Hillary pledges to get universal health care in her first term.

[crispini]

There, two can play the quote game.

She pledged to build a "consensus" with health care providers, businesses, regular people and the insurance industry - all groups she alienated in her closed-door plotting 14 years ago - to finish the job in her first presidential term.

Article here:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2007/09/18/2007-09-18_hillary_clinton_offers_new_health_care_p.html

Edit: This is a response to this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4614976&mesg_id=4614976

which I think is a just plain silly attack, regardless of who you support. :eyes:

[rodeodance]

1. THANK you

[HeraldSquare212]

2. You mean, she's going to give them a seat at the table?

[IndianaGreen]

11. Not only a seat, they will write the law for her!

No doubt on whose side she is.

The only truly universal health system is single payer, and no candidate is offering that other than Mike Gravel.

[rodeodance]

35. you know better than that--but still have to drop your poop.

IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sat Feb-16-08 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #2
11. Not only a seat, they will write the law for her! Updated at 8:41 AM

No doubt on whose side she is.

The only truly universal health system is single payer, and no candidate is offering that other than Mike Gravel.

[Donnachaidh]

62. they will do the SAME for Obama

And you folks KNOW that. What a disingenuous posting! Please -- do you really expect the guy who has an assistant to carry papers for him (because he loses them) to rein in ANY of the companies? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

What was that term -- CRIMINAL NAIVETE? Yup -- that's Obama supporters.

[rodeodance]

26. Obama has made a point saying Insur Industy will have a seat at the table also--part of

his bringing them together mantra.

[HeraldSquare212]

28. I know, and he's been criticized for it, as though he were a sell out for proposing that.

[rodeodance]

32. yes. he was. But fact is both will work with Insur and Pharm Industry--. Single payer

is not on the table for either.

[HeraldSquare212]

36. Oh, I hear you - single payer is what we should have.

I think most of us on the board are settling for far less than we want, and are probably on our second or third choice for President.

[rodeodance]

38. Lots of Shoulds---DK was my man---long time ago.

[rodeodance]

3. REC it up Hillary folks

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

4. Cool! K & R.

:kick:

[rodeodance]

6. yup

[UALRBSofL]

10. That would be great but it aint gonna happen

First I have a hard time believing it would pass through congress. No president can snap there fingers and make it so. So, for people expecting Universal Healthcare don't expect it in your lifetime. Being a nurse the past 20 years I can tell you it is much needed but realistically I know it will never happen. :(

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

15. I'm involved in grass roots effort in my state, and we have the ears of the Gov and the legislature

It's an issue that isn't going away, and our reps know it.

Don't give up, please, there are now many, many doctors and nurses who very much want to see it happen. We have (had until the Bush Admin raided it) pretty good medical care through Medicare, Medicaid and the VA system, S-CHIP was also a success which is why Bush doesn't want it expanded.

[rodeodance]

29. It failed in WI few months ago. but Dems are trying to Revive it.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

34. Oh, I'm sure we're going to struggle to get it passed, but there is a people's mandate on this issue

And, the legislator's at the state level are bound to their consitutents a bit more than those in the beltway.

[rodeodance]

37. We thought so too. Best of luck.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

61. Thanks. I have the feeling our first go round will end similarly. Then it's time for learning,

regrouping and strengthening.

[rodeodance]

5. kick

[jefferson_dem]

7. She's had her turn...and failed.

No do-overs. It's time for new leadership.

[Cameron27]

8. She'll get universal health care passed,

she knows the pitfalls to avoid, and she knows what works AND she's not afraid of fighting for it!

K&R

[Orsino]

33. But we won't necessarily like it.

I have to have some hope that she and Congress will back it up with funding to make it affordable, because the insurance companies who write the legislation are not charitably inclined.

Then, someday, we can cut the shareholders and predatory executives out of the loop, and save boatloads of money for good care.

[rodeodance]

41. yes, yes and yes. But I trust that she has learned the hard way --to make it happen

[davsand]

9. But wait! In another thread it says by the end of her second term:

That came from AFSCME debate transcripts in Nevada, I think.

I am confused. Which IS it?


Laura

[jefferson_dem]

13. She's famous for adjusting promises and moving goalposts.

Who knows.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

16. Yay!

I'm honored. :blush:

[rodeodance]

55. yeah--Obama has found that inserting 'universal' into his stump speaches last few weeks

has benefited him. Same plan--just that magic word.

[rodeodance]

19. That OP was over a year old. Misinformation spread by the OP. But typical flame-bait

from that poster.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

12. but doesn't this just give insurance providers more power?

That's what I don't like about Clinton OR Obama's plans--they give too much power to the insurance companies. Right now, we pay more for our health care (15% of GNP) compared to Europe (around 12%) for a lot less actual care. The problem is the profit margins that are needed by insurance companies to pay their CEOs huge salaries and to give their stockholders big dividends.

Also, could you tell me if this is correct-that Clinton said on TV that if a person didn't buy the mandated insurance their wages would be garnished? I'm not trying to start a flame war-I am just concerned, because this is what I have heard. If this is a lie, I want refutation. If it is the truth, then the Clinton camp needs to come up with a way of making this be less onerous than it sounds.

[crispini]

20. I'll be perfectly honest, what I'm doing here.

I simply started this thread as a response to the other one about having healthcare in her second term, which I think is a pretty lightweight and silly attack.

That said, you are a person I respect and having received such a thoughtful response I'll respond in kind:

Yes, neither one of them would be a true national health care. Both would be akin to, as far as I can tell, a creation of a really big national health care insurance pool. I agree that neither one of them goes far enough, but I don't think that there is the political will to get anything really radically different from the system in today's client climate. Honestly, I blame our electoral system, which essentially pushes everyone towards the middle.

I googled to find out about the garnish issue, and it does look like that might be a possibility.

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

I think this is not going to be a popular position AT ALL but I do think this is symptomatic of HRC's more realistic approach to problems (which also makes her less electable to some people). The fact is that in order to make this system workable, it really does need to include everyone -- there is a very real possibility that younger people or healthy people would not buy the insurance, which would totally cut the financial underpinning of the thing out from under it.

For the record, I am still officially "undecided" but I find the Clinton-bashing on here annoying and I like to see things from all sides as best I can before making up my mind. :hi:

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

45. thank you for a thoughtful answer

with a citation, no less! This is exactly what I thought I had read about. It is troubling politically, because it can be so easily spun by the opposition in the GE if she gets the nomination. Unlike you, I really think that the country is ready for true single payer health care. I'm hearing that from people from across the political spectrum. The MSM has a vested interest in keeping the insurance/drug companies in power, and so of course don't broadcast the fact that most people want universal health care. I'm afraid that statements like Clinton's will only keep us from even starting to achieve our goal.

If you have ever read the book "Who Rules America?", first published 40 years ago, you'll find that the insurance/drug industry has had their grips on government for a long long time. They won't give up their power without a fight. So whoever is President must be smart and come up with a way of gaining UHC while, at the same time, taking away the power from these two groups--or we'll never have anything but programs to enhance their wealth and power.

[crispini]

50. You know, now that I think about it,

I agree with you that there is a substantial amount of the electorate that would be ready to support true single-payer health care. I meet people that say that even in my red, red neck of the woods. Unfortunately I think that that all of our candidates who would have been ready to *really* go after the single-payer health care program are all knocked out already.

I think Obama's plan is even weaker -- by not mandating that people get into the plan, it will simply weaken the plan and set it up for failure, thus perpetuating mess.

I'll be honest -- I don't think we're going to get what we really need in this arena out of either one of these candidates. :(

[progressive_realist]

46. The devil is in the details. Or the(un)expected consequences.

For the record, I don't like either candidate's health plan very much.

But there is, I think, a bit of insurance industry pandering in these mandates. In general, if the government is providing an unsubsidized alternative to private health insurance, the government insurance is going to cost more. This is because the private insurers will cherry-pick the young, healthy, lower-risk population, i.e. the ones who don't require much medical care. The government is left paying for everyone with chronic health problems, and will therefore spend more per patient. If the people whose risk profiles are low enough they feel they can forgo coverage entirely are forced to buy insurance, they will buy the lower-cost private insurance, not the higher-priced government plan. So the mandates in this situation would entirely benefit private insurers and would not lower costs for the government plan by a dime.

The only way to avoid this outcome is to subsidize the government plan so it is cheaper than private insurance. Obama's plan will do this for some patients, but not universally. And of course the insurance lobby will pay heavily and fight tooth-and-nail to make sure Congress keeps the government plan more expensive than the insurance industry's products.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

49. I agree with you

an astute analysis. If we have to have the monster (for profit health care), it must be chained, tamed, and contained. No cherry picking. No dropping people if they get ill or badly injured. And yes, the government insurance should be cheaper than the other. It would have to be for me to be able to afford it.

That being said, why not Medicare for all? My husband has just been placed in SSD, after years of being unable to work (and doctors being unable to find out what was wrong until recently). After one year, he is eligible for Medicare. He will have his illness (Myasthenia Gravis) for the rest of his life. Yet Medicare picks him up, and people like him. So why not Medicare for all?

It would also be a lot easier on doctors if they only had to fill out paperwork for ONE insurer.

[rodeodance]

24. It was one of those quick on the moment responses--that got lots of

dissing from Obama folk. I have not seen it sence.

But Obama has said he will fine parents who do not buy health insurance. Both have mandates to some extent or another.

America is capitalist to the hilts. I think both know the European style would not have any chance in the USA. just my thoughts.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

47. Both Clinton's and Obama's statements

will be used against them by the Republicans. How do we counter?

[UALRBSofL]

25. That is correct and it would be based on income

It would be as close to UHC as we can get. To realistically have UHC our tax's would go up a lot. Just look at the tax margins in europe. They love UHC but they will admit they are taxed for it. So, garnishing wages is the same as garnishing tax's. The fact she says everyone has to be in the plan sounds Marxists to some people, but, if you let people op out, millions will do that. Then when they get sick, can't pay there hospital bill, it ruins there credit because the hospital takes the loss, and, it's reported on there credit report. Obama said, you can't force people to buy insurance because some can't afford it, but, since Hillary's is income based, they can afford it. Healthcare is an issue I have taken as a personal issue and I know quite well what her plan is and I think it would work.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

43. but wouldn't costs go down

if there were a non-profit insurer? I really don't mind paying more in taxes if it means I truly get health care. What we have now are insurance companies who do their best to keep people from getting health care by denying coverage for medicines (even if a doctor says it is needed) and medical procedures. Right now if I paid for insurance for just myself, it would be more than a fourth of my monthly take home pay, and it wouldn't cover the basics, like they have in Canada. And allowing multiple insurance companies, all of whom have different codes and hoops through which doctors must jump, means that paperwork is onerous and burdensome on MDs, making them less efficient.

[bunnies]

14. hmmm. What to believe, what to believe.

Hard to know with Hillary.

[leftstreet]

17. She means Universal Health INSURANCE, not Single Payer

"Today's plan is simpler, yet still bold," she said, promising to maintain private insurance choices Americans now have - and adding a public insurance option."

Most states already have programs like this.

Her $110 billion-a-year plan would require all Americans to buy insurance - through their jobs or a program modeled on Medicare or the federal employees' health plan.

That should go over big.
:eyes:

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

18. I think I'm going to choose the federal employee's health plan. Our representatives seem to like it!

:-)

[ElsewheresDaughter]

22. ditto

[UALRBSofL]

30. Federal Employee, that's because it's free to them

We peons will never have that. Do you really think many in congress care that everyone has UHC? They do not.

[rodeodance]

40. I do think they contribute some--not sure of amt. Long time since I read about Congress plan

[rodeodance]

27. Yes--same as OBAMA--but he OMITS at least 15 MILLION right from the start.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

21. BadaBing BadaBoom

[Cameron27]

23. lol

[rodeodance]

31. K.

[class2068]

39. Be careful what you wish for

Guaranteed health insurance in Massachusetts has collapsed after one year. The official number is that it is costing more than twice what it had been estimated to cost. Unofficial estimates are that it is costing four times its estimate. There is no money to pay for its gigantic cost without steeply raising both state income taxes and property taxes. Now, impose MA's modest plan upon the U.S. Ain't gonna work no way no how. Why Democrats trip over one another to promise billions (trillions?) of dollars in new benefits amazes me.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

44. That's interesting. Do you have links for that? I'd love to read about the obstacles that others

have encountered.

[rodeodance]

54. I think both realize that some has to be done--We do not know the outcome of either plan

[PresidentObama]

42. This was one of my criticisms of her when I supported Edwards. THANK YOU, HILLARY!!

Previously, she only supported getting it done by the end of her second term.

Glad to see she's committed to getting REAL universal healthcare for ALL in her first term!!

It can be done, no matter what the critics say!

[rodeodance]

53. I believe she has really listened to people as she crossed America and will

do her best to get health care for all.

[PresidentObama]

57. I do too. Healthcare is her strong point for me.

I think her plan will get what Obama's plan can't get done: healthcare for all!!

She's listened to those hurting, and came to the conclusion that we need coverage for all and in her first term too. Americans can't wait, they need it as soon as possible. But of course with the war in Iraq needing to be ended and the economy needing some serious attention, she'll have her hands full. But I'm confident she'll get it done in her first term.

[EndElectoral]

48. Compelling people who can't afford premiums to support insurance corps. is not universal health care

[ProSense]

51. Bill criticizes Obama on health care. Flashback: Elizabeth Edwards on Hillary's plan and the 1990s

Bill: Obama Would "Deny Us Universal Health Care"

Elizabeth Edwards on Hillary's health care plan: she ripped off Edwards'

[PresidentObama]

52. And? Edwards had a great plan. I'm glad she's pushing virtually the same plan.

[ProSense]

59. Mandates don't work! Is she planning to get Congress to approve garnishing wages? n/t

[ORDem]

56. Let's look at some of the features of her first HC plan:

$5,000 for refusing to join the government-mandated health plan

$5,000 for failing to pay the premiums on time

15 years to doctors who received "anything of value" in exchange for helping patients short-circuit the bureaucracy

$10,000 a day for faulty physician paperwork

$50,000 for unauthorized patient treatment

$100,000 a day for drug companies that messed up federal filings

Not to mention that she negotiated the whole thing in secret and it failed miserably. She wasn't allowed to even bring it up for the next 7 years. Now there's EXPERIENCE!

:dem:

[PresidentObama]

58. What does that have to do with her CURRENT healthcare plan?

[rodeodance]

60. Hillary learned for 94: "those who are satisfied with their health care can keep it."

http://www.leadertelegram.com/story-news_local.asp?id=BFP4J8ITAIR

One student, who stated her family worked in the health care industry, expressed concern that Clinton's universal health care plan would put her family out of business.

"One of the things that she learned in '93 and '94 is that a lot of people are happy with their health care," Chelsea Clinton said.

She said that under her mother's proposed plan, those who are satisfied with their health care can keep it.

Those who aren't happy with their health care, or those who can't afford it, could buy into the plan.

Premium payments would be capped at less than 3 percent of disposable income, Clinton said.

"Everyone would be covered and that's important because the larger the pools are, the less expensive it would be for each of us individually," she said.

Updated: 2/13/2008