Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

How Does Hillary's New Health Care Plan Measure Up? HillaryCare 2.0

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Omaha Steve Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-18-07 06:18 PM
Original message
How Does Hillary's New Health Care Plan Measure Up? HillaryCare 2.0

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w070917&s=cohn091807

by Jonathan Cohn

Will she flinch? For months now, that's been the big question about Senator Hillary Clinton and health care. Nobody questioned her command of the issue or her interest in the subject. She'd proven all of that in 1993 and 1994, when she headed up her husband's health care task force and then became chief spokesperson for his ill-fated plan. But precisely because she "has the scars" from that experience, as she likes to say, many people wondered whether she'd be up for trying all over again. Would she be vague, figuring she had the least to prove on the matter and that details could only come back to haunt her? Would she settle on something less than universal coverage, figuring the political support for it was too weak? Would she kowtow to the insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies, which had started donating to her campaigns?

The answer seems to be no, no, and no. In a speech before an Iowa audience today, Clinton unveiled a plan that, if enacted and implemented, would provide every single American with generous, but affordable, health insurance. It would do so by forcing both the insurance industry and drug-makers to change the way they do business, and requiring large employers to pay part of the nation's health care bill. It would also come with a serious price tag--for which she's identified serious sources of funding.

Broadly speaking, the Clinton plan is as ambitious as any plan touted by a major presidential candidate right now. Indeed, the basic structure of the plan--starting with a requirement that all Americans buy health insurance--is strikingly similar to the structure first proposed by former Senator John Edwards, which has rightly won him considerable praise.

That's not to say Clinton is trying anything like the plan she tried to sell 14 years ago. That scheme tried to do two things simultaneously: It tried to give everybody health insurance and to reengineer the entire medical care delivery system, so that it would deliver higher quality, more cost-effective care. It was a fine idea--a lot better, in fact, than its historical reputation suggests. But, in retrospect, it was more than the political environment would accommodate. This time around, Clinton is focusing first and foremost on getting coverage to everybody. While she hasn't given up on making our famously inefficient health system work better, she's nudging it towards more efficiency rather than shoving it.

The centerpiece of Clinton's health plan is what's come to be known as an individual mandate, although the term is a bit misleading in that it's really a two-way bargain between government and its citizens. The government starts by requiring every individual to secure insurance coverage of some kind. (That's the individual mandate part.) But government then promises to make insurance available to everybody--and at prices everybody can afford.

How would the government accomplish this second part? In Clinton's case, it would do so by creating a new purchasing pool through which any individual could buy insurance. Insurers who wanted to sell to this pool couldn't discriminate against people with preexisting medical conditions, by denying them coverage or charging them higher premiums.

FULL story at link.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Capn Sunshine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-18-07 06:25 PM
Response to Original message
1. It fails on one main point: it allows for profit insurance companies to stay in the system
Edited on Tue Sep-18-07 06:27 PM by Capn Sunshine
I think not acknowledging the elephant in the room (that there is a rapacious profit driven middleman sucking dollars out of the system) and rearranging the furniture to make it easier for the elephant, isn't going to help anyone.

Every candidate, mine included, has failed in this regard*. We need a single payer system that is opt-in. You can have a small deduction taken like FICA and access a network like Medicare for everyone. If you want to go with one of those private guys, right on. But if they don't get competitive, they'll die.



* ok, Dennis Kucinich has the right idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calteacherguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-18-07 06:29 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Profit insurance companies are going to be in the system for the forseeable future.
Edited on Tue Sep-18-07 06:33 PM by calteacherguy
There is no way you can go from what we have now to single-payer overnight. It has to be done in steps. Frankly, I think going immediately to a single-payer system (even if it had the votes, which I doubt it will) would cause a tremendous amount of chaos, likely fail, and set healthcare reform back many, many years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
durrrty libby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-18-07 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Exactly. It is sensible and can be up and running quickly
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-18-07 06:53 PM
Response to Original message
4. because of this "idea" she is no longer in the running for me!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-18-07 06:54 PM
Response to Original message
5. Heres what Physician's for a National Health Plan have to say
about it:

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2007/september/hillary_clintons_a.php

Comment:
By Don McCanne, MD

Hillary Clinton’s proposal “preserves existing health insurance,” and includes the responsibility of individuals “to get and keep insurance” through the current private insurance market, or through a “Health Choices Menu” of private FEHBP-type plans, or through a Medicare-type public program.

Thus her proposal is an individual mandate to purchase private insurance that is no longer affordable for average-income individuals, or to purchase a public plan that will be even more expensive because of adverse selection.

To make the plans affordable for individuals, she would use a combination of refundable tax credits and a cap on premiums at a percentage of income. Assuming that the plans would provide adequate benefits and adequate protection against financial hardship, the increased spending through the tax system would be exponentially more than the estimates in her plan. And most of the proposed savings to pay for these increases are largely nebulous, and some of those measures would actually increase costs.

Further, the administrative complexities of refundable tax credits and means-tested premium caps would still leave many without coverage. Coverage will never be universal unless it is truly automatic for everyone.

If we are going to use the tax system to pay for health care anyway then why should we waste funds on the profoundly inefficient system of segregated private health plans? A universal risk pool that is equitably funded through the tax system is the most efficient and least expensive method of ensuring comprehensive coverage for everyone.

Many will try to contrast the differences in the Clinton, Obama and Edwards proposals, but they are all basically the same. In spite of their rhetoric, they have each made the protection and enhancement of the private insurance plans a higher priority than patients.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calteacherguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-18-07 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. That group represents a whooping 1.6% of physicians in U.S.
Edited on Tue Sep-18-07 08:03 PM by calteacherguy
14,000 members.

http://www.pnhp.org/about/about_pnhp.php

There are an estimated 850,000 physicians practicing in the U.S.A.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Medical_Association

14,000/850,000=1.6%
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-18-07 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Sooooo?
They are the 1.6% who have studied the problem in depth and have come up with a viable solution to our health care crisis. If you read the website thoroughly and their publications, you too will come up with the same conclusions that they have come up with unless you are part of the problem, the for profit health care privateers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 01:29 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC