Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why Clinton is full of B.S. (and to a lesser extent Obama) - Health Care

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 10:20 AM
Original message
Why Clinton is full of B.S. (and to a lesser extent Obama) - Health Care
From Physicians for National Health Plan (reprinted from the NYT)

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2007/december/i_am_not_a_health_re.php

By DAVID U. HIMMELSTEIN and STEFFIE WOOLHANDLER
The New York Times | Op-Ed

December 15, 2007

IN 1971, President Nixon sought to forestall single-payer national health insurance by proposing an alternative. He wanted to combine a mandate, which would require that employers cover their workers, with a Medicaid-like program for poor families, which all Americans would be able to join by paying sliding-scale premiums based on their income.

Nixon’s plan, though never passed, refuses to stay dead. Now Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama all propose Nixon-like reforms. Their plans resemble measures that were passed and then failed in several states over the past two decades.

In 1988, Massachusetts became the first state to pass a version of Nixon’s employer mandate — and it added an individual mandate for students and the self-employed, much as Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Edwards (but not Mr. Obama) would do today. Michael Dukakis, then the state’s governor, announced that “Massachusetts will be the first state in the country to enact universal health insurance.” But the mandate was never fully put into effect. In 1988, 494,000 people were uninsured in Massachusetts. The number had increased to 657,000 by 2006.

Oregon, in 1989, combined an employer mandate with an expansion of Medicaid and the rationing of expensive care. When the federal government granted the waivers needed to carry out the program, Gov. Barbara Roberts said, “Today our dreams of providing effective and affordable health care to all Oregonians have come true.” The number of uninsured Oregonians did not budge.

In 1992 and ‘93, similar bills passed in Minnesota, Tennessee and Vermont. Minnesota’s plan called for universal coverage by July 1, 1997. Instead, by then the number of uninsured people in the state had increased by 88,000....


much more at link.

______________________________________________


Bottom line: Mandates don't work. The system needs to be scrapped in favor of Single Payer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 10:27 AM
Response to Original message
1. We have "mandatory" auto insurance...
...but I've twice been hit by an uninsured driver.

It's a broken model.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. State after state with "mandated" health insurance has failed
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. Good point
Single payer is the only thing that will really help. Insurance Lobby must be taken apart if we are gonna get anything that does work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #5
11. aye!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
canadian_is_cold Donating Member (207 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 10:31 AM
Response to Original message
3. Why no just give it to everyone free, like we have in Canada n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. We'd have to pay taxes. But if my money goes to a national fund & not private corporation
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. Yep. I wouldn't mind paying the taxes to support a health care system that worked
(so long as the rich and corporations also paid a FAIR share of taxes) but being REQUIRED TO PAY A FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION (through payroll taxes, no less) in order to work in America? :wtf: That is pretty blatant corporate welfare.

Taking money out of pay checks and giving it to insurance companies to invest in the stock market is also payroll taxes given to Wall Street. They aren't having much luck turning payroll taxes to support Social Security over to private investment firms, so this is just an end run abound the collective common sense.

Frankly, the working class is not able to carry any more of the load to keep the top 1% in the style they have become accustomed to. Payroll deductions to corporations that have been screwing workers more every day for the past 40 years? Why not just legalize slavery. It amounts to the same thing when you get right down to it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sensitivity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 10:54 AM
Response to Original message
6. Both Plans compromise with "existing healthcare power structure"

Hillary's has a huge downside with its threatening "mandate" in the country of the free and the brave.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoBushSpokenHere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 11:02 AM
Response to Original message
8. Does anyone know the cost of premiums of the Congressional Health Insurance?
I have been searching for the actual premium costs ever since Gov. Strickland said Hillary's plan was to make the Congressional Health Plan available to anyone who wanted to pay the monthly premium. Haven't been able to find out exactly how much those premiums are. The problem is as Obama stated - America cannot afford premiums...

I want to know the actual premium cost - does anyone have a link?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 11:05 AM
Response to Original message
9. It's not just mandates.
It's mandates + subsidies. She would limit health care premiums to a fixed percentage of income. That is exactly how social security works right now. 6% of your income is withheld from EVERYONE. Social security would never work if it weren't mandated. The same idea applies to healthcare. If all the healthy people don't pay into the system, the costs grow astronomically high for those who need the insurance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 12:29 PM
Response to Original message
10. bump...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) 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 Fri Apr 19th 2024, 07:01 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC