Jeff, I have the federal plan and it's great.
The Republics will cast a Hillary plan as socialism but I doubt the people who need health care will care a whit what it's called.
Posted by Sally at August 24, 2007 12:01 PMno Sally, those in need won't care. But as you point out, the GOP will be howling from the git go. It will be a familiar sound in a Hillary Clinton Administration. Each and every piece of any proposal will be subject to the GOP Screech Machine.
Posted by T2 at August 24, 2007 12:38 PMWell, Jeff, I've also had a lot of time to think about improving healthcare over the past 20 years, as I have actually been inside the system every day. Overhaul is mandatory, and this is too incremental. Paying doctors to receive certifications in specialties?? Physician skills levels are not what is causing lack of access, and we already overutilize high tech, expensive equipment, this will exacerbate part of the problem.
Posted by RollaMO at August 24, 2007 12:47 PMAs I flipped through channels the other night, I heard Hannity talking about how the democrats were so far left of mainstream because they want universal health care. He didn't say socialized medicine or single-payer gov't-run healthcare, he said universal coverage. If that's out of the mainstream, he's out of his mind. (But we know that already.)
Re: Hillary's plan--
Her universal plan is not going to be a single-payer government system
Good--I don't want that.
let people join the federal employee insurance program
I know that my father, a retired gov't worker who has this insurance, is against this, but I can't remember why. I think it had to do with it being an option really only for the currently uninsured, which might put a lot of unhealthy people into the system and bog it down. Maybe if it was one of many options, all more or less equally good, it wouldn't be a problem. But I can't remember his exact concerns.
Let's just take a look at the hightlights and see just see what the approach rate might be to universal coverage under Hillary's "plan".
• Spend $125 million to create a public-private, health quality trust that will measure the certification programs to ensure they remain on the cutting edge of research and technology.
Doesn't do anything to enroll more uninsured in any sort of coverage. Negative.
• Create a Best Practices Institute that would fund and display state of the art research.
Doesn't do anything to enroll more uninsured in any sort of coverage. Negative.
Might do something to help contain growth in health care costs, if major investment isn't required to achieve "best practices". That's usually not the case.
• Give more federal funding on an emergency basis to train more nurses, retain new ones and get more racial and ethnic diversity in the field.
Doesn't do anything to enroll more uninsured in any sort of coverage. Negative.
Might help to restrain growth in health care costs.
• Spend $50 million to create a quality database that is easy for patients and loved ones to navigate.
Doesn't do anything to enroll more uninsured in any sort of coverage. Negative.
What are these "patients and loved ones" who aren't enrolled in health care insurance supposed to be looking for? The types of care they don't have access to?
• Spend $50 million to support a clinical care program that promotes ethnic and racial diversity.
Doesn't do anything to enroll more uninsured in any sort of coverage. Negative.
This is chump change. If she were proposing a $50 billion program, then we might be talking.
• Increase federal reimbursement to models of care that don’t treat individual symptoms or diseases but care for the person as whole.
Doesn't do anything to enroll more uninsured in any sort of coverage. Negative.
• Clinton supports the recent Medicare ban on payment for accidents or infections acquired in the hospital and would prevent insurers who cover federal workers from passing on those costs in their insurance rates.
Doesn't do anything to enroll more uninsured in any sort of coverage. Negative.
This only benefits the insurers. It sounds noble, but most insurers already have provisions preventing their absorbig any of these types of costs.
• Create a paperless system that would allow doctors, nurses and patients to easily access patient information.
Doesn't do anything to enroll more uninsured in any sort of coverage. Negative.
These programs are hellishly expensive. She judiciously avoids mentioning how it's to be funded.
In sum toto, Hillary's new plan is really a health insurer's bailout program. Almost all of her program points are intended to reduce the costs for insurers. It does nothing to expand coverage. Have her handlers explained just how it's supposed to broaden coverage or are they triangulating a rapid response?
Posted by PrahaPartizan at August 24, 2007 01:08 PMGod she's fucking pathetic. I guess you do have to, uh, compromise when you're the NUMBER ONE RECIPIENT in the entire Senate of Health Insurer & Pharmaceutical campaign bribes err donations.
This site, after this post, is being removed from my bookmarks.
Enjoy shilling for a sure loser, sellouts.
And good riddance.
Posted by God Of War at August 24, 2007 01:18 PMThis isn't an overhaul, it's just a paint job. Expanding coverage means spend more federal money so the poor get coverage, while the middle class continues to be tied to employer based coverage (which essentially means no coverage outside an employer based group plan) and increased taxes to pay for the new/ expanded programs for the poor.
And we certainly don't need another national database set up which includes personal health information. There are enough private ones to go around as it is.
We won't significantly change anything about healthcare unless we take insurance company profits out of the decision making process, and that isn't going to happen so long as their lobbyists have any payoff money left. And to say you can't make any significant changes because "you've gotta' have the votes" is defeatist and shows no vision.
This is a joke. Hillary is the corporate lap dog. No wonder they want her to be elected so badly.
Posted by Cosrai at August 24, 2007 01:36 PMUniversal-no, single payor let's talk. Switzerland uses a single payor, if you can't afford it, the government pays for your HMO. This HMO is a base coverage with co-pays, a minimum for all. People already covered keeps whatever they have now or can opt out to this base coverage if wanted. Pardon me for now, but I'd talk about this type of coverage. Universal is too expensive and too bulky. It begs for abuse.
As an aside, ever check cancer survival percentages five years after diagnosis? American males have a 66% rate, females 62%. Compare with Englands NHS, males 44.8%, females 52.7%. No wonder George Harrison went to UCLA to get treatment, he wanted to live and knew the NHS wouldn't help him. 22% better here in America and 9% better for females!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/Content/displayPrintable.jhtml;jsessionid=0RM2VSIMJ4TINQFIQMFCFGGAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2007/08/21/ncancer121.xml&site=5&page=0
Posted by peter at August 24, 2007 02:02 PMThere is a simple, right and fair solution, single payer. A sigle payer system results in complete coverage, lowers costs and boosts the economy by letting Widget Inc. concentrate and invest its money on building Widgets and not worrying about what health care plan they have for their employees. All that shite Hillary is talking about is, well shite. The US government through Medicare and Medicaid already pay for the health care of the eldery and poor, two of the most costly demographics to cover. Why should the private insurers be allowed to operate with 25% more overhead just to insure the healthy Americans? It is corporate welfare at it's worse.
Posted by Howd at August 24, 2007 02:10 PMAnother reason not to support Hillary---Cuba! cleve
Posted by cleve at August 24, 2007 03:34 PMWhy on earth are we supposed to be impressed with this crap? All this amounts to is some really expensive tinkering around the edges of a huge problem. It's just public financing of private profits and it won't help the 50 million people without healthcare. I bet the insurers love it though. Less healthcare for us and more free money for them.
No wonder Hillary raises more cash from the medical industry than anyone else in the Senate. At least THEY are getting their money's worth, eh?
Posted by Rick at August 24, 2007 05:41 PMMedicare for all -- that will automatically fix many of the problems in the healthcare system. The nursing shortage is because there aren't enough slots available in nursing school and that's because they are underfunded and consequently understaffed. Get the payment system in place first and then deal with whatever other problems can be fixed by public policy.
Why do these people have to make everything so damn complicated? If Billary had been in the WH after FDR they would have pushed through a fifty plan to integrate the military.
Posted by Marie at August 24, 2007 05:44 PMI like Hillary's plan, it makes a lot of sence.
She seems to be the only one with sence and a real plan that can help everyone.
Hillary has my vote. Thank you.
Posted by New Age at August 24, 2007 05:59 PM22% better here in America and 9% better for females!
Um, Peter dear, that's for the people who can afford to be treated. Any guess what the survival rate is when you can't afford to treat your cancer?
A baby born in the United States in 2004 will live an average of 77.9 years. That life expectancy ranks 42nd, down from 11th two decades earlier, according to international numbers provided by the Census Bureau and domestic numbers from the National Center for Health Statistics....Forty countries, including Cuba, Taiwan and most of Europe had lower infant mortality rates than the U.S. in 2004.... source
And Peter, it may surprise you -- I doubt it takes much to surprise you -- but those horribly badly treated Britons outlive Americans, on the average.
It took all of thirty seconds to google the facts needed to make you look like a food. Must suck to be you.
"you look like a food. Must suck to be you.
Posted by sunsin at August 24, 2007 06:52 PM"
A steak, a lobster, a nice Nathan's dog?
I don't think so. The Telegraph provided cancer stats. It seems those more able don't stay in England. They leave for America amongst other places. The cancer field is ever growing and the English results are not too engaging. The comparative rates aren't looking at means just results. Men have a 66% survival rate of living past 5 years. Women have a 62% survival rate past the same 5 years. In England the numbers are just dismal 44.8% for men and 52.7 for women. Apples to apples with no means testing. Can people afford it. If I have cancer, I want to live in America.
NHS is seeing system wide cutbacks in staff and services. Those left get the long lines. I remember The Chief Justice of the Canadian Supreme Court saying that public health care isn't the privilege to wait in a line. The Canadian system had a three week strike a few years ago, probably several. All the heart work was placed on hold. Unfortunately some 28 souls hearts couldn't last through the strike. When the parties settled the strike, all northern states hospitals did a fine business as the Canadian HC system subbed out the heart work to our hospitals. If we're all universal, where would they go? Would these unions go across country lines?
Single payer is the better method. It does reduce abuses to the system. Nobody ever complains about the Swiss health care system.
Posted by peter at August 24, 2007 07:29 PMIf you want to put an end to the Republiklan party, then
Send this letter to the Republican party now! Also put this on your web page so others can see it.
Copy and paste the letter below and email it directly to info@gop.com the Republican Party and get 2 friends to send this letter and have those 2 friends get 2 friends to send it and so on. Thank you. Drop me a message to info@dmocrats.org with the subject Done after you have sent the email.
Hello
Get your Republican party to end the war in Iraq, with Bush and Cheney resigning, and until you do we stop buying televisions, refrigerators, stoves, ovens, dishwashers, dvd players, stereo equipment, light bulbs from one of your party's major contributors and War contractors General Electric Corporation ( 203 373 2211 ) who cannot afford to lose a large sector of the publics business and money.
Get your Republican party to remove the FICA taxable income cap and tax all of a person's income for social security purposes and enact HR 676 Single payer universal health care into law and repeal Medicare Part D and place the prescription drug benefit in Medicare Part B covering 80 percent of all medication with no extra premiums, no extra deductibles, no means tests, no coverage gaps, and completely remove the means test to Medicare Part B and until you do, we will not buy consumer products and prescription drugs from one of the biggest pharmacy chains and GOP contributors in the country, Rite Aid and we will not buy health insurance from Blue Cross Blue Shield and Aetna, the 2 biggest health insurance companies that give money to the GOP as well, who cannot afford to lose a large sector of the publics business and money.
Get your Republican party to enact a $10 an hour minimum wage, and until you do, we will not go to the following restaurants and GOP contributors Wendy's, Outback Steakhouse, Olive Garden, Red Lobster, and Dominos Pizza who cannot afford to lose a large sector of the publics business and money.
Get your Republican party to enact into law Universal vote by mail with paper ballots counted by civil servants with civil servants registering voters and keeping track of registrations, and until you do, we will not buy any GOP contributor Dell computers or monitors or go to the following restaurants and GOP contributors Wendy's, Outback Steakhouse, Olive Garden, Red Lobster, and Dominos Pizza who cannot afford to lose a large sector of the publics business and money.
Get your Republican party to get congress to pass and enact a law legalizing abortions from conception to six months, and to nine months when the life of the mother appears threatened, and until you do we stop doing business with two of your biggest contributors Dominos Pizza and Curves for Women Health Clubs.
Signed,
Posted by www.dmocats.org at August 25, 2007 12:54 AMA TLC, it looks like you've been SPAMed.
Posted by peter at August 25, 2007 03:53 AMThe last paragraph in the Dinelli piece says it all for Hillary.
"You have to wait and negotiate, and you have to elect me to be the negotiator. Trust me."
I'm sorry. I don't trust you. You have not exhibited anything I think I can trust.
Posted by gtash at August 25, 2007 05:04 AMPretty much another very good reason to have nothing to do with Hillary unless forced to. Chump change programs for the public, but a big privacy-invading database for the insurers? She gets a -10 for her policy and a +1 for the fact that's she's honest enough to tell us she's going to do squat for anyone who's not a corporation.
It does give the Hillary shills something to push though. Too bad it's so pathetic.
Posted by Tim at August 25, 2007 09:52 AMShe hasn't even released the whole plan yet, what are you guys bitching about? Do you just bitch to bitch? If it's Hillary you hate it, just cause it's Hillary. (A) it's a classic example why we always lose the big elections, no sense of reality, all my way or no way. (B) You're a bunch of self righteous all opinion, no facts pull the Democratic party down, IDIOTS
Posted by Pamela at August 25, 2007 12:37 PMThis wasn't about access. It was about quality. Gee, keeping doctors up to date about the latest techniques in medicine is a good thing. Solving the nursing crisis given the aging baby boomer generation is another good thing. Also, she talked about taking a more holistic approach to treating disease, as they do in several other countries with better outcomes. People need to stop with the knee jerk reactions to anything Hillary says. I would have liked to hear more about the oncology shortage, because that is another huge problem, but this is good stuff. It's not all about access, it's also about quality.
Posted by Melanie at August 25, 2007 12:53 PMSome of these comments are ridiculous. Hillary is rolling out her plan in three parts. The third and last part, which she promised next month, will be about coverage. This wasn't supposed to be about coverage. The first two parts were about controlling costs and increasing quality.
Posted by Mark at August 25, 2007 04:10 PMNo Melanie, it is all about access. Who gives a shit how great the service is if you can't get a table?
And Pamela/ Mark, why the three part approach? Is it so she can change the plan based on the feedback she gets after rolling out part one, then make other message adjustments after part two hits the streets? Yea, what a visionary that Hillary is...
Posted by Cosrai at August 25, 2007 06:56 PMI work in the business office of a health care provider. We all know the current system needs improvement. I do not think that a single payer like Medicare is the answer. CMS tells the insurance companies that process Medicare claims what to do. They have some flexibility in interpretation thus in some states there are less hurdles than in others. Medicare does not make it easy to submit and process complex claims. There is a lot of paperwork to be shuffled and that requires time and resourses. The system needs simplification.
I would think the two biggest improvements would be a universal identification number and standardized benefits. Way to much time is currently spent hunting for insurance eligibility and then determining the level of benefits.
I will be curious to see how Hillary proposes to handle univeral coverage.
Posted by fred at August 27, 2007 10:18 AM