Here's why I don't understand people who criticize HRC's health care plan

[pnwmom]

as not being good enough, even though it offers both private and government run plans.

Her plan (as does Edwards) would let all of us choose from the same options that Senators choose from. That would satisfy me, because I'm certain the Senators aren't shortchanging themselves.

And these plans are already working, so when she says they can hold costs down to a few percent of a person's income, she has a history of data to back this up. If you're working for a company and you want to keep their insurance, fine. But if you don't have any insurance, or your company plan was inadequate, I'd think that somewhere among the 250 plans the Senators can choose, there would be one that would work for you.

[OhioBlue]

1. it's irrelevant. She won't get it passed.

she wants to fight instead of building a coalition to get legislation passed.

She will fail again.

[CTyankee]

3. I think such a plan just might pass. Here's why.

If you have read "The 2% Solution" by Matthew Miller you read his exchange with both a liberal Dem and a conservative REpub House members. Miller's idea was to get them together in a room and ask them to hash out the health insurance dilemma in this country. Surprisingly, they met on some common ground, each giving in on certain areas. What she has come up with sounds very close to what Miller eventually drew out of these two Congressmen. The clincher for the Republican was on the tax credit idea. Remember, Ronald Reagan supporter the EITC because it was a refundable tax credit.

I think HRC did the homework with Republicans on this. Their "cover" is working it through the taxes, rather than an outright program "costing" money, higher taxes. Of course this is BS but it's their way out.

It's too centrist for most people on DU, that is true. We are not representative of all Dems and Indies, tho.

I am not arguing FOR or AGAINST her plan, but I do think she found some "common ground" before coming up with the plan...

[pnwmom]

5. Hillary isn't naive, and she knows how to reach across the isle.

In fact, that's why so many DUers unfairly accuse her of being a "DINO."

I think she and Edwards were smart to simply say that the American people should have the same range of plans available to them that the Senators and Reps themselves can choose from. It will be hard, politically, for the Congress to take a position against that. (It's a different context now, since the Rethug President strongly opposes government healthcare.)

[rosetta627]

18. She knows how to reach across the aisle

To the Democrats.

[mmonk]

2. I'm not sure how any of the plans will fare through the

gauntlet of Congress. But at least healthcare is in the discussion.

[pnwmom]

4. They should fare well, because otherwise the Senators have to argue

that the American people shouldn't be able to choose from the same plans that they can choose from.

[mmonk]

7. Oh I think we will get somewhere.

But it won't be the same as presented as long as someone's pocket is filled.

[democrattotheend]

6. Congressional plans are still private insurance

Members of Congress choose from several private plans.

I would be more comfortable with mandates if there were an option to buy into Medicare. I believe Edwards' plan had that option, but Clinton's does not. Am I right?

[pnwmom]

8. No, she and Edwards both offer a range of plans -- 250 plans --

that include BOTH private insurance and government run plans like Medicare.

Medical insurance is a HUGE issue in my family, because one of my children has a serious chronic illness. I would be thrilled to have the range of public and private options that the Senators have.

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

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.

[OzarkDem]

14. She also offers a new govt run plan - like Medicare

Different from the federal plan for Congress. You can chose that one also.

[Vinca]

9. The problem for most people isn't the opportunity to purchase insurance,

it's the fact they do not own a gold mine. As long as private insurance is involved in any solution to the problem they created, insurance will be out of reach for a portion of the population. The only guarantee for total, true,universal coverage is to have citizens automatically covered from the time of their birth until they die and the cost covered by an increase in taxes somewhere. Neither candidate has a decent plan, neither plan will get through Congress, neither has even explained the motivation for the insurance companies to suddenly give up profit in favor of taking care of the sick. Actually, the insurance companies can't opt for taking care of people over profit because it's their fiduciary responsibility to their investors to rake in as much money as possible. If little Jimmy dies along the way, it's the cost of doing business.

[pnwmom]

10. Clinton and Edwards both offered a government run option as an alternative

for anyone who wanted it. And Clinton has acknowledged that a government plan, since it eliminates the profit factor, might well be able to accomplish the job better than private insurers. And she has acknowledged that if private insurers drop out because they cannot compete with the government plan, then this could well lead, de facto and in time, to single payer.

You're right about the insurance companies, but you're overlooking the fact that people will have a Medicare-type option as well.

[Vinca]

11. Look at Medicare, for example, as the alternative both campaigns

might offer people who cannot to buy a traditional insurance policy. It isn't cheap. Some older people living on $700 or $800 a month still have to pay about a quarter of their income for it and it only covers a fraction of the cost of treatment. If you buy supplemental insurance to cover everything (so as not to go totally bankrupt when illness strikes), you're back to $1,000+ a month. Figure it out. I'm disappointed that Democrats have gone from being almost 100% behind the Kucinich plan to backing 2 mediocre-at-best plans, most likely solely because they're promoting their candidate. Well, my candidate is Obama and I think his health care plan is horrible. Clinton's is worse, if that's possible. Neither will get through Congress so it's moot. If a miracle happens and we have a Democratic president and a Democratic supermajority in Congress and they don't pass single payer, universal health care, then I give up. Both parties will have proven they're run by lobbyists.

[pnwmom]

12. With Medicare, and a basic Medigap policy, my mother and mother in law

(who have had a number of serious illnesses between them) have had virtually all their expenses covered -- and they're only paying a few hundred a month for the Medigap policies.

And the health care costs for the younger, healthier population will be significantly less.

I disagree that Clinton's plan is worse than Obama's. Both she and Edwards offer much more realistic plans. Any plan that allows people to wait to sign up until they are in a crisis and feel they NEED insurance won't be financially feasible.

[Vinca]

13. This is the problem. The haves do not understand the have nots.

Many seniors do not have "only a few hundred a month." Many average working families don't have "a few hundred a month." That's why the coverage needs to be everyone, automatically, paid for out of a common pot where everyone contributes (taxes). Some will pay more, some will pay less, some will pay nothing, but everyone will be taken care of. It works for Canada, Great Britain and many other countries. There's really no other way to get to universal health care.

[pnwmom]

15. Single payer is not an option now. This is a less than perfect world, especially

here in the U.S.

What HRC proposes is a big step on the road to single payer. Given the political realities, a program like hers or Edwards is probably the only way to get there, unless we want to wait another ten or twenty years. I'm tired of waiting for the perfect single payer program. And I trust Hillary that any program she designs will not be impossible for the poor to afford.

[HeraldSquare212]

16. But how much will it cost? that's the continuing unknown.

[midora]

17. I Don't Have a Problem with It

I actually like it better than Obama's.