Is Hillary's main healthcare goal to force everyone to pay health insurance?

[dkf]

[Fredda Weinberg]

1. Yes, because otherwise the premiums are higher than they have to be

It's like Social Security or Medicare ... universal systems w/low overhead.

[Armstead]

5. But run by corporations instead of the government

The only way mandates would make sense is if it were part of a single-payer government program like SS and Medicare.

Forcing people to buy private insurance is Corporate Welfare of the most egregious degree.

P

[BootinUp]

23. Hillary has a non profit insurance mechanism so try again. nt

[mrreowwr_kittty]

28. Not after the insurance lobby gets done with her plan.

The government component will cover the poor and "uninsurable" only. Everyone else will have to buy private insurance.

Mark my words.

[BootinUp]

29. Look, if a candidate runs with that as a main part of the platform

they can win a mandate to make that kind of change.

I understand your skepticism but you are overdoing it when there is a long way to go before such conclusions can be reliably drawn.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

32. Hillary Clinton will never have such a mandate.

She'll be lucky to squeak out a primary, let alone a general election win after telling America she will go after their wages to force them to buy health insurance.

And I repeat, the insurance lobby (which both of the candidates are including in the process) will never allow the government to undercut them.

[BootinUp]

33. post 26 is her talking about this at the debate btw.

[dkf]

19. Are we sure it will bring down costs?

What if the CEOs just make double and keep costs high anyway?

[BootinUp]

24. Yes, there will caps on premiums adjusted based on your income. nt

[dkf]

42. Who pays the cost over the caps?

Will this force insurance companies to charge more for people with higher salaries? Or is the government kicking in the extra? Will this make insurance less affordable for those making, say, 60k because they have to make up for people making 20k?

[BootinUp]

43. She talks about sharing the burdens and reducing costs

Read this short one page summary:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/summary.aspx

[dkf]

45. Read through it...premiums are capped by tax credits.

So you have to pay it all year long and then get rebated when you pay your taxes.

No wonder someone mentioned that they would only make $4000 a year after they pay for healthcare.

[BootinUp]

46. People can claim additional exemptions

to lower withholdings. I don't see that as a valid complaint really.

[JackORoses]

21. there is no guarantee that rates will go down with mandatory coverage

That will be at the Insurance Company's discretion.

[BootinUp]

25. You forget there is a non profit insurance option, next? nt

[mrreowwr_kittty]

30. Most people don't understand how insurance companies make money

Premiums are part of it but they also invest those premiums. If your health insurance company invests in a bunch of subprime mortgages or somesuch, guess what happens to your premiums? It is truly the gambling industry. The goverment requires insurance companies to maintain a certain level of reserve cash and often will force companies to raise rates.

The gambling industry does not belong in healthcare. It is time to get them out of it.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

27. The reason that SS and Medicare have low overhead:

They don't have FREAKING INSURANCE COMPANIES skimming more than 30% of the money coming in!

Neither Clinton's nor Obama's plan is universal healthcare. They both suck. Why? Because they involve insurance companies.

[Fredda Weinberg]

39. Medicare is a mixed system n/t

[mrreowwr_kittty]

47. Yes, there is supplemental insurance involved

And corporations have successfully gotten their greedy little mitts on more and more of the pie, with the Advantage plans and Part D.

But as your own post stated, the core Medicare program has a 3% overhead.

Private medical insurance has a 30% overhead.

Yet you think Americans should have money forcibly taken from their pockets to pay for that.

[Fredda Weinberg]

50. I know that if coverage isn't universal, it won't be the lowest price it can n/t

[mrreowwr_kittty]

51. You are not aware of how insurance companies make money then.

Premiums are just part of it. Insurance companies invest your premiums. If their investments go bad they raise your premiums. That is a much bigger factor in premium prices than the size of the risk pool or claims. With this mandatory "universal" insurance scheme, when the health insurance companies invest in shit like subprime mortgages, either our premiums will go up or the government will have to bail them out.

At the very least they should mutual-ize the health insurance companies so that they pay dividends to all of us. Since we're going to participate in their losses, we ought to be able to participate in their profits as well.

[Fredda Weinberg]

52. Well, I worked for underwriters, so I know more than you think

And I also took statistics, so I know all about spreading risk. Are you sure you want to debate this?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

55. You're a regular Walter Mitty. So vast and varied is your experience.

But that's neither here nor there. What I'd like you to do is explain how an industry predicated upon gambling on outcomes and denying services to the very people it claims to serve, while getting at least 30% overhead for whatever it does, is best suited to provide healthcare to the citizens of the United States. And why we should all be forced to pay money for this scheme.

How is it better than a single payer system with no 3rd party private insurers?

[Fredda Weinberg]

62. I believe we agree: single payer is best. btw, I was raised a socialist

and never wavered. So there.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

63. We are definitely in agreement

:thumbsup:

[Sanctified]

57. But makes private companies more money and will in all likelihood drive up the cost of insurance. nt

[no name no slogan]

2. Yes. At the point of a gun, if necessary.

:sarcasm:

Seriously, I don't like Hillary, but this kid of post is really useless.

[dkf]

8. I just want it clarified is all.

What I want is for the people who want health insurance to be able to afford insurance. I guess I'm realizing that I'm not for so called Universal Healthcare after all.

[Armstead]

10. Universal healthcare is different

Universal healthcare would provide everyone with one health plan run by the government, rather than a market-based system whose incentive is to prevent people from receiving care.

[dkf]

18. I could definitely go for single payer.

I am much more hesitant on mandating health insurance and especially garnishing wages to pay private insurance.

[TexasObserver]

3. Her main goal is to avoid fighting the insurance industry over it.

It's an unconditional surrender.

[BootinUp]

26. Absolutely incorrect, from the LA Debate Thursday:

MR. BLITZER: Senator Clinton, we remember '93. When you were formulating your health care plan, it was done in secret.

SEN. CLINTON: Well, it was an effort to try to begin this conversation, which we're now continuing. It has been a difficult conversation. There have been a lot of efforts. And I'm proud that one of the efforts I was involved in 10 years ago resulted in the children's health insurance program. We now have a million children in California -- (applause) -- who every month get health insurance because of that bipartisan effort. We obviously are running into the presidential veto and not being able to expand it.

But this issue is so important, and I just want to underscore three really critical points. First of all, I have said in my plan that we have to regulate the health insurance industry differently.

We have to say to them that they can no longer deny coverage to anyone, and they have to cover everyone, including every preexisting condition. (Applause.)

Secondly, we've got to make it clear to the drug companies that they do deserve to be part of the solution, because we all benefit from the lifesaving remedies they come up with. But we pay for it many times over. It is American taxpayers who pay for the research.

It is American taxpayers who pay for a lot of the clinical studies.

That's why, while we're looking at getting to universal health care, we also have to give Medicare the right to negotiate with drug companies, to get the price down -- (applause) -- to begin to rein in those costs across the board.

And -- and finally, it is so important that as Democrats we carry the banner of universal health care. The health insurance industry is very clever and extremely well-funded. I know this. I had $300 million of incoming advertising and attacks during our efforts back in '93 and '94. And one of the reasons why I've designed the plan that I have put forward now is because I learned a lot about what people want, what people are willing to accept, and how we get the political process to work.

And certainly it is important that the president come up with the plan, but we'll have to persuade Congress to put all of those deliberations on C-SPAN. Now, I think we might be able to do that, but that's a little heavier lift than what the president is going to propose because what happens is we have to have a coalition. I think the plan I have proposed is if you take business, which pays the costs and wants to get those costs down; take labor, that has to negotiate over health care instead of wages; take doctors, nurses, hospitals, who want to get back into the business of taking care of people instead of working for insurance companies; I think we will have a coalition that can withstand the health insurance and the drug companies, and that's what I intend to do. (Applause.)

[TexasObserver]

49. Bull-loney

are you a Hill shill or merely naive?

[exchange77]

4. NO! Universal Health Care Educational Resources from American medical Student Assosiation

The issue of universal health care is inarguably quite complex. AMSA has developed a wide range of reader-friendly materials to help educate you about universal health care. The educational materials are categorized conceptually to facilitate your learning process

http://www.amsa.org/uhc/uhcres.cfm

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


Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., this morning left open the possibility that, if elected, her government would garnish the wages of people who didn't comply with her health care plan. "We will have an enforcement mechanism, whether it's that or it's some other mechanism through the tax system or automatic enrollments," Clinton said in an appearance on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos".

Clinton went on to say, though, that such mechanisms would not include penalties. "They don't have to pay fines … We want them to have insurance. We want it to be affordable. And what I have said is that there are a number of ways of doing that. Now, there's not just one way of getting to that

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/story?id=4235448&page=1

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

[LadyVT]

6. Don't be silly.

She offers those who cannot afford the LOW premiums of the Congressional Health Plan or Medicare/Medicaid, subsidies. Subsidy = money. She offers you MONEY so you can pay the premiums, which will be far lower than what we are all paying now, since the private insurance companies won't be the ones in charge of the premiums--the government will be. And yes, everyone will need to be insured, which is why she is offering SUBSIDIES for people to be able to pay the premiums. If everyone is not insured, the problem we have now which is driving up health costs (the problem being uninsured people showing up at the hospital emergency room with serious conditions that couldn't been prevented with insurance) will NOT change. Everyone has to be covered in order to lower costs.

[nebula]

17. What about the unemployed?

what about those who can't pay the premiums, subsidized or not?

Are we going to throw them all in jail?

[LadyVT]

53. that's silly, of course not

They will be given enough subsidy to pay the premium. If they are unemployed or homeless, for example, they will be provided a Medi-care/Medi-cal plan without charge.

[Deja Q]

7. Who'll have the jobs to pay for it if they all keep getting offshored?

[BlackVelvet04]

13. Why don't you start a thread about jobs instead of rudely

interrupting every health care thread.

[area51]

65. He brings up a valid point.

The lack of jobs in this country has to be taken into account regarding rightwing mandated health insurance, which is the brainchild of Newt Gingrich. Since there aren't a lot of good paying jobs, thanks to offshoring/inshoring, how do you think people are going to pay for GingrichCare? People would need money from the government -- every month, not some pie-in-the-sky tax credit at the end of the year -- in order to pay for GingrichCare, plus the co-pays of doctor visits, drugs and treatment.

[JFKgirl]

9. No, her main goal is to "go after (our) wages" to fund the insurance

lobbyists who funded her. Unlike Obama, she doesnt have small donor support. She needs lobbyist money.

[BlackVelvet04]

11. Obama mandates health insurance coverage for

children. That's a lot of payoff to insurance companies.

[DJ13]

12. Of course

Have you looked at the number of big pharma companies and HMO's on her campaign donor list?

[proud2BlibKansan]

14. Yes

[BlackVelvet04]

15. Actually part of her plan is to require

large employers to provide health care coverage for their employees.

[dkf]

20. BV, you seem to know Hillary's plan well...

What happens if everyone is covered, but the HMO execs keep all the profits?

Is there any mechanism to control the profit these corporations will be making?

I think that if everyone needs to pay into these plans, that there should be checks to make sure we are not being overcharged.

And seeing the oil companies profit, I have no confidence that leaving for-profit insurance companies in this mix will be any benefit whatsoever.

[BlackVelvet04]

22. I haven't found anything that speaks specifically to

the profits being limited; however, I know when I was in the FEHB Program any insurance company that balked at paying, added a pre-existing condition clause, or raised premiums more than a minimal amount was kicked out of the program. New providers were constantly being added and providers were removed and every year you had an open season to change to another plan.

I don't want health insurance companies to remain the kingpins of the health industry either...I just want to see them phased out in a responsible manner, the new system for dealing with health care put into place and a smooth transaction to be realized. Either the Medicare/Medicaid programs will have to be expanded to replace the health insurance industry or a new system put into place. That will be quite costly and time intensive. Personally I think a five - ten year plan would have the least impact on taxes and the economy. Remember, the new system would have to be paid for up front.

I would support a major plan to re-train health insurance company personnel to fill some of the jobs in the new system. Offices will have to be set up or expanded, office support equipment purchased and set up, a computer record system devised and set up. It's a big undertaking that cannot be achieved over night. I'm not sure how this will all be paid for.

I don't know that anyone would actually propose a law to limit profits, but I will do some checking. I haven't found it in the comparison charts that compare the candidates health care proposals. It isn't addressed at all.

One of the biggest advantages I see to Clinton's mandated plan for all is the mandate for large employers to provide their employees with insurance. With Clinton's plan all large employers (Wal-Mart, et al) would have to provide insurance. Small businesses would be given tax incentives to provide insurance to their employees.

Sorry to have written a book. I'm very passionate about this issue because my husband and I have been struggling to pay our health insurance and I have to have it because of having metal in my back that could at some later date cause major issues.

[dkf]

40. I didn't see where either plan attempts to phase out private health insurance

If anything, it leaves them more entrenched than ever, and with Hillary's plan everyone will be mandated into using them.

Wouldn't it be more difficult to phase out health insurance companies if everyone is using them?

Maybe that is just me.

[BlackVelvet04]

48. Sorry...

I injected some of MY own wants into that post. I didn't mean to make it confusing.

I think getting more people into the FEHBP would be a first step to setting up a different system. That's just my opinion, nothing anyone else is saying. The government oversees FEHBP and would have a database started which could be switched over and used in a single payer type system. Plus, I think it changes the mindset from thinking of it as private to thinking of it as government. I could be wrong. I just know that FEHBP works well. I had great insurance when I worked for the federal government because the government had leverage and bargaining power because of the large number of insured involved. Having more and more people in the FEHBP would require it to expand and then it could be switched as opposed to starting from scratch. Does that make sense?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

37. How about we mutual-ize the companies and everyone gets dividends? nt

[dkf]

41. That is an idea. I would be more amenable to that.

But keep in mind that even non-profits have CEOs with large salaries nowadays.

[BootinUp]

31. Not exactly. Its either provide or contribute to the cost of coverage

In other words, the employee can decide to use one of the government plans but still the large company would contribute to the cost.

------------------------------------------------------from her website:



Relying on consumers or the government alone to fix the system has unintended consequences, like scaled-back coverage or limited choices. This plan ensures that all who benefit from the system share in the responsibility to fix its shortcomings.



Insurance and Drug Companies: insurance companies will end discrimination based on pre-existing conditions or expectations of illness and ensure high value for every premium dollar; while drug companies will offer fair prices and accurate information.


Individuals: will be required to get and keep insurance in a system where insurance is affordable and accessible.


Providers: will work collaboratively with patients and businesses to deliver high-quality, affordable care.


Employers: will help financing the system; large employers will be expected to provide health insurance or contribute to the cost of coverage: small businesses will receive a tax credit to continue or begin to offer coverage.


Government: will ensure that health insurance is always affordable and never a crushing burden on any family and will implement reforms to improve quality and lower cost.

[ErnestoG]

16. That right there will galvanize the rightwing vote against her.

Regardless of how we parse health care in degrees among our own, the Right is almost lockstep against it and will come out to smash Clinton in the GE over it. McCAin may not even have to use the IWR as I have been saying, in this case.

[catagory5]

34. no it should be scott free..

Nah, we shouldnt have to make a sacrafice. It should be totally free and something else to be "leeched" off of. C'mon man. It is way better than the ungodly cost of the premiums now. It is the best plan out there. Obama will fine you if you dont carry .
But I am sure most will distort or moan and piss about having to pay (if you can afford it) Our mindset has gotten to the point where some of us think everything should be handed to us...

[mrreowwr_kittty]

38. Not to mention picking off a lot of working class voters

Who will be scared shitless of having their wages garnished for healthcare premiums.

[UALRBSofL]

56. Either this or Universal Health Care

And if you go with Universal Health Care you will be taxed to death. People have already posted here about the high taxes they are paying in europe for it.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

58. Bullshit right wing talking point

Europeans pay a higher tax rate, but when you factor in their higher wages and benefits, they come out ahead of Americans in terms of what they actually take home every month.

[AZBlue]

35. Yup.

Those poor health insurance execs can't afford new beamers every year unless we do! Come on now!!

[ErnestoG]

36. One word - GarnishGate.

[JVS]

44. I don't know if that's her goal, but it sounds like her method.

and it sucks

[LadyVT]

54. Explanation

I now pay premiums of upwards of $400 per month. Under Hillary's plan, my premiums will be reduced drastically, to well under $100 per month. Now, if a person like me, making what I am making, is not willing to pay $300 LESS per month than I am already paying for universal healthcare, then, yes, I think we should garnish their wages. That is just ridiculous. Who would be unwilling to pay LESS than they are paying now?

And people who don't have insurance now because they are, say, 28, and healthy and don't want to buy the premium, can pay for a very inexpensive plan like Medicare or Medi-cal, which may set them back $20 or $25 per month. If they can't afford that, they will get a subsidy to pay the premium for them, 100% of it.

How is this so hard to grasp? Please understand... the whole point is to lower the premiums drastically so that people or the government can afford to pay for everyone. So that there is no healthcare burden on anyone. So that no one has to lose everything they have to pay hospital bills.

Otherwise, there will be 15 million people under Obama's plan who will choose to opt out of insurance coverage, and those same people will continue to flood the hospitals because they didn't get preventive care they would have gotten had they paid--or had the government pay for them--health care.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

59. How do you know that your premiums will be reduced by that much?

Please link to the income/premium scale from which you drew that figure because I didn't see anything like that in her plan.

[leftofthedial]

60. a universal for-profit system

will make things worse, not better

[CTLawGuy]

61. mandates are awful

it just forces people to participate in a system that doesn't work. The truly healthy people will buy bare minimum plans probably offered by new companies just for healthy people, so they won't diversify the insurance pools. those who are uninsurable won't be helped by the mandate, and those who can't afford insurance won't be helped by the mandate.

[rodeodance]

64. It's to ensure that ALL are covered. whereas Obama's goal is to OMIT 15 million people.