Might as well admit it...HRC's health care plan is a surrender to the Right.

[Ken Burch]

It doesn't make health care a right.

It imposes a huge individual cost on workers and the poor by forcing them to buy insurance out of pocket(and we all know the so-call "tax credits" won't come anywhere near reimbursing working class people for the cost).

It further enriches Big Pharma and Big Insurance by completely leaving price control out of the equation.

It ends any further chance of expanding coverage now and forever.

And all the RW pundits have been gloating about how HRC has learned her place.

Why not just admit she's sold out to Dub and Mitch and John and Rush and say the hell with it?

We can fight and WIN on a REAL healthcare plan. We CAN defeat corporate power.

There's no reason for us to once again sell out before the fight even starts.

[fenriswolf]

1. "input appropriate dennis kucinich response here"

[Cleita]

3. Dennis was in my town today. I went

to see him. He of course said that Medicare for all was what he would offer. There would be no more private insurance under him because he said people can't afford to carry the weight of the insurance companies anymore. People need real and affordable health care. I love Dennis. He really is the man who can change this country around.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

22. I am jealous Cleita.

Did you extend him my regards? :hi:

[truedelphi]

82. Me like him too. Me suggest that all Kucinich supporters

Move to same state (Hawaii comes to mind - they all like him there)

We eat coconuts (very healthy) and taro and lose weight and swim in ocean and sun bathe on sand.

We become happy people seceding from the Union of Messed-up-Mainland.

We make Dennis President.

Messed-up-Mainland have all troops in Iraq - no Army to come and force Hawaiians back into
Messed-Up Union.

Dennis be our President. We have health care - decent education.

And since experts in the Mainland White House say "No Global Warming" no need to worry about the only real threat to my plan.

Special DK marqarita will be invented - a splash of cherry. Money from patenting this brew keep all Hawaiians with mucho for investments in pensions and education and plenty of surf boards for all.

[truedelphi]

84. Non-drinking husband suggest I explain you that

Of course me know that Hawaiians no speak baby talk.

Of course I know.

Sunday me day to relax - dream big dreams of Happy Perfect Life.

Cubs winning pennant. :-)

Dennis beomes President. :-) :-)

Me, husband and cats move to Islands.

Me no need to be adult on Sunday - sorry Hawaiians. Me know no one there speak baby talk.

At least not before they down five Margarita's.

You free come and join my dream of DK as President even if you no want Cubs win pennant!

Even if you no drink!

[alfredo]

89. One question. What will happen to the jobs of the people who work for

insurance companies?

[truedelphi]

102. It would be cheaper to give everyone working in the health care

Sector of the insurance business an annual pension of 30K FOR LIFE
(even if they are a nineteen year old file clerk) then for Americans to continually spend 30% of our health care dollars on this segment of the economy.

With that 30K they can go back to school and learn new skills, or whatever.

[alfredo]

111. We would have to consider such things. They could get work

administrating the new program if they choose.

[ProudDad]

156. It's already in the bill

Please read it!!

From below:

"Those who are displaced as the result of the transition to a non- profit health care system are the first to be hired and retrained under this act."

Of course, that doesn't include CEO's and other highly paid leeches. Nor would it include those legions of employees whose jobs are to deny care at all cost.

You don't need such vermin in the People's Health Care System...

-------------------

http://www.house.gov/conyers/news_hr676_2.htm

Brief Summary of HR 676

· The United States National Health Insurance Act establishes an American national health insurance program. The bill would create a publicly financed, privately delivered health care system that uses the already existing Medicare program by expanding and improving it to all U.S. residents, and all residents living in U.S. territories. The goal of the legislation is to ensure that all Americans will have access, guaranteed by law, to the highest quality and most cost effective health care services regardless of their employment, income, or health status.
· With over 45-75 million uninsured Americans, and another 50 million who are under- insured, the time has come to change our inefficient and costly fragmented non health care system.

Who is Eligible

· Every person living in or visiting the United States and the U.S. Territories would receive a United States National Health Insurance Card and ID number once they enroll at the appropriate location. Social Security numbers may not be used when assigning ID cards.

Health Care Services Covered

· This program will cover all medically necessary services, including primary care, in patient care, outpatient care, emergency care, prescription drugs, durable medical equipment, long term care, mental health services, dentistry, eye care, chiropractic, and substance abuse treatment. Patients have their choice of physicians, providers, hospitals, clinics and practices. No co-pays or deductibles are permitted under this act.

Conversion To A Non-Profit Health Care System

· Private health insurers shall be prohibited under this act from selling coverage that duplicates the benefits of the USNHI program. Exceptions to this rule include coverage for cosmetic surgery, and other medically unnecessary treatments. Those who are displaced as the result of the transition to a non- profit health care system are the first to be hired and retrained under this act.

Cost Containment Provisions/ Reimbursement

· The National USNHI program will set reimbursement rates annually for physicians, allow for "global budgets" (annual lump sums for operating expenses) for health care providers; and negotiate prescription drug prices. The national office will provide an annual lump sum allotment to each existing Medicare region; each region will administer the program.

· The conversion to a not-for-profit health care system will take place over a 15 year period. U.S. treasury bonds will be sold to compensate investor-owned providers for the actual appraised value of converted facilities used in the delivery of care; payment will not be made for loss of business profits. Health insurance companies could be sub-contracted out to handle reimbursements.

Proposed Funding For USNHI Program:

· Maintaining current federal and state funding of existing health care programs. A modest payroll tax on all employers of 3.3%. A 5% health tax on the top 5% of income earners. A small tax on stock and bond transfers. Closing corporate tax loop-holes, repealing the Bush tax cut.

[alfredo]

164. That's good. Most of these people just needed a job. The ones who

engaged in unethical behavior should not be given jobs. It's best they run for public office instead.

[bahrbearian]

109. They could move off-shore with the companies holdings, and

work for the CEO's as Butlers and Maids.

[liberaltrucker]

133. Seen any buggy-whip makers lately?

nt

[alfredo]

137. We have a few here, but they are outnumbered by Ferriers.

[Cleita]

178. Every freeper in the world asks that. Why are you asking it?

The insurance companies are already outsourcing those jobs, so they aren't really going to affect Americans that much. Also, many of them will be hired by the government because of the increase in volume of administrating this plan. You know that insurance companies also act as contractors for the Medicare and Medicaid program don't you? So they will probably still be in the equation, but not controlling the money, and that affects Wall Street not the job market.

[alfredo]

180. I asked it to spark debate. I wanted to make sure the insurance

lobby doesn't have good talking points. Anyway we need to know how many Americans are employed in the health insurance industry in the US. None of the agents I have talked with since 1999 were foreigners. I've held insurance through my union, so they would use US labor. (accents were clearly midwestern US)

If we do change to UHC we need to be fair to those employees who have mortgages and are putting their kids through school. So far I am satisfied that they will have a safety net.

[Greyhound]

194. As previously noted, HR626 makes provision for them, I would just like to add that it is one hell of

a lot more than was done for the millions of IT workers that had their lives ripped out from under them by Clinton/shrub. Many of us have still not and probably never will recover.

[Faryn Balyncd]

16. Mandating purchase from predatory corporations is FASCIST heathcare.......

It fits the definition for what Mussolini termed "corporatism".

[liberation]

72. It is the same bullshit they pulled in states like Ca.

Where it is mandatory to have insurance to be on the road (I have no problem with that), yet it is not mandatory for Insurance companies to enforce their contracts.

This is the government forces me to pay the insurance company's premium, but if something happens to me... the government does not force the insurance company to pay me.

To the point that insurance companies pretty much policy themselves. I had a full coverage (I am paranoid and I rather be safe than sorry) policy, I paid up the wazoo every month. I have had only 1 accident, a hit and run. And I was covered for uninsured drivers (kid of ironic, if its mandatory to have insurance, but that is another topic altogether) and things like hit and run. The CHP report stated that it was a hit and run, and all the witnesses attested about the idiot who hit me invading my lane. What happened with the insurance company? They conducted their own "investigation" of which I have no proof or feedback, and which directly contradicts the CHP officer's report. And decided I was at fault. Luckily the family has several lawyers, and reminding of that fact made the insurance company comply with fixing my car on their dime as it is their contractual obligation.

After seeing how insurers acted after Katrina. It is just the rule, and not the exception, that insurance companies will always try to screw you in order to defend their bottom line. The fact that people are OK, is what disturbs me.

If we want to have a for profit health system, then insurance companies need to be regulated up the wazoo. If they don't like it they can pursue another line of business.

[papau]

83. LOL - Even DK would not agree with the OP's poor analysis of Hillary's plan - The Medicare for all

aspect is driving the right nuts =

Amusing that the right understands her plan and many on DU are too busy bashing Hillary to see what she has done.

Sam Seder was on Air America this afternoon noting the "alternative of a Medicare like plan" and what that implied - folks should listen to Sam a bit more.

[RaleighNCDUer]

97. Doublespeak.

How can it's primary feature be "medicare for all" while it also mandates health insurance with private insurers? When the insurance companies contest the standards, what will the government's stance be? How many people will fall between the cracks because they don't meet the criteria for "medicare for all", but cannot afford the private insurance? For adequate coverage there would have to be a sliding scale between total government subsidy and total private coverage - who decides who sits where on that scale? It would require looking at every single individual case - for 300,000,000 citizens - on a case by case basis, and we do not have the bureaucracy to do that. And if we did have that bureaucracy, it would have to be the largest, most cumbersome, most expensive bureaucracy we have.

We need to take the private insurers OUT of the system completely. That will automatically simplify the coverage - make it literally (not in some fantasy as Hillary envisions) medicare for all.

[papau]

105. details will be written by Congress- the competion with a Like Medicare plan that will at least

keep costs down and amount of coverage up-

the no rejection or price changes because of pre-existing gets rid of a business that made money by denying care-

subsidy and refundable federal tx credit (which means it is paid in cash if you don't owe any FITtax) means coverage is limited in cost as a percentage of income-

the competition allowed against the Medicare like plan will keep the ins co's a little happy, but it is likely that over time they will die out except as supplemental policies like we now have for our current Medicare.

the GOP will likely demand margins in the Medicare like premiums so the companies will have it easier - if we can get the GOP on board somehow.

The plan is much like Edwards plan- and may well be the only way to get Medicare for all on the books - we must sell choice - and no change for the 50% who have policies now that they are happy with.

[Clark2008]

170. As someone from the state of Tennessee who saw the

ultimate demise of TennCare - I'd say this plan is full of shit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TennCare

My step-father and mother were kicked off of TennCare in October 2006 after paying a sliding-scale fee for years. He died in June 2007 having no insurance (and probably because he had no insurance) after never being sick a day in his life because they could not afford anything else.

This mix of quasi-government, quasi-business is crap. I'd read up on it awhile.

[Cleita]

181. The devil is in the details. Edward's plan addresses the

hidden costs that subsidizing the private insurers would entail. Hillary's doesn't. It would be like the PHARMA bonanza given by the Medicare Part D prescription drug plan where the drug companies can charge whatever they like, unlike the VA plan where prices are negotiated. It would be very costly in the end and a nice corporate welfare plan for the insurers. She also doesn't address exactly what they will have to cover. We still could be getting plans with huge deductibles, where you still have to pay for your health care anyway until you meet what they arbitrarily decide is going to be applied to your deductible. In the end you essentially really still don't have ready access to health care without a hefty cash outlay first.

[juno jones]

121. Thank you

You say better than I could. I agree the bueracracy would be staggering. I have no faith that suddenly all of the working poor will magically be insured. Universal health care for all!

[Cleita]

179. I find Hillary's plan and those like it are really Arnold

Schwarzenegger's plan that he is trying to push on California. Funny how it jumped across the aisle into Hillary's lap. It would be very costly to the treasury in the long run. The goal of a single payer universal health plan like Medicare for all is to cut down on the bureaucracy, not increase it.

[bluestateguy]

2. HillaryCare II is Romney Lite

The insurance companies simply don't want to insure anybody who is sick because it is not profitable to do so. For years we have asked them nicely and given them a chance to please, please cooperate and be part of a market-oriented solution. They have refused. Therefore, it is now time to legislate them out of business.

[Cleita]

4. Actually, it's Arnold Schwarzenegger light. This is the plan

Arnold is trying to make Californians accept and he introduced it in May.

[emilyg]

5. Did you read Edward's and Obama's - just wondering why hit on Clinton.

[fenriswolf]

6. not hitting on clinton

tell you the truth i dont like any of their health care plans, the plan for them is as soon as they can say "every american" is covered it will become a non issue to congress, the dems will bring it up from time to time to drum up support but we will never get it, unless we get it right the first time. DENNIS KUCINICH for president

[kcass1954]

81. The problem is that none of them (except DK) are proposing health care plans...

they're all working on health "insurance" plans. I don't want any more frigging insurance!

[Ken Burch]

10. Because she is still the one our beloved leaders tell us

We're obligated to nominate.

[Ken Burch]

13. For the record, there plans aren't worth even bothering with either.

Incrementalism will never work again for progressives in the US. It is no longer possible to advance in small steps.

[paulk]

19. "incrementalism will never work for progressives"

yeah, up the revolution, brother!




--------------------------


another example of why no one takes the uber left seriously anymore....

[Ken Burch]

20. It's not like the only options are incrementalism or going to the Sierra Maestra.

Incrementalism no longer works because when you settle for mere trivial increments(like the Republican plans Obama, Edwards and HRC are backing)the GOP just gets in and removes the increments. Then sellouts like you say we have to settle for SMALLER increments. Then it repeats, and your type says we have to settle for just slowing down the decrements.

What the hell is wrong with standing on principle, starting with a strong progressive plan and actually FIGHTING FOR IT in the court of public opinion.

Your way just means settling for being to the right of even the Nineties.

Some of us want our victories to actually MEAN something.

[paulk]

28. all I can say -

is that I wish I had the luxury of putting the perfect before the good.

I guess it's easy for you to call people sellouts...

I tell you what - why don't you buy my health insurance for me?

Because I'm 51 yrs old and I don't have any.

Then I'll be quite willing to stand on "principal".

------------

In the meantime I'll take any "increments" offered...

[Ken Burch]

31. God I hate that phrase "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the way of the good".

It's Beltway for "fuck off, peasant, you have no right to expect anything from us".

Show some dignity, for God's sake. Don't be such a defeatist.

We are not in a permanently conservative system. We don't have to campaign by apologizing for not being Republican.

And being forced to pay for your health insurance isn't a gain. Nothing improves under the non-single payer proposals.

Let's try fighting and WINNING for a change.

There is NOTHING in the Nineties worth repeating.

[paulk]

47. please see post #19

it's not defeatism, it's reality...

and I don't have time anymore for this "man the barricades" crap.

[Ken Burch]

61. I don't wish to read the same insult again, so I won't bother with post 19

If you don't have the energy or the time for the fight for justice, fine, I can't judge you for that. But you don't have to disrespect those who haven't given up to make your point.

And frankly, part of the reason this proposal so offends me is that it betrays people like you. You deserve better. The working people of this country and this world deserve better. And if we stand together, we can get it.

I wasn't attacking you in this thread, so don't attack me.

[creeksneakers2]

100. What about all those people who could have had health

insurance but didn't get it because you said what they were offered wasn't good enough. What would you say to them?

[Ken Burch]

112. If the media succeed in browbeating the party into nominating that candidate

Than her plan will be the one proposed. Nothing I say here will stop it.
But we aren't even IN the election year yet and we are being told we have to obey and nominate the media-establishment-Beltway choice on the media-establishment-Beltway platform.

If we do that, this ISN'T the Democratic Party anymore. It's nothing but the Beltway Conservative Party, and we can do better than that.

We don't have to lose to win. The country is not permanently conservative.

No more shame-based politics.

[Warren DeMontague]

129. Like I said. If Kucinich wins the nomination, Hillary's plan will be moot.

So, vote for Kooch in the Primaries. That's what I'm doing.

But this "Fuck Hillary, Fuck Edwards, Fuck Obama, they're all Repukes" nonsense is bullshit. After the primaries are over, one of those three will probably be our nominee.

And I don't think "nothing" improves under the non-single payer proposals. The insurance companies are forbidden from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions. According to some in the thread, that's meaningless, because then they'll just "offer" coverage that those people can't afford. But wait a minute- then why don't they just do that now? The denial of coverage is bad PR. If they can just price people out instead of "denying coverage", why don't they do that instead?

:shrug:

Doesn't make sense.

[eridani]

37. I suppose if you wanted to sell your car for 5 grand but would take 3 grand--

--that your classified ad would read "car for sale--$3000"? How fecking stupid is that? If you know you will have to compromise, you put your opening bid as high as possible. The rest of us silly over-idealistic dreamers would say "car for sale--$5000 or best offer". It is flat out never ever possible to get anything good unless you ask for the perfect. In this case, the "perfect" happens to have huge popular support, so why not ask for it? Even if you'll accept a kitten, why not ask for a pony?

[creeksneakers2]

101. If you ask for $5,000 for a $3,000

car you are likely to miss many potential customers who would have paid three but ignored the ad because the car wasn't worth anything near $5,000. You might wind up not even being able to sell it without running another ad.

[eridani]

104. Not if they read the "or best offer" part

That is an invitation to negotiation, and it is utterly stupid to lead low.

[kenfrequed]

50. Right..

And all those people working at Walmart are still screwed because tax credits will never make up for the cost of the insurance. Oh yeah and a tax break is just a sneaky way of trying to get the naieve or gullible to cough up money for it and refund a small portion of it back. Sort of like the right wings school coupons (Thank you Greg Palast)

And this actually ignores the issue of the 'underinsured' people that have insurance that doesnt actually cover squat. Working at an HMO I do have some knowledge of the inner workings of how they try to block or screw people out of coverage.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

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

[HughMoran]

24. interesting

So bash the one who has the most complete solution. I guess that is always the price to pay for actually proposing something instead of just looking good like Obama.

[Ken Burch]

25. Dennis Kucinich is the one with the most complete solution.

Hillary's plan basically says "I've given up and I'm sorry I ever disagreed with Republicans on anything. Elect me and I'll take Rush's orders on everything".

She took the wrong lesson from 1994. The original plan lost because it was too complex, NOT because it was too "left".

We don't need to lose to win.

And we all know that even if HRC's plan were enacted, that would be all the futher healthcare policy would EVER go. The story would end.

Please stop trying to make us settle for the most conservative approach possible.

[HughMoran]

I would prefer Kucinich as well

His positions are more in-line with mine and he comes up as my #1 candidate in one of those multi-choice candidate determination sites. BUT, he cannot win. He WILL NOT win. No amount of Hillary bashing here will stop her from becoming President. I suppose this is why we are debating her plans as if she were already President - because she is going to be the President. I am in agreement with your issues with this program, but the single-mindedness of some of the anti-Hillary crowd is becoming increasingly predicable and is actually turning people against the anti-Hillary crowd and indirectly promoting her. I don't know if this is a Republican trolling ploy or what, but it is disturbing to say the least.

[Ken Burch]

27. I'm part of no cabal. I'm debating the issues.

I'll be backing her after the convention if she actually cons the party into nominating her. There can't be a good reason for any progressive to back her in the primaries. IN the primaries, we need to focus on sending as many progressive delegates to the convention as possible.

Only a grassroots run, anti-Beltway convention with real debate can produce a Democratic victory. A coronation with no passion like 2004 HAS to mean defeat.

All Hillary delegates will be voting against any worthwhile platform ideas and will fight to make a Democratic victory meaningless. They've all given up their hopes and dreams and care about nothing but victory in name.

It would be pointless to elect a Democrat that ISN'T even an inch to the left of "The Big Dog". The Nineties aren't worth repeating.

[HughMoran]

33. I hear ya

I just wish that posts promoting Dems were as popular as posts bashing Dems - and especially the next President - Hillary Clinton. She is certainly not my first choice (4th choice?), but the continued assault on her is not how I had thought this election cycle would play out. Perhaps I hate Republicans so passionately that any Dem will make me happy at this point. I can't imagine the Dems (us supposedly) so poisoning the waters that a Republican wins and gets to appoint 3 more Supreme Court justices - yikes!

[Ken Burch]

34. For no good reason, the media has declared her the frontrunner.

Anyone in that position would get a higher level of scrutiny. We don't have to let the media and the Beltway choose our candidate. We don't have to make the primaries and the convention meaningless and the platform an jumbo helping of weasel words.

[HughMoran]

35. Well, I'm not going to vote for her

...and I get to vote in NH - if that makes you feel any better :D

How can we actually change the frontrunner status of a former first lady who we always knew would run - nobody on either side has bigger name recognition. How can that be changed?

[kenfrequed]

52. Well

Name recognition is the absolute WORST way to pick a candidate this far out. I mean suddenly we might discover half way through the process that she actually doesn't say anything substantive, promises very little, and won't stand up to attacks by the right wing.

Oh wait...

[sandnsea]

76. Obama: no mandate, no tax credits

If the rest of the country wants to settle for a bogus health plan like the bogus college plan - fine. Don't force me to go along. Obama's got that going for him, at least.

[ProudDad]

157. 'Cause hers is the worst of a bad lot (n/t)

[tnlefty]

7. I long for the day that insurance companies are OUT of the

healthcare business. They'll still have homeowner's polices and car policies to rip us off with.

I've been screwed over in each aspect of insurance coverage, but the health aspect sucks the most!

[AllyCat]

70. For-profit healthcare is the biggest insult to those who need it.

I agree. Get the insurance companies out of the equation. Then we'll have a real system.

[frazzled]

8. Why just HRC?

As Elizabeth Edwards herself has protested, Clinton's plan is identical to John Edwards's. So you should change your header to indicate that Edwards, too, has sold out to the Right. Maybe even include Obama (though his doesn't make purchase mandatory, it has many similar elements). And all the rest, save Kucinich.

You know, if presidents actually enacted legislation, you might have a point in suggesting Kucinich's plan is best (we all want single-payer, non-profit universal health care). But as you know, they don't. And by the time a Kucinich plan hit Congress, it would be radically changed from what he is proposing. That doesn't mean you shouldn't support him in the primaries on the basis of his health-care stance, but just don't confuse a candidate proposing a plan with the scenario of that plan ever getting enacted.

If you want a laugh, remember that (ultra-conservative Democrat) Bob Kerrey ran in 1992 on a single-payer universal health plan. Later, in Congress, he turned tail completely on even a Clinton-style "managed-care" plan.

[Ken Burch]

11. And that means that Hillary's plan, which is ALREADY Republican

would be even more Republican by the time it was done.

We have to at least START from principle before we compromise.

HRC's plan is clearly not progressive. And when IT is defeated, that will take health care off the table for ANOTHER decade.

I'm just saying don't surrender at the start.

[Ken Burch]

14. So you're saying we should surrender and settle for next to nothing

Which is the same thing as settling FOR nothing.

Incrementalism is the path to eternal defeat. The Nineties proved incrementalism was worthless.

[fenriswolf]

18. you need to look at the person

if kucinich stepped heel to toe with the rest of the robots he would have a better lead. If kucinich cared about his campaign more then the people he campaigned for he would be in a better lead, if kucinich took money in exchange for promises then he would be in the lead, if kucinich spent more time finding out what lobbiest wanted past then the people he would be in the lead. Charecter is what counts and I find kucinich to be refreshing and honest and the fact that he is not willing to lie to the people, cover the truth, toot his own horn (well except to have his opinion, voice and legislation heard) I think kucinich would mop the floor with these guys if he could have equal footing media wise.

[ProudDad]

58. Hey, I've got an idea

Why don't you f*cking talk about health care instead of try to trash Kucinich...


Oh, that's right, the other candidates ain't got SHIT when it comes to a health care plan...and they've all dissed the ONLY one that would actually change the system...

[Ken Burch]

107. He wasn't bashing Kucinich.

He was pointing out the difficulties our corporate-controlled political system imposes on a candidate who is democratic as well as Democratic.

[ProudDad]

146. Yeah, I was having a bad night

:hi:

[Ken Burch]

154. happens to the best of us.

No worries.

[ProudDad]

147. Sorry

just read all of your post...

Havin' a bad night :hi:


On edit: Actually havin' another bad decade. I'm losing all hope -- I've been able to maintain a semblence of hope through nixon, ford, Carter, ray-gun, bush I, Clinton (the best republican president ever) and now bush II and soon Clinton II...

But it's waning fast...

[creeksneakers2]

9. How do you know that?

"It imposes a huge individual cost on workers and the poor by forcing them to buy insurance out of pocket(and we all know the so-call "tax credits" won't come anywhere near reimbursing working class people for the cost)."

Some of the other claims the the post don't give evidence. What about just this one? How do you know this is the case?

[Ken Burch]

12. I know it because the plan forces people to pay for insurance individually

Which means of course the companies will gouge them(as they gouge people on mandatory auto insurance).

The plan is based on market forces, which means the people lose at the start.

Why surrender before the fight?

[zeemike]

93. People living at or near the poverty level

Do not pay income tax because they do not make enough.
So a tax credit means nothing to them...it only helps those that make enough to pay taxes.
Sp if you are living on beans and rice you will have to give up one of them to buy insurance so that you can get a job.

[Gloria]

15. I learned that it is based on a plan offered by the late Sen. John Chafee

(R-RI)....NO KIDDING.

Check it out at the Washington Note:

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002359.php

Now it all makes sense.....................

[BlooInBloo]

17. No it's not. It's just Clinton-hater mendacious up-is-down-ism.

http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2007/09/the-hillary-pla.html

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/09/not_that_theres_anything_wrong.php

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/09/the_clinton_plan.php


EDIT: Oh, I forgot - I guess *Paul Krugman* is also part of the evil empire? Sheesh. Hatred of Clinton trumping interest in the fucking truth. Fucking pathetic.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/21/opinion/21krugman.html

[Faryn Balyncd]

21. If BUSH himself were to get "universal healthcare" passed,....would it be worse than HRC's plan?

[Ken Burch]

23. Well, yeah, if you consider that Bush's plan would probably mean

Extending the death penalty to the uninsured.

After which the DLC will argue that we can only win if we extend it to people who are behind on their co-pays.

[ProudDad]

148. If he signed HR676

it would be BETTER...

But he doesn't even want "government" health care for children.

[Ken Burch]

168. If he doesn't sign it, it might not be because he objects to the bill

It could just be because he's forgotten how his name is spelled again.

[MethuenProgressive]

26. OP is Nonsense. The RW is calling her plan "socialized medicine"

`Socialized Medicine'. Republicans said Clinton's plan would increase taxes and lead to what former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney today called ...
www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a0O6t.FAK7nE&refer=home -

Lordy, how the HillHaters *do* like to make shit up! :eyes:

[Cha]

29. And we all know the rw always

tell the truth..and "hillary haters" are pointing out why her corporateass health insurance plan sucks..we're against her corporate shilling and your "hillary haters" is nothing more than trying to distract from her policies.

[bvar22]

32. The only thing "Socialized" about HillaryCare2...

...is the $Millions in Corporate Welfare Hillary will be shoveling into the pockets of some of the RICHEST CEOs the World has ever seen.
Coincidentally, those CEOs are also some of her biggest campaign donors. (DUH!)



The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[madmom]

41. so what is wrong with "socialized medicine" our police & fire dept. are socialized are they not?

[MethuenProgressive]

43. The OP says her plan is surrender to the GOP, but the GOP hates it....

Linda Blair's cinematic head was pleasantly stationary compared to way the HillHaters dervish-ly spin and spew all sides of every issue.

[lastliberalintexas]

49. Are you that naive?

You think that just because the right wing supposedly hates Clinton's health insurance proposal that it means it's actually a good plan? How can forcing people to purchase health insurance be considered in any way, shape or form progressive? Why would anyone with any sense think it's good to send even more of our hard earned dollars to the insurance industry? For profit healthcare is the problem, and continuing under the burden of for profit insurance is not the solution.


Though I do find it ironic that Romney is fighting against Clinton's plan, since it's essentially the same as his proposal from last year.

[spoony]

62. Yeah for "giving in to them" they sure aren't too excited about it!

Could it be the OP overstated things...slightly? Lol.

[Ken Burch]

73. The RW pundits "Washington Week" this Friday were gloating about how HRC had learned her place

And was being properly submissive.

And it's not like they'd praise her. They just enjoy seeing her and the party give in yet again.

[lostnotforgotten]

30. Will Never Vote For Hillary - Not Even The General election

If she is the best we can do then we deserve another Republican.

[Vincardog]

36. If she is the best we can do then we get another Republican.

[MethuenProgressive]

39. The only way the GOP defeats Clinton is with help from Democrats.

So stay at home - that's what the GOP is counting on.

[Le Taz Hot]

40. No thanks.

Most of us will be writing in the person we think is wisest choice for the job. But nice try.

[MethuenProgressive]

42. How'd that work out for the Naderites?

You might want the GOP to win, but I don't. Bad try.

[Le Taz Hot]

45. I'm not sure.

You might want to ask them.

[ProudDad]

183. Self-Delete

dangling from wrong post...

[ProudDad]

184. You might want to ask both of them

Ralph and...

Oh, never mind, just ask Ralph...


Hell, all Nader ever wanted was a democracy -- the f*ckin' dreamer...

[lostnotforgotten]

44. Hillary = Corptocracy - Same As The Present Boss

eom

[BlooInBloo]

66. They don't care. They'll see the world burn before they vote for Clinton...

... Gosh... they're sooooooo progressive.

[Ken Burch]

75. There can never be a good reason for the Dems to choose the most conservative idea possible

It's not "universal healthcare" to make people pay for their insurance out of pocket, and you know perfectly well the companies will price-gouge.

Why even bother arguing that this isn't a sellout?

I'll support the nominee, but you and I both know that it can't really matter who wins if this is the kind of ideas OUR ticket comes up with.

We don't have to settle for bland centrism. The country is progressive on the issues. Enthusiasm, idealism and mobilization are what wins, not useless conservative mushburgers served up to appease the big donors.

It's time to STOP dissing the activists and the base.

[BlooInBloo]

77. According to Krugman and everyone who doesn't hate Clinton, it's "universal"....

... It's ONLY the Clinton-haters who say it's not.

[ProudDad]

159. If clinton would pull her head out of her corporate

*ss and call for Single-Payer she'd get my support, my money and my vote.

But she's bought and paid for by the insurance mafia and big pharma -- just as Obama and Edwards are...

No support, no money, no vote...not ever unless they change and fully support the People against corporations...


Maybe y'all need some MORE agony before you'll get up on your hind legs and really fight back...

[ProudDad]

155. And the way people of

progressive leanings will defeat her is to deny her the nomination...

[HardRocker2005]

38. pretty much; and it will delay REAL health care for decades. nt

[ProudDad]

160. AGAIN!!! (n/t)

[BlueJac]

46. HRC....

Will be a sad joke on America if she wins...........Medicare for all....DK for President

[Totally Committed]

48. Thank you! ------ I think so, too.

None of the "top tier" have gotten it right.

Kucinich has, though, but he can't even get pollsters to include them in their polls these days. Says a lot, doesn't it?

TC

[LWolf]

51. Admit it? That indicates

that there might be some reluctance to acknowledge the truth.

I haven't suffered from that problem where HRC is concerned, lol.

[Ken Burch]

64. Well, you weren't one of her supporters

I was kind of aiming it at them.

[LWolf]

71. Point taken, lol. n/t

[Joanne98]

53. Bingo

[madrchsod]

55. the only healthcare plan that is based in reality

is dennis`s,everyone else`s have no clue about the wants and needs of the american people. they have never sat down and really listened to what we really need, well maybe have but they have dismissed the people needs in favor of the insurance/wall street

[Froward69]

57. not so

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JobcB8cM1zw
then
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjzaCrjY448

Vote for what is best for America.

[Ken Burch]

65. I agree with you.

If the rest of them would adapt it, it would make it much easier to back them.

[ProudDad]

56. K&R hillaryCare 2.0 is a cruel bad joke (n/t)

[Warren DeMontague]

80. Why?

What do you think about Edwards' or Obama's plans?

[Ken Burch]

113. They share the same flaws, but THEY aren't the media and lobbyist-chosen frontrunners.

In fairness, they need to push for single-payer too. If we had ALL our candidates pushing for it, that would do wonders to build the national political consensus on the issue.

There's no point in trying to be a "pro-business Democrat" on this. No one in the entire insurance business is interested in being decent or humane on healthcare. There isn't a "progressive entrepreneur" mind in the lot of them.

[Warren DeMontague]

136. I'd suspect his unequivocal support for a SPHC system is driving a lot of people to Kucinich.

Maybe it's good that there's such a difference between his approach and the rest. Then if he does far better than expected, the party will have to try to figure out why.

[leftofthedial]

59. it's a repuke plan

from Hillary, the least insane repuke candidate

pro-corporate, pro-insurance company, pro-pharmaceuticals, based on repuke-favorite "tax credits"

On Iraq, on civil liberties, on healthcare, on economic issues--Hillary is a republican

[Warren DeMontague]

94. So Obama and Edwards.. Their plans are "repuke plans", too?

Because according to many, like Paul Krugman, the plans are pretty close to identical.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/21/opinion/21krugman.html?_r=1&n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists&oref=slogin

[leftofthedial]

103. you said it

welcome to reality

[Warren DeMontague]

128. Er, the Republicans would prefer to leave shit the way it is.

"Reality" is my 11 year old relative with Cerebral Palsy, whose parents can't get health insurance for anything close to a reasonable cost because of her "pre-existing condition".

I support a Single Payer Health Care System. I am voting for Dennis Kucinich in the Primary, if Al Gore doesn't get in.

However, I am connected enough to reality to understand that if we can't get a Single Payer Health Care system passed in California, it is a LONG fucking way off for the United States at large.

Now, I know to the Ralph Nader scorch-the-entire-fucking-Earth-to-make-a-"point" (and, of course, look cool to my friends in the dorm with the nose piercings, anarchy tattoos and che posters... don't taze me, bro!) crowd, John Edwards is the same as Sam Brownback just like Al Gore was the same as George W. Bush. So, if we can't get everything we possibly want RIGHT FUCKING now, screw ANY plan that MIGHT help the 45 million Americans with no health insurance... That might help my relative with CP.

Feh.

I'm not a DLC goon. I'm going to vote for Kucinich in the primary. Like I said, if he wins the nomination, Hillary's (and Edwards's, and Obama's) health care plan will be moot. Then we have a shot at working for a SPHC system. But if not, I think some people are going to need to face reality and understand that they can either help us get closer to where we need to be by working together, or they can stomp their little feet like Ralph Nader and continue to fuck things up for everyone.

[leftofthedial]

134. I'm a Kucinich supporter as well.

I can't support further entangling our health care system within an out-of-control capitalist corporatocracy, making it MORE difficult, not less difficult in the long run to bring our health care system into the 20th century, never mind the 21st.

I have only the health care I purchase myself.


It was "realistic" in 1930's Germany to join the Nazis, que no?

[Warren DeMontague]

135. So let me get this straight: You're comparing Hillary Clinton to the Nazis?

Wow. That's refreshing.

Beyond that, I think there's an unofficial rule about the first person to drag the Nazis into an argument, loses. Your point above is sort of like saying: "You support the teaching of evolution in schools. Of course, some people support eating babies. I don't know how you can sleep at night, baby eater!"

I don't know what that is, but it's not a logical argument. Dig?

Now, yeah, unless Al Gore gets in, right now I'm planning to vote for Kucinich in the primaries. Then I'm going to support the Democratic nominee, whoever he or she is, in the general election next November.

How about you?

[leftofthedial]

138. I did no such thing

I merely pointed out that "realism" is not always the best criterion.

If the Democratic nominee is not Kucinich (ha ha ha ha ha!), then for the first time since 1976 I don't know what I will do in the general election in 2008. 2004 and 2006 (and the "democrats" we elected then) pretty much eliminated my blind party loyalty.

[Warren DeMontague]

141. I think we would have been better off in 2004 with Dr. Dean, that's for sure.

But I will vote for the Democrat. And I'm going to keep an open mind. I was impressed with Edwards until he made those asinie comments about gay marriage being "immoral". :eyes:

[BlooInBloo]

140. Yyyyuuup!

[Ken Burch]

The rule you're speaking of is called "Godwin's Law".

And, while he did come close, the poster above didn't actually compare HRC to Hitler.

he or she was making a point about expediency.

[Warren DeMontague]

161. I think at the very least there's a corollary about the first person to bring up Hitler or Nazis.

I'd like to see a SPHC system, too. But I don't think that any solution that falls short of that should be written off automatically.

I'm voting for Kucinich. If he wins, Hillary's plan will be moot. And like I said upthread, the fact that Kucinich is the only one brave enough to come right out and support a SPHC system could work in all our favor, if he does exceptionally well in the primaries. It could slay a few myths floating around the "conventional wisdom" water cooler.

[Ken Burch]

114. I agree with you on that.

But neither of them is the frontrunner, and neither of them is too arrogant or paranoid to change.

[paulk]

130. "and neither of them is too arrogant or paranoid to change."

pretty subjective there, Mr. Burch. Surely you can come up with a better argument than that...

[toughboy]

60. Hillary's Plan is the best start so far.

Moderate Independents will just not dry up and whither away. Opposition to a plan that meets your specs will be crushed by billions of dollars of distortion and untrue ads aimed at scaring the vulnerable. Hey, the insurance industry should donate 38% of gross revenue to fund health care services in every state. Right. That will work like your REAL healthcare plan will be passed. Just saying..

[BlooInBloo]

63. Yah - what a fucking idiot and traitor Krugman is for liking Clinton's plan...

... along with all of the others, which are all good.

DUers slay me - they hate Clinton more than they respect the truth.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/21/opinion/21krugman.html?hp

The Edwards and Clinton plans as well as the slightly weaker but similar Obama plan achieve universal-or-near-universal coverage through a well-thought-out combination of insurance regulation, subsidies and public-private competition. These plans may disappoint advocates of a cleaner, simpler single-payer system. But it’s hard to see how Medicare for all could get through Congress any time in the near future, whereas Edwards-type plans offer a reasonable second best that you can actually envision being enacted by a Democratic Congress and signed by a Democratic president just two years from now...

The smear-and-fear campaign has already started. The Democratic plans all bear a strong resemblance to the health care plan that Mitt Romney signed into law as governor of Massachusetts, differing mainly in offering Americans additional choices. But that didn’t stop Mr. Romney from denouncing the Clinton plan as “European-style socialized medicine.” And Fred Thompson claims that the Clinton plan denies choice — which it actually offers in abundance — and relies on “punishment” instead.

These attacks probably won’t be effective enough to prevent a Democrat from winning next year. But that won’t be the end of the story: even if the Democrats take the White House and expand their Congressional majorities, the insurance and drug lobbies will try to bully them into backing down on their campaign promises.

That’s why the long delay before Senator Clinton announced her health care plan made supporters of universal care, myself included, so nervous — a nervousness that is not completely assuaged by the fact that she finally did deliver. It’s good to know that whoever gets the Democratic nomination will run on a very good health care plan. What remains is the question of whether he or she will have the determination to turn that plan into reality.

[Name removed]

149. Deleted message

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

[ProudDad]

185. I'm amazed that self-styled

"progressives" can condone a "plan" that keeps the for-profit leeches in charge... :shrug:

Not my definition of progress...

Not the CIVILIZED world's definition of progress in the realm of Health Care...they all went single-payer or Socialized...

[mitchum]

67. Surrender? Hell, she carries water for the right

[Vinca]

68. Hillary's plan is wrong on so many levels.

For starters, insurance is now available to everybody . . . if you happen to own a gold mine. It's not availability, it's cost and coverage. There is no point in "universal health insurance" if the insurance is anything like what's being served up today. It's essentially a bonanza for big insurance by creating 47 million more participants and making everyone a captive by the mandate. So fine, we all have their insurance. There will be the humungous deductibles and co-pays to deal with still. There will be denials of service . . . still. There will be the 80% coverage of serious illnesses that drives the currently insured into bankruptcy every day. What is so bloody horrible about a true, universal, single-payer system that gives everyone peace of mind they will not end up living in a Maytag box if illness strikes and they will not need to work a third job to pay insurance premiums? Damn . . . war is no problem to fund, but apparently we need to keep those bake sales running for health care.

[AllyCat]

69. Right on, KB! I posted a couple days ago asking for ANY explanation

how her plan would work to help the poor. Only one person from her camp tried and kept spouting the same old "tax credit" thing being different from a tax cut. Kept saying we'd increase SCHIP and Medicare. We can't do that now with Dem Congress. How on earth will we do it later as one big package? Rates will go up as much as the tax credit "helps". The insurance companies and big Pharma will get even richer, and the rest of us will be stuck trying to pay for higher-priced, poorer quality health care just so we can keep a job. That's one of the bullet points of her plan. It's REQUIRED! You'd have to prove to your employer or future employer that you have insurance before they could hire you.

And when that tax "credit" comes in the mail after filing your yearly return, anyone with any amount of sense will pay the rent, buy groceries, or fix the car (again).

No wonder the corpomedia is pushing her 24/7. She's just their kind of Prez! But she sure as he** ain't ours.

My household is supporting Kucinich and that includes my formerly conservative Republican husband.

[Singular73]

74. Its idiocy.

As if the working poor actually pay enough in Federal taxes where a tax credit could cover any reasonable insurance policy.

The insurance industry also needs serious regulation, apart from any whacked out plan to throw more cash in their coffers.

Who excatly supports hillary? I have yet to meet a single person that will admit to it.

How is she leading in the polls? Must be name-recognition.

Hope Edwards or Obama takes it in Iowa...

You know, I watched her on MTP this morning...yuck

[Warren DeMontague]

79. Hillary's, Edwards' and Obama's plans are almost identical.

Want to bash Hillary, go right ahead- there's plenty of reason to- but if you're basing your vote for one of the other two on this, you're out of your mind. It's just about the same plan.

[BlooInBloo]

86. Hillary's plan has the word "Hillary" in it. Therefore, it's idiocy....

... Odd how DUers think, isn't it?

[Warren DeMontague]

88. If she does something I disagree with, I'm going to say so. If she does something I agree with,

I'm going to say so.

She may very well end up being our nominee. She may very well end up being our next president.

There are people, like the guy in your avatar, that I'd prefer to see as the nominee, but frankly we could do worse than Hillary.

Krugman also had good things to say about the plan, as you pointed out.

[BlooInBloo]

91. Yup. The truth takes a backseat to what DUers KNOW... It's very Kuhnian.

[Warren DeMontague]

95. It's gonna be a mess around here, if she gets the nomination.

:hide:

No wonder Skinner's taking some time for R&R, now.

[BlooInBloo]

96. Yup.

[Elidor]

145. I haven't heard Edwards or Obama talk about mandatory coverage as a precondition of employment

If they're dumb enough to float that idea, then to hell with them, too. I will not be held captive by the insurance industry. Anyone who tries to push that bullshit through is just a corporate tool. Which is why it's not in the least surprising coming from a sellout like her.

[ProudDad]

150. THEY'RE ALL FUCKED!!!!!! (n/t)

[ProudDad]

186. Check upthread

they're all fucked up

Except Conyers/Kucinich - HR676

[Warren DeMontague]

78. That's not entirely true. Under HRC's plan (I don't know about Edwards' and Obama's, but I hear

they are very similar) Insurance companies are forbidden from denying people coverage for pre-existing or other conditions.

I'm sorry, but from where I sit, that's HUGE. I've got a 11 year old relative with a very serious disability and health insurance is a nightmare for them, because of this very issue. It is THE BIG fuck you from the Insurance industry, and if Hillary is addressing it, her plan can't be all bad.

Now, let me say, barring Al Gore getting in I AM VOTING FOR DENNIS KUCINICH IN THE PRIMARY. I SUPPORT A SINGLE PAYER HEALTH CARE SYSTEM. That is the best of all worlds, AFAIC. But -and this isn't acquiescence, this is realism- if we can't get a SPHC system in California, it is going to be a LONG ASS time before the United States as a whole supports one. Certainly not as long as the 400,000 residents of Wyoming control the same 1/50th vote in the U.S. Senate as the 33 Million Residents of my state.

Hillary's plan is NOT a SPHC system. But it's not all bad, either, and knee-jerk invective against it just because she's Hillary or because it's not everything we want isn't going to help anyone. We KNOW some people will never vote for Hillary. We KNOW some people hate her. We KNOW she took money from the insurance companies. But at the end of the day, forcing them to cover everyone is a big loss for them and a win for us. And this thing, if she becomes president, has a chance of passing.

Is it a SPHC system? No. Are there potential problems? Sure. But if it ends up meaning that the 45 million americans with no insurance can get it, and my 11 year old relative doesn't have to spend the rest of her life worried about her insurance coverage, I think that's a step in the right direction.

Now, like I said, I'm voting for Kooch in the primary. If you really believe in a SPHC system, do the same. If he gets the nomination, then Hillary's plan will be moot.

But if Hillary (or Edwards, or Obama, since their plans are very similar) gets the nomination, I think some folks are going to need to think about whether they want to deal with what can realistically be achieved, or if they want to stomp their feet and have 4 or 8 more years of scorched Earth during which they can revel in their Ralph Naderesque ideological "purity". It's not "the perfect being the enemy of the good", it's "the utterly impossible being the enemy of the marginally decent".

And if saying that makes me a corporatist, pro-DLC tool, I can live with that, too. ;-)

[zeemike]

98. forbidden from denying people coverage for pre-existing conditions.

But not from charging them more for it.
Anyone now can gave insurance if they can pay the premium.

[Warren DeMontague]

99. I believe limiting premiums to a percent of income is part of the plan, too.

And like I said, it sounds like Edwards and Obama have very similar ideas.

Like I said, I'm voting for Kucinich in the primary. I support a SPHC system. But I understand that Kucinich may not win the nomination. I understand that a SPHC system would be a hard sell in this country.

I also don't think it's fair to characterize Hillary's plan as a Republican sham if people aren't going to throw the same kind of rhetoric at Edwards and Obama.

There are plenty of things to criticize Hillary about, but I'm not sure this is one of them.

[BlooInBloo]

106. It is. It clearly is. DUers don't care - they'd rather make shit up.

[Ken Burch]

120. They'll compromise the premium limit away at the first hurdle.

You can't trust a DLC administration to hold the line.

[paulk]

131. another completey subjective opinion

when someone shows you up as wrong - you just move the goalposts.

[BlooInBloo]

139. aka "making shit up".

[paulk]

144. the worst thing about crap like this is that

skewing the debate the way Mr. Burch and his friends on the far left do makes it harder to have a real discussion about this issue - and it is a discussion that's needed... I don't know if Hillary's plan is the best - but looking at it through the narrow lens employed by some here doesn't help anyone reach an understanding, IMO.

[BlooInBloo]

152. Per Krugman and other smarter people, it's very god AND politically doable quickly.

[Moochy]

174. More facts about HRC healthcare plan

less swipes at DU writ large.

[Ken Burch]

108. As a Kucinich supporter, I'm aware of the odds my candidate faces

But even if he doesn't get nominated, it improves the platform and the chances of victory to have as many of his delegates at the convention as possible.

I'll grant that it's a trivial improvement, a tiny increment.

But even that is only true if HRC doesn't compromise it even further.

It needs to have cost controls built in. It needs to prevent the situation from being totally at the mercy of "market forces". The market is always against the people.

[Warren DeMontague]

125. And that's why I'm voting for Kucinich in the primary. But I'm supporting OUR nominee

no matter who he or she is.

[Ken Burch]

143. I'll support the nominee. But we have to GET something from the nominee

We can't let him or her say "they have nowhere else to go".

[ProudDad]

187. Tell me

To paraphrase the hillarybots (who are there in great numbers whenever someone brings up Single-Payer), How the hell does hillary expect to pass this???

"limiting premiums to a percent of income is part of the plan"

You know they'll tear that one right out of the bill (if ever there is a bill)...

Kucinich might not win the nomination but if he doesn't, one sure as hell shouldn't want to give it to someone as clueless as hillary appears to be with this nonsense of a corporate welfare plan of hers...

[Ken Burch]

110. I'm not criticizing the plan BECAUSE it is HRC's plan

I'm criticizing the plan on its merits. And also because we can assume that no voices to her left will be allowed to have a say in the plan's development in Congress. We can assume that, once again, any change will be in the direction of surrender to conservatism.

The best chance we have is to start with single-payer, mobilize the country behind it, and take the movement to D.C. We can MAKE Congress follow us if they see the enthusiasm and the determination of the people.

[truedelphi]

165. Thank you. THat's it exactly.

HRC's conscession's are usually to teh right.

She wants the progressives to fall behind her WITHOUT any concessions to us being made at all.

She can bite me, for what it's worth.

[ProudDad]

151. I will bet you $1000

that this is the FIRST FUCKING THING THAT WILL BE CUT FROM ANY BILL:

"Insurance companies are forbidden from denying people coverage for pre-existing or other conditions."

[pattmarty]

85. I pay 10K a year for me & my wife now, w/group plan. Fox news wasn't even bitching much about it.

[Ken Burch]

119. Don't let Fox find out who you are...they think 10k a year isn't ENOUGH for proles like us.

n/t.

[Fading Captain]

87. It's windfall for the insurance industry. And that's all

eom

[Emillereid]

90. Totally right -- HC's plan is a giveaway to the insurance companies.

The only solution to our healthcare crisis is a single payer system modeled on medicare or Canada or France (yeah!). In Canada the government doesn't run health care - they set up a not-for profit single insurance company that negotiates with the medical professions and pays the bills. The insurance companies have no business making a profit on a such an important aspect of life. I have private insurance that my husband's employer pays dearly for and just as Moore discovered much of the time I have to fight and scratch to get them to pay. Plus I have yet to be impressed with any of the doctors that they've contracted as preferred providers. They generally don't give you enough time to even explain the problem and write a script -- which is not what I want.

I have lived in Canada -- and the system there was great. Doctors were encouraged to practice preventative medicine and never had to think twice about ordering up a test. It was still paid for through employment -- if one was not employed then an individual could buy it via a sliding scale. I was absolutely amazed at the superior treatment my mother-in-law had recently. Much better than my mother had through medicare/Blue Cross here actually.

[leftchick]

92. haven't you heard? She already has the Nom!

according to many. Well not many, just the sycophants. Wht you point out is absolutely true. How anyone can defend a candidate who puts out a plan with input from Big Pharma and the Insurance lobbies and ZERO benefits for the uninsured is well BIZARRE!

[Exultant Democracy]

115. What do you expect, HC is part of the rightwing of the democratic party.

[ProudDad]

188. Actually, to be accurate

hillary is firmly in the right-wing of the left-wing of the Big Business party...

Glad to clear that up... :evilgrin:

[Greyhound]

195. Thanks dude, you always make me chuckle. n/t

:rofl::thumbsup::rofl:

[nealmhughes]

116. Let us just ask the question: What is wrong with healthcare in the USA?

It is not a lack of beds, of specialists or GPs. It is not a dearth of MRI and CT scan machines or Xray and nuclear medicine pharmacists, or even of LPNs. . . it isn't that people can't get emergent care. What could it be? It is obvious that it is access and payment combined and they intersect at one place and that is the BCBS board room.

The Congress clearly has the right to regulate interstate commerce as it sees fit, it is right there in the Constitution. Medical care is most definitely interstate commerce. Insurance is most doubly interstate commerce.

Something is wrong when we pay such a huge percentage of our gross pay for health care when compared to the rest of the Western World. Evidently, only the elderly and the infirm deserve Medicare. And the active duty armed forces and Congress their own systems. . . the rest of us can root hog or die. The unskilled worker cannot afford private insurance and do not pay any taxes after their deductions and EICs. . .therefore unless the "tax credit" is a downright subsidy, it won't be worth a dime for all the former systems engineers who are now working at the stock room at Best Buy!

The Democratic Party needs to get the single message out: we are the party of the people and for the people, their interests are ours and not the corporations, not the HMOs and not the insurance companies. But that would not be prudent -- too polarizing. See, we have to wait and soon the people, after a generation or two, will come our way! Isn't that what triangualtion means?

[ProudDad]

153. According to the owners of the Democratic Party

This is NOT true: "The Democratic Party needs to get the single message out: we are the party of the people and for the people, their interests are ours and not the corporations, not the HMOs and not the insurance companies."

[Greyhound]

196. Triangulation, where the corporatists, the globalists, and the republics, meet. n/t

[snappyturtle]

117. K&R Thanks KB!

[Ken Burch]

118. You're welcome, snappy "V"!

n/t.

[cgrindley]

122. Yawn

boooooorrring, Sidney, booooooorrrrrrriiiiiinnnngggg

[Ken Burch]

123. wtf is sydney?

And if you think the thread is boring, don't add to the tedium by posting.

[cgrindley]

124. No, I think the thread is typical Clinton bashing

and the line was a quotation is from the film Sid and Nancy.

[Ken Burch]

142. My point isn't to bash the candidate, but to raise serious issues about the plan

I'd be glad to see HRC back single-payer. She could listen and change. She doesn't HAVE to do this on Big Insurance's terms.

[BlooInBloo]

158. So innocent! And yet somehow NO-ONE spends time bashing Edwards' or Obama's!

What an amazing coincidence!

You must really hate Krugman - since he likes ALL THREE of their plans. :rofl:

[B Calm]

162. Okay, we get your point. You support Hillary!

[cgrindley]

163. We'll get the last laugh, you know, because she's going to win

but I guess all the haters will simply leave DU.

[Moochy]

175. And You'll get my little dog too! n/t

[BlooInBloo]

166. If by "support" you mean "3rd or 4th on my list", then sure....

But really, I just can't stand damnable liars-due-to-irrational-groupthink.

[Ken Burch]

167. I've mentioned at least twice that Obama and Edwards' plans are similarly flawed

But the plan of the frontrunner, whomever that frontrunner would be, always naturally gets the greatest attention.

It would be thus if Dennis were the frontrunner.

[BlooInBloo]

169. It's ok... People who care about the truth have Krugman and others to listen to...

... Note that rampant mendacity does no service to my estimation of DK, as I believe that politicians reflect their electorate. The more lies I hear from his supporters, the worse I think of him.

[Ken Burch]

172. Everything I've said here is the truth.

The plan IS conservative and it does give insurance companies the eternal upper hand. It does guarantee that nothing better can be done later.

Stop calling people liars just because they disagree with you.

And the fact that Krugman pretends this plan is does NOT settle anything.

We both know the DLC types will push this plan even further to the right, and anything to the right of this plan as written has to be considered a defeat.

[BlooInBloo]

173. And yet not a word critical of Krugman and others. Not feeling up to it? Wonder why?

EDIT: Never let cognitive dissonance slow you down! :rofl:

[ProudDad]

189. From your Avatar, you seem to be pro-union

Don't you realize that none of the plans of ObamClintWards, the ones that shovel more corporate welfare at the health insurance mafia and big pharma will aid workers?

What's the NUMBER ONE grievance lately? What's ALWAYS on the negotiating table, and on the chopping block, when the contract is up? What's one of the BIG items right now between UAW and GM???

Bingo, Health Insurance (not even Health CARE, but health insurance)!!!

What if we had a Single-Payer Plan? Everyone in the pool. Everyone completely covered... Everyone paying according to their means and everyone benefiting if they need Care.

What if...

Imagine being able to negotiate wages and working conditions without having Health Care held over your heads like the sword of Damocles?

Think about it...

[Ken Burch]

192. Krugman has a right to his view. I have the right to disagree with him.

It's never been the case that "If Krugman says it's progressive, that means it IS progressive"

[Danger Mouse]

126. Gee, what a surprise...fat stacks of cash to the insurance industry.

I'm shocked, shocked I tells ya!

[Just-plain-Kathy]

127. Ken, I wanted to recommend, but I was too late. ...n/t

[liberaltrucker]

132. Well, yeah

Would one expect any less from her?

:grr:

[Freddie Stubbs]

171. It is an acknowledgment that most Americans who have private insurance will be leery of giving it up

So, instead of pushing for an overreaching plan with no chance of success, she is proposing a more modest one which is much more likely to be adopted.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

177. yup.

[ProudDad]

190. It would be so simple

just send each person who has private insurance a copy of SiCKO...

[backscatter712]

176. What's worst about HillaryCare is that it won't survive the legislative process.

It's all about compromise and negotiation, which means that we have to give high-ball offers, they give low-ball offers, then we meet in the middle.

Hillary-care starts in the middle, then when the insurance, hospital and pharmco lobby get their turn, all pretenses at universal health care will be gutted.

In short, I predict that if HillaryCare turns into law, the subsidies, expansion of Medicare, etc. will all disappear, and all that will be left will be the law making health insurance mandatory, with no provision to help the poor and middle class who can't afford it.

We should be starting off with Kucinich's plan, at the minimum, then there might be something left when it gets through the legislative sausage grinder.

[Cleita]

182. I don't think Congress will pass it.

I'm suspicious that she wants it this way. After all it worked for Bill. Bill was elected by a lot of people like me because he was practically the only viable candidate to promise health care for all if elected. When that health care plan got shot down, he never addressed it again. He met his promise and put up a plan, Hillary's plan. It got shot down. Well, he tried. I think Hillary wants the same thing. She will put up her plan. Congress will shoot it down. Oh well, she tried. On to other business and she will never come back to it again. It's useful to her now only because she can't ignore it to try to get elected. Once elected there isn't that urgency anymore.

[ProudDad]

191. Yep,

she's just gonna set Health Care back in this country another 14 years...

Just like that last time...

[killbotfactory]

193. If our next effort at healthcare fails, like you describe

it will take another decade at least before the topic is revisited in any meaningful way.

I think what you describe is exactly what will happen. We'll get limited reforms plus a mandate to buy overpriced health insurance, and that will be the end of it.