MR. WILLIAMS: Senator, I'm going to change the subject.
SEN. CLINTON: About 20 percent of -- about 20 percent of the people who are uninsured have the means to buy insurance. They're often young people --
MR. WILLIAMS: Senator --
SEN. CLINTON: -- who think they're immortal --
SEN. OBAMA: Which is why I cover them.
SEN. CLINTON: -- except when the illness or the accident strikes. And what Senator Obama has said, that then, once you get to the hospital, you'll be forced to buy insurance, I don't think that's a good idea. We ought to plan for it --
SEN. OBAMA: With respect --
SEN. CLINTON: -- and we ought to make sure we cover everyone.
That is the only way to get to universal health care coverage.
SEN. OBAMA: With respect --
SEN. CLINTON: That is what I've worked for for 15 years --
SEN. OBAMA: With respect --
SEN. CLINTON: -- and I believe that we can achieve it. But if we don't even have a plan to get there, and we start out by leaving people, you'll never ever control costs, improve quality, and cover everyone.
SEN. OBAMA: With respect to the young people, my plan specifically says that up until the age of 25 you will be able to be covered under your parents' insurance plan, so that cohort that
Senator Clinton is talking about will, in fact, have coverage.
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, a 16-minute discussion on health care is certainly a start. (Laughter.) I'd like to change up --
SEN. CLINTON: Well, there's hardly anything be more important? I think it would be good to talk about health care and how we're we going get to universal health care.
linkBy Nathan Newman - February 27, 2008
The whole dustup this weekend over mandates and affordability in health care between Clinton and Obama just begs the question--
are we really going to impose a mandate to buy health care on working people if it's not affordable, and if health care is truly affordable, do people think any but a small group will not get coverage? The key issue is what counts as "affordable" health care, and it's not just cheap premiums, since "cheap" insurance just means large numbers of people go bankrupt in out-of-pocket expenses. It happens that Progressive States released a new policy brief,
Individual Health Care Mandates and the Problem of Affordability, last week which emphasized that before you even talk about applying a mandate, we all need a real definition of affordability-- and a number of state governments are starting to develop a decent working definition that might get us past the whole conflict of mandates versus affordability altogether.
The key debate is around the Massachusetts plan, but there are a few key facts about the plan, namely that the mandate is NOT applied to everyone:
- Under the Massachusetts plan as implemented, an individual earning just over 300% of poverty, or $31,000, and who is not eligible for subsidies, could face total health care costs of $7,100 when you include premiums and all out-of-pocket costs.
- This would amount to a whopping 23% of the individual's income.
- Accordingly, the state has exempted at least 65,000 residents from the individual mandate.
So the reality is that until health care is made affordable, no individual mandate is likely to be implemented, so the debate between Obama and Clinton is in practice moot. The real question is how to define affordability-- and a key to that is not just concentrating on low-cost premiums, since the end result of that can be initial coverage followed by bankruptcy during major illnesses as the out-of-pocket deductibles and co-payments mounts.
Any measure of affordability should be a limit on ALL out-of-pocket expenses as a percentage of family income. A few states have concentrated on such a definition. An initial California health care coverage bill approved by the legislature (and vetoed by the governor) limited out-of-pocket expenses, but the final compromise with the governor only limited premiums-- one reason why many health care advocates rejected it since the individual mandate could have ended up too onerous on families. A number of states are, as the brief linked to notes, looking at ways to move towards affordability by linking costs to family income.
But affordability should be clearly established, or any individual mandate will end up being punched through with loopholes just like Massachusetts. And the politics will be rough if families feel they will face harsh new premium costs, yet still risk bankruptcy if a family member gets sick.
more(emphasis added)
Video:
Going after people's wages (8:17)
Watch the whole thing, see how long it takes Hillary to answer the question!
MR. RUSSERT: I want to ask you both about NAFTA because the record, I think, is clear. And I want to -- Senator Clinton. Senator Obama said that you did say in 2004 that on balance NAFTA has been good for New York and America. You did say that. When President Clinton signed this bill -- and this was after he negotiated two new side agreements, for labor and environment -- President Clinton said it would be a force for economic growth and social progress. You said in '96 it was proving its worth as free and fair trade. You said that -- in 2000 -- it was a good idea that took political courage. So your record is pretty clear.
Based on that, and which you're now expressing your discomfort with it, in the debate that Al Gore had with Ross Perot, Al Gore said the following: "If you don't like NAFTA and what it's done, we can get out of it in six months.
The president can say to Canada and Mexico, we are out. This has not been a good agreement." Will U.S. president say we are out of NAFTA in six months?
linkVideo:
Hillary Clinton in support of NAFTA Shame on you" Hillary.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
