Clinton's Excellent Health Care Plan Offers Choices; Is Affordable for ALL

[OzarkDem]

Just posting this again as information. They really didn't allow her to talk much about this plan last night. Its very good, better than Obama's and is sustainable for the long term.

Clinton's plan offers four choices:

Low income: Medicaid (she plans to expand it to provide coverage to more low income individuals). If you or your family's income is low you will be enrolled in Medicaid.

Moderate income: buy into a government plan like Medicare; buy into the plan that Congress has; buy into private insurance (where premiums are capped and indexed to a percentage of your income).

Clinton's plan also provides federal incentives (tax credits, etc) to EMPLOYERS and INDIVIDUALS to help pay for insurance.

Clinton's plan also forces private insurance to compete with a government plan - the same as John Edward's. It likely will lead to a single payer system as private can't compete w/ low cost of a government plan.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/am...

[liberalhistorian]

1. Her plan is too reliant on the very private

insurers who are causing most of the problems and who are, quite literally, killing us. Having private insurance does NOT guarantee coverage, in any way at all, and does NOT prevent financial ruin in the case of a serious or long-term illness. No fucking thank you.

Single-payer is the only reform that will make any real difference in our current crisis.

[OzarkDem]

2. Not at all, it offers a government plan like Medicare

That will most likely be the option preferred by individuals and employers and the one her overall plan will most likely depend on to provide health care.

[Submariner]

8. Romneycare here in Mass is like Hillarycare - MANDATED

After taking away my free VA health care, Romneycare wants to clip me to the tune of $10,400/yr based on age and zip code, and I only work part-time. I'm not buying into mandated health insurance scams. The CEO of Blue Cross of Mass recently retired with a $16 million golden parachute, and $3 million/yr retirement pay for life!

If anyone thinks informed people would buy into mandated Hillarycare knowing they are going to be ripped off like that, then they are not paying attention to the issue.

[rodeodance]

20. Your first problem is equating it with plan in mass. Study it then come back to discuss it.

[Saturday]

7. The first step to single payer is to have....

everyone insured, not to let the healthy opt out (as Obama wants) until they're at the emergency room door. Hillary's plan is closest to single payer because she mandates ALL to be insured.

[liberalhistorian]

14. I refuse to be forced to buy into

and enrich insurance companies, period. Especially if it's anything at all like MA's clusterfuck of a "plan".

[ElsewheresDaughter]

3. Clinton's plan also has built into it the infrastructure needed for easy transition into UHC ......

at zero cost to tax payers

[OzarkDem]

5. Yes it does

Though she will help pay for it by eliminating tax cuts for the wealthy (over $250,000 yr)

[NDambi]

9. I'm not interested in having my pay garnished for healthcare...

thanks but not thanks Hillary

[ElsewheresDaughter]

16. your pay is garnished for SS and education, police and fire protection why not HC?

[libbygurl]

17. Exactly. (And where did that peculiar meaning of 'garnish' ever come from?)

nt

[NDambi]

24. that enough in my opinion...

[cbayer]

41. Your pay is already garnished for healthcare.

They are taking out your Medicare premiums now and will until you reach retirement.

Healthcare is not free and if we want it, we will have to pay for it one way or another.

[RunningFromCongress]

4. She might very well have a better health care plan...

But at the same time the primary isn't only about who has a better health care plan. I think it's become fairly obvious that this election (MOST elections) isn't about who has an overall better portfolio of plans, b/c honestly it's a wash (Iraq negates Health Care, etc.. etc..).

Hillary could have ran and won in a landslide 4 years ago. That's when the "Clean up after a Bush" line would really ring true. I don't know why she didn't. The American landscape has changed a lot since then, now it's about who can make us believe in ourselves and our country again. People are truly sick of red v blue, and that's really showing in the primary results.

The venom from the Obama camp towards the Hillary camp and the Hillary camp towards the Obama camp has to stop, it's just unwarranted and it's the fault of both sides EQUALLY.

[OzarkDem]

6. No, she's better on the other issues, too

and has far more experience.

[RunningFromCongress]

10. She doesn't have more experience, period. That's not a valid argument.

He has more legislative experience. Neither have real executive experience (other than running campaigns).

Being first lady doesn't count as "Presidential experience". I'm sorry it just doesn't.

Simply being older and around longer doesn't grant you the "More Experienced" line.

And that doesn't matter, both are totally inexperienced compared to McCain. So experience isn't the democrats strength in the general anyway.

[Saturday]

13. The experience she has that COUNTS....

is personally knowing most leaders in the world. And maybe even calling them friends. Obama knows Oprah and Edward Kennedy. Compare.

[RunningFromCongress]

15. What leaders? Most of the leadership has changed since she left the white house...

[ContinentalOp]

36. Corporate leaders of course. nt

[RunningFromCongress]

11. What other issues? Freezing interest rates for 5 years is a horrible idea.

[Vinca]

12. Neither candidate has a good health INSURANCE plan.

I'm particularly irked by what Clinton says in her speeches about "people without health insurance and people who find their health insurance doesn't cover them when they need it." (I'm paraphrasing - not a direct quote.) Then she proceeds to have a plan that delivers 47 million gift wrapped customers to the insurance companies. The insurance companies caused the problem and do not deserve to be rewarded. Obama's plan is no better. If we get a supermajority in Congress and a Democratic president, we need to go all out for universal, SINGLE PAYER instead of a half baked insurance scheme.

[rodeodance]

22. I am for a single payer also--But, as you both plans suck in that respect.

[rodeodance]

18. Key, it that reaches all.

[rodeodance]

19. Thanks OZ

[rodeodance]

21. Can you fix the link please. thanks

[OzarkDem]

35. Sorry, new link here

thanks for the heads up. Too late to edit OP.

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

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

[HeraldSquare212]

23. But she doesn't say what affordable means -

she's basically asking people to write a blank check.

[antigop]

28. Exactly! What's "affordable"? n/t

[HeraldSquare212]

31. And by comparing it to SS last night, she's raised the specter

of another tax like the FICA tax added to paychecks. That's just nuts - no one will vote for that in the general election. That was a big, big mistake - it will just feed the Reps ads on this issue in the GE if she's the candidate.

[rodeodance]

25. K

[Cameron27]

26. Thank you for posting this again,

if I can ever get over my fear of starting threads, I'll do it myself. :-)

[Egnever]

27. Yes the choice to be fined!

Cant wait for that!

[antigop]

29. And what will those "affordable" premiums be? n/t

[antigop]

30. And NOWHERE does it say you get the SAME RATE as Congress

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

>>
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).
>>

You ACCESS the same menu of options. It doesn't mean you get it at the same price as Congress.

ACCESS does not necessarily mean AFFORDABILITY.

[ORDem]

32. Honestly, no plan is going to work unless we go to single-payer.

Period. Done. End of story.

As long as you maintain the nightmare of multiple payers in our system, doctors won't be able to practice the best medicine and the burden of sorting out all the crap private co.'s foist on their insureds and the doctors makes obtaining affordable, quality health care a joke.

It is unbelievable to me that we put up with this archaic system when even small 3rd world countries can put together viable quality universal health care for their citizens.

On the other hand, we still don't use the metric system, we don't prepare our kids for the global economy, we waste our treasure on killing foreigners, etc., etc., so why am I not surprised!

</rant>

[MadHound]

33. Her plan is also mandatory for all, is a huge gift to the insurance industry,

And gives the insurance industry lots of our tax dollars.

Look, I'm not a big fan of either one's health plan, I'm in favor of a single payer, non-profit plan as laid out by Kucinich. But making a plan mandatory, forcing me to pay off an insurance company or risk either stiff fines, not getting a job, or both, no thanks.

[RunningFromCongress]

34. Kick b/c no one answered my questions

[ContinentalOp]

37. You said:

"Moderate income: buy into a government plan like Medicare; buy into the plan that Congress has;"
"Clinton's plan also forces private insurance to compete with a government plan - the same as John Edward's. It likely will lead to a single payer system as private can't compete w/ low cost of a government plan."

I don't quite understand the details of the government plans. Is the plan that Congress has actually run by the government or is it just a deal they have negotiated with a private insurer? Will she actually create a new government run insurance system? Or will Medicare be the only aspect of it that actually provides insurance completely independent of the private industry?

[goodgd_yall]

38. Good questions bout the government plans

I don't know the answer to that either. I think it's more the latter----deals negotiated with a private insurer.

[ContinentalOp]

40. That's the impression I get too.

Which means that her plan does not in fact force private insurers to compete with a cheaper profit-free system. Other than the Medicare aspect of the plan which is only a small part of it.

[PassingFair]

39. And her LAST plan just SAILED through congress!

Neither plan will be implemented without changes.

GET REAL!

[cbayer]

42. Three points:

Medicare has been privatized to a significant extent through the "Advantage" plans. You probably see adds for them all the time and many beneficiaries opt for them. I looked for exact percentage, but could not find it. This happened for a number of reasons, the major one being that the federal government was absolutely abysmal at administering the plan. What that means is that our biggest single payer has actually farmed out their beneficiaries to for profit insurance companies. So before we demand a single payer system, we really need to address how Medicare is currently being administered and whether the private insurance companies will continue to be an option. Medicaid has also been privatized in many states.

Healthcare is expensive and if everyone is to be entitled to it, we will have to pay for that. Unless you truly can not afford to contribute to the system, you must be prepared to pay your share. We can not have a system where it is "optional". We will also have to make very hard choices about resource allocation. This is going to be tough, because for many people in this country it will be an entirely new concept.

The last time the government attempted to make a major change in healthcare. they came up with Medicare Part D (prescription drug coverage). If you don't know what a disaster that has been and how it's development was controlled by the pharmaceutical companies, you might want to check it out.