As one that is certainly not in the Camp Hillary, rhetoric like this:
1) they come from Hillary
really, destroys the credibility of the rest of the post. It is just not true. I used to be in the Hillary camp before she announced "officially" I watched, with high hopes, her actions and plans. I read and evaluate as much as I can about all the candidates. Then to read this kind of dismissive crap is insulting.
While I'm sure that it holds true for some, it is certainly not the plurality of people. Its disappointing to see well founded advocacy for your candidate ruined with such comments.
FWIW, I found plenty of people talking about Hillary's health plan yesterday. I admit that I was happier with it than I thought I would be based upon the snippets released before the unveiling.
Single payer should be the goal. Its not going to be happening overnight and I see nothing from Hillary that really sees that as the end-game. Trivializing everyone not in your corner as "all-or-nothing" is simply rhetorical sillyness.
Posted by Simp at September 18, 2007 09:40 AMLoL when people complain about insurers. Do people pay insurances for cars and/or houses? Why don't people demand that Allstate or Statefarm be banned from doing biz ? Get a life people. We have an existing system, it is not very perfect but it is workable if we can implement a sensible health care plan. First product of any kind usually sucks but we can fine tune it and make it better but first we need to create the product. I am sure the first health care plan won't satisfy all but it is first step toward a better product.
This comment makes two assumptions, "Demanding single payer...universal health care is an attainable goal in 2009 makes one wonder if the goal is to lose on principle or to fix the system."
One is that if we demanded "single payer" we would lose and two that going with a plan like Clinton's does in fact "fix the system."
One is probably true but not certain while two is false.
If by "fixing" the system you mean covering those now not covered, we could probably do that in some fashion. But tell me again why we would want to perpetuate the status quo?
Isn't it the case that in MA where something similar has been tried, you just find that many people can't afford the insurance? Don't the costs keep skyrocketing? Don't the insurance companies rake in their 30%? And, don't the Pharm companies make medicine artificially and prohibitively expensive.
Why would anyone consider perpetuating the status quo but force the uninsured to buy insurance?
While many of us think that the ultimate goal should be a single payer system, it certainly can't be accomplished in our current milieu of corruption and political cowardice, or perhaps "professionalism" would be a better term. Permanent politicians will simply not take any risks which might lose them the gravy train.
However, I think the Edwards plan is superior, for the simple reason that it DOES provide a bridge to a much better system than Hillary's. As Paul Krugman pointed out in his column, all the way back in Feb. 9
People who don't get insurance from their employers wouldn't have to deal individually with insurance companies: they'd purchase insurance through ''Health Markets'': government-run bodies negotiating with insurance companies on the public's behalf. People would, in effect, be buying insurance from the government, with only the business of paying medical bills -- not the function of granting insurance in the first place -- outsourced to private insurers.
That's the compromise that I think could work, and it's probably what scared the Hell out of the insurance and big Pharma companies. They are afraid that people would like the government run program far more than they like what we've got now.
So, Steve, I want to be practical too. And I'm sure we're all smart enough to figure out it's a tough row to hoe. But I don't think Hillary's plan of working with her friends in the industry is going to lead to the kind of ultimate reform we desperately need. Why don't you tell me what is better in her plan than in the Edwards plan. Or is it more the messenger than the message?
Posted by DeminNewJ at September 18, 2007 11:09 AMDeminNewJ:
Will you not insurance for your cars and/or house?
Posted by john at September 18, 2007 11:18 AMWill you not insurance for your cars and/or house?
Does your car insurance cover routine maintainance?
Home owners insurance cover routine upkeep on your house?
It's a flawed analogy.
Posted by snark at September 18, 2007 11:28 AM
...even though I agree that insurance and drug companies are culpable for the mess we are in now, the reality is that they fund political candidates, and therefore, the "anti-Hillary" people are stupid and short sighted to demand single payer and not smart enough to see that Sen Clinton along with her insurance and drug company supporters will fix the mess. Why? Because elected officials that work best with corporations in the health care industry get things done. Just like Haley Barbour and the drug companies did to fix the Medicare prescription drug problem.
Thunk -- why didn't I think of that? How silly of me not to recognize that my opposition to policies promoted by Hillary (and to a great extent those of her predecessor in the WH Bill) is only a disguise for irrational anti-Hillaryism. With that all cleared up, why I can now see how wise she was to tell us that Saddam's WMD were gonna get us if we didn't get him first. And that's is so important for the state to make sure that abortion is, as she says, "safe, legal and rare - and I do mean rare." "Rare" because we all know that abortion is really icky, bad and wrong, and if we make it "rare," we'll protect poor women who can't possibly have the intellectual skills to understand the consequences of their decision to terminate a pregnancy. It takes a Vassar type of girl to make such a decision, and for them, the state must keep it "safe and legal."
Note to self: Prepare "To Do Lists" for the next 400 days. #1 Visit Hillary website; #2 Visit TLC and read Steve and Jeff who will set me straight should my stinkin thinking interfere with my ability to comprehend the wise words of Hillary.
Excuse me, but I must be off now to share all my new found wisdom with the IDIOT who still thinks that single payer healthcare is economically rational.
Posted by Marie at September 18, 2007 11:29 AM
Health care costs for medical services continue to rise over and above the official rate of inflation. Premiums for insurance to cover these costs also continue to rise. In response, consumers are being forced to bear more of the cost through higher deductibles and co-payents.
The loss of high quality jobs due to out-sourcing is contunually shrinking the pool of premium payors, resulting in an actuarial necessity to further rase insurance rates.
Our current health care system is in a death spiral and I would look for a continuing deterioration in the health of the general public for lack of medical care in the future.
Posted by at September 18, 2007 11:52 AMThe best thing about HillaryCare is her funding mechanism: Reverse Bush's tax cuts on Americans earning more than $250,000 a year. Hill is wrong on many things -- especially on foreign policy issues, but she's spot-on here.
Posted by Christopher at September 18, 2007 12:02 PMThe GOP and their watercarriers are already screeching about the cost of HillaryCare: $110 billion a year.
Gee, that works out to be $9.2 billion a month v. let's see, maybe the cost of Bush's Iraq war which is costing the American taxpayer $12 billion a month.
So, end the Iraq war, implement HillaryCare and the American taxpayer saves $2.9 billion a month or $34 billion a year and guess what? Every American has healthcare.
What a concept! Even the dumbest Repug should be able to comprehend this.
Posted by Christopher at September 18, 2007 12:09 PMUh oh, more stikin thinking out there in the "anti-Hillary" part of the internet. Why John Nichols thinks that Hillary's latest healthcare reform plan will be very expensive for taxpayers and will mean greater profits for insurers. Wonder where he got such a stupid and silly idea? Hasn't he looked at Medicare Part D and seen that taxpayers got more bang for their bucks, reduced profits for insurers and drug companies and the public positively loves it?
Posted by Marie at September 18, 2007 12:38 PMMedicare Part D is a mess. My 95 year old grandmother hit the so-called "donut hole" and was forced to cough up more than $3,000 dollars until Part D kicked in again. Why aren't the Democrats in congress dealing with this? Not enough votes, I guess. That seems to be Nancy and Harry's excuse for everything.
Posted by Christopher at September 18, 2007 12:45 PMChristopher - without that "donut hole," the taxpayers might see that Medicare Part D is a scam to enrich those who wrote the legislation. You know, the ones who hold the real votes in Congress. Your 95 year old grandmother is nothing but a consumer vehicle to continue the transfer of wealth to those who deserve to have more and more.
Posted by Marie at September 18, 2007 01:49 PMThe public trusts Hillary because they are told they are going to trust Hillary.
Posted by Judith at September 18, 2007 02:22 PM"Complaints that she will simply sell out to corporate interests neglect the fact that she is leaving it to a largely Democratic congress in 2009 to flesh out the details."
So, although we can't trust Hillary not to be bought and paid-for by Corporate interests, we should have more faith in the Democratic Congress?
Umm..the same Democratic Congress that not only will not stop, but is actively perpetuating the occupation of Iraq? The same Democratic Congress that refuses to draw a line in the sand between Iraq and an invasion of Iran? The same Democratic Congress, many of whom voted for the Patriot Act, the reauthorization of the Patriot Act, the Bankruptcy Bill, and the original Iraq Resolution that allowed this 1998-Neocon-Contrived evil plan and propaganda to happen in the first place?
My...that IS RICH!
"...makes one wonder if the goal is to lose on principle or to fix the system."
Well God knows that we would hate to have a party that WOULD EVER choose any moment in time to stand on principle. Like say, just prior to scattering cluster bombs and depleted uranium shells all over a country that posed no threat to the United States. Not at all a time to 'stand on principle' there, was it? Guess not, because Miss Hillary was all about 'compromise' back in 2003.
Posted by Tampa Student at September 18, 2007 03:09 PMMarie - You're so correct. Harry and Nancy have their medical. My 95 grandmother is just a financial burden on the government. Again, where are the Dems? Why haven't they closed the so-called "donut hole?" No wonder the Congress is at 23% approval.
Posted by Christopher at September 18, 2007 03:51 PMChristopher - re: 23% approval for the DEM controlled Congress. That number is right about where public support for a DLC DEM party stands. Where President Hillary will stand in the polls once the euphoria of a DEM in the WH wears off those DEMs who vote for her because the only other options are a GOP loon, LIB loon and maybe a Green loon.
Posted by Marie at September 18, 2007 04:09 PMSpot on!
As much as one dislikes health insurance companies, getting rid of them overnight towards a single payer system would be disastrous.....
Imagine the chaos!
This is just right...allow choices and monitor then for their usage.
And shares it with business, government and individuals/families together says its all...
So it will be need the congress to do something!
Posted by mp at September 18, 2007 04:16 PMMarie - I'm sure Hillary will have a sparkling honeymoon and bask the glory of being the first U.S. woman president, Bill sightings will abound, appearances on Today, GMA, Meet the Press, This Week, etc., but if she doesn't deliver the goodies she's promising, her honeymoon will be even shorter than that of the 2006 Democratic congress.
Posted by Christopher at September 18, 2007 05:07 PMSilly Steve. The day after Hillary is elected, she will have lower popularity that Bush did when he was elected. The same mass marketing campaigns that were effective against her attempts in 1992 will be if full force, but with the advantage of her having faced a grueling two=month battle where she will have barely eked out a victory. After day one, it will be all down hill. The new Democratic administration will be in bunker mode for four years until she is easily defeated by Jeb (or some other new Republican model).
Point is: Hillary, if elected, will be fighting for survival from the outset. And worse, she all but admits that it's perfectly fine that the very corporate powers that really must be destroyed for real progress to buy her a ticket to the White House. It's hard, after reading you for several years now to believe that you even believe what you're writing in support of her.
Posted by NealB at September 18, 2007 06:23 PMYou're kidding yourself if you believe Clinton's plan or any plan that maintains a multi-payer system is somehow going to lead to a single-payer system. It will just further strengthen the hold that private insurers already have over the system and over politicians.
Also, if you don't believe single-payer works, try telling that to countries that have already implemented it.
On the flip side, Massachusetts is trying the "universal" aka mandatory insurance route, and it's a mess. Hundreds of thousands remain uninsured, the premiums are higher than expected, the deductibles are higher than expected, there are lifetime caps when the initial proposal banned them, etc...
Posted by mciabi at September 18, 2007 06:30 PMEven the dumbest Repug should be able to comprehend this.
Surely you jest.
Does your car insurance cover routine maintainance?
Home owners insurance cover routine upkeep on your house?
ROFLMAO!!
Posted by phidipides at September 18, 2007 08:43 PMDo you disagree that comparing state mandated car insurance and home owners insurance to individual mandated healthcare insurance is a flawed analogy? I can thujnk of a number of reasons why it is. Thé most obvious being that the vast majority of the lower income people without healthcare insurance don't owner a car or a home. So using car insurance as an example of a successful state mandate is pointless. If you can't afford insurance you don't have a car. That's the problem we're trying to fix re healthcare, no?
Posted by snark at September 19, 2007 04:35 AMI can thujnk of a number of reasons why it is.
"Thujnk?" Is that Polish?
Posted by Christopher at September 19, 2007 05:33 AMIf you'd like it to be Polish it can be Polish Christopher.
Posted by snark at September 19, 2007 05:54 AMWhichever plan wins, that is the plan we will be stuck with. There will be no "step two". If you don't believe me, just watch how quickly this Dem Congress fixes what's wrong with the current incredibly incompetent (and corrupt?)Medicare prescription plan.
Posted by Julie at September 19, 2007 09:01 AM