Clinton Healthcare Plan

[angrychair]

If you can't pay the permiums. Can't pay the deductible. Can't pay the out-of-pocket. Don't understand the maze of paperwork and terminology. If you don't have dentalcare. You don't have eyecare.

Not in the plan.

This is the healthcare plan you think is superior to Sanders? Its full of fluff and platitudes. No explainations. No specific details. No financial plan of how she will do anything different than it is now. Just lip service:
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/health-care/

What she is says is:

"Whatever you have now, you can keep it"

Choosing between eating and paying premiums? The same!

Don't go to the doctor because you can't afford the deductible or out-of-pocket? The same!

Got gum disease and loosing your teeth because you can't afford dental care? The same!

Have a hard time reading and driving safely because you can't afford an eye care? The same!

As I have seen written here several times now from HRC supporters,, "I have no complaints, I have great healthcare" so does Clinton.
Sadly, millions, even those "covered", their income falls into that gap where don't qualify for free plans and the plans they do get, and their respective high deductiblea and out-of-pocket, creates very tough decisions in a struggling household.


I don't hold it against Clinton really. Making millions of dollars from 20 minute speeches, no matter her rhetoric, she has no idea what challenges people go through. I do. I can manage the expenses of normal issues now. My body reminds me of it daily from a time I could not.

Seriously, I want to hear from Clinton supporters. You have been calling out Sanders all day.

[NorthCarolina]

1. Her plan doesn't do away with the for-profit insurance middleman.

To me it's NOT a solution, just a nod to the graft peddlers that she's their gal.

[restorefreedom]

8. this right here^^^^^^^^ nt

[nyabingi]

15. Exactly (nt)

[Faux pas]

2. Kickin'

[studyshare]

3. As a Hilary fan i love that my corporate-owned master!

To all you Sanders supporters: <spit>....we need a little corruption in our system or it all fails. Hilary 2016!!!1

[FreakinDJ]

4. So Hillary Lied when she said Universal Health Care in her speech

I had to watch it again on YouTube to be sure. I couldn't believe she said it after trashing on Bernie for proposing it

Now I see its all ok because it was just lie in the first place

[pinebox]

5. What else is new

[pinebox]

6. Once again

"Universal Health Care" in Hillary's book is like the cell phone industry's definition of unlimited data. It never is.

[Nanjeanne]

7. And don't forget the government subsidies are going to PROFITABLE PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANIES

Is there not a better way to spend government money? You know . . . like for health CARE?

[Dragonfli]

9. It is a three tiered plan that places the value of human life on a financial scale

Last edited Wed Feb 3, 2016, 01:45 PM - Edit history (1)

And it is completely regressive, completely backwards in how it gives out allotment of care.

If you are well off yet not rich enough to avoid involving yourself in such nonsense, you are valued as a gold citizen and can receive care with a minimum of hassle.

If you are a struggling middle class household you are a silver valued citizen, you may receive care but pay dearly for the plan meaning maybe your vacation now involves a barbecue pit and not Disneyland, and if you need care, you must dip into ever decreasing savings or credit cards in order to actually receive it when you pay yet again at the door.

If you are struggling working class you are a bronze valued citizen, you can not really afford the insurance but eat more rice and beans and put off auto repairs to pay the premiums (hoping the car will last until the tax credits kick in), but you can't afford to ever use your insurance because your cards were maxed out long ago (probably to pay a premium), you have no money in the bank to speak of, and nothing in your pocket at the end of the month to pay the highest deductibles and co-pays possible under this system, custom designed to be the highest for the poorest, least valued citizens, the bronze people.

What could be more regressive than a system that is designed so those with the most need are given the highest bills (ones they can't pay) in order to obtain actual care at the door (so they never get to use their MANDATED insurance) and the well to do have plans designed for them to pay what is just change in their wallets at the door when they need care?

I could not think of a more regressive plan without involving leach pits for the poor myself and I have a good imagination.

Their should be no tiers in a system of health care rigged to insure the least affluent have the least chance of ever receiving care, if their must be tiers, they should be reversed into a progressive model where the poor pay the least when they need car and not the most, the pyramid is upside down people and the only reason this could make sense is if one wanted to force the working poor to pay premiums on insurance designed for them never to be able to actually use in order to make it cheaper for the well to do to get care while still providing obscene profits to unnecessary insurance middlemen and Viagra pushing pharma vultures.

Of course Hillary wants to build on this, she values people by their income just as this ass backward regressive system does.

The conclusions I leave to each to personally make as to why we have the regressive system we have and why Hillary wants to keep it this way.

[angrychair]

10. Excellent post Dragonfli

Thank you!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

11. typo LOLZ

[Dragonfli]

12. It's OK, I was (am) "pist!"

[angrychair]

14. Sooo funny

The smartphone typing has its good and bad points....

[Lucinda]

13. Not quite. You are linking to an overview not specifics.

A bit more detail here for all the candidates:
https://ballotpedia.org/2016_presidential_candidates_on_healthcare

Out of pocket cost reduction plans:
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/09/23/clinton-plan-to-lower-out-of-pocket-health-care-costs/

And you can do more indepth searching by using drop down or the search function at the second link.

[angrychair]

16. I get that Lucinda

I looked at those items and even did a little more digging. None of it actually addresses what is going to be done, specifically, not does it address how it will be paid for.

It doesn't address the inherent regressive nature of the ACA plans. It doesn't address those that have employer-provided plans and still struggle with the fear of expenses from a sudden or long-term illness.

A new edition to her plan states this little gem:
"The [$2,500 single and $5,000 joint] credit will be available to insured Americans with qualifying out-of-pocket health expenses in excess of five percent of their income, and who are not eligible for Medicare or claiming existing deductions for medical costs."
That is a lot of conditional statements. So, 5% of what income (gross, net, taxable)? Is it a refundable tax credit or non-refundable? What is the burden of proof to get the tax credit? How is this tax credit being paid for? Will my premiums or out-of-pocket go up to offset this additional benefit?

"Three free office visits": does that just include the office visit? Does it include diagnostic test as well (blood test, x-rays, EEG, ultrasound)? How is this paid for? Will this be offset by higher permiums or out-of-pocket?

"Max out of pocket for prescription drugs at $250/month":
First, that Is only great if you can afford $250 a month just for drugs...sometimes it's the difference between electric bill or gas for the car.

No discussion of dentalcare.

No discussion of eyecare.

Look, I'll be honest.The current ACA is not the answer. Clinton's 'improvements' are not the answer. Sanders current format for his plan Is not perfect either. It's got some holes too. No one would or should deny that.
There is one big difference though. At least Sanders is willing to look at a better way forward than the existing ACA, which was not the perfect or even preferred plan when it was started. He is thinking outside the box that is our current, income-crushing, bankruptcy monster of a healthcare industry right now.
I am open to all ideas that truly create fair and equal access to healthcare for all. Healthcare that is reasonable in cost (yes, an additional tax is fine. In exchange for no permiums, deductible or out-of-pocket, I will happily pay 20% of my paycheck). Healthcare coverage that doesn't require me to be a healthcare industry expert, an account or a tax lawyer to figure out what I'm paying for and how I pay for it.

That doesn't sound reasonable to you?

[Lucinda]

18. The political reality is though, that the only workable option right now

is to build on the ACA. And it all goes back to numbers. We just wont have the numbers to get anything close to single payer through congress.

Sanders has said that his overall goal would be single payer, but there is no mechanism for doing that which has a chance to pass without a change in congress. So to make any progress, Sanders would have to build on the ACA, and he has no working plans to do that. So what would we have? Him vetoing the repeated attempts to torpedo the ACA, and no plans in play to take the pressure off of people who desperately need care? Clinton will make gains where possible with plans she has in place, and that, for me, is a big deal. Even if it doesn't change as much as we would like as fast as we would like.

I know the overall idea is that there would be a huge sweep of Dems into congress with a Sanders win, but it isn't likely. Experts are saying we do have a chance to take control of the Senate, but still wouldn't have a bullet proof majority, and that we would need to pick up 30 seats to do the same in the House of Representatives. And from my reading, most say that won't happen because there are only 10ish Republican seats that could be reliably considered competitive.

I read a wishing and hoping piece from last year at Politico that says we could take the house, but their premise was that Trump or Carson would be the nominee and would turn off enough voters to cause a switch. Carson is a non-starter and Trump is killing his own campaign. And I really didn't buy their premise to start with. It's here if you want to read it:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/11/how-democrats-could-win-the-house-213318

I have serious health issues myself, and friends who need health care but can't afford the office visit, so I understand people's frustration with anything that isn't what we SHOULD be providing. But in my view, the best shot of helping people the quickest, is to build on what we have and to work downticket to remake congress as fast as we can.

[Romulox]

17. Clinton's plan is for millions to go without.

So that her wealthy "middle class" ($250,000/year) supporters aren't burdened with any new taxes.