Sorry to say, (4.00 / 2)

but this sounds like a bit of theatrics.  Clinton's plan is for us to pay the insurance companies, plain and simple, "divisive rhetoric" notwithstanding.

The more efficient system is to socialize health insurance in the same sense as Social Security for retirement.  Cut out the middle men - the insurance companies.  Of course, more efficient still would be national health care, but, despite the success of these programs in most of the industrialized world, I doubt that this country is ready for that leap of political consciousness.

By the way - did I mention that I'm running for president?

---

by: paul spencer @ Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 15:21:09 PM UTC

Absolutely! (4.00 / 1)

Until then, we have healthcare insurance, not healthcare.  And, it's actually the politics of Healthcare Insurance.  That's why, Edwards', Obama's, and Clinton's plans are not, "fine."

---

by: leonard @ Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 16:28:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Profit (0.00 / 0)

In Clinton's plan you will be able to buy into Medicare if you don't want any of your money to go to insurance company profits. Many people actually like the insurance that they currently have. They don't want to be forced into the government system. This system puts the choice in everyone's hands.

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

---

by: kazumatan @ Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 01:10:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

My understanding is that: (0.00 / 0)

1) her proposal is not detailled enough to suggest such a choice, but 2) the Medicare alternative is connected with some income threshold.  If I'm wrong, I apologize for this part of my reply.

I agree with your resistance to mandated membership in a government-controlled system, but I and, I think, a large majority of our citizens would choose to join that system.

The main point for me, though, is that I do not want my tax money to be passed on to for-profit insurance companies.  Nor do I want my tax money to be wasted on a whole new regulatory bureaucracy to police a new health insurance scheme, when a simple expansion of Medicare benefits will suffice.

By the way - did I mention that I'm running for president?

---

by: paul spencer @ Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 04:22:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You seem to have some misconceptions (0.00 / 0)

Judge it yourself by reading the summary or the full proposal.

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

---

by: kazumatan @ Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 10:17:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I looked, and I don't think that (0.00 / 0)

I have any misconceptions.  In fact, the Medicare piece says specifically that her plan will not involve the Medicare trust fund.  Her plan is to make Medicare-style choices available, which is vague enough in the first place, but implies choices from the usual suspects - private insurance companies.  The Congressional/federal-employees-benefit-style piece does state that the bureaucracy dedicated to that segment will be expanded for the use of more citizens.  Neither piece gives criteria for acceptance of citizens into these "plans".  I predict that it will have an income threshold and will not be universally available.

As far as my "whole new regulatory bureaucracy to police a new health insurance scheme" remark, I should have said that this, too, is a prediction.  When you have mandates and funding schemes and targets and controls and reports, you will have a regulatory bureaucracy.

By the way - did I mention that I'm running for president?

---

by: paul spencer @ Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 16:07:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hello man (0.00 / 0)

Medicare parts A and B have nothing to do with insurance companies. You get part C which involves HMOs and PPOs if you choose. Part D, the prescription drug benefit involves private insurers without the ability to negotiate for drug prices which is unfortunate. Hillary says in her health care speeches that she will change Medicare so that the government can negotiate the price of prescription drugs.

The penalty of the mandate is that you don't get your tax credit. The IRS already handles taxes.

Anyone will be able to enroll in the Medicare and the federal employee benefit plan because you purchase it by paying a premium.

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

---

by: kazumatan @ Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 02:17:04 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Trust (0.00 / 0)

The longer this primary continue, the more I believe that there's only one question about the candidates: who do you trust?

And trust doesn't appear to be particularly susceptible to evidence. For whatever reason, I didn't much trust Edwards in 2004. I trust him more now, based on what I've heard--but am I right to trust him? I can't know, not until it's too late.

I don't much trust Clinton's political priorities--though I trust her intelligence and competence and personal warmth--but maybe people I respect _do_ trust her. I don't particularly trust Wes Clark, but he trusts Clinton, and many people I trust -do- trust him.

Same with Obama. I often find myself thinking, 'I wish he'd so this or that,' because I mistrust what I take to be his orientation toward the wrong kind of bipartisanship. However, many people who know him better--and, frankly, know more-or-less -everything- better--than I do, trust him wholeheartedly.

I dunno. I guess this isn't much of a contribution. I just wonder, sometimes, if all the facts and evidence we throw into this conversation, all the analysis, are simply ways of measuring the correct level of trust. But I'm pretty sure trust doesn't work that way.

---

by: Joel @ Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 15:50:10 PM UTC

I don't trust on this (0.00 / 0)

The fact is she's getting money from the Big Insurance on this. And in her own words she has said that she will not persue this until her second term. Unless thats changed, I don't believe this is important to her despite what she was forced to do by actually having a plan.

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 17:50:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Point of information (0.00 / 0)

When you say

I thought Clinton's plan, like Edwards's and Obama's, was fine.

in what sense, exactly, are you using the word fine?

If you mean, no worse than could be expected, given the impossibility of substantial reform in the foreseeable future, some readers might mislead themselves...

---

by: skeptic06 @ Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 17:49:06 PM UTC

Hillary's commitment to health care. (4.00 / 2)

One thing I feel really confident of from my days working with her on this issue: she is extremely passionate about this issue. I would be very surprised if it's not her top domestic priority.

---

by: Mike Lux @ Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 20:03:23 PM UTC