

"If they have to pay one cent above and beyond what is already paid into Medicare through taxes, then that is one cent too many."

Which is all I said to you to begin with, it was going to cost more to provide coverage for everyone.

[Solon]

181. Not really...

To be frank, that is my ONE criticism of H.R. 676, simply because I don't think its necessary, repeal the Bush tax cuts, etc. is all fine and dandy, but you can avoid tax increases for the middle class and lower income people by pulling the money from the bloated Pentagon budget.

However, after all is said and done, since we can NEVER decrease that budget by any significant amount, I can tolerate a few percentage point increase in taxes. I wouldn't be happy about it, but it would be a hell of a lot better than any private insurance company.

[sandnsea]

184. You don't think Dennis ran the numbers??

You think? You "think" it will all be "fine and dandy"? We're just supposed to upend our health care system because of what "you think"??

Please don't ever repeat that to anybody who isn't solidly in your corner on health care. Those kinds of comments send people screaming in the opposite direction.

[Solon]

193. I'm sure he and Conyers did...

Also, I didn't say it was "fine and dandy" I said that it was tolerable. Hell, I ran the figures myself, using as much raw data as I could find, months ago. My figures indicate that, under a worse case scenario, with NO repeals of any tax cuts for the rich, it would be a flat tax of about 97 dollars and 61 cents per month for every working American to pay for a Single Payer system. Of course, I didn't have access to some numbers that Kucinich may have had a handle on, also it is a FLAT tax figure, not under a progressive tax system at all. If you did put it within a progressive tax structure, lower and middle income people wouldn't pay a dime more than they do now.

My example system lacked the payment structure that H.R. 676 lays out, and used the mostly private system's cost as a base, which may be inaccurate in itself.

[sandnsea]

196. that speaks for itself

You don't know, which is fine. It's complicated. But stop pretending you do, it doesn't help anybody move forward with any kind of reform.

[bvar22]

144. I am SO surprised.

Hillary proposes a plan that will shovel $MILLIONS of taxpayer dollars into the pockets of some of the richest CEOs in history. The SAME CEOs who are funding her campaign.
:thumbsdown:

Hillary's plan will only further entrench the FOR PROFIT system.
It is a step in the WRONG direction.

The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[Tellurian]

147. I have Hillary's Plan here...pdf format

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/americanhealthchoicesplan.pdf

[NancyG]

166. Being self-employed, I'd welcome buying into Medicare.

Or being able to buy into a group small business policy. What we have now is impossible.

[sandnsea]

173. If you can afford it

If you can't, you have to wait until the end of the year to get your tax credit, even small business. That right there makes it unworkable for most people who are uninsured.

[Totally Committed]

168. Jeez, knock me over with a feather!

I told you so. I wrote this in another thread yesterday, but you all objected so strenuously, I actually thought I might be wrong.:

The best we will possibly get from HRC (or ANYONE so closely affiliated and supported by Big Pharma, Big Med, and Big Insurance) no matter what she proposes or promises now, is maybe Universal HEALTH INSURANCE.

But, I wasn't wrong, was I?

Ugh.

TC

[renie408]

190. I feel so stupid. It sounds like a viable plan to me. But I am sure somebody is going

to jump on here and explain to me why I am an idiot.

[sandnsea]

198. the mandate is a killer

I would think you'd know that better than most, even though Edwards has a mandate too.

And lower income people are not going to like the tax credit aspect. Mandate into spending a big chunk of your income every month, and hope you get some of it back at the end of the year? No thanks. I don't even want that and I'm a huge fan of subsidized insurance.

[killbotfactory]

222. Tax credits are nearly worthless to the working poor

And by and large that's who is going without insurance. What good is the promise of a bonus at the end of the year if you are living paycheck to paycheck already and are forced to buy into a health care plan? I guess it all depends on how affordable these plans become, but right now insurance premiums are beyond ridiculous. If they stay the same, it's going to ruin people.

[DuaneBidoux]

239. It doesn't deal with the true issue which is rampant inefficiency and rising cost.

It is relatively easy to insure everyone, but the system we have, whoever pays for it, is bankrupting the country.

thousands of companies, all with different billing and records keeping systems. No uniformity between medical records and patient information, and idiot decisions such as multiple cat machines being bought for towns of 400 people.

This isn't to mention excessively fancy and beautiful medical facilities that drive up the cost of care without adding any quality.

I don't see anything wrong with Clinton's plan to insure everyone, but if there are not reforms in the structure of the system then it won't matter who is insured or how it is structured, it will eventually bankrupt the country.

We pay twice as much as any country and we get half as much as anyone else, that is the true heart of the problem.

[cobalt1999]

194. Wow, a plan that might actually have a chance of being implemented.

Propose all the "dream" plans you want, I'd rather have something that has a shot of being approved by congress and implemented over "fairy dust".

[durrrty libby]

200. Exactly. It is reasonable and can work. It is better to start

somewhere than to shoot for the moon and accomplish nothing.

[DuaneBidoux]

238. She is layering chocolate frosting on top of a rotten cake.

I am not inherently for single payer system, but the "system" we have now is disasterously inefficient with unnecessary and costly bureaucracy everywhere (albeit private bureaucracy).

If we place a new layer of insurance on top of the current system we will not solve the problem that the current system in bankrupting the country. There need to be reforms to create more uniform records keeping and complete reforms in computer systems etc.

We spend twice as much as any country and get half as much in return. That is the problem. Getting the people insured is less of a problem than that.

[MadHound]

245. Oh, and she gives tax money to the health insurance industry,

While requiring all citizens to have health insurance, whether they can afford it or not(ooo, and you think that this won't make insurance rates rise).

Hillary's plan is nothing more than a payback to her corporate masters/donors in the health insurance, medical, and pharmaceutical industry.

The best plan is universal, single payer health care, as proposed by Kucinich.