ObamaCare versus the old ClintonCare: a major step backwards

[Beacool]

August 31, 2009
by Howard Smith

On September 22, 1993, President Clinton, in an impassioned address to a joint session of Congress, unveiled his Health Security Act to the American people. He laid out six principles: security, simplicity, savings, choice, quality and responsibility, and explained in unambiguous language how each of these principles were embodied in the Health Security Act.

Clinton, despite his failings, which were only human failings, had something that Obama didn’t have although he thought he did and many in the media gave him credit for having. Clinton truly had a transformational vision for health care and that vision was masterfully expressed in this address to Congress that evening. It was probably one of the best speeches, if not the best speech he ever gave. Obama could have used these same six principles if he wanted to. They are worthy principles that all Americans want to achieve in any health care reform. One in particular needs to be examined very carefully, Clinton’s fifth principle, quality. Although the other five are as worthy of mention when comparing Clinton’s vision to Obama’s, quality is the most important and most valuable attribute whenever one encounters the health care system and it is over quality that Obama’s vision makes it most drastic departure from Clinton’s.

Of quality, Clinton said, “If we reformed everything else in health care but failed to preserve and enhance the high quality of our medical care, we would have taken a step backward, not forward. Quality is something that cannot be left to chance. When you board an airplane, you feel better knowing that the plane meets standards designed to protect your safety. We must ask no less of our health care system…” In his own words, high quality care will be the safest care possible, as safe as flying in an airplane. He went on to say, “…More efficient delivery of health care does not decrease quality, and may even enhance it.” Again, his own words describe quality as the most effective care necessary to produce the best medical outcomes. Cost is only secondary; hence high quality care would be the most cost effective care possible.. He went even further by saying, “…Our plan will guarantee that the highest quality health care is available in even the remotest areas of our nation… Our plan will ensure quality by effective prevention and treatment measures for cancer, for AIDS, for Alzheimer’s, for heart disease and for other chronic diseases. Our plan safeguards the finest medical care in the world, and makes it even better.” Therefore, for Bill Clinton, high quality care will be universal, ensuring every American treatment for cancer, for AIDS, for Alzheimer’s, for heart disease and for other chronic diseases without raising the specter of how those suffering from these disease would contribute to society after treatment is rendered. These attributes of quality are an awesome vision, one that every American, every doctor, every politician regardless of party could embrace.

http://www.examiner.com/x-10183-DC-Health-Care-Examiner~y2009m8d31-ObamaCare-versus-the-old-ClintonCare-a-major-step-backwards

Does he have a valid point? Are we going to sacrifice quality in exchange for lower costs? I find the the whole health care issue as presented at the moment very confusing.

[stray cat]

1. Clinton care never got passed the starting gate - in other words nada

it didn't change anything at all.

[Beacool]

3. True, but that's not what he's talking about.

My question is whether he is right that we may end up with a bill that will be more concerned with cost than the quality of the service rendered.

[BeyondGeography]

2. Nice try

And I'm sure you'll try and try again.

[Raven]

4. Clinton's HC Plan didn't pass, did it. IMO, you cannot hope to

improve the quality of care without dealing with outrageous costs and outrageous insurance companies.

[Beacool]

5. Yes, costs are out of control and need to be reigned in.

But I think that some people are nervous about losing quality care.

[Better Believe It]

6. But you can do that by letting the insurance industry and drug cartel write the legislation

[karynnj]

16. Not only did it not pass, but it was never submitted to a vote! Clinton withdrew it

The Clintons made little effort to even listen to the concerns of Congresmen and Senators, even though many - such as Ted Kenendy and Bill Bradley - had worked on the issue for decades. The fact is we are FAR closer now than we were with Clinton.

It is not intellectually honest to compare what was said in a speech to what was actually put before Congress.

As to Bill and Healthcare, what was Hillary's main role on SCHIP? It was convincing Bill to put the money in the budget for it after the legislation had passed. That bill, which was the biggest increase in government funded health insurance, was a COMPROMISE bill that Kennedy and Hatch wrote modifying a bill called both Kerry/Kennedy and Healthy Families.

Now, you can't have it both ways. If Bill was great on health care, HRC would not have had to do this. If she didn't, her role was pretty limited. Take your choice - Kennedy credited HRC for pushing her husband.

[Autumn]

7. No I don't think we will sacrifice quality, I think

if we get health care reform, not insurance finance reform, Obama will make sure safeguards are in it.(fingers crossed) Off topic but I cant find a picture of Al Gore barefooted. I hope I didn't loose too many pics.

[Beacool]

12. Thanks Autumn.

I hope that we'll get real reform and not just some hodgepodge stew.

Thanks for looking for the Gore pic, maybe we'll come across it some day.

Take care!!

:hi:

[dionysus]

8. Now Bea, as discouraging as the GOP and blue dogs make the situation seem,

let's wait until there's a final bill before we get disappointed.
:hi:

[Beacool]

11. Hi, there!!!

I'm not disappointed, I'm totally and thoroughly confused about what the hell is going on and what we'll end up with. So far, I don't see a clear message from anyone in charge.

Forgot to add, thanks for the warm looking banky. Quite appropriate for the upcoming cold months.

:pals:

[dionysus]

14. it's bordering on jacket weather here in the mornings.

i don't envy obama at all. he's got the toughest job in the world, and not only does he have to deal with republicans, he has to deal with the blue dogs too.

I'm almost starting to think he should have proposed his own plan instead of letting congress mess this up like it has.

[Beacool]

20. I think that he should have written his own proposal too

and taken it from there. He could have presented it to Congress and that's when the horse trading would have started. After much tinkering, we may have ended with something more worthy than what I fear we are going to end up.

[dionysus]

23. didn't his campaign proposal have a strong public option? he could have just used that.

[DURHAM D]

9. The big difference between Hillarycare and Obamacare that everyone ignores...

The 1993 plan was written by Hillary, Bill, and their staff. The 2009 plan is being written by insurance lobbyists. That is really all you need to know and nothing else matters. The details are irrelevant.

Were screwed. Something will get passed (because of who wrote it) but it will not benefit middle or low income Americans.

On Edit: And it will benefit the medical insurance providers.

[Beacool]

15. I know, I remember it.

My fear is that we'll end up with some half-assed compromise bill that it's no real reform at all and doesn't benefit the ones who need it the most.

[DURHAM D]

18. Yep. Just follow the writing...

The "reform" discussion is not at all complex. I don't know why anyone thinks the details matter. We (average citizens) are just not at the table.

[SpartanDem]

19. It was written by the people who are fighting it's passage?

[DURHAM D]

24. The millions of dollars being spent by the insurance industry

to radicalize and use the population as tools is part of their process for "writing" the legislation. It is still very much a work in progress. Or, from my view the reverse of progress.

[karynnj]

21. Gee I never knew Senator Kennedy's staff were industry lobbyists

Hillary also worked with insurance people - and briefly refused to say who she and Ira Magaziner met with in the development of her plan.

[DURHAM D]

22. What's the number on the Kennedy bill? nt

[ProSense]

28. "The 2009 plan is being written by insurance lobbyists. " Ridiculous. It was written by Kennedy

Waxman's committee in the House, a bill that is currently signed off on by the progressive caucus.

[joeycola]

29. There are a few articles posted a few weeks ago saying they are happy (insurance

industry) with the current plans put out (for the most part). Drats.

[Drunken Irishman]

10. How can it be a big step backwards to something that never got off the ground?

[JTFrog]

13. It's still opposite day in HillaryWorld. n/t

[Beacool]

17. It may never have gotten off the ground.

2009 is not 1993, but was it a better written bill that what we'll end up with this time around? That's the question. I'm not criticizing Obama, I just don't think that the whole thing has been handled very well. I, and most people, are confused about what this bill will look like when all is said and done. People are genuinely afraid, the unknown is always scary.

[JTFrog]

25. Oh noes! Not the scary unknown unknowns!

:eyes:

There are known knowns. There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don’t know.

The fearmongers appreciate your help.

[Drunken Irishman]

26. It doesn't matter if it's better written.

It still failed.

That's the difference.

[ProSense]

27. No, it's pure nonsense.

Obama's plan includes everything and more, and one major difference from both Hillary's plans: catastrohpic health coverage. This is the key that's going to cut cost and prevent bankruptcy. Obama picked this up from Kerry's 2004 plan.