Health Care Plan (0.00 / 0)

Based on her speeches I expect that her plan that she will unveil tomorrow will be very good. If it isn't a good plan then I would drop support for her and switch to Edwards.

I you want health care, work hard. If you want universal health care, vote for liberals.

---

by: kazumatan @ Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 09:44:23 AM UTC

Hillarycare does not equal California's SB 840 (4.00 / 4)

This diarist has mixed up California and Massachusetts.  I live in California and have watched the debate here closely.

Hillarycare sounds like corporate welfare for the insurance companies just like it is in Massachusetts.  The news out of Massachusetts, where it is illegal to not buy medical insurance from a private company, is that lots of people are forced to buy policies that are expensive and with high deductibles.  The reason is that insurance companies skim off 20-30% of all insurance dollars. No wonder medical insurance is such a mess in this country.

On the other hand California's SB 840 would set up a single payer system where the government pays all the bills directly.  That is how Medicare works and their overhead cost is just 3%.  The insurance companies are cut out of the loop.

Hillary has taken more money from the insurance industry than any other Presidential candidate, Democrat or Republican.  Of course she is watching California, but she will not bite the hand that feeds her.  If she were serious about a progressive solution to our medical insurance mess, she would support John Conyers' Medicare For All, HR676.  That what Dennis Kucinich is doing.  He is the only Presidential candidate willing to stare down the insurance industry.

---

by: ammasdarling @ Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 11:36:33 AM UTC

If any candidate doesn't say single payer (4.00 / 3)

or support HR 676,
then they support for-profit private insurer health care,
which, incidentally, got us into this mess.

Health insurance mandates are reprehensible, imo.

---

by: Ozzie @ Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 12:37:18 PM UTC

exactly. what we don't need right now is more money (4.00 / 4)

in the hands of the insurance companies. only people who've never really struggled could think that mandatory expenses like this are a "good" idea. they're crap. and how exactly does this solve the increasing unreality that is medical pricing? those costs are spirallying out of control, and just like in the case of the oil markets, there's no real reason for that except greed. programs like this have the added negative in that over time people will come to really hate them, and the right will have yet another wedge against real health care for all, in the guise of "see, hillary's socialized medicine is a failure. we told you."

what is so hard about universal single payer, that so many progressives don't understand why it is the only option that makes any sense? really, it's a simple matter of not falling for the winger trap that "anything run by the gov't fails, and everything run by private, unregulated industry is better." that's been disproven so many times now i've lost count. bottom line: for profit health care is wrong, inhumane, uncivilized, and most importantly to addled brains: more expensive.

---

by: chicago dyke @ Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 12:53:40 PM UTC

It isn't progressive (0.00 / 0)

to propose subsidizing for-profit insurance companies, and that's exactly what she's doing.  There is a huge chasm between universal health care and forcing individuals to buy insurance - and how much of it will be junk policies? - from the people who are in the business of maximizing their profits by obstructing access to care.

---

by: Downtowner @ Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 12:56:33 PM UTC

Re: Hillary gets progressive... (4.00 / 1)

I don't know what getting "progressive" on health care means, since progressives are partly responsible for creating the dismal for-profit heath care affliction we have today.

Getting truly serious about reforming our health care system means supporting HR 676, or something similar, which calls for a single-payer, not-for-profit, national health care for every citizen.

Insurance companies drive up the cost of care and provide nothing in return. They must not be part of any real reform. Anything else means more of the same: Access to care determined by corporate profit rather than individual need.

---

by: fafnir @ Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 13:51:42 PM UTC

UHC = Liberal (0.00 / 0)

To borrow the terms of the original diary, Universal Health Care is Liberal, Single Payer Healthcare is Progressive.

Trumpeting UHC is doubly insulting because it is trying to pander to casual progressives who may not understand the distinction, that UHC is adding to the coffers of the the corporate insurance behemoth as stated above, and that the opportunity for real reform is by eliminating the middle man. To add insult to injury, Hillary of all people KNOWS this, and I've heard her attack the ins industry to make a good applause line, but is proposing corporate welfare.

For Clinton to take this approach with her signature issue is as clear an indicator there could be that she will be another corporate democrat. If she won't take a stand on HC reform of all issues, when would she?

---

by: GreenVTster @ Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 14:47:51 PM UTC

Graying the issue (0.00 / 0)

Universal Health Care is not necessarily good either. If it means giving more money to for-profit carriers it is not good.  If it means that decisions regarding what care someone will or will not receive is in the hands of someone at a for-profit carrier who is tasked with saving the company money that is no good either.

What WOULD be good is a single-payer system managed by medicare. For all the shit people give medicare (they get defrauded a lot) it is an effective, highly-efficient organization.

The hardest part any administration is going to have is how to transition from this crappy system we have now to a single-payer system without severely disrupting the economy. Love them or hate them, the current industry employs a LOT of people and dumping several million people off of employment rolls would hurt.

I am skeptical of Hillary's play knowing how much money she receives from the health care/pharma industries, but we will have to wait and see.

---

by: Jon Niola @ Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 15:10:06 PM UTC

Please, can we stop saying "Single payer"? (4.00 / 1)

It's way too wonky.

What's wrong with Medicare for All?

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

---

by: lambert @ Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 15:39:38 PM UTC

Good point, lambert. (0.00 / 0)

When my less-informed neighbor has to ask, "what is single payer?" (like he did with "net neutrality"), the battle is lost. Medicare is a successful brand with broad acceptance, and it is wise to build upon it rather than redefine it. Medicare for All!

---

by: fafnir @ Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 16:26:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Right now both phrases (0.00 / 0)

are the most commonly used.

Some react to 'medicare for all' negatively as well.
Use whichever phrase gets your point across.
There's so much misinformation that explanations may be necessary.
'Specially if your neighbor is soliciting one.

Here's a great, quirky little flash movie about single payer.

---

by: Ozzie @ Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 17:53:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

still subsidizing the private for-profit insurance industry (4.00 / 1)

fyi: Here is a quickie analysis of Hillary's plan from Don McCanne's at Physicians for a National Health Program:

http://pnhp.org

Hillary Clinton's proposal "preserves existing health insurance," and includes the responsibility of individuals "to get and keep insurance" through the current private insurance market, or through a "Health Choices Menu" of private FEHBP-type plans, or through a Medicare-type public program.

Thus her proposal is an individual mandate to purchase private insurance that is no longer affordable for average-income individuals, or to purchase a public plan that will be even more expensive because of adverse selection.

To make the plans affordable for individuals, she would use a combination of refundable tax credits and a cap on premiums at a percentage of income. Assuming that the plans would provide adequate benefits and adequate protection against financial hardship, the increased spending through the tax system would be exponentially more than the estimates in her plan. And most of the proposed savings to pay for these increases are largely nebulous, and some of those measures would actually increase costs.

Further, the administrative complexities of refundable tax credits and means-tested premium caps would still leave many without coverage. Coverage will never be universal unless it is truly automatic for everyone.

If we are going to use the tax system to pay for health care anyway then why should we waste funds on the profoundly inefficient system of segregated private health plans? A universal risk pool that is equitably funded through the tax system is the most efficient and least expensive method of ensuring comprehensive coverage for everyone.

Many will try to contrast the differences in the Clinton, Obama and Edwards proposals, but they are all basically the same. In spite of their rhetoric, they have each made the protection and enhancement of the private insurance plans a higher priority than patients."
I would only disagree with Don insofar as saying that Obama's plan is significantly even less than this, and Edwards a bit less bad. A pleasant surprise that Hillary's is offering something this "bold" and not a surprise that it is more subsidy and support for the private for profit insurers that have given so much to her campaign.

Once again, time to point out that Medicare overhead of 3-4% versus the private for profits overhead of 15-20% is $350 billion not going to health care, but going to an unneeded middleman. Plus further savings by not having the paperwork involved in determining and rejecting eligibility if everyone is eligible, and all the many other reasons single payer is the way to go to provide Universality & Comprhensive coverage & Cost-control.

---

by: DrSteveB @ Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 21:27:55 PM UTC