"Sicko's" contention that a once-idealistic Hillary was "bought out" by the Health Care Industry...

[Matsubara]

If you watch Moore's excellent film, you will be regaled with all facets of the US Health Care non-system, from the history of the original HMO, Kaiser Permanente, and how Nixon helped to make it the model for most worker's health insurance today, to President Clinton's naming his wife Hillary to head up his task force to come up with a Universal Health Care system for the United States.

He accurately depicts GOP opposition to the plan, as well as the hundreds of millions of dollars the health insurance companies spent to defeat it.

He then shows how in later years, Hillary's "silence was bought" by the health insurance companies.

Watching "Sicko's" version of the story, you are left with the impression that Ms. Clinton went into Washington as some naive do-gooder with a grand socialist plan to give us all free care a la the UK and Canada, but after suffering defeat, gave in to cynicism and became a shill for the health insurance industry.

I personally don't think either image is really accurate.


The Clinton Health Care plan, far from being a "socialist single-payer system" would have represented a multibillion-dollar giveaway to the health insurance industry.

I suppose that by including them in the plan, Ms. Clinton felt she could gain some of their support.

But looking at the successful universal health care systems around, it's clear that it is the ones WITHOUT private insurers involved that provide the best care to the most people for the least amount of money per capita.


So the notion that Ms. Clinton went from an adversary of the health insurance industry to an apologist is not really true - she has been warm to them from the beginning, despite their aversion to her plan.

And she hasn't really fallen silent on the issue of health care, it's still a major part of her platform in running for president, she's just a lot less ambitious in her objectives now.



Here's an article on the sizeable donations she's been getting recently from the health care industry.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/12/nyregion/12donate.html?ex=1310356800&en=0882715139712152&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss



But she still makes universal "affordable" healthcare a major campaign platform plank:

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



This post isn't really an endorsement or a condemnation of Ms. Clinton or her stance on health care, I just wanted to correct the mistaken notion that she somehow went from a lefty idealist to a cynical sellout over the course of 14 years. She's actually been much more consistent than that, and the truth lies somewhere in between.

[Cleita]

1. If you look at her campaign contributions she's getting a lot

of money from the health care industry, which is weird because they were the ones who railroaded her plan to begin with. I guess they see the handwriting on the wall and figure Hillary is the devil they know.

[Selatius]

2. The original plan proposed during the Clinton years was complex and as a result full of pitfalls.

It would've likely been simpler and cheaper if she had rode on a platform of single-payer. It would've been far easier for the people to understand and would've likely cut down on health care spending per capita by the end of the decade.

[JHB]

12. I recall it being characterized as combining the worst aspects...

...of both public and private systems.

(Characterized that way by people on the left, that is. On the right, they just all sqwalked "socialism")

[papau]

13. Hillary's orginal plan was single payer - before the task force began Bill ordered single

payer off the table.

Moor has it more or less correct - except as to his assertion as to motive.

I don't believe - and most folks - indeed just about all in the GOP - do not believe she has changed from being what could be called a "DUer" - but she is more aware of corporate power.

It will be interesting to see what Part 2 and Part 3 of her health proposal looks like.

[Matsubara]

14. I hope that you're right, because I think she and Edwards are the most viable candidates.

And as a matter of fact, I think the two of them together would be a very strong ticket.

I have had my qualms with a lot of things she's done, but have hoped that her compromises were in the interest of achieving long-term progressive goals.


The problem is that once you throw in with corrupt money men, after a few years you start to forget what you stood for in the beginning.

[and-justice-for-all]

3. Finding balance with tryanny..

...is unacceptable. Insurance Companies are tyrants and theives..

What she did was go from NHCP to "well, lets keep the big 5." what the hell is that? Insurance is the rape of this country and for her to back off of her NHCP was due to the $100Million dollar campaign against her to back off. I would have gave those folks to finger and told them to go fuck themselves, but it seems to be the American Politician way to NOT do the right thing. Those who do cave into pressure or are mussled by the corrupt mainstream media.

Hillary is taking bank for BigPharma, along with other Rethugs and Dems. I look forward to hearing their excuses when Michael Moore testifies before congress and gets in the Presidential Contenders this week; some one needs to put these people to the test.

[Matsubara]

5. That's a fair point and I tend to agree.

I would MUCH rather have a European-type single-payer system than one with the involvement of the US health care mafia.

But there is the school of thought that having the industry involved is a way to get universal care passed, and then the plan could be improved later on.

I tend to disagree with that, but honestly, for a lot of people, it can't possibly get any worse than it already is.


But back to the original point - Hillary was NEVER adversarial to the health insurance companies. She tried to include them from the beginning, despite all the people on the left who did not want them involved.

[napi21]

6. As far as I know, even European universal care claims are

processed through a system similar to what our insurance carriers provide. I know our Medicare is. Basically, it a universal plan takes the profits out of the insurance business and keeps them to process claims.

I think that's actually a good idea. There are millions of workers in that industry that I don't want to see unemployed, and there's a lot of expertiese there as well. To make them non-profit and standardize the codes, establish a nationwide database of information and utilize their expertiese in claims processing could be a very BIG move for the US.

To be honest, I have to go to her web site and read her plan carefully, as well as reading the plans of all the other candidates from their sites. Even Denises plan would still utilize the current ins. companies in claims processing the way they now process Medicare/Medicaid claims.

[ikojo]

10. There are massive profits to be made

in processing Medicare claims or else private insurance companies would not fight so hard for the Medicare contract. How do you think Ross Perot got rich? He had the Medicare contract in Illinois at one time, he lost it to Blue Cross Blue Shield of IL. I don't know who has that contract now, but the private carriers both complain about Medicare and fight to process the claims and administer the benefits.

[ikojo]

9. Since Hillary is not from "the left" she

didn't even consider what anyone to the left of the DLC (and I am in FAR LEFT field from the corporatists in the DLC) wanted.

[riverdale]

4. What the hell was Hillary's plan?

Seriously, ever since the day it was announced that she had a plan back in the 90s, I've never been able to determine what that plan was. I've read all kinds of newspaper articles, etc., but none have explained what the fuck the actual plan was.

[Mend]

11. Good question...I am a physician and I still don't know...Mrs. Clinton forgot

to invite any doctors to her secret four month meetings. We are just the ones to provide health care...which, before government and big business fucked it up back in the 1980's, we used to provide free to fully one-third of our practices. Mrs. Clinton did not see fit to include us.

[w13rd0]

7. The fundamental problem...

...with going to a single payer plan here in the US is that it would amount to the government telling a for-profit industry, "Tough shit, we're killing your golden goose." Many of those companies, and pharmaceutical companies as well, make their massive profits on the backs of working class and the working poor of the United States. You'd essentially be pulling their rug out from under them, and if you think 100 or 200 million to fight Hillary was bad, you'll see a dog backed into a corner willing to pay BILLIONS to keep their coffers filling up with the blood and sweat of US citizens.

[Disturbed]

8. Sen Clinton learned to Triangulate from Bill.

I guess that is what she is best at.

[Kablooie]

15. This must be why Fox news gave it a positive review.

[eridani]

16. She, Edwards and Obama are all making the same mistake

Include the insurance companies, offer them a place at the table, agree to subsidize them and only ask that they insure a few more actual sick people, and they'll get behind providing universal care.

Lucy and Charlie Brown and the football.