Hillary's Health Care Plan Requires All to Have HEALTH INSURANCE

[Totally Committed]

Yesterday, in a thread about Hillary's coming Health Care Plan, I wrote the following:

"The best we will possibly get from HRC (or ANYONE so closely affiliated and supported by Big Pharma, Big Med, and Big Insurance) no matter what she proposes or promises now, is maybe Universal HEALTH INSURANCE."

HRC supporters crowed and objected and challenged.

This morning the Plan was actually announced and guess what? I was right!

Clinton offers universal health care plan
'Individual mandate' centerpiece requires all to have health insurance

DES MOINES, Iowa - For months, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton has promised a plan to bring health care to every American. She made good on that pledge Monday, unveiling a sweeping proposal requiring everyone to carry health insurance and offering federal subsidies to help reduce the cost of coverage.

>snip

"It puts the consumer in the driver's seat by offering more choices and lowering costs," Neera Tanden, Clinton's top policy adviser, told The Associated Press. "If you like the plan you have, you keep it. If you're one of tens of millions of Americans without coverage or don't like the coverage you have, you will have a choice of plans to pick from and you'll get tax credits to help pay for it."

>snip

Aides said Clinton believes that an individual mandate is the only way to achieve health care for all. A key component of her plan would be a federal tax subsidy to help individuals pay for coverage. Clinton's plan builds on the existing employer-based system of coverage. People who receive insurance through the workplace could continue to do so; businesses, in turn, would be required to offer insurance to employees, or contribute to a government-run pool that would help pay for those not covered. Clinton would also offer a tax subsidy to small businesses to help them afford the cost of providing coverage to their workers.

The Entire Article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20819827/


What a piece of sh*t this plan is! What a disgusting display of taking care of the Corporate entities before the people. Tell me how this is the right plan.

TC

[redqueen]

1. It seems like way too many people are willing to settle for less.

I guess we'll end up subsidizing corporations for at least another decade or so.

*sigh*

[againes654]

2. I would if I knew....

:shrug:

[Robbien]

3. Mandatory car insurance works so well. . . Not.

All mandatory insurance does is provide a gold mine for the insurance industry and the municipal court system.

Driving without insurance in Illinois now can get you a fine of up to a thousand dollars. Under Hillary's plan, I can imagine being sick without insurance probably can carry similar fines.

[Vincardog]

4. INSURANCE is the problem. Why should we add 30% to our HEALTH CARE bill to have a rich corporation

get richer denying us health care?

[Hieronymus]

36. Exactly, the high cost of health insurance is the administrative cost ..

Medicare has very low administrative cost, as do other western countries with single payer.

[rucky]

5. Nice racket! n/t

[Totally Committed]

6. Hillary CLinton: TAKIN' CARE OF BUSINESS!

That should be her campaign slogan.

TC

[YOY]

7. I dunno. I suppose the end result is comparatively better than what we've got

but the means is total bs. There is a way and it would work without a middleman.

The Hillery folks here have been having a blast with the " :rofl: " smiley anytime someone points it out.

Then again, I think they'd kiss up and accept it as the second coming if she'd say how nice hepatitis is.

[Totally Committed]

8. Total bullsh*t.

The :rofl: smiley is all they got.

TC

[YOY]

9. I swear we've been invaded by Fox News watching "moderates" at times

n/t

[Totally Committed]

11. She's big with those FOX "moderates"....

LOL!

TC

[YOY]

22. Oh yes....those "moderates" owned by that "moderate"

n/t

[renie408]

20. Maybe somebody should start a Moderates Underground.

It would end up having more people on it than the DU and the Free Republic combined, since most people think of themselves as being not far left or far right.

[Totally Committed]

24. They cool call it MU (MOO)

and have a cute little moderate cow instead of the Grovelbot:




DLC MODERATES: WE'RE MILKING THE AMERICAN SYSTEM FOR ALL IT'S WORTH!"


LOL!

TC

[regnaD kciN]

56. It isn't "comparatively better than what we've got"...

...if you're just getting by, and you get laid-off from a job that offered insurance, and all you can find is one that doesn't. If you're in that financial situation, and suddenly get told by the government that "your employer doesn't pay for your health insurance anymore, so you have to, or else," it matters little that you might be able to get tax credits for part of the cost...how many people just scraping by have an extra $500 (which is half of what insurance costs around here, and hence a "great deal") per month to devote to lining the pockets of the shareholders at Farmers, Aetna, Allstate, et. al.?

:shrug:

I, personally, would say that such a plan has the potential of being much worse than even the "do nothing" system currently in place. Now, if you were in the situation I described, you could at least not carry insurance (and pray like hell that you didn't get sick until you could land a better job that offered it); under HRCare, you wouldn't even have that option -- even if you never got sick, you'd have to feed the insurance company maw first in line, and if that meant you couldn't afford rent or food, tough luck.

[YOY]

67. I wonder what it would cost actually.

She never entails that little "tidbit" and what would be the penalty for "not buying"...being f***ed like they are now if they should get sick?

The only good that could come of it would be folks who are independantly employed and now can afford a better insurance without being rejected on their bs premises...if it actually allows that. That's the tad of slightly better bs than the current status.

Yup, unemployed/underemployed still f***ed. Insurance companies deeper ingrained in the system than before. Making money hand-over-fist more than before. Bad plan overall. It's like feeding the middleman.

Don't get me wrong. It's a bad system, but if it's forced down our throats (kinda like her) it would have some small merits.

[Adelante]

10. The only plan I like is Kucinich's

Hillary's and Edwards' seem about the same to me.

[Totally Committed]

13. I agree. Kucinich's plan is awesome.

How ya doing? :hug:

TC

[Adelante]

16. So so, sweetie

Thanks :hug:

[Enthusiast]

12. And this is the problem with Hillary.

Why should insurance companies be rewarded for administering a health care plan? Insurance company profits are why we already pay more than any other country for health care. I don't get it. Our health care dollar should go directly for care not for exorbitant profits.

[Totally Committed]

14. Like I said upthread:

Hillary Clinton: TAKIN' CARE OF BUSINESS

They got their campaign $$$$$$$$'s worth from her.

TC

[regnaD kciN]

57. "No Insurance Company Left Behind"

:eyes:

[Mojorabbit]

15. I t is awful

it does not address the homeless. How are you going to mandate they have health care? It does not address really small businesses who are running on a shoestring as it is. A tax credit would have to be really big to allow them to purchase insurance. I still am adverse to having all medical records digital. I don't mind having hospital records this way but many personal issues are discussed with physicians and they should remain private on a paper chart in the doc's office. People who are living paycheck to paycheck won't be helped by a tax credit to come up with the cash for the premiums. I could go on and on. I am really disappointed.

on edit I posted a very respectful post about an hour ago re my issues with the plan following the TOS on her site and only posts that praise the plan have been let through so far. Mine has yet to appear.
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/blog/view/Default.aspx?id=13152®istered=y#comment-form

[Totally Committed]

17. As soon as she figure out a plan to make money for the Housing Industry

there won't even be any homeless... :sarcasm:

Seriously, what you say is true. Small business and the homeless, and probably the working poor will find it very difficult (if not impossible) to get healthcare.

BTW, don't hold your breath waiting to see your post about her plan, if it was negative.

Keep your chin up, my friend.

TC

[regnaD kciN]

58. The new Hillary Clinton plan to solve the problem of homelessness...

Everyone will be required to buy or rent living space.

:eyes:

[pnwmom]

18. Universal insurance isn't possible unless both the sick and

the (currently) healthy are covered.

Her plan supposedly would subsidize people who can't afford to purchase insurance on their own. If this is done, what would your problem be?

[freebrew]

25. Here's the problem...

insurance coompnanies exist to make a profit. They may not be able to deny your coverage, but they CAN deny your benefits if the procedure, or drug are too costly in their eyes. In other words, a duck is just a duck.

It's what Machael Moore's film was all about.

[pnwmom]

30. I have heard that her plan would allow people to buy

insurance through the same program that members of Congress now have. I assume those benefits must be pretty good.

[sandnsea]

31. mandate, with a tax cut down the road

That's the problem with it. We are going to be beat to hell with "mandate", and there's no subsidized premium, just a tax cut in the future. There's nothing for working people to rally around with this.

[regnaD kciN]

60. The benefits may be good, but...

...it isn't exactly cheap. My wife works for the Treasury Department, and is covered under that plan. Even with most of the premium being covered by her employer, she still has to shell out somewhere over $300 per month out-of-pocket. I can only assume that, for those who access this plan as individuals (without an employer contribution), the premiums will be considerably higher. Better than the $1,000-plus per month for private insurance, granted, but scarcely a panacea for the financially-strapped uninsured who would now have to buy a policy.

[Nederland]

34. No different from single payer

In single payer systems the government can also deny you access to a procedure or drug that is deemed too costly...

[regnaD kciN]

59. The problem would be...

...how "can't afford to purchase insurance on their own" is figured. Most likely, it would simply be based on one's net income. But that only covers people who simply have never earned enough to qualify. But there's a second category of people in this country: people who have "acceptable" incomes but expenses that swallow up every penny. And that isn't just a case of people with lavish lifestyles or irresponsible spending habits. What about those with sub-prime mortgages now being hit with huge housing payments, and unable to even sell due to the housing crunch? What about those recently out of college, with tens of thousands in student loans? What about those forced to care for an elderly parent, or who had to resort to credit cards to pay off previous medical expenses (because their insurance company decided that a life-saving operation for one's spouse was "unnecessary elective surgery" and therefore not covered -- and then, of course, canceled their policy due to "pre-existing conditions")? Most likely, all of these would have high enough income to be expected, according to the guidelines, to shell out top dollar for a private policy under the program...but none of them would be able to afford anywhere near that amount.

[renie408]

19. I have asked this several times and nobody will answer me...

How do we get rid of the insurance industry? I hear people wanting universal health care and not wanting it to go through insurance companies. Hey, a-fucking-men. I'm all about it. The problem is...how? REALISTICALLY. How? The insurance industry isn't just going to lay down and die. Is there any way that there could be some kind of phased policy which gets people covered and starts to shift toward universal health care with less or no insurance company involvement?

[Totally Committed]

21. That's a good question.

Supposedly, with "single payer" universal healthcare, the industry just would not take care of health insurance. It would still have Home Insurance, Car Insurance, etc. There would still be an Insurance Industry. But, as long as they are able to BUY candidates as they have HRC, we don't have to worry about their welfare at all. They'll be around long after we are gone, guaranteeing health costs keep going up.

TC

[renie408]

23. I am not sure it is about 'buying' candidates...

it is about a really big industry with lots of employees that makes a shitload of money that isn't just going to say, "Oh, well, we had a good run. We're out!"

I think that the Doctor/Insurance Industry/Pharma triumvirate is a HUGE problem. But that's just it...it is a HUGE problem. It isn't going to be solved in one step, in one year, by one plan. And in the meantime, people like ME don't have any insurance. This plan is NOT perfect, but it has a chance. The first thing (to me) is to get everybody covered. Then we can go from there.

118,000 Americans die every year of treatable illnesses because they lack health insurance. While everybody bickers about a plan that might stand a chance of actually getting passed because it is not the Utopian solution they want, people are dying. I don't want to be one of them.

[CTyankee]

28. Renie, you've hit on something that I was thinking about.

About getting people attracted into the government health plan option, which would be Medicare. IF, and only IF, Medicare is adequately funded and offers a lower cost advantage, more people would look favorably on "government" providing their health care, creating an environment that presumably the other private programs would not find profitable. ONLY when private insurance companies cannot make money off of one of their programs will they drop it an go into another insurance venture. They won't just lay down and die!

Perhaps that is Hillary's end game here. Get people used to government working for them and let that experience evolve eventually into a Medicare for all universal health care program. After all, she can point to Medicare's success and say, "Insurance companies had their chance to compete and Medicare won fair and square." That way, it's not Hillary forcing only one way for everyone.

You have raised an extremely good point. IMHO,it is not a good place to be, ethically or morally, to be "all or nothing" on health care when Americans like you cannot get decent health care. That is why I cannot join my friends here at DU who scorn a middle path when such scorn ignores your plight.

[sandnsea]

33. Choose a plan that includes reform

Obama's provides real subsidies for those who need them, a choice of a plan like the federal employees, along with an agency to begin the task of reforming insurance so that all companies are providing real coverage and there are no surprises. His plan isn't mandated, so people won't be forced into plans they can't afford and end up bankrupt before they get their tax credit, if they get one at all.

There are better plans than this mandate and tax credit route, which never works out for working people. It's like pretending you've made college affordable by mandating everybody go and then announcing the Hope credit. It wouldn't work, there is still too much difference between cost and credit. Hillary doesn't get it and most from her background don't.

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/HealthPlanFull.pdf

[regnaD kciN]

61. Then I have to ask you...

And in the meantime, people like ME don't have any insurance.

...since you aren't able to pay for insurance now, and would be required to do so under the HRC plan, how much do you feel would be a fair price for you to have to pay each month for your "individual mandate" private policy?

:shrug:

[sandnsea]

32. And there's their investments

I don't even know how much of the economy insurance investments consist of, I know it is a TON. I don't know how we'd get rid of health insurance either. I do know we can't win a presidential election mandating anything, especially with promises of tax cuts that every working person know doesn't amount to squat and can be taken away at any point in time.

[renie408]

43. I don't remember it, but how hard did people cry when auto insurance became mandatory?

I don't think mandatory car insurance is a bad thing. And if there is going to be an expansion of Medicare to help people who cannot afford insurance, why wouldn't that work? As for taking the tax incentives away, what politician is going to want to be the guy who effectively took health insurance away from 50 million people? BTW..I am currently studying to become a certified tax preparer. Tax incentives amount to a lot more than 'squat'. With the right incentives, you can reduce your tax liability to nearly nothing. With the money you AREN'T paying in taxes, you could pay for insurance. I think that's how it is supposed to work, right?

[regnaD kciN]

62. Big difference between mandatory auto insurance and this...

1) You don't have to have a car. Lots of people in big cities get along just fine walking and using public transportation. Therefore, you don't have to pay for car insurance if you choose not to. In contrast, there will be no "opting out" of this plan.

2) Health insurance is much, much more costly than auto insurance. I'm paying around $600/year for a policy with pretty good coverage. If I were to get a personal health insurance policy that covered my family, I'd be looking at over $12,000/year -- in short, twenty times as much. If Hillary, Edwards, or any of the other "individual mandate" fans were to provide comprehensive health insurance at the $600/year my auto insurance costs, I'd sign up in a heartbeat! But, even with a great deal of cost-cutting, it seems obvious that the out-of-pocket costs to the average American of a mandated policy under the HRC plan would be at least several hundred dollars (and probably many hundred dollars) per month. I couldn't afford such an added cost...can you?

[Nederland]

35. Competition

Insurance companies add 30% to the cost of healthcare. If you can create an alternative that provides the same care without adding that 30%, people will switch automatically. Here's the problem though: most people don't pay directly for healthcare, so they have no incentive to switch. That's the fundemental problem with the current system AND single payer systems: the individual has little incentive to push for reduced costs.

[renie408]

40. Except indviduals like me, who are self-employed

We had good coverage for a long time. Then we moved out of NC by LITERALLY 1/3 of a mile. I sent in my change of address and received a letter telling us our insurance was cancelled...I didn't really pay attention to the fact that it was Blue Cross of NORTH CAROLINA. They gave us sixty days to switch insurance companies, but I have had a hard time getting insured. About eight years ago I had some odd neurological things happen. I had three MRI's and the doctor at the time said that he was 99.9% certain it wasn't MS. By time he told me that, the tingling was gone in my feet (it has never come back). He said, "To be absolutely sure, you would have to have a spinal tap." I asked him what he would do and he said, "Honestly, these kind of changes occur all the time, resolve themselves and don't amount to anything. I wouldn't do a spinal tap unless the symptoms return." I didn't do it. Now, eight years later, I have been told that I have to produce THAT doctor's assurance that he didn't think I have MS. He is retired and after spending literally a YEAR trying to get those records, I just gave up. Now the insurance company says that I have to have about $2500 of testing at my own expense to PROVE I don't have MS before they will insure me. So, my kids and husband have insurance, but I don't.

[damntexdem]

26. A b.s. plan that is exactly what we should expect from Hillary.

At least the 1992-94 efforts were apparently sincere, if wrongheaded. They actually were part of an effort at healthcare coverage reform, with some aspects of system reform. This is just an attempted boost to the insurance industry.

[Totally Committed]

27. Amen, my friend!

You can say that again!

TC

[TexasBushwhacker]

29. Divorce health insurance from the employers

I think most employers would be glad to have it taken away from them. That way employees wouldn't be tethered to employers by their health insurance policy.

The employers could pay employees what they've been paying in premiums and the employees have the medicare (new national health insurance) witheld from their paychecks just like SSI and Medicare is withheld now. If you work, you contribute - PERIOD. It would level the playing field for self employed individuals, as well as for employers who either can't afford or don't want to offer health insurance. Health insurance companies could still be used to process claims, just as they're used to process Medicare claims now.

With every person covered by the same plan from cradle to grave, their would be more incentive to practice preventive medicine. As it stands now, many insurers won't cover certain costly treatments or procedures because they figure the person might change jobs (and insurance) first before treatments get even more costly.

[Nederland]

37. Yes!

Employers are an unnecessary middleman in the health care equation.

[TexasBushwhacker]

38. Seems simple, doesn't it?

I think most employers would welcome it, but there are some that have their employees hog tied with their "great benefits", which may or may not be so great when the employee tries to make a claim (just watch Sicko). I say put everyone in one risk pool, get everyone insured, have government oversight and start watching our costs come down and/or the quality of service we get go up. Private insurance companies could still sell add on insurance policies to cover deductibles and co-pays. If they don't like it, it's their own damn fault. They never should have gotten so greedy.

[renie408]

44. That would be ideal. But how do we get there from here?

That would be perfect. But unlikely to happen within the foreseeable future. In the meantime, hundreds of thousands of people die for lack of insurance. Can we get to that plan from where we are now without some in between steps? And might one of the in between steps look something like what Hillary is proposing?

[antigop]

39. If sHillary is too chicken to take on the insurance cos, how will she take on the "terrorists"?

[L0oniX]

42. Excellent observation

[renie408]

45. Really? I thought it was kind of ridiculous. n/t

[L0oniX]

47. If you going to die because you don't have health care then terrorists don't seem to be as dangerous

Ya think?

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[smalll]

41. I don't think there's anything wrong with this -- it's when candidates

start saying that they'll force us to go to the doctor, THAT's when it goes too far! (It wasn't Hillary who dropped that particular bomb on us. Twice.)

[antigop]

46. sHillary's quote: "“The idea is not to put the health insurance industry out of business, ..

but to help it find a better way to make a living.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/17/washington/17cnd-clinton.html

<edit to add> No sirreee, can't put those health insurance companies out of business, can we? Gotta keep those contributions coming....

[renie408]

49. WHY do we want to put them out of business? Why can't we just

do what she said and help them work better? If everybody gets covered without causing themselves too much stress...how is that bad?

[eridani]

54. Yes, let's help armed robbers and second story men work better too

They "work" by denying care as often as possible. Why would we want them to get better at that?

[MadHound]

65. Because the health insurance companies have, are and will continue to do a piss poor job

They are in business to make a profit, not to help people with their health conditions. Thus they will scrimp and save money where ever they can, including denying care, certain procedures, drugs and therapies that actually do people good all in the name of profit. A for profit corporation has an inherent conflict in providing health care to people, and much of a person's treatment is regulated by the bean counters in the insurance industry.

[LWolf]

50. We sure want to keep those health insurance companies happy.

No matter that health care costs are competing around my house with the quality of food available, and I have specific dietary mandates to address health issues.

No matter that I'm paying for the supposedly "good" insurance, and still paying out almost $400 a month in copays, prescriptions, and some supplements and therapies not covered by the insurance AFTER I've paid the damned premium.

No matter that I spent almost $1,000 this summer at the dentist, doing nothing but getting a check up and getting my teeth cleaned, and getting blood work done for other issues that I had to pay for IN ADDITION TO THE INSURANCE.

Don't forget that I have the "good" insurance.

No matter that I skipped the pap, the mammogram, and the dermatologist to check out the morphing moles because I was too busy paying for dental and blood work.

No matter. After all, I have the "good insurance," so I can't complain. WTF do people with the BAD insurance do, or, horrors, the people with no insurance at all?

Let's not make those insurance companies unhappy.

[renie408]

51. We go around scared shitless and wishing we had your problems. n/t

[LWolf]

52. I hope, if you are one with bad, or no, insurance,

you passionately support HR 676.

[middleclassman]

53. The government needs to regulate the price

I lived in Tokyo for many years. Every morning people commute from the suburb to work by train. Train is their only choice because the city is too crowded to have any real highway system.

In theory, the train company can charge as high price as they wish and people would still have to use the train. Fortunately, the train ticket price is controlled by government.

The broken health care system in US is similar to the case in Tokyo when the train ticket price is not under government regulation.

Health care simply does not work by free-market, because the demand curve in a quantity-price chart will go straight up in price because it cannot go below a certain quantity. The health insurance companies, pharmacies, doctors naturally try to maximize profit by charging very high price, because the demand cannot drop no matter how high the price is (actually when the price is so high that the demand starts to drop is when people starts to die and is the equilibrium today in US)

Suppose Hilary Clinton gives everybody $10000 to buy health insurance. The health provider will simply raise the price by $10000 and pocket every penny, and the same health care problem stays. It's only natural for Hilary Clinton to do so since she receive massive donation from health care companies. Probably the wise choice for us now is to start buying health care stocks.

In Japan and many other countries, the government sets the price paid to doctors for each type of operation they perform, and price for each type of medicine, the same way as they regulate the price of train tickets. It of course comes at the cost of doctors and drug companies. But that's the only choice when free-market principle does not work unless you want people to die in exchange for high stock price. It amazes me that I have never once heard anybody mentioning this on TV, it's just so telling how "un-democratic" america really is.

[eridani]

55. Mandatory insurance is often much WORSE than no insurance

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3527091

And 244,000 of Massachusetts uninsured get zero assistance –just a stiff fine if they don’t buy coverage. A couple in their late 50s faces a minimum premium of $8,638 annually, for a policy with no drug coverage at all and a $2,000 deductible per person before insurance even kicks in. Such skimpy yet costly coverage is, in many cases, worse than no coverage at all. Illness will still bring crippling medical bills—but the $8,638 annual premium will empty their bank accounts even before the bills start arriving. Little wonder that barely 2 percent of those required to buy such coverage have thus far signed up.

[regnaD kciN]

63. And Mitt Romney's Massachusetts plan is really the model...

...for "individual mandate" programs like HRC's. :-(

[Totally Committed]

66. And, you can see here how well THAT's worked for us!

Massachusetts Healthcare Reform a Failure:

"But this time, most of the uninsured are neither poor nor elderly.

The middle class is being priced out of health care. Virtually all of this year's increase was among families with incomes above $50,000; in fact, two-thirds of the newly uncovered were in the above-$75,000 group. And full-time workers accounted for 56 percent of the increase, with their children making up much of the rest."



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3527091


Yes, I am a Mass. resident.

TC

[killbotfactory]

69. This sounds awesome, I can't wait!

:wtf:

[win_in_06]

64. This is the one statement that she will have to account for in

November. Her response and the electorate's reaction will no doubt make or break her.

[thetaoofterri]

68. This was the last straw for me

I was going to settle for Hillary because it doesn't appear that Gore will enter the race. But, after reading this proposal, I have to rethink my vote... Crap!!