Hillary Clinton is policy illiterate: Social Security and Medicare are entitlement programs.

[Bread and Circus]

They are not something you "purchase" from a private company.

To compare her plan to medicare is like comparing an apple to a chainsaw.

Her statement is a slap in the face to John Conyers, who does in effect bring medicare to all, through HR676.

[Culture Warrior 2]

1. She wants us to believe...

that purchasing private insurance is just as good as single payer.

[Hoof Hearted]

12. Culture Warrior? Did ya think we wouldn't notice? Enjoy your stay here on DU

I wonder how long you'll be able to contain yourself.

[Enrique]

2. Hillary is not illiterate about policy

especially about healthcare.

[Ivote]

9. You Pay Into Them

The deductions are listed on your pay check
When you start receiving ss you pay extra for parts b c & d

[bigtree]

3. Any health care plan underwritten by the federal government will become an 'entitlement'

The funding will become a permanent fixture in the annual budgeting. There will be requirements for both government contributions (tax revenue) and individual contributions (fees), much like SS and Medicare.

[jsamuel]

4. yep

[ProSense]

8. All insurance is underwritten. SS is not the same as health insurance any more than it's the same as

auto insurance.

[HeraldSquare212]

20. But that's the point of the OP, I take - they will not be underwritten by the Fed Gov

the Fed Gov will simply force you to pay for them

[Bread and Circus]

Middle class people and employers will be footing the bill, just as we are now...

neither candidate has done a good job of clarifying how those without insurance will actually be able to afford insurance. Nor do they describe exactly what will the standards for copays and deductible be like.

For instance, some insurances "insure you" for catastrophic illness but have deductibles that are in the thousands of dollars.

That's not universal.

It will still be a piecemeal system w/ some subsidies.

But it is still a broken system.

And it will be a broken system that still backtracks tax dollars to private corporations, just like what they tried in 1993 w/ HMO's and the "corporatization" of health care.

[HeraldSquare212]

36. But you make it sound like a way to save money for some people

I can't see people who are uninsured getting excited by that.

[MannyGoldstein]

5. I Missed The Debate - Did She Compare SS & Medicare To Compulsory Heath Insurance?

If so, that's pretty odd.

[jsamuel]

no, they are the same, SS is compulsory, medicade is compulsory

everyone gets it, everyone pays for it

[Ivote]

13. Not Medicaid

Medicare is what you get if you retire or are disabled and paid for 40 Quarters
Medicaid is what you get if you are not covered by Medicare

[Bread and Circus]

14. You get it from the government and it is paid for by taxes. This is very unlike her plan.

In her plan, you are mandated to "purchase" insurance from a private insurance company or the government. There are some cost offsets from the government for some people but most people or employers will STILL be BUYING health insurance.

To confuse her plan, medicare, and SS as somehow being the "same" because they are compulsory is misleading.

[papau]

34. No - it is very like her plan - a couple of 100 billion in taxes will buy the coverage for

those with less income -

not much different than having a graduated income tax that buys the same benefit for everyone

the taxpayer is left with about the same after tax/after medical premium usable income as with an entitlement - except by including insurance companies as policy providers rather than claim payer service providers only, this becomes an unnecessarily expensive "entitlement"

but one could argue that if the American people want choice, then a one size fits all medical plan will not do - and the entitlement is best obtained by the marketplace determining the plan design choices that win.

Of course the entitlement analogy becomes less real if the Medicare for all option is not included in the choices - and that Obama plan - sans the Medicare for all option after Obama gives it away because fighting for it would harm that new DC atmosphere of cooperation with corporations and the GOP that he wants - and after all it is best that we accept his judgment that a plan with a Medicare option - like a plan with a mandate - just would not pass - that will be the only "change" I expect from an Obama president.

In other words I expect the Obama plan as passed to be no more than welfare for insurance companies with no Medicare for all option - and if I am correct - I must agree with you that it will have little in common with an entitlement.

[Bread and Circus]

51. The cornerstone of Obama's plan is a "federal insurance" that can be purchased...

This is the best part of both their plans in terms of moving to single payer.

But that will only happen if the "federal insurance" is more affordable with better services.

[papau]

54. the only "cost" - measured in hundred of billions - is the subsidy for the poor - and Hillary's a

bit better. The Federal insurance is called "group" insurance and indeed is 15% or so ;ess costly that individual policies - and another 5% less costly because of "large group" discounts.

but that still has insurance selling expense and profit and "risk premium" - only Medicare gets you to the 3 to 5% over cost of benefit expense level - about a 10% additional cost savings if we went Medicare for all - and indeed that is what the market will make "win" because of price if the plan has at least an option to chose a Medicare like policy (which both plans do - but Obama's Chicago insurance company history is weak copared to Hillary's fight to the death that indeed she did lose in 93) -

but I want at least the option - and it will not take a chancy fight to the death this time as it is time for health reform now - and I think it is more likely if Hillary is the President.

[thesubstanceofdreams]

26. Yes, she did, twice n/t

[BlackVelvet04]

31. She was referring to the issue of them being mandatory...

which they are. You HAVE to pay SS and Medicare taxes if you work.

[MichiganVote]

6. So called by the Bush administration.

[HeraldSquare212]

7. It also reinforces the problem with her plan - the govt taking money from your paycheck

[Maven]

10. And her plan doesn't require you to purchase ANYTHING from a private company

if you don't want to.

There's a public plan option similar to Medicare but with benefits to match the broad coverage of the private plans at a more affordable rate. But in order for it to be efficient and economically viable, everyone has to participate in some form of health coverage. That's the point.

The comparison to Social Security was apt because no one can opt out, and the price you pay is gauged by your income, which is the same thing her plan and Edwards' plan propose.

I am so sick of misinformation being spread on this issue.

[Johnny__Motown]

15. You must purchase it, if not from a private company then from the government

but you MUST purchase something

[Maven]

16. Yes, but at a price that is adjusted to your income via tax credits.

And low-income people don't have to purchase anything at all, because they're covered by Medicaid. Which her plan would also improve.

[Bread and Circus]

28. Not all doctors accept Medicaid, because it is notoriously unwieldy and stiffs doctors.

Single payer that works is the only real solution.

She's trying to act like her plan is "just like" single payer, but it's not. That's the part that bugs me.

[Maven]

39. Her plan is more similar to single payer

and certainly more likely to get us to single-payer if you actually deconstruct it and see what the end-game of the arrangement would be.

I support HR 676 but health insurers--who have donated millions to both campaigns--aren't about to let themselves be legislated out of existence. We need a transition plan.

[Bread and Circus]

49. It will only move us to "Single Payer" in the way you say if the government

plan is generally cheaper and has better benefits. I hope that's the case!

The "federal insurance" option is the cornerstone of Obama's plan as well.

And other than not going far enough, not being bold enough, I am not going to argue with either one of their plans and I do think they will help people get more insurance.

And I as a physician will benefit more than the rest of you because it means I will have more people in my community with insurance.

The problem I have, like I've tried to state numerous times is that her plan is not like Medicare or SS in that you don't "purchase" these types of entitlements. And though there are premiums to medicare, it's not like a premium to a private insurance.

She was confusing the 3 different programs to score debate points and I take umbridge with it.

But again let me emphatically state that both Clinton's plan and Obama's plan are a good start.

But for me it's HR676 all the way.

[Maven]

53. "if the government plan is generally cheaper"

That is exactly the plan. But it can only happen if everyone participates, and we eliminate free riders and other cost inefficiencies.

[Maven]

40. .

[HeraldSquare212]

32. But she doesn't say what the dollar figures are,

so how can anyone know what they'll pay? It's like writing a blank check to the federal government.

[Maven]

35. Obama doesn't specify the dollar amounts for his tax credits either.

The numbers wouldn't be arbitrary, and would have to be determined after extensive inquiry in order to make the policy workable. You don't just a pick a number out of thin air. The whole program would fail.

[HeraldSquare212]

37. but he's not forcing people to buy it, she is.

[Maven]

42. Yes. And you're forced to buy into Medicare and Social Security.

And they're made affordable in relation to people's incomes.

And, by having everyone participate, overall costs will decrease making it more affordable for everyone.

[HeraldSquare212]

44. do you think people think 8.25% is affordable?

and that's just SS. You can't ask people to agree to be forced to buy something, until you tell them what it will cost.

[Maven]

46. Social Security would never have happened if people thought then

the way you're thinking now. (Of course, many people did think that way--and thankfully they were overruled.)

Yes, I wish she and Edwards had worked out some more concrete numbers but at this point it's premature and they don't have access to the infrastructure, information and money to do such a wide-scale study. It should give you confidence that they didn't just pull numbers out of a hat. The system would have to be affordable in order to run properly.

It amazes me how many people support "single-payer" in one breath and then lament being forced to pay for health coverage in the next, without seeing the irony.

[HeraldSquare212]

56. I don't 'lament' anything, my friend

I just don't see her winning the general election by telling people they're going to have to pay for something, and not telling them what they will have to pay. This is much worse than single-payer, from every perspective - government mandate and probably dictate coverage, but private sector companies running it all. The worst of both worlds.

[Maven]

48. And don't forget: all of these plans would have to be passed as *legislation*

In other words, Congress would have the final say on who pays how much. It's not as though Hillary or Obama could just invent a number, wave a magic wand and garnish your wages. It would be beyond the scope of their Constitutional power.

[Bread and Circus]

50. Unfortunately SS is one of the most regressive taxes we have.

[Maven]

52. I agree with you there.

Why hasn't this issue been brought up by Obama?

Why doesn't Obama support HR 676?

[Bread and Circus]

17. Obama has that feature as well. In fact, sans the mandate, their plans are effectively the same.

However, it is misleading to somehow equate a mandate to purchase insurance with medicare, where the insurance is given to seniors and the disabled as an entitlement.

If she wants to make medicare for ALL then do it, it's called HR676 by John Conyers.

[Maven]

23. No, you misunderstand.

The comparison was to the mandatory nature of paying into the system, not how the benefits are allotted. Everyone has to pay into Medicare through FICA/Medicare taxes--it's not optional--which benefits everyone once they reach a certain age. The same is true of Social Security. Medicare is an "entitlement," but those who receive its benefits presumably made their own contribution earlier in life. In other words, it isn't really free.

Her and Edwards' plans are the best way to get to Medicare for all, because they create an incentive for everyone to participate in the Medicare system, making it more efficient and affordable, making private insurance less competitive and cementing the idea of health care as a "given" that everyone enjoys rather than a privilege linked exclusively to employment. In fact, it achieves a single-payer type system in a roundabout fashion. In a single-payer system--which doesn't allow anyone to opt out, by the way--you pay taxes in an amount commensurate with your income to get coverage. In her plan and Edwards' plan, everyone (except the very poor) pays into coverage and gets the appropriate amount back in taxes.

[Bread and Circus]

27. I understand all to well. However, FICA and medicare are paid for through taxes...

Taxes that come from employes and from employers. I pay these taxes both as an individual and as an employer, so I know how it works. I pay tens of thousands of dollars per year for these kinds of taxes.

That is a far cry from an individual being "mandated" to buy insurance from a private company or the government.

Like I've said elsewhere in this thread if she wants her plan to be equitable with medicare, then she should scrap her system and support HR676.

And I haven't heard word one from her about copays, co-insurance and deductibles for the private plans.

[Maven]

29. Single-payer IS a mandate!

That's what you're not getting. It is a mandate to pay the government for health coverage.

That's the point I was making when I said an "entitlement" isn't really free. If she supported single-payer directly you'd be attacking her for trying to raise everyone's taxes. The only way to get to single-payer from here, other than passing HR 676--which I support, wholeheartedly--is to have everyone participate in the system and to ultimately make government-provided coverage the more attractive option.

[sandnsea]

11. And creating a huge new entitlement program

would destroy her candidacy before it ever got started. I don't know why she keeps pretending that's what she's doing when she knows it isn't.

[Ivote]

18. Does Anyone Know What Federal Employees & Members Of Congress Pay?

It is almost nothing and there are more than 50 different plans to choose from
If you are working premiums are as little as 40.00 a month & if retired $100.00
The difference is paid by your employer

[sandnsea]

33. The government pays the balance

for the federal employees. There will have to be similar federal assistance for individuals and business, because otherwise a lot of businesses will go broke which will just put a lot of people out of work. That's why we need to figure out the details before we implement a mandate.

[rodeodance]

19. Calling Hillary policy Iliterate is showing your stupidity for all to see.

[Bread and Circus]

22. It's rhetoric. Of course she's not policy illiterate. But she's acting as if the American People are

That's the point, perhaps it was missed upon you.

[rodeodance]

41. no nothing missed. but your OP says that to me. Enough said.

[Bread and Circus]

47. Well, thanks for your contribution to the thread.

[jillan]

21. Amazing - you missed the whole point that she was making.

[Bread and Circus]

24. The point was smoke and mirrors. If she wants real Universal Health Care, then support HR 676!

But she shouldn't act like what she and Barack are proposing is HR676.

At least Barack is being honest by not promising more than he plans to deliver.

[cooolandrew]

25. Yep, both candidates shold be talking aboutthis bill.

[Hoyt]

30. With respect to her Health Plan and Medicare, the comparison is valid..

Under Medicare, most of health care is provided by private physicians, hospitals, and other health care professionals and facilities. Under the managed care alternatives currently available under Medicare, private insurance companies contract with the government as Medicare Advantage and similar organizations. Currently, private insurance companies actually pay the claims from doctors, hospitals, durable medical equipment suppliers, etc.

But, under Medicare and a single-payer system, the government sets the rules, policies,coverage mandates, payment levels, incentive payments for quality, etc. And the "insurance" company no longer insures anything or makes obscene profits from doing so (assuming future HMO/PPO type options are monitored to ensure quality). The insurance companies act as local administrators and claims processors.

Under a single-payer system, the insurance companies role would likely be similar -- they'd just have to change the focus of their business because there would not be the same profits in denying care, and screwing people.

I think my point is that regarding Medicare, Sen. Clinton's comparison is pretty close to apples and apricots.

In any event, we need affordable health care for everyone. There is little difference between the two candidate's plan. And, it will get massaged through the legislative process. We need someone -- be it Clinton or Obama -- to ramrod it through and sign it, even if the legislation is not 100% perfect.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

38. Policy Illiterate? You're Deluded.

[BootinUp]

43. You got some learnin to do too

1) Hillary's mandate does not require you to purchase insurance from a private company.

2) Assuming you are paying taxes, you pay for those entitlement programs. Stop trying to make this complicated for crise sakes.

[zulchzulu]

45. Hillary Clinton has two opposing positions on every issue, so she's bound to make somebody happy

I'm not kidding. She is the CONsummate politician, like her husband.

[suston96]

55. Social Security and Medicare deductions from payroll are mandatory.

Any mandatory healthcare plan will follow suit. Everybody will pay, through payroll deductions, and that way lower individual costs.

If the processes suggested are studied and combined with the existing Medicare structures, costs may be even lower.

There are other existing government healthcare plans that should also be considered including retired military, VA, etc...