Dear HRC suppporters, please talk to me about why I should be excited at her 'healthcare' plan

[Stinky The Clown]

I'm sure some will see this as snarky. It isn't intended as such.

I am not dissing her and I am not objecting to her plan. But it seems to me all it is, is a way to have everyone paying for health insurance - not actual health care. And that, it seems to me, enriches the insurance companies with a government subsidy.

Now, the flip side is that the people who currently have no access to health care beyond the already overtaxed emergency room will finally have some alternative and the government will underwrite that. I'm good with the concept of the government underwriting health care. I really am. In fact, that's **exactly** what I want.

But it isn't the form I favor. I favor single payer health care. Not multiple payer, for-profit health care.

As I said, this is good because it covers those without and does so with tax money. I do *not* like the part about for profit companies being in the mix, particularly the cold hearted bastards at the insurance companies and HMOs.

I understand that life is a compromise and I understand that this moves the ball upfield (at least a tad), but tell me why this is a really good thing.

And tell me who the winners and losers in the program will be.

Thanks.

I PROMISE I will not argue with your thoughts on this. I just want to hear them.

[Taverner]

1. Because she can actually get it passed

Obama, Edwards, Kucinich, Gravel and all of the rest all have great plans. Many superior. However, if they win primary and presidency - lobbyists will make sure those bills stop dead.

Hillary's already been through this, and she's learned. And she's still pissed off over 94. And I'm glad she is.

[Stinky The Clown]

3. Getting it passed is a good thing.

But how does she know it will pass?

[Guaranteed]

6. Why is getting it passed even a good thing...?

It doesn't address the actual problem- which is not simply that some people don't have health insurance.

[Taverner]

11. Because a bill that isn't passed is useless

You have to have one foot in reality, one foot in idealism.

[FormerDittoHead]

23. Actually, it COULD be a bad thing...

Think about it. I will, for the sake of argument, say it IS an improvement over the existing "system". (I would imagine ANYTHING would be...)

However, fighting the battles needed to pass this half-way plan would take whatever political capital we'd have, and it may not work at THAT! (read below, because there has been a recent trend of people not actually reading my messages). I'd rather lose a fight working for something GOOD than something that CAN'T be that good...

Logically, it could either be no good at all (like the current Medicare prescription plan), or only slightly better than our current system.

How can Hillary Clinton's plan NEVER be as good as universal?

Any plan which allows insurance companies to make profits can never work as well as true universal coverage. If insurance companies are still allowed to make 25% profits, mathematically, those profits must come at the expense of less medical treatments delivered than actually paid for... That's math. So as long as insurance companies make profits, any plan will not work as well as gov't run universal coverage.

And, in the end, if it were to become an unpopular mess like the current Medicare prescription plan, for example, I could see it being used as an excuse to repeal it, roll us back to our present "system", and to psychologically "ban" any idea of any true universal system in the medium-long term (8-20 years)... "We tried your socialized medicine, now shut up..."

But if this plan is *fairly* workable, and alleviates extreme suffering (economic and physical) it will only EXTEND the time to adopt true universal for that much longer, when possibly by doing nothing, FOR NOW, we would really get to the point of creating the demand of adopting true universal quicker...

Many times I've read of politicians not voting for bills because the bills don't do ENOUGH. I appreciate that. If a BAD bill were passed on the widget problem, for example, it would be that much longer to get a GOOD bill passed in the future that would actually help the widgets, were the bad bill were passed and let run its course.

I see this as POSSIBLY being the case here.

I DO think that ANYTHING would be better than the "system" we have now, but I see problems with settling for the first thing that we can get passed...

I have an open mind, however, and I look forward to reading more, but I reserve my support...

[Clintonista2]

31. Two words:

Baby steps. As much as everybody here would LOVE to get rid of the current system, it CANNOT happen overnight. We have to be pragmatic about this. This is the "let's make sure that everybody is covered" phase. Next up is getting rid of the for-profit health insurance industry.

[Sparkly]

32. What is the objection to getting rid of the for-profit health insurance industry now?

Whoever it is that's objecting, what's the real objection? I hear rightwingers trembling in fear about a "big government socialized" system, but they're against anything that serves all equally. If it's about them, why not work to overcome them? Why not at least put the idea out there in a proposal (since it takes Congress to compromise their way through these things anyway)? Or is there another objection of their own (Edwards, Obama, Clinton) to something like Kucinich's proposal?

[Clintonista2]

33. As it stands, the right controls the population through

scary terms such as "socialized medicine." Getting rid of the for-profit health insurance industry RIGHT NOW, is not a question of logistics, it's a question of politics, and if we don't play our cards right this time around, it could be another 15 years before we get another shot.

[Sparkly]

34. I think Kucinich's argument is very persuasive...

What seems to scare the rightwingers is the cost of "social programs" in taxes. (Their view of where tax dollars actually go is completely distorted.) It seems to make so much economic sense to take the insurance companies out of the equation, and if government is good for anything, it's for helping create a common good. I think it's a fight our candidates should take on.

(Isn't it odd how the righties never complain about "socialized roads" or "socialized public protection" or "socialized internet access" or "socialized indoor plumbing" or anything else that benefits all?)

[BootinUp]

35. Sounds similar to Moore's points in SiCKO.

Good educational movie...

[Sparkly]

36. I haven't seen it yet.

Am I overestimating the brain activity of the American public?

[BootinUp]

37. Scare tactics are very effective

and the Right has poured a lot of money into this "horror" story for decades.

[Maven]

9. Don't group Obama and Edwards with Kucinich.

They don't deserve it.

Their plans are substantially similar to Hillary's--they require you to buy into private insurance, albeit at more "affordable" rates.

Kucinich is the only candidate (and maybe Gravel, I'm not as familiar) who supports a real single-payer plan.

[rinsd]

2. Excited? Not sure why you would be excited, its not groundbreaking.

In fact its very similar to Edwards plan.

[Stinky The Clown]

4. "Excited"

I get excited when good things happen.

I would be excited if the Carlson boy had his show cancelled.

I would be excited if Il Dunce got real religion and pulled out of Iraq.

I want to get excited about the advent of some form of universal health care.

[rinsd]

5. Fair enough. I was being a bit literal.

What I meant is what Hillary is offering is not new. It is largely seen as a bridge to single payer care though Hillary has chosen not to emphasize that part (unlike say Edwards)

I am still waiting for more details but the presser put out by the campaign is encouraging.

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

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

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

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

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

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

· End to Unfair Health Insurance Discrimination: By creating a level-playing field of insurance rules across states and markets, the plan ensures that no American is denied coverage, refused renewal, unfairly priced out of the market, or forced to pay excessive insurance company premiums.

3. Promote Shared Responsibility: Relying on consumers or the government alone to fix the system has unintended consequences, like scaled-back coverage or limited choices. This plan ensures that all who benefit from the system share in the responsibility to fix its shortcomings.

· Insurance and Drug Companies: insurance companies will end discrimination based on pre-existing conditions or expectations of illness and ensure high value for every premium dollar; while drug companies will offer fair prices and accurate information.

· Individuals: will be responsible for getting and keeping insurance in a system where insurance is affordable and accessible.

· Providers: will work collaboratively with patients and businesses to deliver high-quality, affordable care.

· Employers: will help finance the system; large employers will be expected to provide health insurance or contribute to the cost of coverage; small businesses will receive a tax credit to continue or begin to offer coverage.

· Government: will ensure that health insurance is always affordable and never a crushing burden on any family and will implement reforms to improve quality and lower cost.

4. Ensure Affordable Health Coverage for All: Senator Clinton's plan will:

· Provide Tax Relief to Ensure Affordability: Working families will receive a refundable tax credit to help them afford high-quality health coverage.

· Limit Premium Payments to a Percentage of Income: The refundable tax credit will be designed to prevent premiums from exceeding a percentage of family income, while maintaining consumer price consciousness in choosing health plans.

· Create a New Small Business Tax Credit: To make it easier--not harder--for small businesses to create new jobs with health coverage, a new health care tax credit for small businesses will provide an incentive for job-based coverage.

· Strengthen Medicaid and SCHIP: The Plan will fix the holes in the safety net to ensure that the most vulnerable populations receive affordable, quality care.

· Launch a Retiree Health Legacy Initiative: A new tax credit for qualifying private and public retiree health plans will offset a significant portion of catastrophic expenditures, so long as savings are dedicated to workers and competitiveness.

5. A Fiscally Responsible Plan that Honors our Priorities:

· Most Savings Come Through Lowering Spending Due to Quality and Modernization: Over half the savings come from the public savings generated from Hillary Clinton's broader agenda to modernize the heath systems and reduce wasteful health spending.

· A Net Tax Cut for American Taxpayers: The plan offers tens of millions of Americans a new tax credit to make premiums affordable--which more than offsets the increased revenues from the Plan's provisions to limit the employer tax exclusion for healthcare and discontinue portions of the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000. Thus, the plan provides a net tax cut for American taxpayers.

· Making the Employer Tax Exclusion for Healthcare Fairer: The plan protects the current exclusion from taxes of employer-provided health premiums, but limits the exclusion for the high-end portion of very generous plans for those making over $250,000.

[napi21]

7. Keeping the ins. cos. in the mix, and telling people if they like what they now have,

they can keep it, does a lot to gain acceptance of this plan. To force the insurance cos. to STOP dropping people who get sick, or not accepting those with a prior history of illness is a very good thing too. Many people I know can't get HC because they had some surgery years ago, and the ins. cos. consider them too much of a risk!

I sent Hillary a question regarding the part of her plan that prevents people from paying more than a certain % of their income on HC. I'd like to know an estimate of what that % is.

There are a lot of unknown details, but so far, what I've read sounds like something that COULD pass. THAT is a BIG STEP in the right direction.

[marlakay]

10. Let's be real though

those companies are out for profit and if they are forced to keep the sick people, would they delay treatments, expensive medicine, expensive tests or operations to save money? I believe they would. That is why for profit has to go!

Even if her idea got passed we would still have healthcare that charges alot, they would whine about costs going up forcing us to pay more and more at the same time. I read nothing that talks about those of us who have PPO's which only pay 80% and have high deductibles. All I see is all would be covered on some kind of insurance....that is what mike moore's movie was all about, those of us who have insurance and are going broke because of it or not having things covered.

[napi21]

12. As I said, there are a LOT of details that haven't been presented yet.

They probably haven't even been worked out yet! I certainly understand the 80% factor. That's what I have, and it cost me $2,500 last year to find out how THAT WORKS! I think, for what we know about Hillary's plan right now, it sounds like one that could actually pass, and a big improvement over the current mess. It's fine to discuss it, but unfair to slam it before we find out more.

[WillTheGoober]

8. Simple ...

If you require health insurance -- and someone can't afford it (the poor) -- then you can provide it to them; since it's required.

This is a way to compromise with the right.
It allows for choices, but also provides health care, much of which is paid for by the government, for those who can't afford it.

It's a stepping stone and is reminiscent of an ol' Clinton way of leading; to take steps, not leaps, in the right direction.

[avrdream]

13. Thanks, Will.

You put it well: it's a stepping stone.

I really believe the most important components are 1)the government is going to get you covered, no matter what your income is (universal coverage) and 2)the offering of a "public" plan, like Medicare. That one thing is the little detail that makes me believe we are "stepping" toward universal coverage (Medicare) like the system in Australia. Remember that this public plan is one option in the menu - if enough people choose this plan, we can put private insurance companies out of business and end up with Medicare for all.

The cost savings ideas are terrific.

Love the elimination of pre-existing conditions and "cherry-picking" by insurance companies. I think every one of us has either been affected by this or knows someone who has.

There aren't many details yet about physician responsibility and tort reform. Hoping that gets addressed because this is another area where insurance companies are STEALING money from good people.

[durrrty libby]

14. People with pre-existing conditions can not be denied

There will be a pool where insurers must share risk

This is very important feature and ins. will not be happy about it

Also, she is not creating any new agencies. Just using ones already in place

It seems as though it would be pretty easy to get rolling

We need to start somewhere. This seems reasonable to me.

[SaveElmer]

15. It forces insurance companies to compete with public sector options...

For the business of the insured...

As R.J. Eskow over at Huffpost notes..."If private insurance companies can't compete on price and value, and if they're policed effectively enough to avoid their use of unfair underwriting advantages, they could potentially wither and die. That would leave the country with a de facto single-payer system -- one created by market forces. "

The fact is...no matter what others claim...there is less than a zero chance of a single payer plan being enacted into law...Hillary's plan covers those without insurance, insures that health insurance cannot be denied based on a pre-existing illness or use of benefits, and insure that those losing or changing jobs will not lose their insurance...


It also includes incentives for small businesses (of which I am an owner of one), to provide insurance for their employees...

All in all a very good, solid plan that moves us a significant way down the road to full coverage for everyone...

[Stinky The Clown]

17. I was with you all the way to the thrid to last word in your post .....

.... that word being 'coverage'. I interpreted that as insurance coverage.

I HOPE the actual goal is real, no shit, not-for-profit single payer health **care** .... not 'coverage'.

I hasten to add, however, that full coverage with government money on it is a good first step. I don't like that the government money goes in the form of subsidies to the clowns at the insurapharm companies, but I'll take the coverage over the punishing of the insurapharm companies.

[SaveElmer]

18. I think that is probably the goal...

But to advocate for single-payer coverage would kill it...more socialized medicine crap from the right...which works as a campaign talking point.

It would be political suicide to advocate for the dissolution of the health insurance industry...which is what a single payer plan would do...political reality...and to allow 47 million to go uncovered waiting for such a plan to become politically feasible would be unconscionable.

Nothing of this magnitude can ever be implemented using the hail mary approach...this is a big step, gets everyone access to health care that does not now have it, and insures people won't lose their coverage no matter their circumstance.

As the Government gets more involved in providing coverage, which this plan does, people will get more used to the notion and we can move away from a for-profit system.

[Donna Zen]

16. The unfortunate truth

The reason you smell a rat is because this plan stinks and belongs in a gutter. How's that?

First let's straighten something out that I noted on a different thread: single payer is not necessarily single producer. A questioner on TC thread speculated that all current workers in the private system would loose there jobs. Not so. Policies would still have to produced and serviced. Unions, AARP...lots of organizations could be part of the mix of providers. However, there would be a single payer. Instead of the stupid for profit shell game we currently have, all claims would be processed and paid by a single payer. The money currently be paid to private insurers would no longer be paid. Instead a government program would be the payer saving automatically 30%.

Senator Clinton's plan keeps all policies in the hands of for profit companies. Thus, when the uninsured receive government help, the tax dollars flow into the coffers of those big donors who will gladly pay the tipping fee as a show of thanks.

Yes, this is bad.

My brother-in-law who is neither a Hillary Hater nor a radical rabid leftist call me the other day. After we'd talked about this and that, he asked me if I saw this country sliding over the abbess? Living in a land of disappearing jobs and a broken system of government may be getting some notice. The subject turned to the US ability to be competitive in the global market. "Single payer," said my brother-in-law, "is the only thing that will work. If they fritter away at the edges, they will make the system worse."

Ah..ha! The words "Single Payer" coming from the insurance chair of the economics department of a major US university.

You see, as bad as it is to hand out tax payer money to an industry that is already loaded and not doing its job, this is a matter of keeping our jobs, being competitive, and yes, national security. With every bow, with every scrape, they are selling out our future.

Some sectors of our country already have this coveted coverage; the entire military has single payer, one of the largest such systems in the world. Starbucks now pays more for health insurance than they pay for coffee. The furniture factory in my home town closed its doors while paying half the amount for employee health care as they paid for wood. A company in Germany can hire a worker for less than we pay for a worker's insurance.

This so-called health care debate beaming into our livingrooms deserves its own time slot on Comedy Central.

[Stinky The Clown]

20. "Smelling a rat"

I'm not sure I smell one, to be honest.

I can go along with idea that rat foofoo is in the air if HRC's motives were less than honorable. If her real game is to take a step in the right direction (well argued by others, upthread) then I can find merit in the small step over the large one as a first effort.

The difference between her supporters and her haters lies in discerning her real motives. For me, that can be no better than a leap of faith.

[Donna Zen]

22. Wrong source of the smell

the plan stinks.

I understand the school of incremental thought, and considering the scope of the problem, I have no problem with that. However, if the plan is to be incremental, then it must lead to a the best solution. This one doesn't.

[papau]

25. ? Hillary's plan is almost thesame as Edwards which is almost Obama's except Obama's not universal -

single payer is preferred - but other than DK, it is not on the table.

[Adelante]

30. Obama's is not mandated

Hillary's is mandated, as is Edwards' - but hers does not mandate doctor visits as Edwards' does.

[papau]

38. True - & without mandate there is no universal - its Germany's approach "lite" as there is

no payroll tax and no low end coverage government run operation.

[Bitwit1234]

19. I wish they had a special journal for the Hillary bashers

they are junking up the threads.

[Stinky The Clown]

21. Not sure what you mean ......

...... (for the second time in as many days) ........

Are you speaking in broad generalities or about me in particular.

I also note that you have added exactly zero to this thread. A sentiment true, also, for the second time in as many days.

[calteacherguy]

24. Here's 3 things I really like about her plan.

1) Universal coverage - everyone will have health insurance

2) Require insurers to provide coverage for anyone who applies for it and would also bar insurance companies from charging people with greater health care costs more for their premiums.

3) Americans would be offered the same health care benefits of private health care plans offered to Congress through the federal employee benefits program as well as a public program similar to Medicare, and Americans satisfied with their current coverage will be allowed to keep it.


All of this would be a HUGE leap forward for our society, and has a good chance of passing if we work hard to elect more Dems in 08! Still, we will probably need ot convince some of our Republican friends as well to get it through.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/17/health.care/index.html

[Stinky The Clown]

26. In addition to convincing Republicans, there are many on the left who will also need convincing.

I used to think that satisfying everyone equally and pissing everyone off equally were pretty much the same ..... and pretty much constituted a win. I'm no longer sure of the latter.

[calteacherguy]

28. Well, she's gonna be the nominee.

So I'm not sure why "many on the left" need convincing. Convincing of what? We need a meainingful plan that can pass. Also, it's best to do things like this incrementally.

[Dawgs]

39. "Well, she's gonna be the nominee."

Did I miss something? She's only a few points ahead in the early primary states and you've already declared her the winner?

Did you really expect people to take you seriously when you write stuff like this?

[Solon]

27. There are a few red flags that are raised about the plan...

First things first, the public plan is separate from Medicare, in funding, and I'm assuming administration, yet Hillary claims it will not add bureaucracy, I simply don't see that as possible. Someone will have to deal with billing, administration, writing checks, whatever, if not Medicare, then who?

Also, quite a few details are missing from this public plan, its called a "buy in" plan, so will premiums have to be paid, or is it paid out through the general funds provided by federal taxes?

The other big red flag is the use of the term "tax credit", to help lower income families afford insurance. I have a problem with this, first, if its like every other tax credit out there, you get it ONCE a year, period. I don't see how that can help you afford a monthly premium, the bills come at the end of the month, not at the end of the fiscal year, unless the payment plans are 12 month, coinciding with tax season, this won't be a help, but a hindrance.

In addition the plan is silent on deductibles and co-pays, which, by themselves, can make health care simply too expensive for the average family. This is especially true for those with chronic conditions that require regular medical attention.

[BootinUp]

29. Sounds like there will be significant regulation on the bastards.

So I would say its a step in the right direction.