Hillary's Healthcare Plan: Better Care for the Wealthy

[berni_mccoy]

How many people here have really taken a close look at Hillary's Healthcare plan. I mean really close. As in, how does it work, how much will it cost and who is going to pay for it? For her to call it "Universal" is pretty much false advertising. For people who make enough money to afford health insurance premiums, that group will have relatively the same level of care. For those 40 million who are presently uncovered and who are unable to afford health insurance, there is a plan for them, but it pales in comparison to what those who can actually afford health insurance will receive. Let's take a look at Clinton's own summary. This image from her plan document pretty much sums it up:



So, if you can afford health insurance and are happy with your current plan, you can stay put. Or you can change to the same healthcare plan that members of Congress can afford. There are several levels of that plan, and the cost varies depending on if you are insuring yourself or your family. Here are the plans various levels and costs: http://apps.opm.gov/fehb/ffsopen.cfm?year=2008&guide=70-1 You can view the deductibles and premiums by selecting them in the drop-down box labeled "Select View" on the page. Basically, the better coverage costs more, up to $401 for a family on the highest benefit plan. Note that if you go with even a standard level of plan, you are still going to be paying 20% co-pays on visits and 50%+ for prescriptions. From someone who has two children with a chronic illness, this plan is actually going to cost me much more per year than the $600 reduction in monthly premium. That may not be true for a family with no medical issues.

All-in-all, her plan is going to save money for healthy people who currently pay for their own premiums and for who those premiums are greater than $400 per month. For unhealthy people, there is going to be a trade-off between premium/plan coverage, and I guarantee, it isn't going to be 'Universal' benefit.

So let's look at those people who currently can't afford health insurance. There are 40 million of those people. It's unlikely that those people are going to be able to afford Clinton's plan in the middle (the $400 / month premium plan). Those people are going to fall in the far right plan on the diagram: the "Public Plan Option similar to Medicare". Let's talk about that for a minute. First, Medicare isn't free. Medicare has two forms: the original medicare plan and the Medicare Health Plans. Whichever way you go, you are going to pay a $96 / month fee just to be in Medicare and receive normal medical insurance (this doesn't count hospitals). If you are not 65 or older, you will have to pay up to $423 / month just in case you end up having to go to the hospital (see: http://www.medicare.gov/MedicareEligibility/home.asp?dest=NAV%7CHome%7CGeneralEnrollment%7CPremiumCostInfo&version=default&browser=IE%7C7%7CWindows+Server+2003&language=English). That fee can be cut in half if you are working and your employer happens to pick up part of the Medicare coverage.

At any rate, the original Medicare plan was a fee-for-service plan. You paid for a part of the services you used and the government picked up the rest. Medicare now offers an insurance type solution that allows you to pay an additional premium (on top of the $96 / month fee) that act like PPOs and HMOs. But it costs extra. Are the 40 million who are currently uninsured going to be able to afford anything greater than $96 / month, given that they are going to have to also cover part of the services or pay an additional premium?

But it's going to be affordable, right? Clinton's plan does say it will fix the premiums to a percentage of your income. But that's only for the Medicare-like plan. And her plan also states that the way this will be done will be to provide a tax refund. Well, I don't know about you, but if you can't afford to make the premium, you can't wait a year for that tax refund to come so you can. Furthermore, it forces those people into the Medicare plan. Let's see what that plan actually covers.

Remember above, I said I have two children with a chronic illness? Well, they have type-1 diabetes. That means, their bodies don't make insulin. What if I had to opt for Clinton's public plan. I went through the Coverage website to see what would be covered (here's the link: http://www.medicare.gov/Coverage/home.asp) I put in my state and selected Diabetes - Insulin and Syringes. And guess what. It's not covered. My children depend on insulin. They cannot live without it. And, uninsured, a one-month supply of insulin for just one of them is about $150 dollars (about $75 per vial).

But with mandated coverage, everyone is going to be able to afford health insurance, right? The math doesn't add up there either. Health insurance premiums are based on the costs that it takes to pay for everyone's medical needs. Many of the 40 million uninsured are not uninsured due to the cost of premiums but because they are not insurable (they've had preexisting conditions that would cost the insurance companies too much money to cover). If you suddenly throw these people into the mix, and increase the overall population of insured, you are going to increase the overall costs and add a whole new batch of people who can't afford it. This will simply increase the already unaffordable rates of insurance premiums for all three of Hillary's plans. Why? because all three plans are provided by the same private insurance companies that those who can afford insurance buy them from. All three of her plans use the same insurance companies.

It really is that simple. Mandating insurance is going to increase the rates and forcing people onto plans they can't afford that won't cover the needs they already have is going to not only be a medical disaster, but a financial one too. Her plan is not Universal: it's Caste-based. And unless the insurance companies are removed from the equation, and we simply decide to pay for everyone's medical needs as a social function, then her plan is as flawed as the status quo. The only difference will be, that the insurance companies will be charging more money to the people who already pay and they will be getting new streams of revenue from those who will be forced to pay them and from the government. Is there any question as to why Hillary has been the largest recipient of Health Industry lobbyist money?

[Cleita]

1. It's a plan that Nixonite conservatives have proposed in various

incarnations, but basically the same plan. It will also be very expensive to manage. I don't think a liberal Congress will pass it, or even a conservative one if made up of the same neo-cons we have today. It will go down in flames and the Clinton's can just put it on the back burner like they did before. Then it will never come up again and they can claim they tried but Congress shot them down. The history is there. Look at it.

What a liberal Congress will have to do is pass John Conyers bill for Medicare for All HR. 676. Then they can pressure whoever is President even if it's Hillary to sign it into law. It will take us the people to keep the pressure up on our Congresspeople and Senators to do the right thing.

[redqueen]

7. Hear hear... Medicare for All is what I'd like to see passed.

:thumbsup:

[dsc]

25. not according the OP

the OP criticises Medicare. It says Medicare sucks.

[Cleita]

32. I have Medicare as bare bones as it is at least I'm finally

able to go to a doctor without fearing that my insurance will soar up in premium or cancelled because of pre-existing conditions. I also didn't have anything you could laughingly call medical coverage before then and yet I was paying $500 a month for it. If I had to go to the doctor I had to pay everything up front as well because of a high deductible and other hoops the insurance company makes you jump through. I also fear that my coverage wouldn't be renewed if I actually really got sick. With Medicare I don't have those worries. If the same money that is spent on insurance premiums is used for Medicare every American can get full coverage and have the security of knowing that they won't be denied health care because they got cancer or kidney failure. Quality medical care can be delivered through Medicare once it's updated and properly funded.

[OzarkDem]

47. That's what you get under Clinton's plan

You can choose a plan like Medicare. Good deal.

[berni_mccoy]

49. Except that it doesn't cover many medical related expenses.

[OzarkDem]

58. That's not true

and I've already posted the the links to where she says her plan will cover these costs.

Medicare will be different under her health care reform plan.

The public plan she offers will be different under her reform plan, like the new and improved Medicare.

Now, can you show us a link to where Obama or McCain is going to do as much?

[berni_mccoy]

77. Look it up yourself. See what Medicare covers and doesn't. And if you haven't figured it out

I *have* read her plan, in excruciating detail. I have a vested interest in determining what her plan will mean to my family.

[Cleita]

82. If Medicare were extended to all it would have to be updated

and improved. If you actually have read HR 676, you will see in the details that it does and it's the plan that would work for all Americans.

[berni_mccoy]

84. In Clinton's plan IT WON'T be extended to all... the wealthy can OPT OUT and choose a better plan.

[Cleita]

89. And this is exactly what is wrong with it. It creates a tiered system

that kicks the poor and elderly to the curb. In a few years you will have the usual crowd like Jonah Goldberg carrying on about having to pay for pills for old people and lazy people on welfare with their tax money. When everyone is under the same plan then everyone is vested in making sure that the best quality health care is given to all. The only way I would accept private insurance as being fair is if the so called rich still have to pay into the universal system even if they don't use it, like the public school system used to be. If they want to get private insurance let them. They won't miss the extra money anyway, but don't give them tax credits or other types of welfare for the rich to do it.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

158. Yeah, this proposal is reminding me very much of school vouchers

If you're working class, Clinton wants to make you buy insurance but she's going to give you a voucher to pay for *some* of a crappy policy. The rich people will also get a voucher, that they don't even need, to help them get much better coverage.

[OzarkDem]

215. It does no such thing

It provides access to quality health care for all. If you want to spend more for face lifts, tummy tucks, and other high end types of health care, you'll have to buy a private plan. Otherwise everyone will get the same quality health care. Period.

[BornBlue]

226. Did you read the OP?

This person was looking into INSULIN for her children and it was not covered under Hillary's plan. Is diabetes suddenly the new boob-job? I did not know that life saving medicine was considered cosmetic.

[Cleita]

252. It has already done that in countries like Great Britain. Read up

on it. Yet, most Brits would agree that what they have is far superior to what we have.

[OzarkDem]

108. You can't extend Medicare to other populations

due to the laws that established and defined the Medicare Trust Fund.

The only option in making it available to those who aren't eligible (under the current age limit) is to create another plan just like it.

[Justitia]

110. 100% NOT TRUE. See 1972, Nixon. -eom

[OzarkDem]

213. Got a link?

Creating a new program is the plan, same as the plan Obama has.

[Justitia]

230. I gave you the date & the administration, it's a matter of history. I'm sure you can look it up. nt

[Cleita]

126. Of course, that's how it will be done and Medicare for the elderly

will come under that new plan. The thing is that all the beauracracy is already in place and working quite well to implement it. So it won't even be that expensive to start a new and expanded system that folds other federal government systems into it like Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIPS the VA, CHAMPUS and others that I can't think of right now.

[OzarkDem]

107. Even Medicare will be improved under Clinton's plan

If you want her to prove it, vote for her.

[Cleita]

129. Sorry her plan won't get off the ground anymore than her

plan did in her husband's administration. Congress will balk at the expense.

[Hepburn]

173. LOL....

...she could not prove it back when Bill was prez....so she should get a second chance to fuck up?

:rofl:

[OzarkDem]

216. As I've stated repeatedly

Clinton's health care plan improves the current level of Medicare coverage for chronic illnesses, etc. to reduce out of pocket expenses.

Her new plan modeled after the new and improved Medicare will also have those coverages.

Now, can you back up your claim with proof that she won't do that?

[eridani]

200. HR 676 is the only solution, period.

To hell with Obama, McCain and Clinton alike.

[Cleita]

66. Medicare can't survive if it's commercialized.

I liked Edwards idea of throwing an improved Medicare out there to compete with the insureres to sell to employers and unions, but Hillary's plan isn't like that. Her plan is to give federal funds to insurers in credits to help out people or companies in purchasing their own insurance. It destroys the whole concept of offering Medicare as a choice in doing that. It takes away the competitive advantage Medicare would have there by giving the for profit health care providers corporate welfare.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

78. and Medicare D is example of funds to priv insurance + driving profits up

costs of meds have gone way up, profits up for drug cos, donut hole hits after
about 6 months for my mother.

What do you do when you can't afford medicine? You don't buy/take it.

[Cleita]

Exactly. I don't get part D because I consider it a ripoff, but

the price of my medication has gone way up. It's really kicking old people in the ass. I hope Congress does something about it.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

187. none of the candidates have the plan we want, but can one of them get us there?

Conyers has a great Universal Health Care bill, that would work.

But getting it passed is the trick.

Probably Edwards plan was best, having insurance companies compete against
a medicare style plan.

Crap, my mother's health care/medicare isn't free:

Medicare A - free - for hospital visits.

Medicare B - about $90 bucks a month. This pays a good amount for glucometer test strips too.
($13.00 with Med B, $110.00 without Med B, many people won't get the test strips if they can't afford them).

Medicare D - the one we're using this year is $55 a month, has varying co-pays and then
a donut hole for certain meds (non generic or otherwise very expensive) in about June of this year. Then those meds cost around $200.00 per month for each. The donut hole begins in June and lasts to end of year, but for those non generic meds.

Cost of meds - during non donut hole: about $60.00 a month. Donut hole - $260 a month.
Medigap Insurance - to cover what A and B don't cover - $250.00 per month.

[Cleita]

196. Exactly. Medicare D was a bonanza for big PHARMA.

Medicare A and B are ailing and yes B costs an extra $90 a month not to mention the 20% copays. It certainly is bare bones. Partially privatizing it has bled the system of needed revenue, but still traditional Medicare is better than anything out there for people who actually need health care that the private industry has to offer.

[OzarkDem]

218. Clinton didn't like Medicare Part D and will change it

The GOP took the Dem's bill for prescription coverage and turned it into a corporate giveaway.

Clinton will fix Medicare Part D, including requiring pharma companies to allow govt funded health care programs like Medicare to get bids from pharma companies - forcing them to compete.

I've posted the link to her plan that spells this out specifically numerous times in this thread.
If you have evidence that she will not do as she has stated, please post it. If you don't stop making up lies and trying to destroy health care reform.

[Cleita]

250. Don't you ever make these ad hominem attacks on me again.

"...if you don't stop making up lies and trying to destroy health care reform." These are your words.

For your information I have been rallying for health care reform since 1985. I have studied the issue up and down. I do not lie about it as it is a very serious matter to me. I never claimed Clinton was responsible for Medicare D. Do not put words in my mouth. It was a big give away to PHARMA by Congress at the time it was passed and needs to be reworked.

The fact is that all three health plans are hot air and the candidates know it. It will be Congress that actually will work out the health care bill that the President will get to sign. What they have on their websites tells us how they think about the matter and that is what we are discussing here. Most of us know it's not written in stone. It's time you realized that too.

Now I'm certain that I have been very clear about supporting HR 676 as the health care reform that we need. If Congress passes this bill, which is already in committee, McCain will veto it. If the President is Clinton or Obama, they will probably send it back for compromises and changes, but if it is clear to them that it is the will of the people, most likely they will sign it or look forward to being one term Presidents.

[eridani]

201. Except we already had a preview of Edwards with Medicare Advantage

Sure, those MA plans really couldn't compete, but they drained a lot of money from the system and fucked over a lot of people in the process of failing.

[OzarkDem]

214. Hillary's plan is exactly like Edwards

And nearly everything in your post is innacurate

Her plan doesn't give money to private insurers

Her plan creates a new public plan like Medicare, but separate to cover everyone - it has no link or affiliation with private insurance

It offers consumers and employers a choice between private health insurance plans and a public one.

The new public plan is a choice, just as Medicare is

Your last sentence makes no sense at all

You provide no links to back up your assertions; if you have a link to back up your claims, provide it. If you don't stop making the claims or risk being called a prevaricator. Are you just making these claims up or is someone providing you with these talking points?

But here's a link to back up mine

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/healthcare/

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

76. like Medicare, or like Private Insurance?

Medicare A is free, Medicare B costs around $90.00 a month.

Many seniors carry medigap, to make up the co pays and the deductables (for hospitalization etc)

[Cleita]

86. This is what I do and it covers everything, but it's getting harder

and harder for me to meet the premiums because they keep going up thanks to the private insurer that I must pay premiums to. Full coverage with Medicare for everyone would be possible today with the money that is put into insurance, HMOs et al today. Smarter people than me have crunched the numbers. You will have to cut out those middle men though to make it work.

[berni_mccoy]

45. No, that's not what I said. I said it doesn't provide the same level of care that the other plans do

And that's the truth.

[OzarkDem]

50. Have you seen it yet?

Because if you read her entire platform on health care reform, you'll see that her plan will cap all out of pocket health care costs.

Look in the other links under her health care reform issues platform.

Can she make a solid commitment today as to what your exact co-pays will be? No, that has to be negotiated with states.

[berni_mccoy]

52. And we all know where that will end up: Less coverage for the poor.

[OzarkDem]

61. Again, not true

If you're that poor you'll get Medicaid coverage.

And if you're serious about getting real reform, you should begin discussing the topic honestly and fairly, or you'll end up with nothing at all.

Now, show us a link to Obama's plan where he's going to do better.

[berni_mccoy]

65. You are completely wrong. The vast majority will end up in her 'Public' plan.

Only those in poverty will be granted something like Medicaid... and that's assuming Medicaid remains. She's mentioned before that there shouldn't be a need for Medicaid with Universal Healthcare.

[Justitia]

70. Not to mention, Medicaid eligibility is determined by individual states, not the Federal Gov. -eom

[Cleita]

71. Medicaid gets you the bottom feeding pill pusher.

Ask anyone whose on it. This is why you can't have tiers in health care. The poor and elderly get left behind because no one wants to fund it so the only doctors who accept it are the ones who probably shouldn't be practicing. If everyone is on the same plan as it is in Canada, then the quality of health care delivered is maintained because everyone will demand it.

[OzarkDem]

90. What is Obama offering?

I'm surprised that people want to nitpick her plan (before she's had the chance to enact it) when they don't even plan to vote for her, but instead choose a candidate with an inferior health care plan.

[Cleita]

96. Okay neither plan is going to be the one that Congress passes

because both are so far off the mark a Democratic Congress will revamp them until they get something they can live with. The only reason I debate this is to educate anyone who might be convinced that either plan is any good. Neither are.

[OzarkDem]

112. Clinton's is better than Obama's

and she's already proven she's willing to push hard to get it passed in Congress.

This time around, unlike previous efforts, she has most of the medical community supporting it.

[Cleita]

121. Not really. Most of the medical community want HR676.

All that's needed is for her not to veto it.

[OzarkDem]

139. If it passes Congress

She won't veto it.

The problem is, it won't pass Congress. In that instance, we need a Plan B, and that's her plan.

What does Obama offer?

[eridani]

202. Neither of them are good enough

Most of the medical community now supports single payer, anyway.

[OzarkDem]

88. One can assume

that if an individual is too poor to afford premiums and co-pays, the would be eligible for Medicaid.

Otherwise, its the public plan, which will provide health care at an affordable price that's capped to not exceed percentage of income.

Please show us how Obama's or McCain's plan is better. They're not. If you want a plan that gets us on the road to universal health care then support Clinton.

If not, stay with the status quo.

If you want to see her plan enacted and improved, vote for her.

[Cleita]

92. Universal health care that is not single payer or part of the commons

is a burden to those who can least afford it. It's like the stupid law that we have here in California that states everyone must buy car insurance. Not every one can and any programs to aid people in buying car insurance are underfunded and inadequate because the haves don't have to participate in the pooling of resources to do it. Sure you can not own a car and use public transportation but you can't do that with health care.

[OzarkDem]

95. Everyone will have access to affordable care

and real health care reform will only work if everyone participates. She has provisions to help everyone afford it regardless of income.

If someone doesn't participate it won't be because they can't afford it, but because they choose not to.

[Cleita]

100. Of course she does.

Here's a website that picks apart this whole issue and exams it in a non-partisan way. They are the only people who are telling the truth because they have done a lot of research world wide to come to their conclusions http://www.pnhp.org.

[OzarkDem]

115. I'd like to see them try to get single payer through Congress

its not going to happen anytime soon. I'd also like to see them find a candidate in this race who can win the GE and campaign on single payer health care.

And trying to defeat the only candidate who has the best plan to get us to single payer is pretty counterproductive, too. One would have to question the wisdom of such a thing, sort of like looking a gift horse in the mouth.

[eridani]

204. It will get through with a big enough mass movement behind it

CA passed single payer through both houses, and it was vetoed by the Governator. And guess how many legislators who supported it paid a political price at the polls? Not a single damned one of them!

[merh]

159. if I can't afford to pay for it

they will garnish my wages - Hillary's provides for mandatory participation.

[OzarkDem]

162. If you can't afford to pay for it

You can get Medicaid.

Are you uninsured now?

[Justitia]

163. Do you know how destitute you have to be to qualify for Medicaid?

Qualifying for Medicaid is no walk in the park, it covers very little and very few providers accept it.

It is not an option to make healthcare "affordable" - it is the option of last resort.

[merh]

164. That's not the issue - her plan requires mandatory participation

if you don't pay, you are subject to regulations, like having your wages garnished.

I've shown you her video admitting to this.

[Mezzo]

51. which is why we need Hillary's plan (ideally, Edwards' plan, but...) nt

[leftstreet]

11. HR 676 has 88 cosponsors - we need more!

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR00676:@@@P

:thumbsup:

[DJ13]

2. I dont know why nobody said this before, thanks for your post

Its simple economics, mandated health insurance will decrease costs for the wealthy due to the increased numbers of people in the insured pool, as thats the whole point of insurance, to spread costs out by insuring the largest number of people.

However, for the lower economic classes this dramatically INCREASES costs, as they never had to budget for insurance in the past because they cant afford it.

Mandatory only puts the greatest burden onto the poor, while saving the wealthier people money.

[Submariner]

3. Hillarycare is like the mandated Romneycare scam here in MA

It comes out to 22% of my take home pay from my part time job, so I won't get it because the premiums are made to bleed everybody dry. It sux.

[OzarkDem]

8. OP's analysis is flawed, see post below

Health care reform is an incredibly complex topic, and while the OP did a good job of trying to determine what Clinton's plan will cover, she didn't read all the information. There's a lot more details at Clinton's web site than the simple executive summary everyone looks at.

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

While she can't put every detail in the summary re her public & private health care plans, she goes into detail elsewhere, and one of the topics she addresses is preventive care and long term care management for diabetes.

[Hepburn]

12. Now there's an unbiased source.....

...NOT!

HilLIARyClinton.com....right...that's where to get a straight scoop! :rofl:

BTW: Got anything there on the Bosnia sniper fire?

[OzarkDem]

16. Sorry, we only have serious debate about health care reform

Its too important an issue to play games using Rush Limbaugh style politics. If you DON'T want real health care reform, keep up the silly talking points.

[Hepburn]

27. Then if you wish to be serious, link to an UNBIASED source.

Her healthcare plan = federal aid to insurance companies. It sucks. It mandates that people buy insurance. Don't you get it?

THERE WOULD NOT BE A HEATHCARE CRISIS IF PEOPLE COULD AFFORD TO DO THIS!

:eyes:

So your candidates bright idea to solve the situation is to force people to buy from insurance companies somehting they could not afford to buy to begin with...and if they don't, then they get fined.

And you buy this bullshit? You want a real discussion...then stop trying to feed all of us crap, OK?

[OzarkDem]

46. There is no federal aid to insurance companies

Making such a statement shows you either don't know what you're talking about or you're being dishonest. Which is it?

[Hepburn]

73. This is your UNSUPPORTED OPINION.

So, tell us how EXACTLY the health insurance corporations do NOT benefit when it is MANDATED that they are paid?

Easy question....answer it, OK?

[OzarkDem]

135. No, its a fact

You'll need to find some evidence in Clinton's plan where she says she will give money to insurance companies.

She doesn't.

She also gives people a choice of a public plan which is inherently cheaper than private insurance. That's not welfare for private insurance, not even a subsidy. Its competition.

[Name removed]

148. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OzarkDem]

154. I know the guy who posted it

He's not only wrong, he's a convicted child molestor.

[Hepburn]

183. I have screen captured your post in regard to your statement....

...abouth this person. If you are not correct, I hope to hell you understand that you can be sued for defamation for things posted on the internet.

[OzarkDem]

191. I'm not worried about it

[Hepburn]

197. I can see why.....

...you probably don't have anything worth executing on to satisfy a judgment.

[OzarkDem]

212. Suggestion for you

try a google search with -Tim Russo importuning-.

[Texas Hill Country]

31. exactly... i have read much of her plan (its huge), it has a contingency for everythin just about

[peacebird]

4. HRC does NOT have a "Healthcare" plan - she has a plan to mandate everyone buys medical INSURANCE

:grr:

The state of Virginia madates that everyone have auto insurance, but you can PAY the STATE hundreds of dollars to opt out of actually getting car insurance. Of course - that gets you absolutely NO COVERAGE with this plan, except that the police can't write them a ticket for driving without insurance.

HillaryCare reminds me of that. People will have "insurance" - it's just that it won't actually COVER health care. The co-pays and exceptions will see to that for the people on the lowest end.

[OzarkDem]

9. Her plan does cover these things

you have to read all the details, but its worth it.

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

[peacebird]

24. Where can I find her guarenteed minimum coverages for the lowest cost plan?

What will the out of pocket cost per doctor visit be? What will the co-pay for prescriptions be? Will there be a limit on the number of covered Doctor appts per year?

All I have ever found on her policy was a statement that demurred with 'let the markets decide'....

This is why I don't trust her plan to be more than corporate welfare for insurance companies.

[OzarkDem]

You'll need to provide a link

She is opposed to "letting the markets decide" what health care system we have. The only time markets come into play under her plan is whether private insurance plans under her program can compete with public plans.

As for co-pays and out of pocket costs, that depends on which plan you choose, but Clinton has promised to cap those costs to an affordable percentage of everyone's income.

snip

Affordable: Unlike the current health system where insurance premiums send people into bankruptcy, the plan provides tax credits for working families to help them cover their costs. The tax credits will ensure that working families never have to pay more than a limited percentage of their income for health care.

Available: No discrimination. The insurance companies can't deny you coverage if you have a pre-existing condition.

Reliable: It's portable. If you change or lose your job, you keep your health care.

[BalancedGoat]

63. Question.

"The tax credits will ensure that working families never have to pay more than a limited percentage of their income for health care."

If tax credits are her method of ensuring that people only pay a limited percentage of their income, then doesn't that bring us back to the arguement that if you can't afford insurance, you can't wait all year for a tax break?

[Hepburn]

15. Yep.....it's more like Federal Aid for Health Insurance Companies.

Well, what would one expect from someone who had been on the board of WalMart?

:shrug:

[OzarkDem]

18. Wrong again

If you don't want a serious discussion of the issue, please go start a "silly" thread.

[Hepburn]

29. OK.....

...if you want to be serious....tell all of us how the fucking insurance companies do NOT benefit, OK?

I point out the horrible problems with her sucky plan and your response is that I don't want a serious discussion. It looks more to me like you can only mouth platitudes from HillaryClinton.com instead of answering real questions.

How about some SOLID info on co-pays, office visits, etc.? :eyes:

[redqueen]

5. 20% co pay? 50% of prescriptions?

Yikes.

I hope Obama's plan is better.

Honestly though I did like her plan better, the chances are we won't recognize their plans after Congress gets done with them, so... eh.

[OzarkDem]

14. I trust her to fight harder for her plan in Congress

She's very committed to real health care reform and, with a Dem majority and Clinton in the WH, the chances of passage are very good.

It will help if we can stop sending most of our annual budget to Iraq.

[Hepburn]

17. Yes....

...she did so well in the past getting universal healthcare for the US...she obviously is entiled to another chance to fuck it up for all of us again.

:eyes:

[OzarkDem]

19. Another GOP talking point

Whose side are you rooting for? Dem or Republican? Many of these same talking points will be used to shoot down an Obama plan if he's elected. Did you realize that?

[Hepburn]

30. Oh, I'm sorry....

...I must have missed part of the 1990's ~~ back when HilLIARy got universal healthcare for all of us.

Got a link to that?

:eyes:

[OzarkDem]

62. Better yet

provide me a link to show where Obama or McCain tried to get universal health care.

[Hepburn]

74. This issue is your unsupported BULLSHIT...

...I never said they did any of this. You say that HilLIARy can ~~ so put up or STFU. Changing the subject to other people is not an answer to a question to which you obviously have no answer.

Again: How is this NOT a benefit to the massive insurance companies?

[berni_mccoy]

80. They can't put up, because if they actually read Clinton's plan, they'd realize they shouldn't be

supporting her.

[OzarkDem]

93. Here's the link to her health care platform

It has everything in it I've already given you. Read it.

Then show me how Obama's or McCain's plan is better

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/healthcare/

[berni_mccoy]

94. Yes, yes, I've already read it. You can't figure it out, can you? I've got a vested interest

in knowing how her healthcare plan is going to affect my family. I've read all the details of her plan. It is flawed from the get-go.

[OzarkDem]

97. So what more do you want?

You've got all the information to answer your questions and counter the allegations.

Can you provide us a link to Obama's plan and show us how its better?

[berni_mccoy]

111. I want you to stop spamming this thread with b.s. and links to Hillary's plan and start

to actually say something meaningful besides, "it's all explained in her plan". Unfortunately, you know what I'm saying is true, but you just can't admit it, so you confuse people by posting her link 50 times in this thread.

[Hepburn]

114. ....

....it's like watching a robot, IMO.

[OzarkDem]

125. Her plan provides a choice

and it will cover everyone with options that provide quality health care regardless of income, age, employment status, marital status, pre-existing conditions, or any other qualifier.

It will be affordable based on a percentage of your income. It will provide everyone with access to quality care.

Medicare will be improved under Clinton's plan and loopholes like the one you put in your OP will be closed.

What else do you want? If you want her to prove it, elect her. She's given you all the details anyone can.

No candidate promoting single payer will get elected right now.

Now show us how Obama's plan is better.

[Hepburn]

106. I have read it....

...and it sucks.

The mandate bullshit is an absolute unmitigated benefit to the health insurance industry without any benefit of any nature whatsoever to the public.

I don't like Obama's either...but because of the mandate, Hillary's is far worse.

[OzarkDem]

131. Then we disagree

Support Obama and see how happy you are with McCain's plan.

[Hepburn]

150. I can assure you that President Obama...

...is not going to buy into Repuke bullshit like that. Duh...

[OzarkDem]

222. He already has

[OzarkDem]

6. What you missed in your analysis

First, private insurance plans won't be the same as it is today under Clinton's plan...

If you choose to opt for private insurance under Clinton's plan, here's what will change:

Private insurers in the PI "pool" will be required to cover everyone regardless of pre-existing conditions

If you purchase the private insurance on your own, participating PI's will be required to "cap" your premium at no more than 5-10% of your income.

Private insurance costs will be subsidized with tax credits to your or your employer. If your employer is a large company, they will be required to provide you with an insurance plan chosen from one of these PI pools or from one of the other plans. If your employer is a small company, they will get help (tax credits, etc.) in order to offer you one of the above.

Clinton has also pledged to mend the "gaps" in health care (public and private), including help with conditions like diabetes. She knows that preventive services (like covering the cost of managing diabetes) is far more cost effective than dealing with the consequences. See link below:

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

As information, many private insurers today also don't cover the cost of syringes, etc. Those rules are determined by states.

[jillan]

13. Insurance companies don't cover alot of medical equipment -

such as breathing machines & all the accessories that go with it.
We found that out the hard way!

Hillary's plan will change all that.

[OzarkDem]

20. Its the only system

where they make money by serving fewer people and covering less health care.

[Vinca]

38. Participating private insurers - I wonder who that will be?

Somehow I don't see the big insurers begging to come to the table when it means their profits will be decreased. I'm so sad neither candidate has the courage to call for true universal, single payer healthcare. This should be something we automatically receive at birth and everyone should have the same coverage. I have a suspicion that if anything actually happens on this front, it will be a nightmare program like Medicare Part D. A million different plans, a million different exclusions and all geared toward denying coverage whenever possible. It's a real shame - this could be our one chance for decent healthcare if we get a Democratic majority and a Democratic president.

[superkia]

60. Dennis Kucinich thinks we should all have health care as a right...

as you do but the media wouldn't cover him on any of the real issues, they only mentioned him and the U.F.O. story that allot around DU repeated over and over. When given the opportunity to talk of serious issues, what do we do? We mimic the media and repeat the trash they spew and kill the conversation.

We the people need to be held accountable for what we have enabled our government to do, will we ever do anything or will we just talk a good game.

[OzarkDem]

67. If you suspect those things, you'll be wrong

Insurance companies won't be able to sell plans to businesses and individuals who get tax credits unless they meet her guidelines. Period.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/healthcare/


Insurance companies won't be able to deny you coverage or drop you because their computer model says you're not worth it. They will have to offer and renew coverage to anyone who applies and pays their premium. And like other things that you buy, they will have to compete for your business based on quality and price. Families will have the security of knowing that if they become ill or lose their jobs, they won't lose their coverage.

[Vinca]

210. As far as universal health INSURANCE goes, Hillary has a fine plan.

My complaint is that we could do a heck of alot more if the 75% insurance companies take in profit was put into caring for people. Insurance companies being included, as in both candidates' plans, is rewarding the industry that caused the problem in the first place. If you think back to the 1960's (if you're that old), insurance worked just fine because it was a nonprofit industry. Everyone could easily afford it and it covered 100% of everything. After they went "for profit," the downward spiral began. They told healthcare providers they would pay only a percentage of the fee, take it or leave it. The providers took it, raised the price of the whatever the procedure was, and got a percentage close to what they were charging in the first place. The cycle repeats and repeats and now only the well off can afford to be sick. I say dump the whole lot of them and adopt the Kucinich plan.

[berni_mccoy]

42. No, I didn't miss that. If Clinton is crazy enough to actually apply a 5-10% cap

Then all that will do is raise the base rates and reduce the number of people who can afford private insurance. Private Insurance companies are not going to be able to cover a family that costs $20,000 in medical expenses with a $2500 / year premium. It simply won't scale down. And her plan says nothing about Private Insurance companies rejecting people for cost. That's why she has the Public plan.

[Justitia]

57. She never promises to "apply a cap" - the previous poster has surmised that

but when you read the fine print of Hillary's "plan", she states that she will "design" her tax credits around trying to match them up with your income.

Now, how exactly she will do that is a complete tax code mystery. She has no lever for imposing legal caps on what insurance companies will charge citizens for premiums / co-pays / deductibles.

The devil is in the details...or not.

[berni_mccoy]

59. She'll do it with smoke and mirrors to get your vote. Then you'll be left with the reality of it.

[Justitia]

68. It astounds me how people see "details" and "specifics" where none exist.

Do they have any idea of how many tax laws, federal Medicare laws, state Medicaid laws would have to be altered or created from whole cloth just to make any one fractional aspect of this pipe dream a reality?

We can't even get S-CHIP eligibility simply EXPANDED for CHILDREN.

Yet, people gobble this "idea" up simply to bolster their candidate.

[Hepburn]

75. I hear ya....

...and so far, all I have seen on this thread is total non-specific bullshit fromm HillaryClinton.com. I wish to hell people could think for themselves. I guess it is too much to ask them to think and analyze, right?

[Justitia]

83. They are just bolstering their candidate, they aren't really trying to see what's workable for

healthcare.

For these people it's not really about ensuring access to healthcare, it's about getting Hillary Clinton elected.

It takes a lot of scrutiny over very detailed proposals and ideas with MANY SPECIFICS and evaluating how they are legislatively possible and financially affordable.

This issue is near and dear to me, I'm very in tune with the healthcare issue but I wonder why I waste my time on these kind of threads because they are "reality free".

The only reason I've been bothering to respond is because I see so many people in favor of the "mandate" idea (in an effort to differentiate their candidate), and that one, very specific idea is a complete disaster (see MA) and I'm convinced it will kill our chances for real reform for another decade.

Truth be told, "mandates" will never pass Congress, so I should probably give up trying to educate anyone anyway, huh?

[OzarkDem]

149. Link: Clinton Vows to Cap Health Care Insurance

Senator Clinton said on Wednesday she would like to cap health insurance premiums at 5% to 10% of income. The average cost of a family policy in 2006 and 2007 was $US5800, or 10% of the median family income of $US58,526, according to trade group America's Health Insurance Plans.

Some policies cost up to $US9200 ($A10,000) or 16% of median income.




http://www.theage.com.au/news/us-election/clinton-vows-to-cap-healthcare-insurance/2008/03/28/1206207408206.html

[Justitia]

161. "She would LIKE TO cap" is NOT the same as she "VOWS" to

besides, even if she campaign-promised this, exactly HOW would she cap premiums to each citizen's individual income?

From your same link - that you didn't copy, where she contradicts herself:

"She also said on Wednesday she preferred to set the limit at a single level for all rather than varying it by income.

Senator Clinton set out a comprehensive approach to her signature issue of health care in three speeches last year, but she has been criticised for not providing details on several crucial components.

She largely continued that approach on Wednesday but did discuss her thinking on other questions, including the premium cap, and expressed openness to measures she had not previously embraced.

She said it "might be appropriate" to require insurers to spend a heavy proportion of every premium dollar on health care rather than overhead and profit."

[Hepburn]

178. You think that before posting over and over about Hillary's....

...great plan, that this poster would have picked up on the details. Obviously not. And here is one of the problems ~~ the specifics are missing from her plan and that concerns me. With her love of corporate America ~~ we all know who is gonna benefit.

JMHO

[Hepburn]

81. Thank you for pointing out exactly what is WRONG with having...

...private ins companies involved in ANYTHING that is a benefit to the public. They WILL find a way to fuck us over ~~ that simply is their nature.

[progressive_realist]

10. I've been saying all along that her plan is a giveaway to insurance companies

But thank you for the in-depth analysis. Unfortunately, I just don't have much time these days for lengthy posts.

[OzarkDem]

22. Then you've been misinformed all along

try reading up on more of the details.

[progressive_realist]

205. The fundamental concept is flawed

No amount of window dressing can fix it. You can look at the diagram in the OP and instantly see how that will play out in practice. Everyone healthy will be in the left-most category, with the lowest premiums. Those with health problems but with money will fall into the second bucket, with good care and high premiums. And poorer people with medical problems will be in the right-hand bucket, where they will pay too much for very little coverage.

The fundamental advantage to a single-payer system is that everyones' risk is pooled together and therefore premiums are spread equally among everyone. Any system like Hillary's with mandates plus multiple plans and levels of coverage allows people with fewer medical needs to avoid subsidizing those with greater needs. Sure there are cost savings in this plan -- but only for those lucky enough to avoid serious health problems.

Mandated health insurance is a Republican idea and has no place in our party. That Clinton supporters pretend this has anything in common with universal health care is insulting. And the worst part of it is that Clinton is savvy enough about health care to know exactly what the results of her plan will be. :puke:

[pnwmom]

21. She has not said that the rates in her plan will be the same as the

current rates paid by members of Congress. She is proposing new caps based on income.

With universal coverage, the government will have opportunities for cost savings well beyond what it has now.

[berni_mccoy]

43. Those caps will drive up the base rate and send millions more to the "Public" i.e. "Poor" plan.

[pnwmom]

123. Obama's plan proposes caps. What do you see as the advantage of his

plan? The only way to bring down the costs for everybody is to have everybody insured, including the young and healthy.

[Justitia]

151. Obama's advantage is NO MANDATE to buy a product from a private company

Obama's plan does not criminalize citizens who cannot afford to purchase a product from a private company under federal threat, penalty or garnishment of wages.

[pnwmom]

206. HRC's plan includes NO MANDATE to buy a product from a private company.

Her plan includes the option to buy into a government-run plan like Medicare. And she has said that the government run plan might well prove to be a better value (since it won't have to yield a profit), and eventually the private insurers might drop out.

[Justitia]

207. Yes, it does. MANDATORY INSURANCE does not = healthcare.

From her own site:

In addition to the array of private insurance choices
offered, the Health Choices Menu will also provide Americans with a choice of a public plan
option, which could be modeled on the traditional Medicare program, but would cover the
same benefits as guaranteed in private plan options in the Health Choices Menu without
creating a new bureaucracy. The alternative will compete on a level playing field with
traditional private insurance plans. It will provide a more affordable option, in part through
greater administrative savings. It will not be funded through the Medicare trust fund.

So, if it's not a "new bureaucracy", and it's not funded through the Medicare trust fund, and it's NOT Medicare, then it's a private product isn't it?

If it's not going to be paid thru collective taxes, cost contained or benefit guaranteed thru Federal legislation, then it's a private product.

And bottom line, it's still FORCING citizens to buy something under threat and penalty - whether they can afford it or not.

It's a doomed concept.

[pnwmom]

208. You are misreading her words. The government option in HRC's plan

can be run through Medicare -- no need to create a new bureaucracy -- even though the FUNDING will not be coming from the Medicare trust fund.

She has stated over and over again (for those people who can't read) that you won't have to buy private insurance -- that you can choose a government run plan and that that may be the better option.

If you are to be consistent, then you would have to reject Social Security as well, because all citizens are forced to buy into that. It seems odd to me that so many Democrats who are strong supporters of Social Security reject the idea of paying into universal health care.

[Justitia]

209. No it cannot. You cannot "run" anything "thru Medicare" without making new laws.

Medicare is regulated by federal legislation - you cannot alter Medicare without changing the law, which is what makes it a "government" program. Everything about Medicare, including its premiums and coverages is dictated by federal legislation. Hillary (or any president) cannot do A SINGLE THING to Medicare without it being written by, approved and continually regulated by consent of Congress.

THERE ARE NO "GOVERNMENT PLANS" WITHOUT ALTERING EXISTING FEDERAL LAW OR MAKING NEW FEDERAL LAW.

Therefore, whatever is NOT created by Congress is PRIVATE.

And for the ONE MILLIONTH TIME, not "all citizens are forced to buy into" Social Security!
That is an ignorant myth.
There is no federal law imposed on every citizen that makes them contribute to, or collect benefits from, Social Security.

Besides, Social Security is a FEDERAL PROGRAM that is regulated by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT - not private corporations.

:banghead:

[pnwmom]

223. So? You can make a new law without building a whole new bureaucracy.

Even a series of laws.

:banghead:

Yes, I know that there are a few exceptions to the Social Security program. But the overwhelming number of ordinary Americans are required to pay in. And the overwhelming number of Democrats support that.

[Justitia]

231. Yeah, just like we got S-CHIP expanded - it's so easy! Making entirely new laws will be a cakewalk!

I can't believe how breezily some can dismiss these concerns in order to simply bolster a candidate.

[pnwmom]

249. I'm not trying to bolster a candidate. I don't have a preference between

HRC and Obama.

I think he is stronger on Iraq, for example.

But I strongly prefer her health care plan (and Edwards') -- even though I don't think any health care plan will be a "cakewalk."

(My first choice would have been Kucinich's, but I can't see that getting through the political process. . . but the Clinton's/Edwards plans would be a major incremental step toward getting us there.)

[Justitia]

23. Her mandatory health insurance is a boon for private companies, not citizens.

It has absolutely no cost containment or regulation of insurance company profits w/very little usable benefit to citizens (high deductibles, co-pays, premiums).

It simply adds to the financial burden of those who can least afford to have their wages negatively impacted in the first place.

It does nothing to provide actual health care, it just forces the most vulnerable to buy a useless product from a private company. It's taxation without representation, as well.

She's bought into some very seriously flawed thinking and that is what will doom our prospects for REAL healthcare reform for ANOTHER decade, just like she'd FUBAR'd it last time.

[OzarkDem]

26. Wow, are you misinformed

Maybe if some Obama supporters as much time reading the details of both candidate's health care plans as they do researching book bags of the 1960's, they would be better equipped to participate in this discussion.

[Justitia]

28. No, actually I'm very well informed on the "specifics", and they suck. Sorry. -eom

[OzarkDem]

98. No link?

We just have to take your word for it?

[Justitia]

105. To what? I'm not the one selling Hillary's MANDATE for the insurance companies. -eom

[OzarkDem]

116. No, you're the one criticizing her plan, show us something better

or do you not want a candidate who will get good health care reform enacted?

[madrchsod]

133. dennis had the best plan and a logical plan to fund it

[OzarkDem]

140. and she supports it

But she also knows its not likely to pass in Congress, so her plan is a more realistic alternative.

If Dennis can get it passed in Congress, I have no doubt she'll support it.

[Justitia]

144. Something better = no MANDATE, other parts I can live with (if we don't get single-payer) -eom

[OzarkDem]

165. So you want to be a "free rider"?

You want to not buy health insurance until you get sick or injured then make the rest of us pay for your care?

[Justitia]

170. See, there you have it in a nutshell. You believe anyone w/out insurance is a lazy freeloader

when the REAL problem is people don't have insurance because THEY CAN'T AFFORD IT!!! :banghead:

If you don't understand the fundamental problem, how can you possibly begin to formulate any credible solutions????

[OzarkDem]

174. It will be affordable

it will also be more likely your employer will provide it.

[Justitia]

176. Who defines "affordable" for EVERYONE? By what measure? And what about the unemployed? -eom

[OzarkDem]

180. Unemployed will get Medicaid

and once the program gets started, the public plan will likely give them a break.

We won't know until we get started. Every other plan on the table is a non-starter and we have to get moving on something soon before health care costs destroy our economy.

[Justitia]

182. Once again, just being unemployed DOES NOT qualify you for Medicaid.

Let's look at MA, where the "mandated insurance" idea is currently at work.

You are on the hook for very expensive monthly premiums whether you are employed or not.
Your financial obligation to the state does not cease simply because you don't have a job.

Medicaid is for the destitute, which includes ASSET VALUATION, not just income.

[Hepburn]

179. Where do you equate no health insurance with...

making someone else pay the bill?

What total bullshit.

[Hepburn]

34. Again....

...how are the private insurance comapanies NOT benefitted by her sucky plan?

BTW: It might be a discussion if you stopped your bullshit of just saying everyone but HiLIARy is wrong.

So again....how does she get rid of the profit in health insurance?

That is the entire problem with the system ~~ that is why people are NOT getting what they need in the way of medical care.

Duh.....:eyes:

So what the hell is your beloved HiLIARy going to do make this other than a profit adventure for massive insurance companies?

[madrchsod]

127. now that`s an interesting perspective on obama supporters

by the way-both candidates plans suck ass.

[OzarkDem]

134. Your opinion

If you don't want real reform, keep trash talking the efforts of good people like Clinton and Edwards who are trying to make it a reality.

[madrchsod]

146. i want real reform-no insurance companies

deciding anything in my health care..i`ve spent the last 6 years dealing with insurance companies and they are getting progressively worse in dealing with me and my health care providers. the insurance company i have took 6 months to pay the hospital. i talked to the business office and they said it`s standard now that insurance companies reject the first bill to buy them time in paying. the hospital is pissed.i`m pissed and there`s nothing we can do. for 6 months we have gone back and forth with the insurance company. they finally paid 80% but they paid the collection agency because the hospital had to get the debt off their books. my friend has the same insurance company- her bill turned into collection..she has had perfect credit for 30 years..

do`t give me any shit about me wanting real reform..you want to pay my 10,000 dollar co-pay?

[OzarkDem]

160. Then don't buy your insurance from them

Choose the public plan.

[Cleita]

36. Hear, hear.

You can't deliver meaningful health care reform until you cut out the cause of our miserable system, the for profit middle men who suck all the cash out of the system into wall street profits. Hillarycare does not addressed this.

[Hepburn]

39. Exactly!

It's federal aid for Health Insurance Companies.

[OzarkDem]

101. Then you haven't read the plan

I suggest you give it a try. Her plan forces the insurance companies to improve coverage, lower their premium prices and compete with lower cost public insurance. They can compete or go out of business. However, its not in the power of the President or Congress to pass a law that outlaws them.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/healthcare/

[Cleita]

119. I have read all her plans and as long as the insurance companies

are part of the stream of money from the treasury they will not work and they will bankrupt us. They must compete outside of that. That means no subsidies for families or individuals to purchase them. Anyone who can't afford the premium will be covered by Medicare, period. It also means that no one will get tax credits to purchase private insurance instead either. They will have to pay extra for it if they are rich enough to afford it. There still is a market out there for extra medical procedures like plastic surgery or pet insurance, or maybe to supplement basic coverage with hospitalization luxuries that don't come with the basic plan. Don't worry the insurance companies won't starve.

[OzarkDem]

138. They won't get any money from the Treasury

and if they want to sell plans to people who get tax credits, they will have to compete with a public plan, cover everyone and cap their premiums.

But no, they don't get a dime from the Treasury. If you have a link to prove that assertion, please provide it.

[Justitia]

171. Uh, where do you think "tax credits" come from??? -eom

[Cleita]

195. How else do you subsidize without bleeding the treasury?

[NorthCarolina]

33. Lets face facts, NEITHER candidate is backing Universal Health Care

Rather, they are only putting forth plans for Universal Health INSURANCE (so can we please start calling it that from now on).

The best description on these health care plans I ever heard someone say was "When it comes to Healthcare, they're both playing ping-pong with a turd and we're all just getting shitty in the process". Can't think of a better way to put it than that.

There IS an option though, and that is to get your candidate, whether it be Clinton OR Obama to support House Resolution 676 which truly is Single Payer Universal Health Care for all INDEPENDENT of the need for an insurance middleman. It's already a House Resolution and has some backing already, it just needs a high profile political figure like Clinton or Obama to grab the brass ring that is HR 676 and ride with it all the way to the White House.

If France, Canada, the UK, and even Cuba can do it, so can the US. The total cost would be far less than has been spent on Iraq to date so you tell me, which would have been a better use for that money? Get mad as hell, get motivated, and get active...write your candidate, write your congressperson, write your Senators and tell them to get on board with HR 676 or say goodbye to DC as an elected official. It's time the people start taking an active role in getting their piece of the pie. Unless you don't mind all your taxes going for Corporate welfare that is.

[Hepburn]

37. Exactly.....

...and HiLIARy's plan sucks worse.

There is NO way that madating payments to an insurance company is going to end this problem. It will only make it worse. If people had the money to pay these fucking giant insuarnce companies to begin with...we would not be where we are. And then to fine someone on top of this if he/she cannot afford the premium? What total unmitigated elitist bullshit.

JMHO

[NorthCarolina]

44. They both suck equally bad IMHO

I mean INSURANCE?? WHY??? There is no convincing me that it is advantageous to have an insurance man between you and your doctor EVER. And I don't buy the RW BS that we get better health care that way. What a load of crap that excuse is. I talked about this issue with my family physician and he agreed that HR 676 was the way to go and he, as I, was at a loss to fathom why more of the electorate didn't demand it LOUDLY.

The primary goal of an insurance company is NOT to ensure you get the best possible medical care. It's prime concern is being profitable as commanded by it's investors. They never have been and never will be a compassionate caregiver.

Pick up your pitchforks, sticks, and torches and take to the streets to DEMAND passage of HR 676.

[Hepburn]

79. I totally agree....

...we need to get the health insurance industry OUT of the healthcare system. They are in it for a profit...it's like some people forget this when discussing this issue of affordable healthcare. The health insurance corporations are not our friends. PERIOD.

:hi:

[Vinca]

40. Ping-pong with a turd. LOL. You nailed it exactly. HR676 is the plan. nt

[Cleita]

102. HR 676 is the only plan any Democrat should be backing.

It's the progressive and liberal one that will work for this country covering everyone and not bankrupting us.

[BlooInBloo]

35. Amazing that Krugman of all people likes the plan then, if it's as bad as you say...

... Which of course it isn't.

[Justitia]

48. Krugman has bought the same Pie-in-the-Sky "mandates will solve everything" think-tank BS on this &

he's wrong too. Why not look to actual examples of where this nutty idea has been implemented (like MA) and gauge just how successful it has been - IN ACTUAL PRACTICE.

Hint: It's a disaster.


Why don't we just mandate that everyone buy a house to solve homelessness too?
:crazy:

[BlooInBloo]

136. Why don't we mandate that everyone with cars have auto insurance?

Why don't we mandate that everyone pay into Social Security.

OH WAIT - WE DO.

If that's the issue, then there's no issue.

Don't bother calling me a Clinton lover. I'm an Edwards/Obama guy. I just can't stand fucking stupidity. It's especially laughable that you think that Krugman has drank the kool-aid, but YOU (oh so virtuous and clearheaded you) can see the clear unvarnished truth.

[Justitia]

175. Uh no. Firstly, you have the option to not drive. Not so by simply breathing.

Secondly, mandatory auto insurance is to protect other drivers in the form of liability.
There is no state that mandates you have COLLISION for yourself, which would be the correct comparison.

And no, there is no CRIMINAL MANDATE that everyone contribute to Social Security - are you seriously postulating that there is?

So, do you want to drop the smartass attitude and debate the merits?

"Fucking stupidity" indeed.

[BlooInBloo]

184. Yah - it's called "tax evasion". Duh.

[Justitia]

189. Really? So, citizens who do not contribute to Soc Sec are tax evaders?

You should stop embarrassing yourself, your ignorance is showing.

Just to let you know - not every single person contributes to, or collects benefits from, Social Security.

And they certainly are NOT being held as criminals or facing penalty.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

255. Bullshit. Not everyone pays SS contributions. Or taxes.

Furthermore, those of us who do get representation to go along with them. You can hold the government accountable for mismanaging programs by "voting the bums out". Will you be able to vote out the CEO of Humana, despite being compelled by law to purchase insurance from them?

[Liquorice]

41. Wow, Elizabeth Edwards must be a real idiot since she

prefers Hillary's plan to Obama's. Either that, or this analysis is horribly wrong (and it is).

[NorthCarolina]

53. I saw that interview with Elisabeth Edwards, several times in fact

and while she did say she preferred the Universal mandate aspect as it would mean everyone would be covered, she was far from praising either plan. If you're hanging your hat on a flat out endorsement of the Hillary plan by Elisabeth Edwards I suggest you go back and view her appearance again because it just didn't happen.

[Liquorice]

55. Elizabeth Edwards is no fool. She knows which plan is better, and so do I. This

analysis if full of crap.

[NorthCarolina]

56. Never said she was, but whatever, suit yourself nt

[Hepburn]

85. I agree with your analysis.

What I heard her say in the KO interveiw was that it was the "mandate" part of the system as to why she preferred Clinton's plan.

That is exactly why I find it inferior to Obama's. However ~~ both of the plans suck. Hillary's just sucks worse because of the mandate.

JMHO

[NorthCarolina]

87. With Hillary's plan there will be some that can't afford it

and will be criminals. With Obama plan, these same folks won't be able to afford it but at least they won't be criminals subject to fines they can't afford either.

I hate that this is the best the Dems are willing to offer the public. I am hoping for a revolt on a national scale personally.

[Hepburn]

91. I hear ya....totally.

The mandatory requirement on Hillary's really angers me. People are poor...but to criminalize and punish them on top of it? Total bull, IMO!

[OzarkDem]

103. Tell us how Obama's plan is better

and how Elizabeth thinks the same

[Hepburn]

109. It's better cuz it.....

...HAS NO MANDATE!

But...it also sucks....just not as bad as HilLIARy's.

[NorthCarolina]

122. As far as providing Health Care Obama's isn't any better

Under both plans there WILL BE folks that cannot afford it period. If you don't think that is the case you're only fooling yourself. The difference is that those folks that can't afford to buy insurance under the Hillary plan will be considered to have broken the law and subject to fines for non-compliance that they can't afford either. The Obama plans sucks equally well as far as a Health Care plan goes, but at least the folks that can't afford it under his plan won't be criminals subject to a fine. It's really pretty simple to figure out. I am surprised that there are so many here on DU that still need to ask someone "why". As I've said before, neither candidate is backing Universal Health Care. That is a misnomer just like "Death Tax" for no other reason than to get people to think they're getting something. If you TRULY want Universal Health CARE and not Universal Health INSURANCE, then you better get your hienie in gear and write Hillary or Obama (whichever you support) and tell her/him to support HR 676. That's the only Universal Health CARE plan out there and it already has some measure of backing in the House. Should a high profile official like Hillary or a Barak start touting it, the rest of the House would likely jump to support it.

[berni_mccoy]

54. As to Elizabeth Edwards, she is entitled to her opinion. As to your rebuttal of my analysis...

it's empty. Why don't you try making your own case *for* Clinton's plan and describe how it's going to work equally well for the POOR, SICK and UNINSURED as it will for the Wealthy. I expect you can't do that though as you have no ability or facts to do so.

[Liquorice]

64. I just can't believe you don't realize that people

who can't afford care will be getting lower rates. Those who are very poor will qualify for revamped medicaid. Hillary Clinton has made it very clear that this will be AFFORDABLE health insurance for all. She is certainly not going to create a plan that would make it unaffordable because that would defeat the whole purpose. Hillary has been studying this issue for many years, and I'm sure she knows what she is doing.

[berni_mccoy]

69. You're twisting my words. I said poor will get the 'Public' plan, which will cover less.

And cost more when it comes to things like insulin. The cost of covering the medical needs of everyone is going to come from somewhere. The wealthy are going to pay more, and they are going to enjoy their current level of coverage. The poor are going to be forced onto plans that cost them money still and won't cover all their needs.

[Hepburn]

113. Why should anyone be on different plans?

We are all the same, right? So why segregate us by wealth?

[OzarkDem]

117. We've already done that, now show us how Obama will do better

[berni_mccoy]

128. This discussion isn't about Obama. It's about Clinton's plan. If you want to attack Obama

Start your own thread.

[Cleita]

72. I saw the interview and she said that Hillary's plan was

better than Obama's or not as vague. She was later on KO and said that it wasn't an endorsement but an answer to a specific question.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

192. Appeal to Authority is the lamest logical fallacy there is.

Try again.

[berni_mccoy]

99. I haven't seen ONE RESPONSE from ANY CLINTON SUPPORTER in this thread

That can actually defend Clinton's plan. All they can do is shove her link in your face. Well, I've already read it. In excruciating detail. And guess what? It means the poor get LESS HEALTHCARE than the WEALTHY. It also means that people who pay premiums will pay MORE. That's not Universal. It's a CASTE-based system.

There should be ONE PLAN, not three. Everyone should be covered. EQUALLY.

Her plan fails miserably.

[OzarkDem]

120. You've been given plenty of evidence

and the only way to answer the question is by providing details.

Clinton isn't going to shove one plan down everyone's throat. That's not what voters want. She's giving people a choice. If it eventually leads to one plan for everyone (which it likely will) then so much the better.

[berni_mccoy]

124. You haven't provided anything. And voters want health care, not to have an insurance company

tell them they aren't going to approve a procedure or not go to the doctor because they can't afford it.

Voters want the Insurance companies to be GONE.

[OzarkDem]

130. You're in denial

You've already been given the facts to show your assertion is wrong.

If you want to have a thread that makes false accusations about Clinton's health care plan without anyone to contest your assertions, go do it at the Obama forum.

[berni_mccoy]

132. You are full of b.s. You haven't provided one fact. Time to put you on ignore.

[OzarkDem]

142. I don't play political games with health care reform

This isn't bookbags or some other BS. Its about people's lives.

Feel free to put me on ignore.

[Hepburn]

155. Hillary has NO clue what the voters want.

That is why she is losing...duh...:eyes:

[harun]

104. It will definitely be less expensive for the wealthy with her plan, healthy

poor people will be forced to subsidize the for profit insurance companies.

She keeps referring to it as National Health care when all it does it get a few more people under insurance which is more and more not covering what bills people have any way.

So you get a system where the rich get the best care in the world. The doctors and hospitals devote resources to fighting with the insurance companies for payment. The patients spend the time they should be spending getting better fighting with the insurance companies to make them pay.

The problem is the insurance companies, period. Throwing more money at them with the Hillary plan will do nothing but make their position stronger and harder to destroy, which they all deserve to be destroyed.

Kucinich is 100% right about their plans and what plans should be implemented.

[madrchsod]

118. she`s insuring the insurance companies

it`s another example of the clinton`s telling us to accept what they offer and not what we really need.

[NorthCarolina]

137. Either plan will be at most a windfall for the insurance industry

and NEITHER plan will cover everyone. The ONLY difference is that under one plan those that cannot afford to buy insurance will be criminals and subject to fines they can't afford either, and under the other plan these same folks that can't afford it will not be criminals. Beyond that THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PLANS.

Oh, and again just for clarification...NEITHER PLAN is Universal Health Care...rather, it is Universal Health INSURANCE!!! My god, why can't folks even bring themselves to properly label something around here :banghead:

[berni_mccoy]

143. It's not even Universal Health Insurance... Universal implies one, equal.

Her plan is anything but fair.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

145. Bingo. It's important to note that BOTH plans have mandates.

And BOTH are tied in with the insurance industry.

I'm just finding Clinton to be particularly annoying with her assertion that hers is "more universal" because she forces more people into it.

[madrchsod]

153. i do`t get it either

10,000 co-pay...i could reduce my energy bill by 2/3 with this amount of money...

[NorthCarolina]

185. Whats truly amazing it that folks here at at each others throats

over two plans, BOTH of which flat-out suck. One of them needs to sign on to support of HR 676, but that isn't going to happen without IMMENSE pressure from their supporters.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

141. It's disturbing to me how many progressives don't see these plans for what they are.

People who recoil in horror at the prospect of private SS accounts or school vouchers will sit there and tell you that these mandated plans aren't really a massive forced subsidy to the insurance industry and will somehow "evolve into single payer". My fine Irish ass they will. Using that logic they should have no problem with partially privatizing SS or the vouchers, right? There's no way they would ever lead to dismantling the retirement safety net or the public education system, right? I mean, won't everyone just "choose" the government plan because it's so much better? Of course, at the same time, the mandate fans don't trust people enough to make rational decisions, hence the need for mandates. :crazy: :banghead:

[madrchsod]

147. you have a fine.....?

:rofl::bounce: :rofl:

[mrreowwr_kittty]

A damn fine one if I do say so myself.

:P

[madrchsod]

156. i`ll take your word on that!

:woohoo: :applause: :woohoo:

[OzarkDem]

152. No money goes to insurance industry

and patients have a choice to get a public plan that forces insurance companies to lower their costs, cover everyone and all medical costs.

If people don't want to buy a private health plan, they can buy the public one, which will provide the same coverage.

[Hepburn]

172. Did you just read the bullshit that you wrote?

"No money goes to insurance industry"

and then you wrote:

"...patients have a choice to get a public plan that forces insurance companies..."

Since when are INSURANCE COMPANIES not a part of the INSURANCE INDUSTRY???

GMAFB.......:eyes:

[OzarkDem]

181. You're not trying to have an honest discussion

So I'm not going to respond to you.

[Hepburn]

188. LMBO....

...you get caught saying exactly what you have been denying...and I am not being honest!

:rofl: You truly are ignorant!

[mrreowwr_kittty]

190. What's Ignored babbling about? nt

[NorthCarolina]

193. Oh, and exactly what will this "Private" plan cost?

Do you know?

Let me give you a little touch of reality here.

My niece and her husband live in a small town about an hour west of here in Charlotte, NC. Historically, the towns in the West part of NC were where much of your furniture and clothing were made...before NAFTA that is anyway. These towns now are simply empty shells of their former stature. Well, her husband worked at one of the local furniture mills...once upon a time, but virtually 100% of the mills are now shuttered and grass grows in the parking lots....at least the ones that are still standing anyway.

When the mill closed up without much warning, her husband was forced to begin to take work in just about anything he could find. They have two children and let me tell you THEY STRUGGLE. In fact, we talked with her earlier this evening. She was calling to let us know that her phone would be cut off after tonight because they lack the $96 to pay the bill. Even though she never said it, I know that the call was mostly in the hope that we could maybe come through with the money for her. I wish we could, but we have helped them with their heating bills over the winter, their food, their car insurance, etc, and we're tapped out. I know the situation they are in, and so does the entire family, but fact of the matter is that nobody else is significantly better off, so we all do what we can, but as with everything there are limits.

Well, to make a long story short, the fact of the matter is that there WILL BE PEOPLE that cannot afford to BUY INSURANCE no matter which of the plans, Obama or Clinton, is implemented. I believe that Obama is at least in touch with this fact, and which is why he will not enforce a mandate. I do not want the Clinton plan either for the simple fact that under her plan, My niece and her husband, on top of everything else they're dealing with, will become criminals and subject to fines for non-compliance with the mandate.

At least under the Obama plan my niece, and millions of Americans like her, will be able to be poor with the dignity of not being criminally negligent on top of everything else.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

234. The proponents of the plan will argue "but they'll get subsidies!"

Of course, they can't tell you how much the subsidies will be because that depends on the cost of the premiums. Also that doesn't take into account the co-pays and deductibles. We've already learned that there might be income caps but that people will have to pay up front and wait for a tax refund. What bullcrap.

In the case of your niece's family, is it possible that they qualify for Medicaid? Has she looked into that?

[OzarkDem]

219. Its disturbing that many "progressives" are making up lies about health care reform

and sabotaging the effort to get it passed.

You can't back up a single smear in this thread with a source to prove your point. You're simply posting rumors and unsubstantiated accusations. That's called sabotage.

[BzaDem]

157. Um, Obama's plan is far worse.

It allows healthy people to avoid paying for health insurance. This is why costs are high.

Clinton's plan isn't perfect. But it is far better than Obama's plan. It halves the number of people left uninsured by Obama's plan.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

166. No. Both plans are a big old giveaway to the insurance industry.

Obama is at least politically savvy enough not to introduce the electoral Kryptonite of mandates on adults into the equation. Did you watch Clinton squirming when she was asked (several times) by Stephanopolous how she would enforce them? How IS she going to enforce them? How much will it cost? Trust me, the GOP was salivating to run against her on this issue.

[berni_mccoy]

169. If you actually took the time to read both plans, you'd know that is b.s.

Obama's plan has ONE Federal plan, based on the Congressional Medical plan (no shoving the poor to a lesser plan). For those who can not afford the Federal plan, the government will pay their premiums. This will not be leveraging private insurance companies as the current Congressional Plan does... it will be a social plan with NO INSURANCE companies.

If you opt out of the plan, you can buy your own, if you feel so, but your tax dollars will still go to the Federal plan.

[OzarkDem]

194. You're wrong on that

You'll need to provide a link to back up your assertion about Obama's plan.

[bvar22]

167. Mandated Auto Insurance worked as advertised.

It drove down the cost of auto insurance and made good affordable auto insurance available to all Americans!!!

Oh wait....no it didn't.

It drove the small carriers out of business and concentrated the flow of mandated dollars into the pockets of some of the wealthiest CEOs in America as premiums doubled and tripled, actual coverage dropped, and the system became an ambiguous and capricious nightmare.

HillaryCare2 will do exactly the same.

[OzarkDem]

177. Is there an option to buy auto insurance from the govt?

at a lower price than auto insurance companies? That's the difference.

[Hepburn]

186. Here ya go...

Government Sponsored Auto Insurance Plans

http://personalinsure.about.com/od/governmentsponsored/Government_Sponsored_Auto_Insurance_Plans.htm

You don't know about things like this? LOL...

[Andrew99]

168. First time I hear this argument

It's the first time I hear someone argue that Hillary's plan benefits the wealthy the most.

[SunsetDreams]

198. That's interesting

Thank you for doing the indepth research on this.

[berni_mccoy]

199. Does Ignored realize they've posted over 50 times in this thread?

You're really losing credibility dude. How dare anyone question Hillary's Health Insurance Plan?!?!?! :sarcasm:

[lumberjack_jeff]

203. Jesus Christ, does the spin cycle ever end?

The question isn't whether those who currently don't have insurance (and won't have insurance under Obama's "universal" plan) get less care than the luckiest americans - the question is whether they obtain better care than they currently get.

How is a poor person who can't get insurance now and won't get insurance under Obama's plan victimized by getting insurance under Clinton's plan?

:crazy:

[berni_mccoy]

211. If you want to call the facts, spin, that is your choice.

The fact of the matter is that there are going to be several levels of care, based on income. And the poor are basically not going to be able to afford all necessary medical procedures and medications based on Clinton's plan. Her plan is nothing about Universal and anything but progressive.

[lumberjack_jeff]

220. It does have one primary attribute. It is a plan.

The Obama alternative is a fantasy.

The fantasy is this: In a world in which medical care is expensive because those who have insurance pay for those who don't, he'll cover those who don't by making it inexpensive.

First: you don't make something inexpensive unless you change the paradigm.
Second: you don't change the paradigm unless everyone participates.

You won't get cheap until you get universal. They apparently don't cover "causality" at either Columbia or Harvard.

The spectrum of choices are:
a) the McCain plan - what we're doing now.
b) the Obama plan - a plan which, through many gyrations and compromise, will get us right back where we started. Worse, it'll be seen as evidence that public solutions to healthcare problems are bound to fail.
c) the Clinton plan - a plan which, although imperfect, does have a possibility of success and serves as a stepping-stone to single payer.

It vexes me that in a country in which 25 million people are uninsured and are literally dying for lack of care, doing nothing (or worse, doing something which fails to cover the uninsured) is preferable to implementing something which doesn't include a free pony with each checkup.

[berni_mccoy]

224. All you can do is call Obama's plan a Fantasy. How about making your case?

Prove her plan is betters instead of just saying it. That's all you cheerleaders can do.

[lumberjack_jeff]

227. The. Case. Is. Simple.

The oxymoronic "optional universal" coverage fails to solve the, single, fundamental, principal, core problem.

I can't prove that Clinton's plan will work well, because it is impossible to know of the compromises which will be required to obtain passage, but it is patently obvious that Obama's won't.

It is foolish to argue for Obama and against Clinton on the basis that her health care plan is insufficient. It is no less foolish than arguing against Kerry and for Bush because Kerry's battlefield heroics were not really up to their Rambo expectations.

[berni_mccoy]

228. If you can't prove Clinton's plan will work well, then you can't say it's better than anyones.

[lumberjack_jeff]

229. Short of a demonstration, the Wright brothers couldn't prove their plane would fly.

They could, however take some satisfaction in knowing that their neighbors, the Wrong brothers, were unlikely to succeed with their plans of a dirigible made of lead.

If one agrees to discount the likelihood of divine intervention on Obama's behalf, I can indeed prove that Clinton's plan has a 100% better chance of success.

[berni_mccoy]

233. Her first "flight" crashed and burned and cost Dems the Congress. You really want to give her

another shot?

[lumberjack_jeff]

239. I'm not looking at the builders, I'm looking at the two aircraft.

One absolutely will not fly - so I prefer the other.

[OzarkDem]

221. Apparently these folks would rather see no health care reform at all

My guess is its because Obama has an inferior plan and Elizabeth Edwards has endorsed Clinton's plan. They would rather see health care reform fail that Clinton take credit for a good plan.

Pretty sick group of individuals.

[Justitia]

232. "No health care reform at all" is what we got the LAST time she took a crack at it - remember?

And her disastrous mistakes made any progress on the subject unreachable for the next decade.

Forgive those of us with an acquaintance of history for our measured skepticism and lack of blinders.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

235. By being turned into a criminal and fined

Because they can't afford the premium that Hillary decided they could afford?

[berni_mccoy]

236. That is the big scary part of her plan that her supporters seem to ignore the most.

[lumberjack_jeff]

240. Yet, taxes are considered tolerable. Funny.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

251. Wage slaves don't even make enough to pay that much in income taxes.

Some don't pay any, especially if they have children. They do get saddled with sales taxes and FICA though. However, many are in the unfortunate predicament that they make "too much" for Medicaid. Hence all the uninsured out there. These are people who spend 100% of their income, or more, just to scrape by. Many others have student loans, credit card bills out the wazoo, and might be stuck in horrendous adjustable rate mortgages. Let's add in $3.25 a gallon for gas while we're at it. Now you have Clinton (and Obama to a large extent because he has mandates too) coming along to squeeze more blood out of that turnip. Where do you think people who already can't afford insurance are going to get that extra money? Oh yeah, there will be subsidies (that won't cover the whole bill most likely) and there will be a cap on the percentage of your income (of which many uninsured have none left over after paying their other bills - guess they can go further in hock). :eyes:

[SeaLyons]

217. HRC's plan may not be perfect...

but it beats the hell out of BO's.

[berni_mccoy]

225. Prove it.

[SeaLyons]

237. ....

I think having EVERYONE covered trumps leaving people out. Just my opinion.

[berni_mccoy]

238. It's not really covering people when they will have to pay $150 for insulin.

[lumberjack_jeff]

241. How much do Obama's uninsured pay for insulin? n/t

[berni_mccoy]

243. Since you haven't noticed, this discussion is about Hillary's plan false-advertised as UNIVERSAL.

[lumberjack_jeff]

246. It is also, implicitly about the alternatives.

You made several false premises in your op.
1) Accepting that the price of insulin for the uninsured is $150, the price for those with insurance is less. When I had a catastrophic policy for myself only (which had something like a $2000 deductible) the premiums were something like $250/month. The main benefit of that was the reality that I paid the insurance company's price for drugs - not the price I'd pay if I walk into the pharmacy off the street. The price paid by medicare is much less. According to a study conducted in Pennsylvania the negotiated cost of a vial of insulin is $25.

2) $400/month (the highest family premium you could find on the website you linked - they ranged from $105/mo to $402) is pretty good for decent family insurance.

3) Medicare on a sliding income scale is a big first step to single payer. Tax breaks for the poor are fine - knowing that you'll get a tax break at the end of the year enables workers to have less withheld from their taxes.

The more I read about her plan, including your post, the more I like it. It insures everyone, and enables us to all share the cost savings that come from universal coverage.

[berni_mccoy]

248. Not false premises. Reality.

1. Medicare doesn't cover insulin. So you aren't going to get a negotiated price.

2. $400 / month would be good if you didn't have 20% office visit copays and 50% drug co-pays. Again, it's a great deal for the healthy who can afford $400 / month... for the 40 million uninsured...

3. She's not proposing Medicare on a sliding income scale. She's proposing 3 plans, one for the wealthy, one for those who can't be covered who can afford it and one for the poor. It's not single-payer nor is it a step in that direction.

[SeaLyons]

247. Prove it...

[anonymous171]

242. Apparently this is "boldly progressive" via Krugman

Not seeing it.

[lumberjack_jeff]

244. Which is it?

Is the Clinton health care plan too watered down with corporatist influence, or far too ambitious because voters will never accept universal care that is universal?

I hear both from Obama supporters. They appear to simultaneously believe both. Cognitive dissonance much?

[berni_mccoy]

245. It's neither progressive or universal. And you don't hear either from Obama supporters.

[lumberjack_jeff]

253. It is both boldly progressive and achievable. n/t

[mrreowwr_kittty]

254. Krugman loves outsourcing too.

He thinks we'll just retrain ourselves into great white collar jobs after all the manufacturing ones leave. He has charts and stuff to prove it. Honest.

As for the mandates, he is operating under the delusion that most uninsured are healthy young people with buckets of disposable income. Everyone's premiums will be reduced to practically nothing once this super-race is coerced into the insurance system.

[Araxen]

256. Insurance = a legal bet, Healthcare = you'll get taken care of

Both of the plans suck ass because they are insurance plans with private companies that are FOR PROFIT. The whole system needs to be non-profit and should be an inherited right that your healthcare will be taken care of by the government. Almost every other modern nation has it, but the great country of the USA for whatever reason is a failure at doing it. It just boggles the mind.