I don't like Hillary's health plan. It became very clear to me

[Blue_Roses]

tonight that her plan is lacking in one thing--choice.

I have two children on CHIPS here in Texas because the health insurance from my spouse's job is too damn expensive we just can't afford it. To be penalized for something we cannot afford is ridiculous. To have wages garnished is ridiculous.

Any parent who loves their children and wants the best for them will want health care...that's a given. Hell, I'm sure most adults want it too. But it has to be affordable. Give us some options.

[Fovea]

1. I want CheneyCare

the same care Dick gets for the same price.

[Blue_Roses]

2. yep

amazing huh?

[populistdriven]

12. No thanks, Cheney is Undead.

[Moochy]

41. Is That Reanimator Fluid available without a perscription?

[populistdriven]

52. Cheney' Zombie Hand will be creeping around the WH for a long long time

[niceypoo]

32. Have you even bothered looking at her plan?

Apparently you have not. For those who cannot afford it, tax credits will pay for it.

[Lerkfish]

3. there are several problems with the plan (and with Obama's too)

one, as you point out correctly, its mandatory so the low income group will be unequally penalized.
two, it ASSUMES insurance companies can be trusted to make the right decisions on what care is given, instead of doctors. That's the main problem we have now -- HMOs refusing needed tests and treatments to improve their bottom line.

That means low income folk will be forced to get insurance that will more than likely stiff them on needed care.

The ONLY way to have the health care this country needs is to eliminate the insurance companies as arbiters of what care is needed, they have a vested interest in refusing care.

The best system would be one where the doctor decides what care is needed, the govt. foots the bill, like medicare, and there is a govt. review apparatus to make sure there is neither fraud nor insufficient care. Insurance companies can do the paperwork if they like, and process the money, but there is no way in the world the insurance companies should be deciding our care.

IMHO

[Blue_Roses]

7. While I can understand why Obama

would want to penalize the parent for not providing health care for their children, it's not reasonable. There has to be a middle ground and neither candidate has reached it yet.

[Araxen]

14. Your way is the only way

for "Universal Healthcare" both plans aren't good at all I think. You need to take out the insurance companies and give the power back to the Doctor's. Right now the insurance companies have most of the power and most people are powerless to fight their insurance company when they say no.

The #1 problem with healthcare in this country is that it is "for profit" and that's wrong!

[Lerkfish]

39. exactly. If other countries can manage universal health care, no reason we can't.

except greed of the insurance companies.

[NDambi]

18. I'm not poor and I don't want mandated healthcare

Hell with that...keep your paws off my paycheck and earnings..I pay enough already..

[Blue_Roses]

20. exactly and don't penalize me in the process

:thumbsup:

[paulk]

34. that is the Republican response

it surely is, and it makes me wonder...

are people so willing to support Obama that they abandon their liberal principles

or are they really Obama supporters at all?

[NDambi]

36. Oh I definitely support Obama..he ain't saying he's gonna fine me or garnish my wages..

leave my pay check alone...

sorry it's how I feel.

I pay plenty in taxes..actually make out better under Bush and his tax cuts, but I'm willing sacrifice a bit for the greater good..but don't threaten me with garnishment like an IRS Levy...

[paulk]

49. if that's the way you feel then you should vote for McCain

seriously.

The sentiment you have expressed is the conservative viewpoint, not the liberal one.

[NDambi]

58. I can't stand McCain...I will vote for Obama...he doesn't plan on garishing me..

As far as having a liberal or conservative point of view...I admit to having both depending upon the subject, but having both doesn't make a liberal or a conservative...I'm not all or naught...

[Maribelle]

56. People that can just barely afford Health Insurance have to pay for those that do not have it.

And on top of having to pay for those that do not have it - - - the uninsured are clogging emergency rooms all over the country, using this expert service as their primary care physician - - - driving up the premiums for those that are insured even more.

Tell the freeloaders to keep their paws off your paycheck, that you pay enough already. Tell the freeloaders to keep their paws out of your local emergency room, that you pay enough already.


Hell with freeloaders. Mandate it.

[Bennyboy]

31. I don't like either plan myself...

If people could afford healthcare they would have it. So if it is mandatory for low wage earners and poor people get it for free, what is the incentive for working?

Someone needs to step up and declare Healthcare a not for profit enterprise and everyone gets equal care.

[rox63]

53. What's the incentive for working? Are you kidding?

Paying for a roof over your head, food on the table, and a few of the comforts that life has to offer. That's one of the dumbest questions I've heard in a while. :crazy:

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

38. Well, the two candidates both said, "Universal Health Care" last night. I doubt we'll hear that

from the Right. Now, it's honing their plans and make any insurer who wants a part of this plan to throw open their books to GAO scrutiny, with the audits made publicly available. It's removing the profit motive. No shareholders allowed on UHC plans.

I'm so glad this is being discussed!

[ieoeja]

42. Plus I bet HMO interference runs up the costs.

Last year a friend and I both broke our hands. Each case started with the requisite emergency room patchup. After that....

With an HMO

My friend had to get a referral from his primary care physician to see ortho. Presumably to make sure that, yes, his hand really was broken before he wasted any of the HMO's money on a specialist.

The ortho who saw him told him exactly what should be done immediately and at a fairly low cost. However, because he had an HMO they would need prior approval. By the time the approval arrives, the bones would likely have fused requiring they rebreak the bones, complicating the procedure further, adding surgical costs as well as adding cost, time and physical discomfort to rehab.

The ortho's predictions were 100% accurate.


With a PPO

I went to an ortho later that week who scheduled/performed surgery on me the following weekend.

My initial injury was worse in that I had a detached ligament in addition to the broken knuckle. But I ultimately required less work and did not spend a single day in occupational rehab because he was able to do the required work immediately.

[nuncvendetta]

45. The main problem I have with the doctor approach

...is that entrusting doctors entirely with health care outcomes causes overconsumption of health care. There is an optimal point of individual health care expenditures where the marginal cost of an additional unit of health care exceeds the marginal benefit of care. In other words, it is inefficient when the gov't is footing the bill when patients/doctors demand $2 for care for $1 of additional outcome (when those $2 could be used to treat someone else who has not yet reached their optimal level of care). Doctors WILL demand a level of care above this optimal amount, because their goal is to achieve the highest level of health outcome for each individual patient (as close to perfect treatment as possible) even if the cost structure doesn't make sense and creates negative externalities for other health consumers. Doctors operate under the framework that health care resources are more limitless than they are in actuality, and frankly it is wrong to place in their hands the empowerment to make such tradeoff decisions when their oath is to each individual and not to the aggregate.

[Lerkfish]

46. did you read my entire suggestion?

try again. I don't put full power in anyone's hands.

[enid602]

4. choice

Nothing's free. Take the $30K per US citizen you government's wisely decided to spend in Iraq; you'll end up paying for it eventually. Sure, universal health will cost, but it's a question of how you want your government to spend tax money.

BTW, I certainly hope that Texas' CHIPS program is better than Arizona's ACCESS program; its dental program only pays for one procedure: extraction. You may think your kids are covered, but they probably aren't.

[Blue_Roses]

6. yep it does seem to be somewhat better

they get preventative dental care. Do you pay a co-pay? I pay one for office visits and Rx's. I like CHIPs. This is type of health care plan that would work great. We get the choice of providers and hospitals. We have to qualify every six months. I'm so glad my children have this plan.

[cooolandrew]

5. Yep, Barack has the same plan but optional and subsidies if you can't afford it...

Kucinich had the real plan main reason I was so big on him he was going to pay for it with an end to imperialism. And a raise in taxes for the ultra rich.

[Captain Hilts]

8. It's less affordable if people - all under 25 and men under 40 are allowed to opt out. nt

[BlackVelvet04]

9. You don't have to buy it from the employer....

you can buy it from the FEHBP plan that will be a reduced rate if needed.

[Blue_Roses]

10. I understand that

it's the "choice" and "mandate" thing that gets me. I think there's something that rubs most of the wrong way when we hear that word "mandate."

[BlackVelvet04]

11. Well it doesn't work if it's not mandated...

everybody keeps screaming for single payer healthcare....you wouldn't be able to opt out of that either, it would be mandated.

The government isn't just going to hand healthcare to you for free and I shouldn't have to pay for that which you refuse to pay for.

[Blue_Roses]

24. I don't want you to pay for what I refuse...

and I SURE as hell don't expect the government to give me a handout. But let's be clear on the fine print. I see no where in her plan about the "garnishment of wages" that many heard last night, if we refuse. It needs to be much clearer.

I am one who has had BCBS and it was great insurance, low premiums, low deductibles, low co-pays, and low cost Rx. That was a family plan with a job my spouse had in Arkansas two years ago. Now we're in Texas and it's a whole new ball game. There is the fine print and that's what I want to be clear on.

[Yossariant]

17. Because slavery is freedom and up is down in Obamaspeak.

The only way to have universal healthcare is to mandate universal healthcare.

All else is bullshit.

[paperbag_ princess]

19. without mandates (like Social security )

Your choice is nothin more than whether or not you pay for your health care or whether I do (and other tax payers like me)

The average person can not afford catastophic health care costs without insurance. It would bankrupt most anyone...even those who are moderately wealthy. We are all going to need health care at some point...we all have accidents, age and die..

What about my choice....don't I get the choice to not pay for you since I am already going to be paying for my own family?

edit to clarify

[Blue_Roses]

28. look your not going to be paying for me

you sound as if you are turning this into a GOP welfare speech. The plan does include the fine print of "garnishment of wages" if declined. I know I'm not the only one who heard that last night.

[paperbag_ princess]

47. sure we would ....without mandates

Without manadates to this ...who would pay for you showing up to the ER besides the tax payers? The GOP doesn't own the idea of responsibility...we do have a shared responsibility...just like social security.

Health care needs to be affordable for all and required for all.

[vision]

23. Mandate

I would rather have a Woman-date :) But seriously a mandate is the only way it will really work. When given a "choice" most that are not sick or likely to get sick will choose not to get it. This lessens the impact of the spread liabilities and increases the cost for those left.

Republicans have poisoned the well with certain words imo. Like "right to work" states because the worker has the "Choice" of being in a Union or not. The Republicans will twist that word until it means nothing, unless there is a mandate and shared burden. If not shared, many will not care or choose to help care the load.

[Blue_Roses]

26. I cannot think of one person who would refuse health care

and medicine when they are sick. That's simply not true.

[vision]

43. of course they would not refuse it when sick

but they would and currently some are refusing to get insurance. I know that some young healthy people don't get insurance because of the expense and because they are healthy. Since they are not in the pool of insured citizens the cost is not spread around so the cost is more than it would be if they were in that pool. Mandating that everybody is in the pool lowers the cost because the healthy citizens are less likely to go the emergency room and more likely to have regular checkups and stay healthy.

[OzarkDem]

13. Then you haven't read it; it does offer choices

Clinton's plan offers four choices, really:

Low income: Medicaid (she plans to expand it to provide coverage to more low income individuals). If you and your husband's income is low you will be enrolled in Medicaid.

Moderate income: buy into a government plan like Medicare; buy into the plan that Congress has; buy into private insurance (where premiums are capped and indexed to a percentage of your income).

Clinton's plan also provides federal incentives (tax credits, etc) to EMPLOYERS and INDIVIDUALS to help pay for insurance

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/americanhealthchoicesplan.pdf

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

16. Thanks for posting this. The choice is precisely WHY I like her plan..

[Cameron27]

21. I know

the right-wing spin on mandates is infuriating. :banghead:

[Blue_Roses]

22. No where in that does she mention the

"garnished" wages if you opt out and THAT'S what is stuck in many people's crawl.

I'm open to ANYTHING that will be fair. It's not about Obama or Hillary, it's about taking care of my, MY family.

[Bluenorthwest]

33. Then you should understand my trepidation

As many in the Obama camp don't think my family is a family and they also think they should have a say in who is a family and who is not. Tax breaks based on my family of 16 years being legal strangers? It is about MY family too. And the Senator from Illinois does not seem to be trustworthy when it comes to areas where his extremist pals want to impose their dogma on the rest of us.
Oh and vountary does not mean 'voluntary until you are forced, then we say you gammed the system and fine you in addition to back premiums' which is exactly what Obama is saying. It is a mandate, only they delay the punishment for non volunteers. If it was voluntary, no one could be said to 'game the system' as Obama says every debate. Gaming the system by not volunteering? The man needs a dictionary to look up what 'voluntray' actually means.

[OzarkDem]

50. No free riders

She mentioned that the cost of carrying people who can afford insurance but refuse to get it averages about $900 per year for every American.

If you can't afford insurance you will be enrolled in Medicaid. If you can afford it, you will need to buy it, just like the rest of us.

[crawfish]

15. Cheney gets a cost break

...because he has no heart to cover. :)

[Blue_Roses]

25. lol

I needed that laugh today
thanks!:)

[RoadRage]

27. I agree - Obama's rebuttle about "how things are in MA" was great..

It showed the idiocy of fining someone who can't afford healthcare in the first place. Make it affordable, offer stipends, discounts etc. to those who fall below a certain line, and go with it.

Fining a single mom because she can't afford to pay Hillary's chosen medical companies a pre-determined monthly allotment is crazy. And THAT is something that Republicans will pounce on all fall long.. and it's what will prevent it from ever getting close to approved.

Obama's offers wiggle room - and that will be needed to get something like this through the House & Senate.

[Blue_Roses]

30. Even goof-ball, Pat Buchanan was laughing about the

"garnishment of wages" comment. I can't stand him and God help me for saying this, but he's right on this. I don't agree with him on anything and I'm waiting for lightening to strike me ...:hide:

With that said, you're right. It's just not a clear plan--clear as in what will happen if we opted out of her plan. Penalties, fees...:shrug:

Forget that...

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

35. Is Sen. Obama's plan any "clearer"? Is that your contention?

:shrug:

[surfermaw]

29. Why didn't Hillary use FDR, word ,,,, I still am wondering

FDR stated with S.S. he wanted every american citizen to participate, otherwise the program would fall by the way side, because you would always have the ones left out , trying to defeat the program. That is exacrly what the Bush and the republicans are trying to do now, change the program so there will be different programs, and some still in the old FDR program, every time I get a ad, from an ins.company about the D.program on drugs, they are trying to get me off medicare and into their ins.company for medicare and the drug company, and many are falling for it.

[rodeodance]

55. both she and O. are aware that that would not pass

[Fire_brand]

37. .

.

[Cameron27]

48. Why are Republicans for Senator Obama?

What piece of GOP ideology do you think favors Barack Obama in this election?

[nuncvendetta]

40. I thought the "liberal" principle was health care opportunities for all

Isn't the conservative/liberal dichotomy on this the idea that conservatives believe it's okay for some individuals to NOT have the opportunity to be covered because "free market uber alles"? If that's the case, then it is patently unfair to label either Obama's or Hillary's plans, both of which aim from a normative standpoint to give everyone who wants health care the opportunity to have it, as anything but "liberal" plans.

In law school, I've studied health care with one of the foremost health care economists in the field (I won't give away his name in order to not give away the school I attend). Frankly, both the universal mandate and cost containment approaches are legitimate starting points in solving the problem, and both have certain strengths and weaknesses. The Hillary mandate plan recognizes the free rider problem in health insurance markets - that healthy individuals in effect subsidize the non-healthy in order to create a pooling equilibrium that isn't cost-prohibitive. A mandate draws upon that distributional transfer. In theory, that sounds great, but let's remember our starting point. We have 45 million uninsured, 10-15 million of which would choose not to be covered with insurance because they don't feel like their health outcomes are currently at risk. So in effect, we're going to force 15 million people to get insurance against their will in order to give health care opportunities to 30 million? That ratio is exceedingly inefficient. Remember folks, we could have no crime in the United States if we put enough cops on the street, but at a certain point below that our scarce resources are better utilized to other endeavors, despite the "sacrifice" we're making in basically allowing some level of crime to take place. Other methods of achieving universal health opportunities without forcing this 1:2 ratio should definitely be preferred.

Further, I have a problem with where Hillary's plan leaves our ability to continue on a path towards health care innovation. The details of her plan directly implicate patents held by health care innovators in order to drive down costs. Let's remember that without some system of reimbursement, either through IP rights or prospective subsidies, innovators are unable to transcend the high fixed costs of R&D in order to initially come upon technological advancement. What may seem expensive in time period 1, and what Hillary's system may call unacceptable, could over the span of many time periods actually contribute to better outcomes for fewer resources. Finally, a lot of other nations are free riding upon our technological advances. We have technological comparative advantage in health care technology, and it would be a shame to consign that away to another country. We've lost enough comparative advantages in our economics already over the past 20-30 years. We need to cultivate the ones we have left. The only way Hillary's garnishment of IP rights concept works is if she concomitantly suggests an overhaul of our IP rights system to a prospective rewards one. I haven't heard her suggest this at all.


Obama's plan targets cost containment in order to create universal health insurance opportunities, while recognizing the exogenous values in such normative principles as freedom and choice, which honestly do have inherent significant value in them as well. While there are details of the plan that have weaknesses as well (and I'll let others perhaps discuss those because I have to run to class now), at least it starts off at what is (to me) a preferable normative framework.

Both plans unfortunately approach this from a "universal health correction" approach rather than a "health management" approach. If only we could take the gun off of the streets to begin with instead of running up all these costs to treat the gunshot wounds. What about subsidies or food stamp allocations for people to buy organic at Whole Foods instead of burgers at McD?

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

44. Her clear knowledge of front line health care is the deciding factor for me. In the previous

debate she mentioned outreach programs and creating safety nets for those with chronic illnesses, nurses, or care coordinators, who have indepth understanding of those illnesses.

And, prevention is essential, as cited by your examples. That is why, within her plan, she has this:

By removing hidden taxes, stressing prevention and a focus on
efficiency and modernization, the plan will improve quality and lower costs.

I wish she would have added, "by extracting CEO's and shareholders and actually taking care of the patients, we'll provide quality care at a fraction of its current cost" :-) But that's just me.

[harun]

51. H.R. 676

I don't like Hillary's plan.

[rodeodance]

54. Clinton's plan offers four choices:

Forum Name Hillary Clinton Supporters Group
Topic subject Clinton's Excellent Health Care Plan Offers Choices; Is Affordable for ALL
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=334x1655#1655
1655, Clinton's Excellent Health Care Plan Offers Choices; Is Affordable for ALL
Posted by rodeodance on Fri Feb-22-08 09:11 AM




Forum Name General Discussion: Primaries
Topic subject Clinton's Excellent Health Care Plan Offers Choices; Is Affordable for ALL
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4711418#4711418
4711418, Clinton's Excellent Health Care Plan Offers Choices; Is Affordable for ALL
Posted by OzarkDem on Fri Feb-22-08 07:23 AM

Just posting this again as information. They really didn't allow her to talk much about this plan last night. Its very good, better than Obama's and is sustainable for the long term.

Clinton's plan offers four choices:

Low income: Medicaid (she plans to expand it to provide coverage to more low income individuals). If you or your family's income is low you will be enrolled in Medicaid.

Moderate income: buy into a government plan like Medicare; buy into the plan that Congress has; buy into private insurance (where premiums are capped and indexed to a percentage of your income).

Clinton's plan also provides federal incentives (tax credits, etc) to EMPLOYERS and INDIVIDUALS to help pay for insurance.

Clinton's plan also forces private insurance to compete with a government plan - the same as John Edward's. It likely will lead to a single payer system as private can't compete w/ low cost of a government plan.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/am ...

[SoCalDem]

57. Precisely why insurance needs to go the way of the dinosaur

It's the problem..not the solution..

The "wiggle-word" is "affordable"..

Who gets to decide that one?..not the families who would be forced to BUY it..


Income qualification is a slippery slope too, because it's going to require a HUGE workforce..somewhere...to crunch the numbers..because $100K in NYC is one thing and $100K in Murfreesboro, AR is another..

and $100K for a yuppie couple is one thing..and $100K for a family of 5 with a handicapped child is another..

There are just too many damned variables..

This is why it has to be universal..with EVERYONE in the whole country (citizens) paying into it through taxes..

But truly..nothing will happen until it becomes ILLEGAL for employers to provide coverage.

This is the speed bump that prevents a really comprehensive plan from developing because the "midles & upper middles" are the ones who have access to these plans, are happy with what they have . and are not all that interested in getting a big enough plan for all the rest..

When 40 yr old execs have NO company health plans, they will suddenly become very focused on getting real health care for all of ut..