Hillary Clinton Takes a Step to the Left on Health Care
Source: NY Times
Im also in favor of whats called the public option, so that people can buy into Medicare at a certain age, Mrs. Clinton said on Monday at a campaign event in Virginia.
* * *
She made the remarks as she continues to face a determined challenge on the left from Mr. Sanders, forcing her to essentially fight a two-front war as she seeks to turn her attention to Donald J. Trump and the general election. While Mr. Sanders trails by a substantial number of delegates, his effect continues to be felt in the race as he pressures Mrs. Clinton to adopt more progressive positions.
Bernie Sanderss campaign is having an effect on Hillary Clintons policies, said Steve McMahon, a Democratic political consultant from Purple Strategies. From a progressive point of view, thats exactly what was hoped for and that is exactly what is happening.
The idea of allowing people to buy in to Medicare has been discussed in policy circles and in Congress for decades. Mrs. Clintons husband, former President Bill Clinton, floated a similar proposal in 1998, including it in his State of the Union address that year. The strategy has been embraced by many advocates of single-payer health care as a way to move more Americans into the existing government system. An incremental expansion of Medicare was the hoped-for strategy of Medicares original authors.
Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/11/us/politics/hillary-clinton-health-care-public-option.html?_r=0
I guess I am somewhat confused by this announcement. First, I recall that back in 2009, Bernie Sanders and Sherrod Brown were supportive of the public option, but they could not get Lieberman and others to buy-in. Second, hasn't Hillary been pushing the innclusion of the public option since at least since February?
Response to TomCADem (Original post)
Post removed
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)Lean to the left, lean to the right. Stand up, sit down, fight, fight, fight. God ...reminds me of my HS football cheer.
Chicago1980
(1,968 posts)You people are never happy or satisfied.
Omaha Steve
(99,698 posts)Now it looks like pandering!
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)There is no good reason to believe she actually means what she says.
erlewyne
(1,115 posts)but we all ain't going to live to be a hundred!
pangaia
(24,324 posts)This is my opinion.
She will say ANYTHING to get elected.. she has no shame!
Chicago1980
(1,968 posts)YOU PEOPLE...
Javaman
(62,532 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)'You people,' 'those people,' etc., have been standard racist references for decades.
I know you know that. I know that you're deliberately being as offensive as you can be toward other DUers by using such a phrase.
So I'm calling you out squarely - either you're a relatively decent human being, in general, who is a bit carried away, or you're flat-out rotten.
Which is it? It's one or the other - there isn't any other 'grey area' alternative.
If it's the first case, you'll apologize for your behavior - using a racist phrase in several statements which serve only one purpose - to be offensive.
If it's the second, you'll disappear or double-down on that crap.
I've only ever 'alerted' on one post over the years. I prefer a more... direct approach.
So it's your call - but if you take the second route, you will be called out harder and more aggressively every damn time you deliberately seek to offend DUers.
Duckfan
(1,268 posts)Full moon tonight. Time to change positions again.
Just like her "always" being against SHAFTA the other day.
TomCADem
(17,390 posts)In other words, I remember her mentioning it in February. Is there something that she added that is causing a bunch of outlets to report it? Maybe she is proposing a different type of public option than Obama? Or, perhaps she is trying to adopt the public option that Bernie himself advocated back in 2009?
Omaha Steve
(99,698 posts)OOPS. I did it for you.
apnu
(8,758 posts)That's Hillary saying Sander's plan will never pass, not a Public Option. Big difference as Bernie's plan is radical and different from anything we've seen from Democrats before.
His question still stands, has the Public Option always been one of her proposals?
thereismore
(13,326 posts)apnu
(8,758 posts)Note, I'm not stating what my opinion of it is. I'm all for a single payer system and removing the profit motive of medicine.
But that notion is a highly radical idea to most of this country and it would be difficult to pass Congress even if the Democrats controlled both houses and had a filibuster proof majority. Bernie might be on board with the idea, and Bernie supporters might be on board with the idea, but the rest of the nation, right now is not.
They don't understand what it really means and they're suspicious of its costs.
We've been down this road before, in 1994, and it died then for the same reasons. We tried again in 2008, it was on the table, and yet we wound up with the spotty ACA which is a wet kiss to the insurance and med-tech industry.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Clinton is hoping to redefine what the public option means so that she can say she supports it, when voters think something else entirely is meant. It is a thoroughly Clintonesque tactic, which is one of the many reasons why I and everyone in my family will not be voting for her.
Also be very cautious about weasel words in her statements. A careful parsing of her statements almost always reveals she doesn't make a firm commitment on most policy issues.
pnwmom
(108,990 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Do I really support the public option as envisioned in the health care talks of 6-8 years ago? A rational person would say no.
TomCADem
(17,390 posts)They were the ones who were most vocal in their support of a "public option as envisioned in the health care talks of 6-8 years ago." However, they were a few votes short, so it did not go anywhere. The interesting thing is that many Bernie supporters today dismiss the public option, but Bernie and Brown were the two who were holding out for the "public option as envisioned in the health care talks of 6-8 years ago."
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)I am saying that limiting the public option to those above X years of age is not really a public option as then-envisioned. It's that simple.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)We need a carve out, an explicit carve out to allow single payer and all public services like education and health care and food progras and banking regulation to BE EXCLUDED FROM ALL US TRADE DEALS- and people should be aware that the US is vigorously opposing such proposals by Europeans from our trade deals- We have been fighting a 20 year long war on public healthcare, education, public health insurance, food programs, finacial regulations for small investors and not banks, for deregulation of banking practices-
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+AMD+A8-2016-0009+002-008+DOC+WORD+V0//EN
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+COMPARL+PE-567.814+01+DOC+PDF+V0//EN
pnwmom
(108,990 posts)tomm2thumbs
(13,297 posts)Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Hillary might be looking into a public health insurance option for people 55 and up... She would like to get behind it, but there's just no data to support it, but if there were, heck it could be a good idea, she's considering it.
She did it for the headline.
GummyBearz
(2,931 posts)to being in touch with the middle class. Then she threw in the qualifier of being 50-55+ to get to buy into the single payer option (not like I can even believe her on that anyway).
Hi Hillary, I'm 34, I haven't had any health problems in the last decade. Somehow in the last 2 years my health insurance benefits have gotten worse, yet the monthly payment has gone up 10% per year. I don't get a 10% raise per year. Can you see how this is gonna be a problem?
pnwmom
(108,990 posts)to the left, but when she does move, they can't stand their success.
They'd rather complain than make progress.
But as to your question, the article mentions that Hillary has been talking about it since February. And that Bill first suggested it in 1998.
You are also right that Obama wasn't able to get the public option through because of Lieberman, among others. This is what happened. When Kennedy died they had already passed the more conservative version in the Senate -- with his vote -- and they had been working on getting a version with the public option through the House. Then the plan was to reconcile the two bills by keeping the public option from the House in the final bill. But when Kennedy died, they lost their slender super-majority, and the only thing they could do was take the bill that had already passed in the Senate, and have it voted on in the House -- as is. So that's why they ended up with the Senate's more conservative ACA, without a public option.
I agree 100%.
They're never satisfied.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)pnwmom
(108,990 posts)McKim
(2,412 posts)I would be satisfied if I could believe that she will do what she says she will do. But I can't. She is working for the top 2% and that I DO believe.
Geronimoe
(1,539 posts)What happens to those that can't afford to buy in? Hillary's corporate sponsors never accept that healthcare as a human right.
pnwmom
(108,990 posts)zalinda
(5,621 posts)it is being run by insurance companies that the government pays. That is a huge difference between what Bernie wants and Hillary now suggests.
Z
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)get into one of her fundraisers.
She is probably safe on this, since we know after 2009 that we need about 85 democratic senators to actually do anything progressive. So she can pretend to support healthcare without putting her donors' profits at risk
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Her 'position' changes depending on whom is directly in front of her at any given moment.
AzDar
(14,023 posts)AgerolanAmerican
(1,000 posts)DebbieCDC
(2,543 posts)AntiBank
(1,339 posts)Liz_Estrada
(56 posts)whose mind went there immediately!
tularetom
(23,664 posts)I also think we'll discover that a hell of a lot depends on that.
TygrBright
(20,763 posts)Glamrock
(11,802 posts)All I gotta do is hum it for 5 seconds and it kills that nasty ole earworm! Of course, Four Sticks usually takes up residence for awhile, but I'm okay with that. I found out this trick at a casino gig. They had Lady Gaga's Poker face on a friggin loop. I was ready to open my wrists. My drummer was playing Four Sticks on his legs and...no more GaGa!
TygrBright
(20,763 posts)...is to imagine whatever song I'm hearing as being sung by Bob Dylan.
I don't know why this works, but it does, for me.
Although it sometimes makes for inappropriate timing on snickers.
appreciatively,
Bright
Glamrock
(11,802 posts)I gotta try that! Too funny. I bow to your creativity.....
beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)the equivalent of a Medicare-buy-in-above-a-certain-age. But nice try at muddying the waters Hillary! It will probably work on some people.
pnwmom
(108,990 posts)since at least 2009 as a way to get a public option. The idea is to start with an older age group and then expand the program to younger people if there is interest.
http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2009/10/20/hiding-in-plain-sight-using-medicare-to-solve-the-public-option-conundrum/
Hiding In Plain Sight: Using Medicare To Solve The Public Option Conundrum
Jeff Goldsmith
October 20, 2009
The solution to the public option conundrum is so obvious that its striking how little discussion there is of it: encourage voluntary early enrollment in Medicare. Unlike the public option, voluntary Medicare buy-in has a significant health policy history. John Kerry included it in his health reform proposals in 2004. Bill Clinton had a more modest proposal (voluntary buy-in after age 62) in his first three budgets. Medicare analysts Marilyn Moon and Christine Cassel have long advocated this approach.
If one is thinking strategically, the most worrisome segment of the uninsured is the 11.3 million aged 45-64, who were the fastest growing age cohort of uncovered folk from 2007-2008. It is one thing to be 22 and immortal and uncovered; it is quite another to be a 52 year old diabetic widow with hypertension, not disabled but thirteen years shy of Medicare and uncovered. The health system and societys biggest risks among the uncovered are its oldest members. It is these older uninsured people who generate the largest hospital bills, contributing disproportionately to hospitals uncompensated care burden.
How It Would Work
We already have a public plan for older Americans. Lets simply lower the Medicare eligibility age, and encourage the sickest baby boomers voluntarily to join Medicare earlier than age 65. We should waive the two-year wait to enroll in Medicare after obtaining Social Security disability coverage. At the same time, we should let the non-disabled enroll in Medicare after 55 at the programs estimated actuarial cost.
Employers could fund the premiums at Medicares cost for their 55-plus employees. This would have the benefit of lowering the average age and morbidity burden of their remaining privately insured group, and reduce their overall health insurance costs. Individuals with resources could pay their own premiums, which would be substantially cheaper than the individual and small group rates for their age. Those without the means could receive Medicare subsidy help on a sliding scale based on income. Not all of the newly enrolled will leave private markets; they will have the same choice of traditional vs. Medicare Advantage plans that present beneficiaries do.
Omaha Steve
(99,698 posts)pnwmom
(108,990 posts)Omaha Steve
(99,698 posts)pnwmom
(108,990 posts)Omaha Steve
(99,698 posts)truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)"...encourage voluntary early enrollment in Medicare. Unlike the public option...."
See? Two different things.
Omaha Steve
(99,698 posts)Wind changed direction!
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)Of Hillary's steps to the left....
Gene Debs
(582 posts)the nominee, the day after the convention she'll snap back so hard it'll make your head spin.
yodermon
(6,143 posts)Obama already campaigned on the public option, and at least we got the ACA passed. The PO became the bargaining chip.
Campaign on your ideals, then compromise to get something passed.
Don't make your compromise position your campaign platform... then *that* will be the start of the negotiation and you'll lose it as well.
You don't START bargaining at the price you're willing to sell.
andym
(5,445 posts)-- a supermajority in the Senate and held the House. And at the last minute the Medicare buy-in was removed due to one vote-- Joe Lieberman. 59 Democrats were for it and 1 was against. He actually had supported it as late as September of that year... Of course he and Nelson were against the full public option too. His vote was only needed to break a GOP filibuster.
Unless dislike of Trump miraculously allows the Democrats to take back the House against the gerrymandering that makes it almost impossible until 2020 and allows the Democrats to gain 60 seats in the Senate (would require a gain of 16 seats!) and all of those Senators agree, we won't be seeing even Medicare buy-ins, forget about the public option or single payer, no matter who is President.
Vote2016
(1,198 posts)YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)They also take $100 bucks out of your SS check for Medicare Part B. folks. FIX THAT TOO.
area51
(11,919 posts)F that. Start lowering the age when you qualify, & keep lowering it until you get to 0.
And as another poster brought up, fix Medicare so that it covers more, and bring the pharma cos. to heel w/bargaining drug prices down.
FlaGranny
(8,361 posts)almost as much fixing as private insurance. You can still go bankrupt with Medicare. A catastrophic illness would wipe you out financially because, in addition to having co-pays, Medicare has NO maximum out of pocket. 20% of $100,000 (a not unusual hospital bill) is a lot of money. That's why so many have opted for the Medicare Advantage plans. Most have out of pocket limits of $3000 to $7000. If you're living on Social Security there is no way to even pay the MA maximum out of pocket. No insurance plan is any good. They all fall short. Health care needs to eliminate health insurance companies entirely and fund the entire system through taxes and cover EVERYONE. PERIOD. The United States CAN do it. We can cover everyone with no co-pays or minimums for everything except vanity surgery. The bottom of the heap is HMOs. They can really make you work to get care.
P.S. In case anyone is going to ask how to pay for it, it's very simple - military spending and making sure those that now hide their income pay their full share of taxes.
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)She changes her positions so often why would anyone buy this?
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)and even then: onlyu when polls and focus groups tell her it is absolutely imperative for her to do so, and then still reluctantly does she do so. See also: TPP, gay rights. Can we please nominate someone who gets things right at once? Someone like Bernie?
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Kip Humphrey
(4,753 posts)Because I WANT to believe!
islandmkl
(5,275 posts)and suddenly that is a "MOVE"...
if you keep track of all these " position statements" you will merely find what could be best described as "dance steps'...
the only plan HRC has for moving any direction is moving into the White House...
jman0war
(35 posts)Would probably have to at least double that today.
Who can afford that if you're not earning?
This was designed to allow people buy-in when they are like 50-65 or something, before they can qualify via age.
fbc
(1,668 posts)I think even most of her supporters would acknowledge that this is a just a line of BS meant to entice Bernie supporters and she has no real intention on following through with any of these new progressive positions.
Overseas
(12,121 posts)turbinetree
(24,710 posts)Right now Colorado has a a ballot initiative (#20) which in November 2016 election, which is asking the people of the state for a single payer system to compete against the "for-profit" insuarnce industry.
This measure should be supportive by everyone in this country and in the state on and for many reasons, if one state such as this can get this done, and the population see and hears that it is working, the "industry" supporters of the insurance hypocrites will not have a leg to stand on, the ballot initiative is called #20, see below
http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/index.html
Colorado health care costs for a 40 year old non-smoker
http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/health-insurance-premiums.aspx
?la=en
Alberta Canada, did the same thing back in the day, the entire province voted in to have single payer to see if the costs could be controlled and to let the population of the province have a say , eventually the entire country adopted this model, and now they have a means to negotiate there health care costs and drug costs
Canadian health care costs:
https://www.cihi.ca/en/nhex_2014_report_en.pdf
Honk---------------------for a political revolution Bernie 2016
Furbug
(3 posts)The vitriol directed at Hillary Clinton from some Bernie Sanders supporters is very discouraging to me, and I fear that in a Clinton-versus-Trump campaign, it might result in a Trump victory. Is that really what Democrats would prefer?! I'm not suggesting that Hillary's critics muzzle themselves; only that they stick to facts, not invective and exaggerations of her positions, or insults directed at those who support her over Bernie. It's all well and good to never budge because you feel that you occupy the high moral ground, as Bernie does, but little if anything is accomplished that way in a representative democracy. You have to be able to reach compromises with those who strongly disagree with you, and the Republican race for the nomination shows that there are many of them out there. Consequently, the resulting progress almost always is incremental, rather than transformative.
The Clintons--and she played a major role--attempted, clumsily and unsuccessfully, to advance a single-payer health care solution more than 20 years ago, so to charge her with "suddenly" changing her position is inaccurate. Similarly, analyses of her actual voting in the Senate have shown no basis for accusations of her of being in the pocket of "Wall Street".
So let's get realistic. Bernie is not going to get the nomination, but he can influence the party platform, and he's already doing it. Hillary has demonstrated long-standing support for most of the ideals that Bernie has expressed, and, as President, I believe that she would work toward achieving such success as is possible, given that she may well have to deal with a Republican House and perhaps a Republican Senate, too. She would accomplish a lot more if, after the convention at least, Democrats would enthusiastically support her and the down-ballot races so that she'd have Congress behind her, instead of opposing her, as they've opposed President Obama for the last six years.
So, please, let's not remain so focused on the "perfect" that we are unable to achieve the "good".
Response to Furbug (Reply #73)
NRaleighLiberal This message was self-deleted by its author.
eggplant
(3,913 posts)On Wed May 11, 2016, 03:07 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Very Discouraging!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1446160
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
SOP violation
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed May 11, 2016, 03:19 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: As much as I disagree with the sentiment of this post, for the life of me, I can't imagine how this qualifies as an SOP violation. If the alerter can't be bothered to explain *why* it is an SOP violation, why should I hide it?
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: How on earth is this a Statement of Purpose violation? This alert is just wrong.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't see anything wrong with that post. And I support Bernie.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
Furbug
(3 posts)Thanks to those who served on this jury. If the results had been otherwise, I really would have questioned whether a real dialogue is permitted on this site, especially in the context of other messages in this thread that seem to me to be much more . . . "disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate." My belief in the basic fairness of most folks has been affirmed.
Furbug
(3 posts)Along the same lines as above: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/11/opinion/obamas-gorgeous-goodbye.html?_r=0
left-of-center2012
(34,195 posts)But what will they be a year from now?
Agony
(2,605 posts)sendero
(28,552 posts).... no, it is having an effect on her campaign rhetoric.