Robert Reich is concerned about Hillary's Health Plan (me too)

[Why Syzygy]

Reich is a great addition to the Obama camp. Who agrees?

I'm equally concerned about her attack on his health care plan. She says his would insure fewer people than hers.
I've compared the two plans in detail. Both of them are big advances over what we have now. But in my view Obama's
would insure more people, not fewer, than HRC's. That's because Obama's puts more money up front and contains
sufficient subsidies to insure everyone who's likely to need help -- including all children and young adults up to 25 years old.
Hers requires that everyone insure themselves. Yet we know from experience with mandated auto insurance
-- and we're learning from what's happening in Massachusetts where health insurance is now being mandated
-- that mandates still leave out a lot of people at the lower end who can't afford to insure themselves even
when they're required to do so. HRC doesn't indicate how she'd enforce her mandate, and I can't find enough money
in HRC's plan to help all those who won't be able to afford to buy it. I'm also impressed by the up-front investments
in information technology in O's plan, and the reinsurance mechanism for coping with the costs of catastrophic illness.
HRC is far less specific on both counts. In short: They're both advances, but O's is the better of the two.
HRC has no grounds for alleging that O's would leave out 15 million people.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/why-is-hrc-stooping-so-lo_b_75191.html


"Centrism is bogus," Reich argues. It's up to the Democrats to attract the largest political block in America -- the non-voters -- by defining an agenda that leads the nation, rather than one that tries to mirror the latest poll.

"The big differences in American politics today are between those with courage and those without it, those who can inspire and those who can't....On the other side is a large group of hard-boiled poll-watchers and ass-kissers who spend most of their time raising money from people and groups with a lot of it."
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/04/06/int04030.html

[eridani]

1. Single payer, dammit!!

If you have political courage, that's what you'll advocate.

[ORDem]

6. Yep, it's dead simple and what every country that has universal health care has already

figured out. :dem:

[sandnsea]

17. It's not, and that's the problem

What every country has is regulated medical fees and prescription drug prices. How the costs are paid varies from country to country. They are not all paid by the government. People need to differentiate single payer from universal or they'll never get single payer.

[SunsetDreams]

2. Couldn't agree more

[Why Syzygy]

3. Hillary isn't just a nuisance. She's dangerous.

[Vinca]

4. Both plans suck big time. They reward the insurance companies

with 47 million more captives to screw. We need single payer, universal healthcare as Kucinich has proposed. One note on Hillary's plan that seems to be ignored is that she says it will be in effect by the end of her 2nd term. That's 8 years. We could be dead by then. And what if there is no 2nd term. It sounds like it might be the focus of the 2nd term campaign pitch and that's about it.

[eridani]

7. True--however, a mass movement for universal health care could push either candidate in our directio

Obama is doing far more party organizing, which should help on that score.

[lumberjack_jeff]

5. Bullshit. We won't get affordable health care until we get universal health care

Universal = mandatory

I would prefer that it were tax funded (e.g. medicare for all) but universal is the key first step. It's taken us 20 years to be in a position where we're willing to try a public solution again - we can't afford another fiasco.

[newmajority]

9. Hillary's plan wouldn't lead to universal health care, it would KILL it.

Because once everyone WAS forced to pay for corporate health care, there would never be an incentive to move to a TRUE Universal Health Care system.

Hillary may have had the best of intentions regarding health care in 1992, but that's not what she's proposing now. It's the opposite. And that's why she gets more money from health care corporations than anyone.

[crankychatter]

11. glad to hear someone else notice that

clinton locks us in and gives the insurance-megapharm-medical industry types a philosophical argument to push back against single payer... delaying it indefinitely

Obama, like Dean, has it right... best interim solution till we can GET THE CROOKS OUT OF CONGRESS...

[TheDonkey]

16. well tell that to Hillary hun!

[newmajority]

8. Reich is absolutely correct here

Glad that he's seen the light - and is on the winning team.

[bhikkhu]

10. What I know from mandated auto insurance...

You look over your shoulder, hope the police are not running your plates and your paperwork is in order, and if the lights flash and things are not in order, they tow your car to impound and you walk home with a fat ticket you can't afford, and no car anymore.

How would this work if you didn't have health insurance and needed to go to a doctor?

[madrchsod]

12. universal...equal treatment

if the rich want to buy their own, fine, but they still will have pay into the system

[FrenchieCat]

13. The Financial Times put it this way in reference to the Health Care issue in their endorsement of

Obama:

The contenders’ differences on policy look small and in reality are even smaller. Their disagreement on healthcare mandates, for instance, frequently emphasised by Mrs Clinton, is of little practical significance. A mandate to obtain insurance, as proposed by Mrs Clinton, does not achieve universal coverage unless enforced with punitive sanctions, which she does not advocate.

Both candidates, in effect, are proposing near-universal coverage. The virtues of their schemes (much improved access, no denial of insurance to those with pre-existing conditions) as well as the defects (weak control of costs) are much the same.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/19c88b7c-0f00-11dd-9646-0000779fd2ac.html

announcement of the FT endorsement is here-- http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5598643


Noam Chomsky has said that it is "the only paper that tells the truth"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_Times

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

14. those who can inspire, and those who can't

sums it up pretty good

[TheDonkey]

15. DAMN! You go Reich!

[SoCalDem]

18. California MANDATES car insurance, and yet

many many people drive around wihout it.. You can get an el-cheapo policy, go to DMV, register the car, and then just stop paying the premiums..some go so far as to chance it and not even register the car.. It only matters really if you have a wreck or get stopped by a cop...and with all the cars on the road, your chances are slim at getting caught

I knew a guy who finally got stopped, after not registering his car for YEARS... the fine was less than what it would have cost him to register and insure the car, so he was ok with it..

Young people often do not have the extra money for health insurance, and they especially think they are immune to anything bad happening to them, so they are very unlikley to buy insurance...

and just WHO gets to decide what is "affordable"..It smells like another BIG agency of gatekeepers and "sniffers" to make sure people are paying..

The BEST way is to bite the bullet, and merge EVERYTHING into medicare...force hospitals to revert to non-profit, force the drug companies to reduce prices...

No more VA, no more medicaid..Just ONE plan..for all..

They need to follow Taiwan's example and set a real commission up to do what they did..and then hold a NATIONAL REFERENDUM... take congress OUT of it, or we will have another hodgepodge that helps no one..
It has to include dental, mental and vision care too..