I hope Obama is better than the campaign he is running. The distortion he's pushing of Hillary's plan and her previous efforts in health care is laughable. I hope she nails him for this. It's just so hypocritical that someone who it's running on integrity and ethics so often lies about his opponents.
Posted by Masslib at November 24, 2007 06:48 PMHere's a link to some of Hillary's record on health care: http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Hillary_Clinton_Health_Care.htm
She's always been committed to expanding health care to all americans. It's ridiculous to argue otherwise.
Posted by Masslib at November 24, 2007 07:09 PMHillary Clinton is the only candidate with a clear plan for getting out of this health care mess. Anyone who thinks otherwise clearly hasn't been paying attention.
Posted by Vote for Hillary at November 24, 2007 07:59 PMYou all need to check John Edwards' plan again -- which Hillary practically stole verbatim. Including the mandate.
As for "VoteForHillary," (if that is your real name), try reading and regurgitating something besides your candidate's talking points. It's insulting to your own intelligence when you flaunt your ignorance by impugning the ignorance of others.
Steve, I'm really surprised you didn't know that Edwards was the first of the "big three" to come out for mandated coverage. I hope you'll make the appropriate correction. Hillary and Edwards require health care for legal resident. Obama? Not so much, but otherwise it's not a horrible plan.
The problem with Obama's idea, for me, is not so much the lack of mandate (I mean, just how do you enforce it? Throw people in jail for not getting major medical?) But wanting to "sit down" with the health providers and insurers and industry to come to an accord. That seems to be Hillary's idea too. I'd like to see it forced down Congress's throat and flip off the K-street insurance folks in the process.
Edwards isn't talking about a "negotiation." He's going to humiliate, shame and blackmail Congress to do the right thing for once. Hey, it's worth a shot.
But the timing is the real problem, on how to pay for it and so much more. Hillary said we might have UHC by the end of her second term. I don't know if she revised it lately, but that's where she started. Obama wants to pay for it by letting the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010. Edwards wants to repeal those cuts ASAP. The sooner Bush's tax policies are reversed the better IMO.
The Edwards Plan achieves universal coverage by:* Requiring businesses and other employers to either cover their employees or help finance their health insurance.
* Making insurance affordable by creating new tax credits, expanding Medicaid and SCHIP, reforming insurance laws, and taking innovative steps to contain health care costs.
* Creating regional "Health Care Markets" to let every American share the bargaining power to purchase an affordable, high-quality health plan, increase choices among insurance plans, and cut costs for businesses offering insurance.
* Once these steps have been taken, requiring all American residents to get insurance.
Mark:
I appreciate your input, and support for Edwards and his plan. But as you will notice from the Kaiser Family Foundation analysis of Edwards' plan, individuals are "expected" to obtain insurance once plans are deemed affordable (whatever that means). That isn't the same as an individual mandate.
If the Kaiser folks have it wrong, then the Edwards campaign needs to clarify that with them. But the KFF folks know a hell of a lot more about this stuff than you or me, and they see a difference between the two. I can only go with what the Kaiser analysis shows: Hillary has an individual mandate and Edwards doesn't seem to.
As for ramming anything down Congress's throat, unless Edwards is elected with a supermajority of more than 55-56% of the vote, he isn't going to ram anything down anyone's throat. Coming into office threatening Congress isn't going to get him anywhere.
Posted by Steve Soto at November 24, 2007 09:39 PMGeez, I come back after a few months and TLC looks a lot like a Hillary fan club. Steve, I think you have criticized Democratic candidates in the past for cozying up to Republicans (in the name of centrism to ensure an election victory. From my vantage point, Hillary is the embodiment of this approach and it's one of the primary reasons I hope she doesn't win the nomination. The U.S. needs to do some serious self-healing...and someone who tries to please all the people all the time is the opposite of what we need right now.
Posted by Roy Batty at November 25, 2007 03:38 AMHillaryCare is a joke. It's a huge giveaway to the private insurers, and one hell of a wealth redistribution scheme that blatantly flies in the face of an important clause "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."
Adverse selection will become more perverse within the private sector. Private companies will only insure healthy people, and then when they show signs of being sick, those people will get dumped into the government plan. Private companies will benefit from collecting premiums from healthy people, but won't pay out much of anything benefits wise.
Under HillaryCare net income margins of insurance companies will balloon from the 2% range to in excess of 12% range.
If Hillary wins the White House I'm gonna go out and buy myself some 2 year calls on Humana, and UHC and I'm gonna make a shit load of money in the process.
Jay: Read the Clinton plan. Adverse selection will be specifically prohibited by statute.
As for Congress, I've got some concern about Hillary's coattails being much shorter than Obama's or Edwards down-ticket. But all things being equal, lets say there are still over 40 Republicans left in the Senate. Edwards' idea of shaming Congress into denying health care for themselves unless they pass it for the rest of us is the best approach I've seen to dealing with them since Bill Clinton drew a line in the sand, daring Gingrich to cross it."The sad reality is that the uninsured don't just struggle with costs themselves, they impose costs on the rest of us," Clinton said in September. "It's a hidden tax: the high cost of emergency room visits that could have been prevented by a much less expensive doctor's appointment, the cost of unpaid medical bills that lead insurance companies to raise rates on the rest of us."
Edwards echoed those remarks a week later: "The reason the mandate is necessary is because you cannot have universal health care without it."
It might not work, but it beats the crap out of anything I've heard that includes the words, "bi-partisan" or "negotiate." Edwards can be counted on to ignore the lobbyists who have fully funded Hillary's campaign. Follow the money.
Both Hillary and Edward "require" individual to get health care -- so does Dodd who creates a whole new program to pool existing private insurance and opens up Medicare to everyone who is below twice the poverty line -- about $40 Grand for a family of 4.
I know you were talking about the big three, but Dodd's plan beats them all. Dodd gets to UHC before the others, and sets in motion the mechanism to kill for-profit medical insurance for good -- Hillary and Obama keep the current system well fed and Edwards leaves it on life support but in critical condition, ready for the plug to be pulled.
Edwards avoids the unfunded mandate on individuals. Hillary's "mandate" is fine IF there is affordable coverage out there. This might be a distinction without a difference, but I think what you are seeing is the fact that Edwards' plan is far more detailed and fully integrated with his government reform package.
It's a cart before the horse thing. You also see a difference with Hillary's small business tax credit, which is fine, and necessary since she doesn't plan to revoke the Bush tax cuts, but merely let them expire. Edwards health care plan is wholly integrated with his tax plan and anti-poverty approach to everything, including immigration and even international relations.
Trees, forest. I think Edwards gets to affordability about two or three years before Hillary, but not before Dodd. But if you're looking for single payer (which I am) nobody goes out on that limb but Kucinich. I think, however, with the Health-markets Edwards and Dodd set up, with a government plan competing with for-profit providers, we get to single-payer eventually since the private sector won't be able to compete with a "properly run" public system. Hillary and Obama don't set up a competing public plan for us to opt into from what I see -- and won't. She's too indebted to the health care lobby and he's too interested in placating the other side.
Hell, Edwards the trial lawyer even includes some tort reform language to reduce costs to the industry.
And yeah, they all look better than what we have . . . on paper, and light years beyond anything the Repubes come out with. Health care is my bottom line this election, and I'm still mad at the Clintons for not getting it done last time. But if push comes to shove and she wins the nomination, I'll hold my nose any vote for her (unless Huckabee has an epiphany and signs on to one of the dem plans.)
Actually, all the GOPers plans are free-market, deregulation nightmares, even Ron Paul's non-plan. At least Romney would let States try hybrid-UHC with block grants to medicare.
Posted by Mark Adams at November 25, 2007 09:12 AM"Adverse selection will be specifically prohibited by statute."
So you have faith that adverse selection can be prohibited by statute? You must also have faith that marijuana can be prohibited by statute.
Posted by Jay at November 25, 2007 09:36 AMUltimately, what difference would an individual mandate make? How will it be enforced? Will we prosecute or penalize those who continue without health insurance? Under requirements of an individual mandate enforced by law, will the lowest cost plans available for those least able to afford health insurance include primary and preventive care coverage?
Who cares whether Hillary's mandate is the only true individual mandate? As a matter of policy, it's probably a (baby) step in the right direction, but that's all it is. As difficult as individual mandate will be to enforce, won't it work just as well under Edwards's plan as Clinton's?
I don't think the individual mandate is going to solve the problem, unless it's just the first step. Eventually we're going to have to go all the way to single-payer to realize the benefits of universal health care.
Posted by NealB at November 25, 2007 10:19 AM"Ultimately, what difference would an individual mandate make? How will it be enforced? Will we prosecute or penalize those who continue without health insurance?"
It's real simple. If you pay taxes you'd be irrational not to at the minimum take what the government offers you (although there are people now who qualify for Medicare, but don't sign up).
As for enforcement. From the previous statement the only people who would rationally not accept government insurance are those that don't pay their taxes. We already have enforcement teams that track down those that don't comply with coercive taxes (I know I'm being redundant) and send in the S.W.A.T. team to send them to jail. That is your enforcement.
Hillary also allows for people to buy into Medicare. Family's twice below the poverty line have access to SCHIP.
The point is Obama has already conceded we can't achieve univeral coverage. The mandate also mandates every american have access to affordable coverage.
Posted by Masslib at November 25, 2007 02:08 PMThese are the same “personal choice” misdirection arguments the GOP used against the Clinton administration back in 1993 to convince voters that they would lose control over their own health care by supporting any reform. [emphasis added]
The difference now is that I have 14+ years of personal experience dealing with the bureaucratic assholes at my private insurer.
Funny thing, that. Back then, I was a strong supporter of managed care. Now? I want single-payer and to see private insurance dead.
Posted by bartcopfan at November 26, 2007 01:32 PM