Hillary Changes Health Care Plan, Obama's closer to Edwards. Seriously!

[thesquanderer]

Hillary's plan seems to have just changed for the worse, and is apparently no longer like Edwards' plan. Obama's plan is now, arguably, closer to Edwards'!

What Clinton had been saying, from her web site (all emphasis mine):

"If you have a plan you like, you keep it. If you want to change plans or aren't currently covered, you can choose from dozens of the same plans available to members of Congress, or you can opt into a public plan option like Medicare."

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/healthcare/

But now... from her recent Bill O'Reilley interview:

"So here's what I say. Everybody who has health insurance who's happy with it, you keep it. No changes. But what I am going to do is take an already existing plan, it's not government run, it's not a new bureaucracy, it's the way Congress and federal employees get their health care. And we're going to open it up to every American. Because I think it's about time..."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/ about 6 1/2 minutes in


This a HUGE shift! Of course "no new bureaucracy" sounds good on a gut level, but look at what this really means. No government run option? Just the current plans plus opening up Congress' plan? What the heck happened to opting into a public plan option??

THAT was the key to the Edwards plan, which everyone said Hillary essentially duplicated. THAT was the only way it could possibly be a step toward a single-payer system, instead of just forcing people into for-profit plans that will simply treat the insurance companies under Hillary as well as the oil companies were treated under Bush.

Just to be clear, this was in response to O'Reilley saying, essentially, that a government run plan will bankrupt the country. Her answer isn't about how you can have a government plan without bankrupting the country, (Edwards had addressed how he would pay for it), her answer instead is to say that what she's offering is NOT a government plan. This is clearly at odds with her earlier position of intending to offer "a public plan like Medicare."

Edwards' system was designed to give the public the chance to ultimately choose a single-payer system, it was one of the highlights of his plan. From his site:

"At least one plan would be a public program based upon Medicare...This American solution will reward the sector that offers the best care at the best price. Over time, the system may evolve toward a single-payer approach if individuals and businesses prefer the public plan."

http://www.johnedwards.com/about/issues/health-care-overview.pdf

That's never going to happen if there IS no public plan.

Here's Edwards talking about how that is one of the key benefits of his plan: Answering critics who said that he was advocating a back-door route to a single-payer system he said,

“There is nothing back-door about it. It’s right through the front door. We’re going to let America decide what health care system works for them.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/us/politics/25edwards.html

Okay, now where is Obama on this? Hillary says she will open up the plans available to Congress, Obama says he will "make available a new national health plan... similar to the plan available to Congress." Note that despite the common phrase "plan available to Congress," these are NOT the same thing: opening up existing plans versus creating a new public plan that uses ideas from an existing plan. This is more clear as Obama goes on and specifically and repeatedly calls it "the new public plan," distinguishing it from private plans in his health care position paper here: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

Moreover, in this clip, you can see Obama explaining that he thinks a single-payer system would be best, but that an abrupt shift to single-payer is politically and economically not feasible, and that his plan allows for that shift to happen over time as people come to see the benefits of the public plan. Actually, very much like what Edwards had been saying.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ph6mW5AK0qg

You can argue about whether or not it is better to mandate coverage from the start, which has been the focus of the health care debate between Clinton and Obama, but ultimately, Obama, like Edwards, provides a path to a single-payer system. Hillary does not, choosing instead to create a windfall for the insurance companies rather than competition for them.

Lastly, as long as I'm on the topic:

Clinton and Obama are both correct about their criticisms of the other's policy on the (in my opinion) less important matter of mandates. Clinton is correct that, by not mandating it from the start, more people will be left uncovered by Obama's plan, at least at that point. Obama is ALSO correct that Clinton will force people to buy insurance even if they can't afford it. Clinton says he's wrong because her plan subsidizes low income people so they can afford it. The fallacy is using "low income people" and "people who can't afford it" as interchangeable phrases.

"Low income" is defined on a chart. "Can't afford it" is a personal judgment based on an individual situation.

There are people who are well above "low income" who would not qualify for subsidies yet are still financially strapped, due to things like moving to a lower paying job after a layoff, rising adjustable rate mortgages, credit card debt, whatever... You can't assume that just because someone is not technically "low income" that they can afford another $5000 or whatever a year for a mandated health insurance purchase. It may seem strange, but there are people who make $100k a year who still have trouble making their mortgage payment each month, and no "low income subsidy" is going to help them. Not that I'm saying that Obama's plan, which allows that person to forego insurance instead is necessarily better, you can argue either side. There is no "perfect" plan. But I do think both candidates need to stop the indignation whenever the other points out their system's flaw!

At any rate, I think that difference is minor compared to looking at where the two plans could ultimately lead us, and here, based on what Clinton said in this recent interview, I think Obama's plan is much better.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

1. Clinton can't promise no new, or added, bureaucracy when she has a mandate

The mandate has to be enforced and there's no way you can do that on millions of people without at least adding to existing bureaucracies in some way, if not creating new ones outright.

[rinsd]

3. The whole point of the mandate is to swell the rolls of public health plans.

That way you watch public health plans out compete private ones, further driving people to choose public health plans.

Soon enough we have single payer.

That was the point of Edwards statement in the OP.

[thesquanderer]

23. But rinsd...

re: "The whole point of the mandate is to swell the rolls of public health plans."

Unless I'm mistaken, there *is* no current public health plan (apart from Medicare, which is not something one can "choose"). One of the features of Edwards' and Obama's plan (and, originally, Clinton's) was that there would *be* a public plan someone could choose to join. Without such a plan existing, without the option to choose a public plan, how does your described move toward single payer work?

[rinsd]

27. Obama's new national plan is a managed competition model with private insurance.

Its not a public plan in the sense of Medicare.

Both plans expand the eligibility of public plans like Medicare, Medicaid & SCHIP. Those are the public health options.

Clinton's plan has not changed. That she did not include it in her interview does not mean it no longer exists.

[cmarie]

45. Medicare doesn't count

A public health plan that someone can "choose" is crucial is swinging my support to one of these candidates. No, there is no plan like that now, and no "Medicare" doesn't count.

[Divernan]

10. Clinton will outsource the mandated oversight to have her Big Insurance buddies police themselves!

[rinsd]

2. There has been no change. The Congressional plan has been part of both candidates from the beginning

And that is only part of each's solutions.

Both call for massive expansion for existing plans like Medicare, medicaid & schip

"Obama is ALSO correct that Clinton will force people to buy insurance even if they can't afford it"

So Obama's plan to mandate coverage of the 8 million uninsured children in this country will not result in families being forced to buy coverage they cannot afford?

Hillary's plan attaches premiums to income level. Something Obama's plan lacks.

On edit: I was wrong about Obama's plan. While he does not tie premiums to income level, he does have subsidies based on income level for those who are above the income levels for public health plans like Medicare & SCHIP

[mrreowwr_kittty]

5. What percentage of my income will she deem that I'm "able to afford"?

And you do realize that the Congressional plan is private insurance, don't you?

[rinsd]

6. But its a managed competition model.

The tying of premiums to income comes in the form of tax credits and the key is limiting health care cost to not exceed a percentage of that person's income. The percentages will have to be hammered out when going thru Congress but I like the idea.

As stated before(in both candidate's), public plans such as Medicaid, Medicare & SCHIP will be available for those who cannot afford private insurance.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

8. A tax credit means I have to pay up front and then wait all year for a refund.

Not that I'd probably be entitled to one since I'm a childless person. I'll bet it will be decided that I can "afford" full premiums.

As for Medicaid, in my home state of Arizona, as a single person with no dependents I don't qualify for our state's health aid if I make more than $850 a month.

[rinsd]

21. I prefer Obama's payment of subsidies upfront but that may not cover your whole cost.

That is the elephant in the room for both plans, the people who will fall thru gaps.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

28. I just don't think I'll qualify for subsidies, period.

There is this guiding belief by policy-makers that people who aren't parents have buckets of disposable income to subsidize families with children. Never mind the fact that my fixed expenses (housing, transportation, utilities, student loans, etc.) may be nearly equal to what a family of 4 has. They have much higher expenses in other areas, but that is partly offset by bigger deductions and the child tax credit they get. They will most likely get generous subsidies or credits to help defray health insurance.

That's why I personally like the fact that Obama doesn't mandate it on me. Let me at least have the chance to look at the options and decide if I can afford it, because I don't trust the government to decide that for me.

[rinsd]

31. So if you get sick and need medical attention you feel its ok to shuffle that cost onto others?

At a much higher cost than if you had some form of insurance or were part of a public health plan like Medicare/Medicaid?

And if you feel you are above the level needed for Medicare (even with proposed expanded eligibility) and beyond the income level for Obama's plan of subsidies for people who do not qualify for public plans but still have trouble meeting healthcare costs, then you are in far better position than many people in this country.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

33. Medicare and Medicaid are not the same thing

People on Medicare pay a set premium every month and usually have to purchase a supplemental plan to fill in the gaps Medicare doesn't pay. Medicaid is government health aid for indigent people. As I stated before I can't make more than $850 per month to qualify for it.

I think you are missing my point about subsidies, and buying into the notion that all single people without kids have tons of disposable cash. I made less than $30000 last year. I'm barely keeping up with my bills as it is and my business is facing some pretty tough times in this current economy. Granted, if I had children I'd be worse off but I'm hardly living high on the hog now. I literally cannot afford another monthly obligation at this time. I just don't have it. But the government will look at me and say: "She has no dependents and makes X amount of money. She can afford X amount of premium every month." No she can't.

As for me getting sick or injured, what will happen is I will get a giant bill from the emergency room and be hounded by collections agents for the rest of my life. Maybe the stress will get to me and shorten my life so that you won't have to worry about me "shuffling" anything off onto you. I never thought I'd see the day when "progressives" demonize people who don't have health insurance.

[cmarie]

48. Medicare/Medicaid

I couldn't agree more with your posting... I'm in almost the exact situation as you and it's very frustrating. I make next to nothing, but because I'm single with no dependants, it's automatically assumed I can pay for private insurance. It's awful and I live in fear of getting sick or having something unexpected happen.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

58. I know. And I consider myself to one of the lucky ones.

Imagine these people working in retail stores and waiting tables who will be saddled with $200 or more a month for some crappy private insurance. What is not explained is how, if we're going to be able to get into the plan Congress has, the part of the premium that is picked up by the employer (the US govt) for those Congresspeople and Federal employees is going to be picked up for us.

[cmarie]

52. It's all relative

It's all relative, isn't it? There's a definite gray area between not qualifying for medicare or subsidies and being able to meet healthcare costs. I make above the qualification for health aid and likely wouldn't meet the subsidy requirement, but I'm nowhere near able to purchase private insurance. It feels like myself and people like me get lost in the shuffle.

[cmarie]

47. Arizona

I'm an Arizona resident as well, also single with no dependants. The qualifications for health aid here are insane. It's so much easier if you have children, or if you live with minors in the household.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

61. Some Dems in the state lege are trying to expand ACCCHS for a lot more people

But of course it's going nowhere with the GOP majority.

[Armstead]

9. Does she say "Anyone who wants to buy into Medicare can do so"?

That, IMO is the best backstop plan. Just make it possible for anyone to expand their participation in Medicare into their younger years if they prefer that over private coverage.

[rinsd]

11. That's HR 676 isn' it? And I agree, that's better that either candidate's plans.

In terms of making a bigger move towards single payer.

[redqueen]

18. Yup. (nt)

[Armstead]

24. HR 676

http://www.healthcare-now.org/hr676.html

The United States National Health Insurance Act, (Expanded and Improved Medicare For All)

The “United States National Health Insurance Act,” H.R. 676

(“Expanded & Improved Medicare For All Bill”)

*Introduced by Rep. John Conyers



Brief Summary of Legislation



The United States National Health Insurance Act establishes a unique American national universal health insurance program. The bill would create a publicly financed, privately delivered health care system that uses the already existing Medicare program by expanding and improving it to all U.S. residents, and all residents living in U.S. territories. The goal of the legislation is to ensure that all Americans will have access, guaranteed by law, to the highest quality and most cost effective health care services regardless of their employment, income, or health care status. With over 45-75 million uninsured Americans, and another 50 million who are under- insured, the time has come to change our inefficient and costly fragmented non- health care system.



Who is Eligible

Every person living or visiting in the United States and the U.S. Territories would receive a United States National Health Insurance Card and ID number once they enroll at the appropriate location. Social Security numbers may not be used when assigning ID cards.



Health Care Services Covered

This program will cover all medically necessary services, including primary care, inpatient care, outpatient care, emergency care, prescription drugs, durable medical equipment, long term care, mental health services, dentistry, eye care, chiropractic, and substance abuse treatment. Patients have their choice of physicians, providers, hospitals, clinics, and practices. No co-pays or deductibles are permissible under this act.



Conversion To A Non-Profit Health Care System
Private health insurers shall be prohibited under this act from selling coverage that duplicates the benefits of the USNHI program. Exceptions to this rule include coverage for cosmetic surgery, and other medically unnecessary treatments. Those who are displaced as the result of the transition to a non- profit health care system are the first to be hired and retrained under this act.



Cost Containment Provisions/ Reimbursement

The National USNHI program will set reimbursement rates annually for physicians, allow for global budgets (annual lump sums for operating expenses) for health care providers; and negotiate prescription drug prices. A “Medicare For All Trust Fund” will be established to ensure a dedicated stream of funding, as well as an annual appropriation to ensure optimal levels of funding for the program.

The conversion to a not-for-profit health care system will take place over a 15 year period, through the sale of U.S. treasury bonds.



HR 676 Would Reduce Overall Health Care Costs



Families Pay Less

A study by nationally recognized economist, Dean Baker, of the Center for Economic Research and Policy concluded that under H.R. 676, a family of three making $40,000 per year would spend approximately $1900 per year for healthcare coverage. Currently, (in 2007) the average annual premium for families covered under an employee health plan is $11,000. (National Coalition on Health Care.)

Business Pays Less

In 2005, without reform, the average employer that offers coverage was contributing $2,600 to health care per employee (for much skimpier benefits), or 217.00 per month. Under HR 676, the average costs to employers for an employee making $30,000 per year will be reduced to $1,425 per year; or about $119.00 per month.

Baker's study reported that HR 676 would reduce health spending in 2005 from $1 trillion, 918 billion dollars to 1 trillion, 861.3 billion dollars, which translates into a saving of $56 billion in overall health care spending while covering all of the uninsured. This is a 3% reduction in over-all health care spending.

Proposed Funding For USNHI Program:

Maintain current federal and state funding for existing health care programs; employer payroll tax of 4.75, an employee payroll tax of 4.75; establish a 5% health tax on the top 5% of income earners; 10% tax on top 1% of wage earners, 1/3rd of 1% stock transaction tax, closing corporate tax loop-holes; repeal the Bush tax cut for the highest income earners.



*For more information, contact Joel Segal or Alexia Smokler, Rep. John Conyers, at 202 225-5126.

DonateNow

Please call your Member of Congress and also please make a contribution to Healthcare-NOW to help us get hearings on this critical legislation. The Democrats and the Republicans both need our encouragement to take this issue seriously. Get free copies of "Improved and Enhanced Medicare for All: How it Will Work," our new MLK, JR poster, and Congressman John Conyers' 7 minute DVD about how to win this issue along with the book, "Medical Apartheid" for a contribution of $100. Click Donate NOW-- RIGHT NOW! Thanks.

New Co-Sponsors of H.R. 676

FREE calls to Congress -- Let's get 100 on board now and get them to hold hearings. See list below.

1-866-338-1015

CoSponsors (88 as of January, 2008), H.R.676
Title: To provide for comprehensive health insurance coverage for all United States residents, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Conyers, John, Jr. (introduced 1/24/2007) Cosponsors (87)
Latest Major Action: 2/2/2007 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Health. COSPONSORS(88), ALPHABETICAL :


COSPONSORS(88), ALPHABETICAL


Rep Abercrombie, Neil - 1/24/2007
Rep Baca, Joe - 9/17/2007
Rep Baldwin, Tammy - 1/24/2007
Rep Becerra, Xavier - 6/13/2007
Rep Berman, Howard L. - 6/15/2007
Rep Bishop, Sanford D., Jr. - 12/11/2007
Rep Brady, Robert A. - 2/27/2007
Rep Brown, Corrine - 4/17/2007
Rep Capuano, Michael E. - 11/9/2007
Rep Carson, Julia - 1/24/2007
Rep Christensen, Donna M. - 1/24/2007
Rep Clarke, Yvette D. - 2/16/2007
Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy - 1/24/2007
Rep Cohen, Steve - 2/7/2007
Rep Cummings, Elijah E. - 1/24/2007
Rep Davis, Danny K. - 1/24/2007
Rep Delahunt, William D. - 2/12/2007
Rep Doyle, Michael F. - 3/21/2007
Rep Ellison, Keith - 1/24/2007
Rep Engel, Eliot L. - 1/24/2007
Rep Farr, Sam - 1/24/2007
Rep Fattah, Chaka - 1/24/2007
Rep Filner, Bob - 1/24/2007
Rep Frank, Barney - 3/7/2007
Rep Green, Al - 1/24/2007
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. - 1/24/2007
Rep Gutierrez, Luis V. - 1/24/2007
Rep Hare, Phil - 4/30/2007
Rep Hastings, Alcee L. - 1/29/2007
Rep Hinchey, Maurice D. - 1/24/2007
Rep Hirono, Mazie K. - 7/23/2007
Rep Honda, Michael M. - 1/24/2007
Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. - 1/24/2007
Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila - 1/24/2007
Rep Jefferson, William J. - 6/26/2007
Rep Johnson, Eddie Bernice - 1/24/2007
Rep Johnson, Henry C. "Hank," Jr. - 2/13/2007
Rep Jones, Stephanie Tubbs - 5/23/2007
Rep Kaptur, Marcy - 2/12/2007
Rep Kennedy, Patrick J. - 9/24/2007
Rep Kildee, Dale E. - 4/17/2007
Rep Kilpatrick, Carolyn C. - 1/24/2007
Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. - 1/24/2007
Rep Lantos, Tom - 10/1/2007
Rep Lee, Barbara - 1/24/2007
Rep Lewis, John - 1/24/2007
Rep Loebsack, David - 1/24/2007
Rep Lynch, Stephen F. - 10/9/2007
Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. - 1/29/2007
Rep McDermott, Jim - 1/24/2007
Rep McGovern, James P. - 1/24/2007
Rep McNulty, Michael R. - 1/24/2007
Rep Meehan, Martin T. - 1/24/2007
Rep Meeks, Gregory W. - 9/20/2007
Rep Miller, George - 1/24/2007
Rep Moore, Gwen - 1/24/2007
Rep Moran, James P. - 1/22/2008
Rep Nadler, Jerrold - 1/29/2007
Rep Napolitano, Grace F. - 2/27/2007
Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes - 3/21/2007
Rep Olver, John W. - 2/16/2007
Rep Pastor, Ed - 1/24/2007
Rep Payne, Donald M. - 1/24/2007
Rep Rangel, Charles B. - 1/24/2007
Rep Richardson, Laura - 9/20/2007
Rep Roybal-Allard, Lucille - 1/24/2007
Rep Rush, Bobby L. - 2/6/2007
Rep Ryan, Tim - 5/8/2007
Rep Sanchez, Linda T. - 4/23/2007
Rep Sanchez, Loretta - 9/20/2007
Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. - 4/17/2007
Rep Scott, David - 9/20/2007
Rep Scott, Robert C. "Bobby" - 1/24/2007
Rep Serrano, Jose E. - 2/7/2007
Rep Solis, Hilda L. - 2/12/2007
Rep Sutton, Betty - 3/27/2007
Rep Thompson, Bennie G. - 6/12/2007
Rep Tierney, John F. - 9/6/2007
Rep Towns, Edolphus - 1/24/2007
Rep Udall, Tom - 2/27/2007
Rep Waters, Maxine - 1/29/2007
Rep Watson, Diane E. - 1/24/2007
Rep Weiner, Anthony D. - 1/24/2007
Rep Welch, Peter - 5/3/2007
Rep Wexler, Robert - 1/24/2007
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. - 1/24/2007
Rep Wynn, Albert Russell - 1/24/2007
Rep Yarmuth, John A. - 2/27/2007 THOMAS Home

[rinsd]

25. Look at all those cosponsors.

Who's on the Subcomittee on health?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

20. Also, instead of a mandate for children as Obama proposes

Just extend SCHIP to all children under 18. That's the true 'backdoor to single payer'. People will get used to having their children covered and figure why not just keep it going through adulthood.

[thesquanderer]

26. But rinsd...

re: "The Congressional plan has been part of both candidates from the beginning"

As the post says, both candidates have talked about the "plan available to Congress". The difference is, Clinton just explained she wants to "open up" that plan to everyone. Obama isn't proposing opening up that plan to everyone, he's proposing creating a "new public plan" that is similarly structured.

There are various merits to the Congressional plan as it is today, but it is *not* a public plan. As someone else pointed out, it is private. By "private" I don't mean not available to the public. I mean, while it provides various nice options, ultimately, the coverage is all supplied by private insurance companies. That is the part that changes when you start talking about a public plan. (Medicare is a public plan.)

[rinsd]

32. While Obama calls it a public plan, it is still dependent upon private insurance.

It is a managed competition model as I stated in another post.

"Quality and efficiency. Participating insurance companies in the new public program will be required to report data to ensure that standards for quality, health information technology and administration are being met."

So basically Obama wants to create something from scratch that duplicate something that already exists and the new system is not single payer.

That is a waste of time.

[thesquanderer]

42. Managed competition

re: "While Obama calls it a public plan, it is still dependent upon private insurance..."

That is an interesting point, and I admit it is not clear from his web site. Certainly insurance companies are *part* of his plan, as they have always been part of his, Clinton's, and Edwards' in various forms. But looking further, it seems that there will also be a true non-private component, comparable to the Edwards and earlier Clinton proposals. Look here...

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/06/04/obamacare_clearing_away_the_fog.php

Here is the main relevant part:

Notice what I said: a new public plan. Obama believes that a new Medicare-style public plan for those younger than 65 will deliver big savings and better coverage, and that this plan should be the default source of coverage for anyone whose employer doesn’t provide good insurance. Indeed, he takes a major step beyond Edwards by envisioning a national Medicare-like plan (Edwards would make a plan similar to Medicare available on a regional basis) and by clearly stating that this plan will have generous, guaranteed benefits.

The Obama plan also calls for a “National Insurance Exchange” that allows those automatically enrolled in the public plan to obtain private insurance instead. Some progressive activists have called this a sell-out to the private insurance industry, but they should take note of two features of Obama’s plan.

First, the Obama camp is committed to making the public plan a highly affordable option and ensuring it has generous benefits. They will do this by leveraging the huge economies of scale and bargaining power of a national plan, as well as capitalizing on its capacity for quality improvement and for the provision of preventive and primary care that will keep people healthier.

Second, Obama has also made clear that he is completely opposed to the huge giveaways for private insurers that are currently being provided by Medicare to entice private plans to enroll Medicare beneficiaries. Whether the private plan option will work well remains to be seen. But if it’s appropriately regulated and placed on a level playing field with the public plan, there is a real potential for healthy competition, rather than a race to the bottom.

[flpoljunkie]

4. "...Or you can opt into a public plan like Medicare." Gone? Elizabeth Edwards will surely notice!

[Mezzo]

7. arguably is missing from your title...along with

"But what I am going to do is take an already existing plan, it's not government run, it's not a new bureaucracy, it's the way Congress and federal employees get their health care. "

Perzactly.

[redqueen]

13. The medicare part was left out. (nt)

[mrreowwr_kittty]

17. Congress has private insurance.

It's a great plan they have, but it's important not to confuse it with a true public plan.

[Texas Hill Country]

12. overblown... is medicare a new bureaucracy? nope.

[redqueen]

14. Yup... she may have just forgotten to say "or opt into medicare". (nt)

[thesquanderer]

34. Forgot to say?

The thing that makes me think she didn't simply "forget to mention" what would be a major point of the plan is that the answer was specifically to answer O'Reilley's question by explaining that she *wasn't* suggesting a big new government program. (And as I said elsewhere, the original suggestion was not to let people "opt into medicare" but that there would be a new program *like* medicare.)

[redqueen]

35. Yeah... I caught that when I looked it up on her site...

a program "like" medicare does exactly that - suggests a new public program.

I didn't see one on Hillary's site, but Obama's does outline a more detailed description of his new public plan.

I hope to God she's got a page with more details. It's gonna sour me on her even more if it turns out she provies LESS specifics than Obama.

[Texas Hill Country]

37. or you could interpret it as suggesting medicare as one of the options... "such as" = like

[redqueen]

38. Obama's site is very clear that it's a new plan.

Hers - vague.

Please, tell me where to find her "detailed plan". I feel my blood pressure rising.

[thesquanderer]

41. "such as" versus "similar to"

re: "or you could interpret it as suggesting medicare as one of the options... "such as" = like"

If there were numerous public programs to choose from, than "such as" would be a viable reading. But since there are, essentially, no other similar programs, "such as" doesn't really make sense.

Added on edit:

Also, in her original plan which I linked to elsewhere, she says, "In addition to the broad array of private options that Americans can choose from, they will be offered the choice of a public plan option similar to Medicare."

Again, she clearly *was* for this. But when now asked how her plan won't bankrupt the country, her answer was essentially, "no new government program."

[thesquanderer]

39. Hillary's site

Yes, redqueen, and I think we're communicating despite our overlapping edits. :-)

you can find Hillary's details here:

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

What bothers me is that, as you can see there, she has always incorporated the Edwards idea of a new, public, Medicare-like system that anyone could join. But suddenly, in this new interview, when basically asked how the country could afford a big new health program, her answer, quite clearly, is that she is *not* going for a new government program.

People's positions can change over time. What she said in the O'Reilley interview is clearly at odds with what she's had on her web site all these months. And I don't like the change.

[redqueen]

40. So now we have to ask ourselves... did she just forget to mention it on O'Reilly,

or is it the bait and switch (e.g. Bill's Fairness Doctrine legislation)?



and on edit: I'm pretty pissed that her site appears to have MUCH FEWER specifics than his. After all that crap about how she has 'plans'... ugh.

[thesquanderer]

43. it's not just "forgot" if it's a contradiction

In answering O'Reilley's question about the expense, she was actually making the very point that her plan was *not* about a government program, "no new bureaucracy" etc. which actually precludes the kind of new program she had originally talked about. So "forgetting" doesn't make sense. There would be no way to add the "new medicare-style program" to her answer and not have it contradict the rest of what she had just said.

[redqueen]

44. So she just straight-up fucking lied... AGAIN.

Color me shocked.

Why would she lie to cozy up to repukes who won't vote Dem in the GE anyway? Fuckin stupid.

[OzarkDem]

60. No, the poster is distorting her comment

nothing new there.

[redqueen]

62. So she DIDN'T say there'd be no new government program?

[thesquanderer]

64. How so?

I don't think it's distorted... O'Reilly asks how her plan won't bankrupt the country, and she answers saying she's going to open up an existing plan, no new government program, no new bureaucracy... How can that be squared with offering a new government program similar to Medicare that would be open to all? The plan she's talking about with O'Reilly, the plan that Congress has for itself, is not that kind of plan.

[thesquanderer]

36. It was never medicare

I don't think any of the candidates has ever suggested that people could opt into Medicare as part of their plan. Medicare has been structured for specific purposes. Instead, Edwards and Clinton (until now, it seems) said they wanted to make available a new public program like Medicare, which everyone would have the option to join (yes, a new government program, a new bureaucracy), and Obama likewise suggests a new public program (though I haven't seen him make the specific analogy to Medicare).

[cmarie]

54. No Medicare Then?

So that means Medicare would be switched out for a new public plan, or Medicare would be kept running in tandem with the new plan?

[thesquanderer]

55. Both

Medicare will keep running, the questions is whether there will be a new public plan that the general public can buy into.

[Bread and Circus]

15. This is just the first sign of the Clintonion "triangulation" bait and switch method...

just like Bill did back in the 90's. Take a liberal policy idea, gut it and twist it beyond all recognition, then call it your own.

[redqueen]

16. It's still on her website... the part about medicare.

If you have a plan you like, you keep it. If you want to change plans or aren't currently covered, you can choose from dozens of the same plans available to members of Congress, or you can opt into a public plan option like Medicare. And working families will get tax credits to help pay their premiums.

Still there.

Maybe she just forgot to mention it. :shrug:

[eridani]

19. Not single payer? It's irrelevent, then. So quit nitpicking

The good news is that both Obama and Clinton have said at least once in public that they realize single payer is superior. If public pressure on Congress can get it to either of their desks, I'll bet either would sign it.

[yodermon]

22. Any Candidate's health care plan has to get through Congress First

so I've never understood why the minutiae of their respective plans gets so much scrutiny.

They are running for the EXECUTIVE. Health care is a *legislative* beast. I'd rather hear the candidates lay out *how* they plan on convincing the congress to come along for the ride.

[BzaDem]

29. I call BS on your last point

The same arguments were used by the right wing about people not being able to afford Social Security.

Would you favor a system where people could opt-in to Social Security?

[backscatter712]

30. Clinton's healthcare proposals are moot...

because I don't believe a word that comes out of her lying mouth anymore.

You really think she'll actually deliver?

She's been bought by the pharmcos and insurance companies - any plan she devises will make their profits first priority, and Americans' health care a distant second.

[Zodiak]

53. Thank you backscatter

For saying what I was about to say. How can one believe her on anything at this point? She has moved the goalposts, contradicted herself, and outright lied so many times that you are forced to look beyond her words. Once you do that, you realize that her political allies stand against the people and that her Presidency would just be another corporate place-holder to dole out the cash to the rich while the rest of us eat cake.

[Vinca]

46. Hillary was obviously pandering to the right. Did she also promise

no new taxes? Tell the people what they want to hear and then do whatever the hell you want once you're elected. It worked for Shrub.

[futureliveshere]

49. Oh Wow!! Can you post this on DKos or HuffPo to get more visibility?

K & R

:thumbsup:

[thesquanderer]

63. Thanks...

...for the suggestion. I just posted on Daily Kos. Never did that before, hope I did it right!

[Stop Cornyn]

50. I'm an Obama supporter -- what you are posting is simply incorrect. His health care is his weakest

policy position.

Hillary's plan is much better, but the truth is that she probably cannot pass it.

[thesquanderer]

57. weakest plan?

It would help if you included some actual facts to back up your assertion.

There are numerous links in the post and in the various responses. All told, I don't see it the way you do. The advantage of the Clinton plan is that it more quickly covers more people by virtue of the mandate, and the pros and cons of that have been discussed, and we can each make our judgements on that point. But if Obama will have, as an option, a true public plan, and Hillary has backed off having that as part of her plan, then I would choose Obama's as the superior plan. You may have a different opinion, but I don't think anything I posted is "simply incorrect" on the facts.

[jillan]

51. Wrong! Hillary did not change her UHC plan.

This is what it has always been.

[thesquanderer]

56. It is changed.

In the past, and on her web site, she talks about creating a new, public plan, similar to Medicare, that anyone could join (links/references elsewhere in these messages). Now when challenged on the cost of a her plan, she says no new government plan, no new bureaucracy, just opening up the existing (non-public, non-Medicare-like) plans that Congress has. Which are better than what most of us can get now, but are not the same as offering a true public plan as she had previously talked about.

[OzarkDem]

59. Her plan is the same and still better than Obama's

She has always characterized her plan as one that has no bureaucracy. She's also always maintained her plan would not include government run health care.

What she does plan to have is a government run health insurance program like Medicare that would provide coverage for anyone who wants to buy into it. She's also opening up the FEHBP federal insurance program (which is private insurance purchased for government employees, incl Congress) to any American who wants to buy it. Those are her 3 options:

1. Keep your existing private health insurance or buy private insurance from a heavily regulated pool of private insurance companies

2. Buy into the federal employees health insurance plan (which, for some people, would be keeping what they already have)

3. Buy into a public plan like Medicare, run by the federal government

IOW - the public plan is still there, always has been. Nothing has changed. This is nearly identical to Edwards plan, and works to gradually move us towards a single payer health insurance system.

As for universal health care and the mandate for coverage, we've been over that argument countless times already. Obama's plan will fail because it continues to burden the health care system with the high cost of uninsured patients AND, most importantly Obama's plan doesn't have a cap on premiums .

And if someone is earning 100k a year and can't afford a health insurance premium that is capped at 2-300 dollars a month, they need to rework their budget. I don't feel like paying for their health care costs when they get sick.

[thesquanderer]

65. Not according to what she just said

re: "What she does plan to have is a government run health insurance program like Medicare"

That contradicts what she said in the interview.

You list the options, 1, 2, and 3. In the interview, she mentions 1 and 2. But to answer O'Reilly's objection about the cost, she says that what she offers is "not government run" and "not a new bureaucracy" -- How can that be squared with establishing a new government run health insurance program? Her answer says she's *not* going to establish a government run program and another bureaucracy, that's her answer for why it's not so expensive.

re: "And if someone is earning 100k a year and can't afford a health insurance premium that is capped at 2-300 dollars a month, they need to rework their budget."

Or maybe they'll have to declare bankruptcy, whatever. People get in over their heads in all different ways. I'm not passing judgement here. I'm just saying that it is possible to not be able to afford health insurance even if you're not "low income."

[NorthCarolina]

66. As far as Health Care plans go NEITHER plan is close to what the voters want

Like I've said before...when it comes to health care plans both Obama and Hillary are simply playing ping-pong with a turd, and we're all getting shitty in the process. Now if the Democrats want to talk HR 676 then I'm all ears.

[NoBushSpokenHere]

67. Wonderful to see a true issues debate here for a change! nt