I actually thought Hillary came across much stronger and better in the most recent debate on the Health care coverage issue. And I liked how she said, we have to be realistic, but that we just can't always start negotiating with others on the issue from an already significantly compromised position. (Which is what I personally think Obama has already done by not making it mandatory). Anyway, it's my opinion but it is just sad that Obama is willing to "sell out" a core democratic value (which is what HIllary considers health care coverage for all....not sure if Obama has the same core value?) before he's even gotten all the main players/brokers at the table to find a solution to this very serious issue that impacts millions of Americans. On this high priority issue for me, Hillary comes out on top.
Posted by emal at February 2, 2008 10:06 AMI don't see how you can't infer that Obama will end (privatize) Social Security, frankly.
The strongest passion he showed was when he argued in favor of choice in health care plans.
His economic advisers are pro-privatization.
Increasing the cap in the payroll tax will create a surplus which can be used to start a personal accounts program---that's exactly how Liebman's plan works.
My stark raving lunatic position:
I think it will be better if Obama wins the nomination. McCain is ultimately the media darling, and we all know the media narrative controls election outcomes.
When St. Obama loses, the narrative will be that he was just too inexperienced to beat St. McCain (since Obama is a mere saint-in-training).
If Devil-in-training Hillary loses, the media narrative will be that the populace rejected the Clinton years. This will not only tarnish Hillary, but also the successful Bill Clinton presidency.
When McCain turns our country into a further hell in a handbasket, Hillary can come back and toast him.
What a concept, eh?
Posted by T at February 2, 2008 10:30 AMeriposte you are wrong as usual.
As a former Edwards supporter that is one of the things that I didnt like about his platform. I dont like the word MANDITORY and GOVERNMENT in the same sentence no matter what! Because no matter who is in control it; it will be all _ucked up! Trust me.
Folks you are looking at this all wrong. Obama is doing what any candidate would do when they are running behind in almost every state. He is highlighting the differences btwn his plan and Hillary Care. Many like me have health insurance and I don't want a government program. These programs should be available for people who dont have health care throught their jobs or others who otherwise could not afford it.
Making it manditory for everyone is the wrong apporoach.
Posted by angryman at February 2, 2008 10:35 AMHealth insurance mandates may be a good idea, but it has to be sold politically. If Sen Clinton can't sell the idea in a Democratic primary, maybe the idea of mandates is not politically viable. I want a single payer system, but I know for sure that's not going to fly. Also, big pharma and the insurance companies will have no problems coming up with attack lines on their own. Obama's plan doesn't cover everyone and he needs to explain why. Clinton's plan has mandates and she needs to explain why they are necessary. That's the way elections are supposed to work.
Posted by MarvyT at February 2, 2008 10:43 AMAngryman,
This is what I mean when people robotically repeat talking points without bothering to understand the facts. Hillary's plan specifically allows those who want to change nothing with their current healthcare plan - to change nothing and do nothing. If you like what you have, keep it and do nothing.
The plan is for those who don't have health insurance today. What you said is just repeated the smear that the Republicans have been using against Hillary for some time now. Thanks for proving my point.
Posted by eriposte at February 2, 2008 10:45 AMMarvyT,
Selling a plan politically becomes easier when Democrats don't use false Republican talking points to derail universal healthcare. Especially a Democrat who got elected to Congress after claiming he was in favor of single-payer healthcare. The only reason Obama is doing this is that he can falsely raise fears about "Hillarycare" amongst the voting population - this is exactly the kind of fear-mongering that he claims to oppose.
Posted by eriposte at February 2, 2008 10:49 AMeriposte:
I did not expect this blog will continue trashing Obama after the last debate in which I believe both candidates decided to behave in such a way that their actions will not harm the party and the goal is to get a Democrat in the Whitehouse.
I think you should lay it off and come to your senses. We are just having enough of this venom throwing at fellow Democrat. By the way I have been supporting Hillary from day one but would not trash Obama.
Time to grow up and understand the wish of the voters.
Posted by suresh at February 2, 2008 11:00 AMThe only way to get insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions is to mandate that everyone get insurance. Obama says he'll bring health insurance companies to the table to work out a plan. Hillary already has, and this is what's feasible. Obama's plan says that insurance companies have to take people with pre-existing conditions, but no one is forced to buy insurance. In that case, I'd drop my insurance and only buy it when something happens that we need it for. His plan is ludicrous.
Posted by CG at February 2, 2008 11:10 AMNo matter what you think of Obama's attack, it's nothing compared to what will happen in the general election. If she can't convince Democrats about mandates, then the idea wont fly at all.
Posted by MarvyT at February 2, 2008 11:15 AMGood points made above.
eriposte please direct me to the talking points and I will be sure to look them over so I can be sure to "robotically repeat talking points."
I am sure that many will mindlesselly follow all of your anti-obama postings, but I don't. In the meantime I will simply state what I believe as and individual.
I for one enjoy our exchanges because I get to hear a point of view that I dont agree with and so to you. It is healthy and American as apple pie.
Posted by angryman at February 2, 2008 11:23 AMBut, but, but CSPAN. That will magically make this plan work. We'll be able to watch the sausage making on TV. And no one ever lies when he's/she's on TV. Health care debate by proxy will solve all differences.
Mandates, shmandates. Don't need no stinkin' mandates.
Can't wait to see how he'll "fix" medicare and social security.
arwe;
I would rather tune in to CSPAN that have another government program forced down our throat. Plus, how else would you be able to counteract the affect of millions and millions from Washington Lobbyists? Just like what happen to Hillary last time.
We have got to find other ways to do things. The way things work now are all wrong. No one feels that the government gives a _rap what they think. At least if there is an open process we can place pressure on individuals who are blocking the process.
Folks I dont know if this will work or not. I just know what we have now is not working.
Posted by angryman at February 2, 2008 11:40 AMMarvy T - That is exactly the point. Now all the Republicans have to do to fight the Clinton/Edwards health care plan is to play Obama's ad. Clinton is running a general election and looking at the big picture; Obama is trying to win the Democratic primary with Democrats, but the Move On vote and Ted's endorsements hurt him in the general election. He really doesn't have a choice at this point, but this ad hurts us in the long run in trying to get universal health care and will be used against us.
Posted by jmac at February 2, 2008 11:50 AMJmac
I don't think that debate over issues ever hurts. The problem with our country is that Dems and Repubs are playing one-ups-manship. Why dont we take a step back as Americans and decide what is best for the country; rather than instituting another program. (Example: NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND)
Now we say, when we are in charge we are going to SHOVE UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE through. This doesnt make sense to me.
Posted by angryman at February 2, 2008 12:04 PMJust like the Medicare Part D prescription drug program was more of a handout to big pharma (it seems their lobbyists played a big role in scripting it), any national health care plan would likewise be written for the benefit of special interests.
Until the corrupt system by which legistation is written is changed, i.e. getting rid of lobbyist influence, I don't trust that a national health care system will benefit the general public.
Posted by brisa at February 2, 2008 01:27 PMI don't think you can just assume that Hillary's plan is written in the best interests of special interests because it is universal. It is SO cynical for the supporters of the man who screams of hope to assume that universal health care brings more business to insurers and therefore it must be bad. It also gives 47 million people without health insurance the chance to get covered and to have access to health care. Would you say to them that they should not have health care because insurers might also benefit in that same process? The fact is until we move to single payer, there will be insurance companies involved. The fact is also that most Americans are not comfortable with single payer and it would be a total overhaul to our system...Hillary's plan is smart in that you don't have to do anything with this new plan if you don't want to, but if you aren't happy with your insurance or you don't have insurance, there are affordable options for you. You don't just have to do without anymore. And insurance companies that are associated with the federal employees health insurance plan may also benefit from this, but most importantly, the people who need health insurance will benefit. And frankly, this point contradicts Barack Obama's point...he is saying anyone who wants health care can get it, so the insurers benefit from his plan too. The problem with his plan is that the young and health will stay out of the system until they really need the care, which leads to instability in the insurance market and causes a death spiral. His plan is simply not sustainable. We can either accept that not everyone can have insurance and insurers can regulate what happens, or we can regulate and force insurers to provide coverage to everyone without discriminating on the basis of age, heath, etc. But if we do institute guaranteed issue, we also have to institute mandates so the system remains economically viable.
Obama is simply not as progressive on the issue of health care. It is one thing for someone to say I don't like mandates so Obama's my guy, that is a legitimate policy difference and choice for someone to go with. It is a whole other issue for him to throw the entire universal health care movement under the bus for his own short sighted political gain. The symbolism of this goes way beyond to have a mandate or not to have a mandate. My guess is Obama has realized his health plan comes up short, he certainly wants it to seem universal based on the advertisements he ran about his plan, though it is not, and he is using this tactic to fear monger and cover the inadequacies in his own plan.
Posted by NB at February 2, 2008 01:52 PMSpeaking of SS, doesn't Obama think it needs to be "fixed?" Why aren't we asking the two candidates about SS?
Posted by Judith at February 2, 2008 02:09 PMEisenhower's grandaughter? I wan't to hear it from the General himself. Did they install a Gramaphone horn at his grave like Houdini's?
And while I'm there, I'd like to ask Ike what he thinks of Cheney and the chimp's performance.
Speaking of graves, has the eternal flame gone out yet from Teddy comparing Obama to JFK causing him to roll over?
Posted by TIKI AL at February 2, 2008 02:15 PMangryman: I dont like the word MANDITORY and GOVERNMENT in the same sentence no matter what! Because no matter who is in control it; it will be all _ucked up! Trust me.
oh, like Medicare? you need to get a clue
and I really doubt you were an Edwards supporter
Posted by gay veteran at February 2, 2008 02:22 PMBrisa,
A couple of points.
First, Sen. Clinton voted against the awful Medicare bill in 2003 that the Republicans rammed through Congress with the help of some civil and friendly Democrats like John Breaux (D-LA), Tom Carper (D-DE), Kent Conrad (D-ND), Byron Dorgan (D-ND), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Zell Miller (D-GA), and Ron Wyden (D-OR). She even gave a floor speech criticizing the bad parts of the Bill. Incidentally, note that of those Senators who voted for that awful Bill, Kent Conrad and Ben Nelson have endorsed Sen. Obama. The others have not yet endorsed.
Second, there is this myth that any national health plan will necessarily be written to benefit special interests. First of all, if you want to insure tens of millions of people who have no insurance, you have to do so by, um, giving them insurance. This means someone who provides insurance and medical services will make some money. There is no such thing as free medical care - nor should there be. Second, this is the kind of talking point that Krugman has responded to in the past:
----------
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/24/oy-kos/
Markos writes:
Every presidential candidate whose health plan rewards the health insurance companies by giving them more business via mandatesStop right there!
The Edwards and Clinton proposals actually include a public option — that is, people can buy into a Medicare-type plan administered by the government. They are not forced to go to private insurance companies. In fact, the public option was what originally made people like myself and Ezra Klein enthusiastic about the Edwards plan.
The Obama plan includes a public option for everyone as well — but thereby hangs a tale. You see, when it was first announced, it didn’t: the public option was there only for selected groups — others would have to go with private insurance companies. It was only after several days of hectoring from progressive health care wonks that the Obama people said, in effect, “OK, we’ll make it available to everyone.” I was told that they really hadn’t thought about that — which is amazing, considering how important the public option is. (the Edwards campaign has been clear in stating that it might eventually lead to a single-payer system.)
This was one of the episodes that led health wonks I talk to to conclude that Obama may just not be that committed to universal care.
This gets once again at what I keep trying to tell people: on health care, Obama is consistently running to the right of his rivals.
And it’s deeply disappointing to have influential bloggers buying into the bizarre notion that trying to make a health care plan truly universal is somehow a gift to the insurance companies.
----------
Edwards and Hillary and Krugman are wrong about this issue. They don't see what health insurance is. It's a mandated one size fits all "head tax" upon all people who partake of it. It's especially ruinous upon the lower Middle class that are in small businesses that can't afford the ever increasing rates the Health Care Monopoly imposes upon us. Neither Hillary nor Edwards had a solution to stop the monopoly from continuing their double digit inflationary taxation of Americans.
Hillary says she'll help the "poor" afford health care premiums but those people can already get Medicaid. She ignores the plight of the 30 to 70K a year people who would have to have insurance whether they want it or not.. and would have to pay as much per year as any millionaire (more in fact as wealthier people get high deductable policies as they have plenty in the bank to cover the deductable).
We need socialized medicine....but call it another name. or at least a sliding scale that the proportion of income going for health insurance is at least 'flat' for all income levels unlike Krugman, Hillary and Edwards who probably never have sent a check in the health insurance company getting theirs through corporate/govt connections.
I love Krugman, but he doesn't know the disaster that manditory health premiums will do to small business, craftspeople, and others who have to pay full price for premiums. We're seeing it in Mass. where manditory health insurance premiums are NOT lowering the average premium...in fact they're going up over 10 percent..thus proving wrong the forcing the lower middle class and self employed into paying unwanted premiums will not lower premiums.
Posted by datadave at February 2, 2008 02:29 PM"The Edwards and Clinton proposals actually include a public option — that is, people can buy into a Medicare-type plan administered by the government. They are not forced to go to private insurance companies."
okay, I see the hope! But, that's not what she's been saying. And the Mass and Vermont models are pushing people into private or Blue Cross. I doubt Hillary will cross her huge contributors from the health care industry as they Hate Medicare.
I'll have to hear it from her lips before I'll be reassured.
Posted by datadave at February 2, 2008 02:38 PMNB excellent post.
Especially your last paragraph where you discuss the difference between what eriposte was attempting to point out about politics of mischaracterization versus supporting a candidate based on whether you agree with their actual policies. Two separate issues...but important because when they merge it can be a significant problem and people can be misinformed(as eriposte noted in a comment to angryman).
Posted by emal at February 2, 2008 02:45 PMDatadave,
Sen. Clinton has been pointing out the Medicare-like option ever since she came out with the plan. I guess I'm not surprised you've never heard about it given the blatant misinformation about the plan spread by the media and the Obama campaign.
Just go read:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/summary.aspx
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/americanhealthchoicesplan.pdf
I read her plan. Her statement that she supports a public health care plan similar to Medicare is belied by the lack of specifics. But she made it clear that her support of private health plans in that they will be subsidized by tax breaks for the enforced payments that middle class people pay into health insurance. With govt subsidization of tax refunds for those paying more for health insurance she'd be encouaging the health insurance industry to raise premiums until it hit the max percentave of income allowed or even higher knowing that govt. would ease the pain of health insurance by giving the cash strapped 'consumer' a tax refund for paying higher premiums. Like her Bill Clinton administration...it's a giveaway of tax breaks to offset higher premiums.
Some things are good...esp. if there were any details about the Govt. run insurance program for middle class people. There aren't any details. I suspect she'll jettison the public insurance program after she's elected.
there hope there but not much else. I'll hope she'll expand upon the public health insurance option which is the only unique thing in her proposal.
Posted by datadave at February 2, 2008 04:37 PMsorry for the misspellings above.
I will admit that Obama's statements about Social Security give me pause. They are far more egregious statements than his health insurance plans or lack of them.
thanks for a thoughtful website.
Posted by datadave at February 2, 2008 04:46 PMFirst of all, if you want to insure tens of millions of people who have no insurance, you have to do so by, um, giving them insurance.
You mean something like Medicare or Medicaid, I presume? Impossible! It just can't be done.
What I really love about this is a bunch of "liberals" and "progressives" are bitching that the insurance industry must be expected to make a profit from the illness of Americans or we can't expect to ever get healthcare to those who need it. Too fucking droll!
I will admit that Obama's statements about Social Security give me pause.
You mean requiring those making over $97,500.00 to pay in? Horrid! Those 6% of Americans are the middle class don'tcha know!
Eri, Doesn't the debate or the debacle in California give you any thought about HillaryCare? Arnold and the Democratic Legislature gave full thought to it and decided it was way too expensive, Democrats words. California is the eighth or fifth largest economy in the world. If states like California, added to the list of Illinois, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, can't get it done, the last three with Democratic governors. How can you expect it to come out of Congress? Gov. Romney's approach worked in Massachusetts because the numbers of uninsured were low. If the national number is indeed 48 mil. that's a big pill to swallow.
Posted by peter at February 2, 2008 09:53 PM"You mean requiring those making over $97,500.00 to pay in? Horrid! Those 6% of Americans are the middle class don'tcha know!
yeah, you're right! I caught that b.s. that Hillary was saying. Anyway the upper limit has been raised every year as a "COLA" (cost of living adjustment) but does that mean Hillary is against that even? Then she is worse than a Republican.
Obama did say he raise taxes on the wealthy. (That would be a necessity!) But Hillary won't even say that. It is just Obama did say there was a problem with Social Security like he was a Republican in order to get votes from those gullable to fall for the Cato Institute's fear campaign about Social Security going bust in the near future...(last time it was maybe 2047 and even that's being pushed up with increasing immigration).
You will note that no one disputes the accuracy of the ad. Why? Because Hillary does indeed want to “force everyone to buy insurance.”
The real problem for the people denouncing Obama is the following: Like the Harry and Louise ad, Obama’s mailer commits one unforgivable sin: it tells the truth.
Posted by Catron at February 3, 2008 06:06 AMYup, so why isn't Obama printing out a mailer about people and businesses that are "forced" to contribute to medicare and social security through payroll taxes? Something tells me that won't be his next mailer (not popular in this country)...because he's either being inconsistent in his views (some gov't forcing/mandating is okay) or he's being disengenuous here.
Posted by emal at February 3, 2008 06:52 AMOh yeah and the gov't forces me to have a driver's license to drive a car too and car insurance on my car in my state. So apparently Obama's against the gov't "forcing" people to do things? Is that the point he's making. People and businesses should just do the right thing....didn't 8 years of Bush/Cheney laissez faire Enron style gov't tell us anything about people/businesses just doing the right thing...Yikes.
Posted by emal at February 3, 2008 07:00 AMsorry, I am not buying it. You just don't know the squeeze that lower middle class people like me are having with the health insurance companies.
Remember Willie Loman?...it was the insurance that did him in...."i can't even pay my insurance..."
The problem with Hillary's plan is that it's a big tax deduction that'll benefit insurance companies more than the individuals paying the bills. Example: average bill for a worker's health insurance as an employee (usually mostly paid by employer) is now $12000 per year. The average worker only makes less than 40K per year but pays only about 5000 for federal taxes. She's saying that she'll give either the employee or the employer tax deductions for health insurance for more the pittance of about a quarter on the dollar paid given now. But there isn' enough taxes fo the worker to have tax reductions to offset the cost of insurance. And the insurance companies will see this as a benefit in order to raise their prices at the current double digit rates per year knowing that her enlarged tax deduction or refund will ease the pain of insurance. So far so good...eh? a huge subsidy for private insurance.
However it gets worse: Small businesses don't have insurance and larger ones are dropping it. The bulk of the health insurance falls upon the lower middle class and new employees, businesses less than 10 employees and the millions of low wage self employed would also get hit by the huge increases in premium costs now subsidized by the govt. None of the remaining jobs have insurance except those for "professionals" (a small number) and the many big box retailers that offer insurance but don't pay a living wage which is 40K per year per person...I know I can't live on less. People like me who eschew insurance as it is unaffordable would be forced to pay up to 20 percent for insurance or her Unknown percentage of income limit...the govt. would be forced to subsidize the difference. Insurance companies would make huge profits and still would increase premiums. It's a no lose situation for them. Mass. universal health care system already is getting hit with double digit increases And rising costs to tax rolls for the truly poor. That's why Californian Democrats are rejecting a state wide example of Hillary care (for insurance companies).
Now if she expand upon the alternative govt run insurance program I'd have hope but in her pdf there are no details and I suspect she'll drop it like a hot potato as soon as she's elected. No wonder Health Insurance companies are in love with her plan.
Posted by datadave at February 3, 2008 07:22 AMThere really isn't that much difference between the Clinton and Obama plans, except that Obama acknowledges we can't afford universal coverage without bringing health costs down. He also recognizes that even with subsidies, mandatory insurance would impose a heavy burden on the middle class. If you run the numbers on the California plan, for example, people earning modest incomes would have had to pay thousands a year--far more than they pay for car insurance. As for the Social Security analogy, those taxes are already factored into the average person's take-home pay and personal budget. But if he or she had to pay another big sum (which they'd regard as a tax), it would be disastrous to them.
So I think Obama has been smart to steer around that particular pothole in the road. When he or Hillary go up against the Republican candidate in the general election, the last thing the Democrat wants to do is to be forced to defend the imposition of a big tax on the uninsured.
Ken and Dave;
You guys are extremely well informed on the Health Insurance question. Your conversations were very information. Look, my reaction is more visceral when someone Hillary substituted the word universal; for mandatory; and then government at the end of the statement. I am all for everyone having insurance, but I am not for the government forcing me to pay for it by taking money out of my paycheck; especially if I cant afford it.
I listened to Hillary this morning on George S’s program. George asked about the mandatory aspect of her program. She squirmed and parsed her way around answering that question as she constantly brought Obama. He finally pinned her down for her to finally say it is mandatory and yes, it would either be taken out of your check or income tax. (WOW)
The fact of the matter is that in a general election I don’t know anyone who wants mandatory health insurance. That is what is so strange about here position on this issue.
good points. That's what I fear. I see already that health insurance is a huge regressive tax upon the middle class. The very poor are subsidized by Medicaid, and the very rich pay very little in percentage and perhaps subsidize the poor with their federal taxes going to Medicaid...but the middle class is hit with the Brunt of the health insurance as a hidden tax from their work or directly in premimums, deductibles and co pays. Even with insurance as I found out you pay about 50 percent out of pocket for a health care emergency. A friend fell 9 feet and broke her heal and arm. She was covered by insurance...except with typical deductible 5000 first out of her pocket..(that's half an hour in a emergency room for broken bones) then she got the state mandated high class insurance: 70 percent paid after the deductible is reached by the insurance company..so she'll still have to come up with the remaining 30 percent which will be thousands on top of the 5000 already gone. So what good is insurance? By my calculations she'd been better off uninsured and paying up front and pleading poverty on the remaining. Hospitals will negotiate as they know they are overcharging major on most costs.
health insurance in America imo is a ripoff.
Posted by datadave at February 3, 2008 09:19 AMThe very poor are subsidized by Medicaid...
That is incorrect. Very poor families with children under the age of 18 get the subsidy. If you are so incapacitated that you are on SSI you can get the subsidy. Otherwise, the poor get to beg for their healthcare.
Posted by phidipides at February 3, 2008 10:18 AMmedicaid is a good program. It saved the life of a friend of mine. He makes 12K a year selfemployed, homeschools his two kids and their family of four is elgible for Medicaid. Then he got colin cancer. The system worked and he's been cured. Otherwise, they didn't pay for it. It's better than private insurance as copays are small and few deductibles. But they don't pay the bills, the govt. pays. More than 'subsidy' more like welfare but I appreciate it. Now that comes from Federal Income tax whereas Medicare comes from payroll and state taxes. Big difference. Income tax is dominated by payments from high income people thus they help pay for the medicaid...AS They should as their own insurance is so small in percentage of income it'd be less than 1 percent of income for the top 1 percent of income earners. it's a proper and fair distribution of income...that doesn't help the middle class that pay the bulk of all insurance even subsidizing the well off who profit from investments in insurance companies.
Posted by datadave at February 3, 2008 04:48 PM