Re: HRC's new universal health plan -- Why do people think

[pnwmom]

that even though Bill Clinton couldn't get a more ambitious health plan than this one through a Democratic congress, that HRC or any Democrat now could succeed in getting a single-payer plan through?

Bill Clinton failed to get his health plan passed; he would have failed miserably if he had tried to get single payer passed. What is different now?

My preference, too, would be single payer -- ultimately. But maybe the way to get there is through steps.

In the meantime, HRC's plan would give everyone access to the same plan that Congress has. That's a lot better than what we have now. The issue to concentrate on would be how to make sure it is affordable to all.

[renie408]

1. I am not against HRC's plan, but I will say this...

there is a lot more attention on the insurance problem now than there was twelve years ago. People are more aware now and more inclined to listen. Also, if we have the Congress AND the WH, we have a lot better chance than they had then of getting something done.

[CTyankee]

2. If we make health care affordable and popular, such as "Medicare for everyone"

and if Hillary as President can help insure that Congress fully funds the program of Medicare, then the private insurance companies will be driven out of the market. They will die on the vine because who would even want their services?

So if this is Hillary's end game, I am very supportive. I want to see universal health care, preferably with a single payer (government). If the Medicare option is FULLY FUNDED, I hope to see it overtake the rest of the private insurance programs, as the health insurance of choice among the populace. Then we are that much closer to universal health care for everyone!

[avrdream]

27. I truly believe that is her plan.

It's that "public" option to the menu that is the key, I believe.

[Hieronymus]

28. That is Edwards' plan.

[jobycom]

3. Better to do nothing at all than to come a little closer to your goal.

Doncha know?

[renie408]

4. Oh hell no. Not do 'nothing'. You stand on your ideals and get no closer to your goal.

It is far better to decry any effort that is less than a perfect universal cradle to grave health care system and refuse to even consider compromising your scruples than to save a few lives with some kind of plan that MIGHT put more money into the hands of those evil, greedy insurance companies. Hey, you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet. Like 18,000 eggs a year.

[WeCanWorkItOut]

5. This plan looks like a burden on lower-middle class

Single people making twice poverty level would have to purchase health care insurance, I believe Hillary said. Without subsidies, if she follows the Massachusetts plan. This would mean someone making just over $20,000 a year would have to pay perhaps $4000.

That's rough. I can see a lot of people doing without basic stuff, heating just one room, forget the car, forget saving for a down-payment on a house, just to pay for the insurance.

True, some desperate people will be able to purchase insurance.

But I wish she had found a better way, and had honestly addressed the question of why health care costs are so high. It isn't just the pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies. She knows that. I wish she felt she could bring forward a better discussion. This does not seem like a good beginning, especially for lower-middle income people.

[renie408]

6. $4000 a year for a single person seems a little steep to me.

My husband and two kids have a decent health care plan for $253 a month. That's $3036 a year for three people.

[aquart]

9. You should see what it will do to small businesses.

[renie408]

11. Does it require small businesses to carry insurance plans for their employees? n/t

[CTyankee]

31. I think her plan is to give tax credits to small businesses. If it is generous enough

it may just be a good incentive. Better than nothing, which is what some people have now.

I recently worked for a small nonprofit agency that could not provide health insurance. Finding good employees is difficult under such circumstances. I worked there because I wanted part time work and have Medicare, as did my coworker.

[Texas_Kat]

40. Small businesses get to deduct health care insurance for their employees

from their taxes already......

Strawman argument against HC's plan.

[emilyg]

13. I pay $360/mo for individual

[pnwmom]

20. It seem very steep, especially for lower income levels. But HRC hasn't

put out any numbers like that, has she?

[ProudDad]

38. What are the exclusions?

Is that a group plan through your employer? If so, you're actually paying about $1000 per month with employer contributions which really come out of what he/she COULD BE paying you instead of paying the health insurance mafia...

I doubt that anyone could get a single health insurance plan that cheaply, certainly not one that would really cover EVERYTHING like Universal Single-Payer would...

[OHdem10]

17. How does this differ from the Republicans????

This is no disrespect to Hilary, but is she promising
Access or Actual Health Care???

GOP always promise access. Code. If you can afford it.

Then only the upper middle class are helped.

I have given up hope that anyone will solve the health
problem until the Medical System Collapse. Only the
people in the upper classes can afford Doctors. The Doctors
will have no patients --then something will be done.

Until something realistic is done to bring the costs down
forget.

America , Heal Thyself.

[pnwmom]

19. The Republicans have never promised even access.

People with preexisting conditions and certain genetic predispositions have always had trouble with access.

But my feeling, based on her first plan, is that she'll be trying to make this one affordable -- and if it turns out that isn't possible, then there can be a push for single-payer.

[pnwmom]

18. I guess I'm not going to assume the worst -- that she'd follow

the MA plan. Has she given those kind of particulars yet?

Welcome to DU, WeCanWorkItOut!

[CTyankee]

30. You could do this for lower-middle income people by expanding Medicaid upward.

Like some states are doing with CHIP programs.

Also, I do believe that HC's plan, according towhat she herself said on GMA today, caps costs according to income levels.

[LWolf]

7. Why?

Perhaps because the health care crisis has increased exponentially since then, and people's eyes are more open to the harm that allowing insurance companies to dictate levels of care has done.

Why do people think that if they just tweak a deal with insurance companies, and slap a misleading "universal" label on it, that we've somehow solved the problem?

[aquart]

8. Ask every candidate for ANY office: single payer universal healthcare?

Get every bloody one of them on the record. And then hit them with it everywhere they go. Make them run and hide if you have to.

Ask: HOW MUCH MONEY DID YOU TAKE FROM THE HMOs? HOW MUCH DID YOU TAKE FROM THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY? HOW MUCH FROM THE PHARMACEUTICALS?

Poison the resource.

[CTyankee]

32. Excellent point! We should always question our elected officials!

However, that with nothing more will not gethelp NOW. We need an interim plan to help people who are literally dying in front of our eyes. Not to do something is, in my view, morally unacceptable.

[Cleita]

10. ...

:thumbsdown:

How many more people have to die without accessible health care before people stop beating this same corporate drum. This is not the answer.

[renie408]

12. But is AN answer.

Which health plan currently being touted by the candidates has the best chance of actually getting put into action? Cause THAT is the one I support.

[Cleita]

15. It's not an answer. It's payback for campaign contributions.

The real answer is extending an improved Medicare to all. The for profit health industry is the problem. Pandering to them is not an answer or a solution but keeps the problem in place. That plan was concocted by the health care lobbyists. It's almost word for word the same one Arnold Schwarzenegger is trying to put through in California after he vetoed the plan that the people wanted.

[CTyankee]

33. Well, when MEdicare was enacted it was not enough for people who weren't elderly.

That was no reason not to enact it in the first place. SOME people were helped in our society.

HC and JE's plans include Medicare and actually would strengthen it by makingit more popular to ALL of the populace. It is a wise move. Done right, I think it will be good, not bad, because I think it will drive the insurance companies out of the health care business eventually.

[pnwmom]

21. That's the way I'm leaning, too. Get as much as we can done,

as quickly as possible. Then keep working on improving things.

[Hippo_Tron]

24. You can't do two health care reform initiatives in one presidency

Because the political aspect of legislating is that you talk about how great the legislation you got passed was. If Hillary gets this plan passed now, she can't just say a few years later "well that plan wasn't very good, lets pass another one."

On the other hand, we have a bought and paid for congress which will never pass real reform. There's going to have to be a serious change in the political climate to get single payer passed.

[pnwmom]

25. There's no reason you couldn't have one major health reform initiative

followed by bills that amend it as problems arise and needs become clear.

And if the health care plan offered a CHOICE between a government-run, single payer option (such as expanding Medicare), and private insurance policies, then we would have a chance to see which one people preferred to sign up for. If private companies couldn't keep their costs down, then people would flock to the single payer. Eventually, the private insurance industry could dry up for lack of interest.

[CTyankee]

34. Sure you can. Medicare and Medicaid passed under Johnson's first term. n/t

[Hippo_Tron]

35. Initiatives that covered different groups of people

This would be like if Medicare and Medicaid covered the same group of people and Johnson said "Alright we passed Medicare but it wasn't very good so we need to pass Medicaid".

Medicare and Medicaid were also passed simultaneously.

[ProudDad]

39. Wouldn't cover me

Wouldn't cover my daughter and her husband...

We all still stay screwed...

Thanks for your support :sarcasm:

[emilyg]

14. It's a start.

[Cleita]

16. It will never pass Congress just like her first plan didn't.

A Democratic Congress knows it's a fiscally irresponsible plan and they won't pass it. Then it will go on the back burner to be never revisited again during her term of office just like with Bill Clinton. I voted for Bill Clinton because he promised health care for all. I don't think he wanted to ruffle the corporate feathers of his campaign support anymore than Hillary does, yet Hillary like Bill had to address the issue in his campaign as well as early in his presidential term to get it out of the way. I'm not falling for it again.

[pnwmom]

22. I think single-payer is much less likely to get through Congress.

Whose plan do you think could get passed?

[Cleita]

23. As long as the insurance lobbyists are writing the legislation,

nothing will get passed. A Democratic Congress knows better than to pass another bill that's like the disastrous prescription Medicare bill, however, as long as they recognize the parasitic middle men as players, meaning the insurers and for profit HMO's, nothing will get done.

I do believe this will play out at a state level though, just like it did in Canada in the provinces. Once one state passed single payer universal health care the rest will follow. Quite honestly all the hyperbole in the campaign is just that to get elected. The candidates know they have to talk about it because the people are demanding it.

I don't know why they promise anything anyway because it's Congress that has to introduce the legislation and Conyers and Kucinich already have.

[ProudDad]

43. Unfortunately, California has to get rid of the groppensteroidenfuhrer first

They passed Single-Payer - SB840 last year and the groppensteroidenfuhrer (the FUCK) vetoed it...

[Cleita]

45. I know, I know.

I hope since Debra is trying to fix our election system that we won't see a Republican governor for a long time in the future.

[ProudDad]

42. HR676 - Universal Single Payer -- without a doubt

http://www.house.gov/conyers/news_hr676_2.htm

Brief Summary of HR 676

· The United States National Health Insurance Act establishes an American national health insurance program. The bill would create a publicly financed, privately delivered health care system that uses the already existing Medicare program by expanding and improving it to all U.S. residents, and all residents living in U.S. territories. The goal of the legislation is to ensure that all Americans will have access, guaranteed by law, to the highest quality and most cost effective health care services regardless of their employment, income, or health status.
· With over 45-75 million uninsured Americans, and another 50 million who are under- insured, the time has come to change our inefficient and costly fragmented non health care system.

Who is Eligible

· Every person living in or visiting the United States and the U.S. Territories would receive a United States National Health Insurance Card and ID number once they enroll at the appropriate location. Social Security numbers may not be used when assigning ID cards.

Health Care Services Covered

· This program will cover all medically necessary services, including primary care, in patient care, outpatient care, emergency care, prescription drugs, durable medical equipment, long term care, mental health services, dentistry, eye care, chiropractic, and substance abuse treatment. Patients have their choice of physicians, providers, hospitals, clinics and practices. No co-pays or deductibles are permitted under this act.

Conversion To A Non-Profit Health Care System

· Private health insurers shall be prohibited under this act from selling coverage that duplicates the benefits of the USNHI program. Exceptions to this rule include coverage for cosmetic surgery, and other medically unnecessary treatments. Those who are displaced as the result of the transition to a non- profit health care system are the first to be hired and retrained under this act.

Cost Containment Provisions/ Reimbursement

· The National USNHI program will set reimbursement rates annually for physicians, allow for "global budgets" (annual lump sums for operating expenses) for health care providers; and negotiate prescription drug prices. The national office will provide an annual lump sum allotment to each existing Medicare region; each region will administer the program.

· The conversion to a not-for-profit health care system will take place over a 15 year period. U.S. treasury bonds will be sold to compensate investor-owned providers for the actual appraised value of converted facilities used in the delivery of care; payment will not be made for loss of business profits. Health insurance companies could be sub-contracted out to handle reimbursements.

Proposed Funding For USNHI Program:

· Maintaining current federal and state funding of existing health care programs. A modest payroll tax on all employers of 3.3%. A 5% health tax on the top 5% of income earners. A small tax on stock and bond transfers. Closing corporate tax loop-holes, repealing the Bush tax cut.

[Skittles]

26. she has to become president first, to do anything

any kind of change right now would be a step in the right direction

[ProudDad]

44. The BEST change would be

to make sure she DOESN'T BECOME PRESIDENT...

Vote in someone who can be reasoned with. I'm thinking Edwards at this point...

[ProudDad]

41. Slick Willie, just like Hillary

got a lion's share of his campaign money from the health insurance mafia and big pharma...

Surprise! :sarcasm:

[democrat2thecore]

29. 2008 House & Senate Elections Will Determine What Kind of Health Bill We Can Get

A massive Democratic sweep and we can talk single-payer and be bold with the mandate. Like it is now - incremental steps toward the goal. As bad as I want it NOW.

[MadHound]

36. Umm, Hillary's plan is not universal health care, no matter how much her campaign tries to spin it

It is simply another for profit plan that has give aways to the health insurance industry.

If you want a real universal, single player health care plan, then the only candidate that has one is Kucinich.

[ProudDad]

37. Because Slick Willie and Hillary's plan in the 90s

was Corporate Welfare -- it shoveled money out to the health insurance mafia and big pharm...

Just as her "new plan" does...

Why do you think it would be easier to pass a hodge-podge of legislation that rewards the corporate health insurance crooks and big pharma with MORE TAX MONEY (just like the last one) and DOESN'T PROVIDE EITHER AFFORDABLE OR UNIVERSAL "coverage"???

For one, you've already got a VERY powerful set of allies for single-payer in those who are on Medicare -- Single-payer health care for those over 65.

Believe me, they'd cut the heart out of anyone who balked at making that coverage available for their children and grandchildren...

Universal Single-Payer is the ONLY way to go. The Civilized world has proven it. Medicare has proven it. Please don't give up and be part of the problem instead of the real solution...

[Milo_Bloom]

46. The difference...

Is that you can't start the negotiation from the middle. You have to pick a PRINCIPLE and stand for it.

Equal Health care is a basic human right.

This plan does not stand for that principle.

The principle of this plan is: More money = better health care plan.

There may be a compromise position to be found later on, but if you start from giving up the basic principle and agreeing with the other side, you have already lost.

[LanternWaste]

47. Without having read any of the other responses, I'll take a stab at it...

Without having read any of the other responses, I'll take a stab at it...

"...HRC or any Democrat now could succeed in getting a single-payer plan through?"

I think it's because there's been a fundamental shift in the way people perceive the health care crisis. In the early nineties, the only ones who spoke of a looming crisis were "doom and gloom" forecasters. Since then, as an increasingly larger segment of the population loses coverage, the crises becomes real for more people.

Aspects of Roosevelt's new deal (social security in particular) has been discussed prior to even World War One, but with no national crises on the horizon, it was for all intents and purposes, a non-issue. When the depression hit (and hit again), citizens finally opened their eyes to a rather esoteric (and dull on the face of it) discipline, which finally allowed the passage of Social Security.

That's my opinion for what it's worth.


(This poster has not yet decided on nor ruled out any candidate as of yet...)