Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Nixon/Clinton/Obama health care reforms = failure

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
 
SOS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-03-08 02:24 PM
Original message
The Nixon/Clinton/Obama health care reforms = failure
Op/ed from The New York Times (edit):

In 1971, President Nixon sought to forestall single-payer national health insurance by proposing an alternative. He wanted to combine a mandate with a 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 and Barack Obama 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 (but not Mr. Obama) would do today. Michael Dukakis announced that “Massachusetts will be the first state in the country to enact universal health insurance.” 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. 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.

Tennessee’s governor, Ned McWherter, declared that “Tennessee will cover at least 95 percent of its citizens.” Yet the number of uninsured Tennesseans dipped for only two years before rising higher than ever.

Vermont’s plan called for universal health care by 1995. But the number of uninsured people in the state has grown modestly since then.

The State of Washington’s 1993 law included the major planks of recent Nixon-like plans: an employer mandate, an individual mandate for the self-employed and expanded public coverage for the poor. Over the next six years, the number of uninsured people in the state rose about 35 percent, from 661,000 to 898,000.

As governor, Mitt Romney tweaked the Nixon formula in 2006 when he helped devise a second round of Massachusetts health care reform: employers in the state that do not offer health coverage face only paltry fines, but fines on uninsured individuals will escalate to about $2,000 in 2008. On signing the bill, Mr. Romney declared, “Every uninsured citizen in Massachusetts will soon have affordable health insurance.” Yet even under threat of fines, only 7 percent of the 244,000 uninsured people in the state who are required to buy unsubsidized coverage had signed up by Dec. 1. Few can afford the sky-high premiums.


The “mandate model” for reform rests on impeccable political logic: avoid challenging insurance firms’ stranglehold on health care. But it is economic nonsense. The reliance on private insurers makes universal coverage unaffordable.

The debate should be over. How sad that the leading Democrats are still kicking around Nixon’s discredited ideas for health reform.


By DAVID U. HIMMELSTEIN and STEFFIE WOOLHANDLER
Cambridge, Mass.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/15/opinion/15woolhandler.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-03-08 02:37 PM
Response to Original message
1. I'm no mathemetician or economist by any means, but something about the mandates doesn't seem right
First off, both candidates have mandates in their proposals, though Obama's are just for children. However, Obama has indicated that mandates for all adults would be explored in the future. So let's get that out of the way right now.

As for the mandates, I understand the rationale behind them to a certain extent but I don't see how there are enough uninsured people who are young, extremely healthy, and in possesion of excess disposable income such that including them will make that much of a dent in the high cost of health insurance. My understanding is that most uninsured people are so because they work in crappy jobs with no benefits, are self-employed and can't afford exhorbitant individual premiums, or have pre-existing conditions that render them "uninsurable".

Furthermore, both plans require coverage for those "uninsurable" people. Wouldn't that offset, at least partially, any benefit derived from including the young and healthy ones? Despite all we hear about the 47 million who are uninsured, there are at least 3 times as many who currently have some type of (non-government) health coverage. With a risk pool that is already that large, why is health insurance so expensive, and how is adding another 47 million to that number, with a significant number of them having health problems, really going to bring down costs? Also, how would mandates be enforced and how much would it cost?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Araxen Donating Member (826 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-03-08 02:37 PM
Response to Original message
2. I agree
All of their healthcare plans are failures. Kucinich had it right from the start.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hart2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-03-08 02:44 PM
Response to Original message
3. Dukakis's plan also failed. Massachusetts was forced to repeal the law after the '88 elections.
Like much everything else Dukakis touched, his healthcare plan was a failure.

So much for his self-declared competency.

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
walldude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-03-08 02:47 PM
Response to Original message
4. I'd be happy to have any insurance, mandated or not..
Sorry if you insured folks hate this mandate thing but it's the only way I'll ever get insurance. Too many "pre-existing" conditions in my house.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SOS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-03-08 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. The mandate, in and of itself, could work
If the public option is affordable.
The best part of the Obama and Clinton plans is allowing a Medicare buy-in for every American.
But we still have no estimate on the monthly cost.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueIdaho Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-03-08 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. My heart goes out to you but
Insurance does not necessarily equal health care.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
walldude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-03-08 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Yeah well right now I'm looking at my youngest son
who is home with the flu or something. What I get to do is sit here and wait for him to either get better, or get sick enough to take him to the emergency room. I make enough money to get health care, but no one will insure my family. Wife has Diabetes. One kid with autism and Mr Flu over there has Muscular Dystrophy. Luckily the MD people will see him for free but anything else and it's deal with it till you are so sick that an emergency room would get sued if they didn't take you.

Insurance may not equal health care but without it there's no chance at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueIdaho Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-03-08 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. How well I know... take care!
Had I not been hired by an organization large enough to demand coverage for all its employees and families no one would touch me with a ten foot pole.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SOS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-03-08 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Given the seriousness of your situation
Is there any possibility of filing separate tax returns and then shifting all assets to someone else, such as a parent?
There might be a way to get the wife and kids covered under Medicaid.
It could take two years to achieve, but might be worth investigating.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-03-08 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. Both plans require companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions
That aspect is different than mandates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-03-08 03:03 PM
Response to Original message
5. Did the PERCENTAGE of uninsured decreast in Mass and Oregon? The number not changing could be ...
Edited on Thu Apr-03-08 03:07 PM by uponit7771
...explained by population increase.

I do agree that neither Obama or Hillary or McSame are addressing the stupid premiums by the insurance companies that have rose 80% since 2001
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 Thu Apr 25th 2024, 01:13 AM
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