Chelsea: Mom will do something to address "crushing costs of Obamacare"

[BernieforPres2016]

Yes, the Weekly Standard is a conservative publication. But I am posting a link because there is audio of Chelsea talking about how her Mom was going to address the "crushing costs of Obamacare" (presumably the premiums plus large deductibles that Bernie has been talking about) as President, either via legislation or executive action. There is 29 seconds of audio at this link:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/chelsea-hits-obamacares-crushing-costs/article/2001707

For some reason, this didn't get any play in the MSM, even though the comment was made in the same meeting in Madison, WI that Chelsea opened by saying that Democrats had no realistic chance at gaining a House majority until 2022 at the earliest and that her Mom had a history of working with Republicans like Tom DeLay and John McCain. Those comments were included in a Washington Post article on how Hillary is sending Chelsea to college campuses where Hillary is not popular:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2016/03/25/daily-202-chelsea-clinton-goes-into-hostile-territory-college-towns-to-help-her-mom/56f40d59981b92a22dae36e2/

Wasn't it just 6 weeks or so ago that Hillary was going after Bernie on his single payer healthcare proposal, accusing him of wanting to dismantle Obamacare? Now Obamacare has "crushing costs" that must be addressed?

Why is Hillary so opposed to a single payer Medicare for all healthcare system, which is favored by 58% of Americans, including 81% of Democrats and 60% of independents?

http://pnhp.org/blog/2015/12/17/kaiser-poll-58-of-americans-support-medicare-for-all/

Does Hillary really think that getting Republicans to boost funding for Obamacare to effectively reduce premiums and deductibles (and leave 29 million uninsured) would be easier than fighting for a Medicare for all plan with the vast majority of Democrats and Independents behind her? Or is it that she doesn't want to cross her campaign contributors from the health insurance, pharmaceutical and medical devices industries?

[840high]

1. k/r

[Baobab]

14. Sorry Chelsea, Daddy's trade deal says she CAN'T

Instead they will keep the inefficiency and bring in minimum wage doctors and nurses and teachers and IT staff.

From developing countries. You know, GATS Mode Four. "maximizing the value in the supply chains".

We're also fighting "local sourcing" of employees for infrastructure projects. No more spending leading to stimulus.

[djean111]

2. I'll choose this one -

or is it that she doesn't want to cross her campaign contributors from the health insurance, pharmaceutical and medical devices industries?

[Avalux]

5. I'll choose that reason too.

Anything she does will be for their benefit, not ours.

[Baobab]

15. 20 years of trade ideology says that everything has to be done in certain ways

Remember back in the late 90s when El Salvador tried to keep their new public health system and the US flat out told them that they couldn't have public health care because they had joined the WTO?

Things like that have happened countless times. The US media just doesn't cover them.

Lots of effort goes into hiding this set of facts.

The fact is, huge amounts of effort have gone into making it impossible for people to discuss this, and hiding any evidence to the contrary from the country. (Hi censors!)

[kristopher]

22. Thank you for bringing that into the conversation

I've been learning a lot from the articles you bring to DU in support of that thesis.

[Baobab]

30. Oh, (blush) You're just saying that...

people don't really see anything I post.

[kristopher]

34. Some people are here to learn.

But it can often seem like shouting into the winds of a class V hurricane.



DLTBGYD.

[Baobab]

64. thats a good starting point- How about this, she has a HUGE secret she's hiding, a global

scheme to privatize public services - whenever they have any corporate competition at all, and - ALL NEW TRADE SECTORS, by DEFAULT, all around the world. And then trade jobs for markets.

>Why is Hillary so opposed to a single payer Medicare for all healthcare system, which is favored by 58% of Americans, including 81% of Democrats and 60% of independents?


because the trade deal Bill signed in 1995 blocks it.

because maybe a half dozen trade deals block it, because THEY WANT TO TRADE THOSE JOBS AWAY FOR HIGHER PROFITS OVERSEAS AND HERE.

KEEPING THE INJUSTICE.


See

Paper on how the GATS trade deal blocks affordable health care in dozens of ways and has for a long time, but they have lied about it constantly.


Research on single payer:

http://www.pnhp.org/single_payer_resources/pnhp_research_the_case_for_a_national_health_program.php

[libtodeath]

3. K&R

[MadDAsHell]

4. "Medicare for All" would bankrupt many providers...

Single payer, yes.

But "Medicare for All" slogans will backfire on us unless there's an associated plan to make Medicare rates something that providers can actually afford to accept without any commercial payer rates subsidizing them.

Many, many healthcare providers would go under if there were no commercial payers subsidizing the government rate.

[BernieforPres2016]

7. I agree, single payer is really the issue

Medicare reimbursement rates and/or premiums paid by people below retirement age can be adjusted as necessary. Squeezing the excesses out of health insurance, big pharma, the medical device companies, and others would also need to be a big part of it.

But what Chelsea seems to be saying here (on behalf of Hillary) is that we need to help out the middle and lower middle income people who are struggling with the cost of Obamacare, even with current subsidies for health insurance premiums, and leave 29 million (presumably mostly poor) without any health insurance. Kind of an indefensible position for a Democratic nominee for President in my opinion.

[Baobab]

33. There wont be any cost to them.

this whole thing of Hillary and Obama is based on some pretty major misrepresentation. #1 Single payer is far cheaper than anything else we're doing and have ever planned to do. there is a major cover up in progress. Just about everything we need to do was/is barred by trade deals, our whole health care policy is screwed up by trade policy and has been for 20 years since the Clinton Administration.

The ugly truth is they want to use health care as a fake emergency (because the last 20 years of dysfunction has been totally unnecessary - EXCEPT when you realize its all been hijacked and we've been endlessly lied to to push down wages for everybody. Its a Trojan Horse.

Right there you have a dose of truth, more truth in that sentence then you probably have seen or will see all year. Okay now go back to your discussion.

[Bread and Circus]

24. I am a primary care provider.... Medicare rates aren't bad and if you

Can't run a business on Medicare rates then you need a new office manager.

What is bad, however, are Medicaid rates in most states.

The problem with Obamacare is most people with new insurance that could not get it before are now on Medicaid.

The other problem is people with non Medicaid insurance is that they have nassive out of pocket costs.

[MadDAsHell]

46. Your practice isn't like every practice...

I know of a brain injury rehabilitation facility that, today, has allowable costs of $850 per day for each of its patients (which Medicaid will pay), yet their Medicare reimbursement rate is $350/day. They are only able to accept a few Medicare patients a year because of this.

A 250% underpayment is not on the office manager. That's on Medicare for failing to adequately cover important services.

[Bread and Circus]

47. I doubt what you are saying is true. Unless you are actually running the business this is hearsay.

Granted, you might be right but I just don't put stock in "I know a guy who knows a guy who says" stories.

[MadDAsHell]

65. My sister is an RN there; it's not hearsay.

And why would you start with the assumption I'm lying? I've already told you I'm for single-payer, I just think it's foolish to say "Medicare for All" when it's a fact that removing the subsidizing payments of commercial payers would bankrupt facilities like the one I described. Are we that disillusioned with other members on DU that we start with the premise that the other person is lying, and then work towards the possibility that what they're saying is true, instead of the other way around?

"Medicare for All" makes a great bumper sticker slogan, but I have a feeling most of the people that say it have no idea how the math of Medicare payments actually works.

[Bread and Circus]

66. Exactly as I thought.

[Baobab]

31. Well, single payer means that everybody is in. So, its either that or retire

It doesn't matter what you call it, when you have single payer, single means ONE payer, NO OTHER PAYERS, its the only game in town and its free to the end user.

Rich and poor EVERYBODY GETS THE SAME HIGH QUALITY HEALTH CARE. Otherwise, the rich will pay extra and then the whole system for everybody else will fall apart, like now.

Also, trade rules say so. Has to be free.

Otherwise, everything breaks. You didn't know that? For example, "Public option" = BROKEN BADLY


Americans are so math challenged we will believe any crap they tell us.

[Skink]

6. The costs aren't crushing me

My visits are covered. Diabetic meds cost me about the same as a bottle of Advil the blood work is covered and any refferel is treated like a doctor visit. There is a high deductable but I haven't had surgery recently.

[BernieforPres2016]

8. Good for you

I had a $6000 deductible in 2015 and spent every penny of it. I hope your luck stays good.

[Skink]

10. I also have that 6000 deductable

Yet this year I was able to see a diabetic eye doctor and the only thing I paid was 35 for a prescription. I guess had I needed eye surgery then I would have had to meet that deductable.

[BernieforPres2016]

13. I'm fortunate that I was able to afford the $6000 deductible, plus my monthly premiums

But if it becomes an every year thing I will be in trouble.

For a lot of people, having a deductible that high is almost like not having insurance. And as Bernie often says, it discourages them from going to the doctor's office when they should.

[Skink]

17. I used to get billed for Doctor visits

This year I am paying 50 a month. Same 240 from the government. Now only have to pay 50 for a visit. No bills for what wasn't covered. Seems like a good deal.

Don't confuse high deductibles with what is covered. Blood work 95 percent. Meds huge discount. The ACA works now make it better. Force states like Texas to expand Medicaid.

[BernieforPres2016]

21. I've always had copays for doctor visits and prescriptions with any health insurance policy

that were less than paying the full cost of a visit or prescription and not subject to the deductible. Most policies also cover an annual physical and certain types of screenings (colonoscopies, mammograms, etc.) every few years. That's one of the big points of having health insurance. That is not new to the ACA.

Sounds like you have a good deal with ACA. It is still cost prohibitive for many, particularly in years when the high deductibles come into play. I had the $6000 deductible in 2015 because the monthly premiums on the gold plan I had in 2014 went through the roof in 2015. So I went to a silver plan with a much higher deductible. I wouldn't have been that much better off had I stayed with the gold plan in 2015 because the extra premiums would have covered most of the increase in the deductible that I ended up paying.

I am not suggesting that the ACA isn't better than what preceded it, but we still have 29 million people without insurance and a lot of people who have insurance are effectively underinsured because they can't afford the deductible should misfortune strike. Medical bills remain the most frequent cause of bankruptcies in the U.S.

[Skink]

29. Maybe the Bronze plans are best

To cover that other 29 million expand Medicaid. And Btw Rubio is the one guy blocking, and these days that is all it takes the risk corridors that were built into the ACA.

[treestar]

55. I don't have a deductible like that

It is 750. Maybe it is different depending on the state?

[onecaliberal]

38. Good for you, some of us aren't that lucky. Just because it works for you

Doesn't mean it works for all and until it does, I won't be happy.

[DanTex]

9. Weekly Standard. LOL. Glad y'all aren't even trying to pretend anymore.

[840high]

18. I first saw this yesterday

on DailyMail. Stop attacking sources.

[giftedgirl77]

26. Lulz, that makes it better.

[840high]

39. Yes it does.

[giftedgirl77]

49. Research your shitty ass sources.

[Matt_in_STL]

51. What sources are acceptable to you?

Chicago Tribune perhaps?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-wp-blm-hunt-e7ec09da-f434-11e5-8b23-538270a1ca31-20160327-story.html

Politico, which also includes the video of her saying it?

http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/politico-pulse/2016/03/how-trump-tweets-about-obamacare-whats-in-the-new-cbo-estimates-213417

The problem that Clinton supporters keep running into as they malign sources of information is that the Clintons keep doing dumb shit on video, which you can't exactly refute. If they want to do dumb shit, do it in front of Goldman Sachs where the transcripts can be buried.

[840high]

67. I did. They didn't

kiss Hillary's ass - so you don't like them.

[giftedgirl77]

68. Lol, it has absolutely nothing to do with HRC.

When one source was pointed out to be obviously right wing you throw out the daily mail? Maybe the fact that not one reputable source is carrying the story is a clear indication that it is fucking nonsense?

[LAS14]

59. See response #52

[randome]

62. Not only that, but they don't even bother to read the very articles they post.

Chelsea did not say what the OP's subject line implies.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[treestar]

11. As a Hillary supporter

I find that Chelsae is not helping. You'd think politics would be in her blood. She is young yet. She needs more lessons from mom and dad.

[smiley]

19. She probably just mis-spoke...

Seems like she has learned perfectly.

[JonLeibowitz]

28. She needs to work on local issues: state rep, mayor, etc.

Americans don't like people who are well-positioned in life solely due to their parents' success and haven't worked themselves.

If she works on local issues she will be more in touch with Americans' issues and ultimately be more effective. She is mighty isolated in her many-million $ NY apartment with the hedge fund husband.

That is, if she wants to be anything other than a plutocrat.

[LAS14]

60. See response #52

[Barack_America]

42. Chelsea was sent to college campuses in 2008 too.

If she hasn't picked it up by now...

[LAS14]

61. See response #52

[giftedgirl77]

50. She's definitely out if her league.

[lake loon]

53. The hedge fund princess knows exactly what she's doing

... and it ain't pretty.

[Orsino]

57. Chelsea needs experience in public service.

If nothing else, she would learn consistent messaging.

[amborin]

12. K&R

[jwirr]

16. Chelsea I have been one of the victims of something your

mother claimed would fix things. Your parents welfare reform almost sent my severely disabled daughter to an institution so I could get a real job. Fortunately I live in a state that said no. But other mothers taking care of their disabled children were not as lucky as I.

She is going to do "something"? At least Bernie tells us what he is going to do and works with us.

[Vinca]

48. Politicians don't seem to realize their policies have consequences.

That must have been horrible for you.

[jwirr]

69. It would have been if MN had not stepped in the keep disabled

children in the community. Dan Rather's news show told about a black woman in NC that was not so lucky. He showed the woman standing in her home while the state came in to remove her child. She is why I am still angry. It wasn't just about me.

The biggest problem with the Clinton welfare reform was that the did not make any exceptions. Not for people like me who were actually providing a service in taking care of our own children (keeping them out of very expensive institutions); not for people living in depressed areas such as the inner city or the reservation. There was no compassion - just get a job or get off of welfare.

[Demnorth]

20. I'm appalled at the cost

of your health care, the examples I've seen here. I'm very fortunate to live in a single payer system, though it isn't as good as what Sanders is outlining.

I realize a major hurdle to establishing a single payer system is the giants - pharma, insurance - but isn't the real obstacle the republicans? I keep wondering why Obama brought the ACA into being, rather than single payer?

[BernieforPres2016]

23. I think one of the main issues is that they didn't want healthcare costs to rise

or coverage to decline for people who had good and affordable healthcare policies through their employer's plan. The government has long been giving big subsidies to corporate employers who offer healthcare plans and to their employees, though a lot of people don't seem to understand that. I read somewhere recently that Bill Clinton warned Hillary that it was critical that the cost not go up for those people in any type of healthcare reform. It makes no sense at all. It chains employees to companies that they would prefer not to work for, but stay with because of fears that they can't replace their health care coverage.

As much as Republicans screamed about the subsidized premiums under Obamacare for people with incomes below certain levels, they never mentioned that these corporate employer and employee subsidies from taxpayers had existed for years.

[Vote2016]

25. expect Hillary to "reform" the ACA like Bill "reformed" welfare.

[ibegurpard]

27. Yeah right

Give me a fucking break. The entire foundation is rotten. The least we should have gotten was a Medicare-for-all type public option. Instead we got a Republican idea touted by the Democrats that Republicans turned on anyway.

[matt819]

32. If you don't qualify for a subsidy

The premium costs are crushing, though tax credits do help. The main benefit is coverage even if there is a preexisting condition. There are still administrative problems, the only sensible alternative, imho, is Medicare for all.

[BlueStreak]

35. We need to send the Clintons to the same tar pit that the GOP sent the Bushes

[moondust]

36. "60 Minutes" re-ran a story today

on Affordable Care for those still uninsured, addressing the many poor who can't afford Obamacare. There's a video at the link but I don't know if that's the whole episode.

[BeyondGeography]

37. She has a gift for saying the wrong thing

[beedle]

40. So Clinton is no longer hiding behind Obama it seems ...

.. wonder why that strategy suddenly changed ... wink wink, nudge nudge (firewalls are only efficient for as long as you need to hide something.)

[cui bono]

41. Why are the Clintons bashing Obama???

.

[QC]

56. The southern primaries are over. n/t

[Demnorth]

43. Thank you - so Obama was protecting some workers' current coverage

through the ACA, while trying to get coverage for many who had none..? I can appreciate that, but it does make no sense, except if it was all he could do at the time to improve the system.

Those workers afraid to leave/lose their jobs would be taken care of by single payer, as would everyone else...but how do you get there? It seems that Sanders would be up against the same opposition as Obama was. Won't it require more democratic representation?

[BernieforPres2016]

44. It probably will require some more Democrats in Congress

A candidate at the top of the ticket who generated some enthusiasm and actually had a platform with some real policy initiatives might help with that.

The Kaiser poll I cited says 58% of Americans favor a single payer plan, including 81% of Democrats and 60% of Independents. Only 46% of Republicans strongly oppose a single payer plan. But 62% of Republicans say that Obamacare should be eliminated. They hate Obamacare worse than they hate single payer, likely because it has Obama's name associated with it.

I don't think that a single payer plan is considered a radical idea any longer by a vast majority of people and believe that it can be sold better than it has been thus far. One important point that is never made is that to a certain extent, we already have universal healthcare coverage in this country. The way it works now, the uninsured wait until they're so sick that they have to go the emergency room, and the rest of us pay for it. We don't let hospitals turn people away to die in the streets. So is smart to have people not see a doctor, or to not take medication for high blood pressure, and then to end up in the emergency room? I've had this conversation with conservative people and virtually every one concedes those points. And nearly everybody understands how medical bills can bankrupt virtually anybody other than the very rich.

In my limited experience, resistance to single payer breaks down pretty quickly with conservatives relative to a lot of other issues like more progressive tax rates. I don't think I've ever come across anybody who thinks the U.S. healthcare system is working well from a cost standpoint, before or after Obamacare. Everybody knows U.S. healthcare costs have been growing at a ridiculous rate for the last 3 decades or so and that it can't continue. The U.S. is paying much more per capita than any other major country for health care without covering everybody and without getting better outcomes.

Bernie has been pretty clear that single payer, like many of his other agenda items, will take a groundswell of public support that is loud enough for members of Congress to hear it. And that will require a President who uses the bully pulpit. Hillary has made it clear that she won't even try to push for something that 80% of Democratic voters want.

[jeff47]

45. Remember when the Clintons attacked Sanders for his "unrealistic" plan?

Chelsea talking about how her Mom was going to address the "crushing costs of Obamacare" (presumably the premiums plus large deductibles that Bernie has been talking about) as President, either via legislation or executive action.

Can't spend money via "executive action". You have to get an appropriation from Congress.

So either she has a magic wand that will make health care costs disappear, she has a magic wand that will make that party that voted 60+ times to repeal the ACA suddenly support the ACA, or this is a completely unrealistic plan.

[djean111]

54. It is just campaign bullshit. Nothing more. n/t

[LAS14]

52. The actual quote is...

"She thinks either of those will help solve the challenge of kind of the crushing costs that still exist for too many people who even are part of the Affordable Care Act,"

To put a misquote in the subject is one more example of how "Hillary haters" will twist the truth. Notice I didn't say "Bernie supporters." I don't live in a black and white world the way the Hillary haters do. Fox news was bad enough, although not strictly mis-quoting, 'Chelsea Clinton laments 'crushing' health care costs despite ObamaCare' and accompanies it with a really unflattering picture of Chelsea.

These misquotes and slanted reports can make even a dedicated Hillary supporter gasp a little. And it's work to find out the truth. How can we expect the average overworked undecided voter to fight back? Very depressing.

[peace13]

58. There are actual Hill supporters upstream FYI.