Insipid

We're discussing the issue of universal health care. Again, the Massachusetts plan is nothing like Hillary's plan. Hillary's plan is pretty identical to Obama's accept for the mandates.

You seem to be suggesting that now that he's the nominee, i can't criticize his policies at all without being in denial. I do like most of his platform and will support him for President, but i would like for him to change his mind on this issue.

Just out of curiosity, is it even possible to disagree with Obama without people turning nasty?

Insipid

They ALL got the plan from basically the same sources. Obama's plan is EXTREMELY similar to Hillary's accept for the mandates to adults. She calls for all the same cost cutting he does AND she allows people to buy into government run health care. This is NOT, as you suggest, a treat for the insurance companies. If people can buy into government run health care, it would be, in fact, their death knell.

CosmicRocker

sure ! when dogs get wings, as Tom Petty would say.

__________________

Traveling Wilburys (l to r)

Bob Dylan, Jeff Lynne, Tom Petty, George Harrison, Roy Orbison

Insipid

You guys should really bother READING Hillary's plan rather than going by talking points. If you want to say it will never pass, fine. But it's simply not true to say that it is expensive. It's certainly less expensive than the nightmare system that they have now. It IS cost effective and will cost people less than it is now and insure EVERYONE.

Here's a pretty good article on the pros and cons of Hillary's plan from the new republic:

(The New Republic) This column was written by Jonathan Cohn.
Everybody knows how much contempt conservatives show for Hillary Clinton whenever she talks about health care. But people tend to forget how much liberals have been deriding her, too. It was just a few months ago that Michael Moore attacked her in Sicko, alleging that campaign contributions from people in the health care business had made her a tool of that industry. Last week, when asked about Clinton and health care, John Edwards made a similar charge, pointedly noting that, "in order to have universal health care, you have to be willing to take on ... insurance companies, drug companies, and their lobbyists." In other words, he would deliver what Hillary could not.

By unveiling a new health care plan last week that did, in fact, promise to cover every single American, Clinton put to rest the worst of these suspicions. But, even after last Monday's blockbuster roll-out -- which provoked a press frenzy rare for what was, after all, a policy speech -- questions remained. It is one thing to put these ideas on paper. But just how serious is she about them, particularly given all her talk about the "scars" she has from 1993 and 1994, the "lessons" she learned from that episode, and the need for "consensus" this time around? If compromise is necessary, then what, specifically, is she willing to compromise away? Enacting universal health care is bound to mean waging some fights. Is she really willing to do that -- and which fights will she pick?

Those were the questions I hoped to ask Clinton in a telephone interview a few days after the announcement -- although, truth be told, I didn't expect many answers. Mine was one of a series of interviews she was doing during the week, leading up to a string of appearances on five Sunday morning talk shows. By the time I talked to her, she had already dispensed plenty of carefully calibrated, almost perfectly anodyne, statements: "I've learned some valuable lessons"; "This is not a government-run health care system"; "I know how important it is to work with the Congress."

The start of my interview played out the same way. To a question about when she had first sat down to seriously discuss with her staff what this new plan would look like, she gave the boilerplate version of her health care resumé: "I've been committed to universal health care for fifteen years. When we weren't successful after '93 and '94, I kept working to try to expand coverage" -- and so on. But then she shifted gears, and, over the next few minutes, as we discussed both the details of what she had proposed and her ideas about how to make it law, she gave some answers I hadn't expected. In the process, she put to rest many of my lingering doubts while demonstrating what may be her strongest assets as a champion of health care reform: her unrivaled mastery of the subject and her savvy sense of how to move a proposal through Congress.

Does this mean Clinton is the best candidate on health care? Not necessarily. But it may help explain why she's running such a strong campaign among Democratic primary voters right now. The assumption going into this race was that Clinton would position herself as the centrist alternative to her chief rivals, Edwards and Barack Obama. But on health care, which has emerged as the campaign's top domestic issue, she's positioned herself as far to the left as they have -- offering a plan of similar reach and pledging to push it with similar political will -- while managing to stay within the boundaries of what passes for mainstream political debate. You could say this reflects a welcome and politically viable consensus on how Democrats should approach health care in the coming years -- or, if you're disappointed in the substance of what she's proposing, you could say it reflects a failure by both Edwards and Obama to stretch the boundaries of debate further. Either way, though, it means she's winning over liberal primary voters even as she positions herself for both the general election and -- should she win -- a battle to actually enact health care reform. That's no small feat.

It's not hard to see how the 1993-1994 debacle shaped Clinton's thinking on health care -- and, in certain critical ways, how it reduced her ambitions. Most notably, she has decided against blowing up the existing health care system, even though there's a pretty good case for doing so on the merits. As she learned the hard way in 1993-1994, starting from scratch would force the majority of Americans to switch coverage, thereby scaring the very large portion of the U.S. population that already has some form of insurance and likes it. So, this time, Clinton is doing her best to reassure those folks. If you have health insurance and you're pleased with it, she says, that's fine -- you get to keep it. But, if you don't have insurance or you don't like the coverage you have, then you could buy new insurance on your own. You would do it through a purchasing pool set up and maintained by the government -- selecting from a choice of plans in much the same way federal workers and employees of large companies do now. You'd get the same sort of benefits these people get: No insurer could deny you coverage or charge you more because of your medical conditions, and the prices would be more affordable because of the relatively low overhead. And, if you were still too poor to afford this coverage, the government would give you financial assistance while continuing to make Medicaid and other safety-net programs available to the very poor.

This might like seem like precisely the sort of plan that would disappoint at least some traditional supporters of universal coverage -- namely, those who believe the best systems are those run directly by the government, or so-called "single-payer" systems. That's because the new Clinton scheme assumes most working-age people will continue to get private health insurance. (To many single-payer advocates, this was precisely the problem with the old Clinton scheme, too: It relied on private insurers, not the government, to deliver coverage for most people.) But there's another wrinkle in Clinton's proposal. Among the insurance options she'd make available to people would be a plan run by the government, perhaps using the basic Medicare model. The idea would be to let this public program operate alongside the private ones -- in effect, competing with them for business. If the public program were as efficient and popular as advocates of public insurance believe it will be -- and, for the record, I'm one of those advocates -- then, over time, it would attract more and more people, naturally evolving into a single-payer system.

None of this makes Clinton unique among her rivals. Both Edwards, who unveiled his plan in February, and Obama, who introduced his in May, offer essentially the same deal to the insured -- allowing them to keep their coverage while the government constructs and oversees a new system for everyone else. Both Edwards and Obama also have public insurance options that open a door to single-payer -- a model that bears the intellectual fingerprints of Yale professor and sometime New Republic contributor Jacob Hacker, who has met with all three campaigns. Clinton's plan does have one key difference with Obama's: She would require everyone to get some kind of coverage, a requirement known as an "individual mandate." Obama decided against calling for a mandate initially, preferring to wait and see whether it was really necessary for achieving universal coverage -- and until he knew for sure that insurance would be affordable for everyone required to buy it. But, while that's not a minor difference, in the grand scheme of things it's not a colossal one, either. Meanwhile, the differences between what Clinton proposed and what Edwards proposed are downright miniscule. In fact, the plans are virtually identical.

The lack of huge substantive differences in these plans makes it all the more important to figure out which candidates will push their proposals with maximum determination. And, here, Edwards has set a pretty high standard. Not only was he the first major candidate to put forward a serious plan to cover every American; he has also made clear it's his top priority by, among other things, pledging that he would pursue universal coverage even if it meant postponing some progress on deficit-reduction. Obama, too, has cautioned that health care expansions may have to come before complete budget balance. But, it turns out, Clinton pretty much shares this view. While she told me she is determined to make some progress on reducing the deficit -- she very deliberately did not use all of the savings from President Bush's expiring tax cuts to pay for her plan -- she agrees that establishing universal health care may have to precede balancing the budget outright, if only because you can't do the latter until you get medical costs (which drive up the price of government programs) under control. "I think we've got to begin making a down payment on fiscal responsibility, but it has to come over time," Clinton said. "If you don't get ... quality, affordable care to everybody, you can't realize a lot of the savings that will help you with deficit-reduction, with Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs."

Although Clinton constantly invokes the need for having an open mind while dealing with former adversaries in Congress, she also says that universal coverage is a core principle with which she's not prepared to part. "We have to remain committed to the goal of quality affordable care for everybody," she told me. "That has to be one of those principles that we'd take into whatever the negotiations are." Similarly, for all of Clinton's talk about consensus, she's not particularly tolerant of the insurance industry -- or, at least, the way it practices business now. "Remember," she said, "this is an industry that spends $50 billion a year excluding people, either altogether, by denying them coverage, or by denying them care that they need."

Clinton leaves open the possibility that the industry could retool itself so that insurers compete on cost and quality rather than on their ability to pick out the most healthy beneficiaries (the way they typically do now). This was, she explained during the interview, a new "business opportunity" just waiting for smart companies to take advantage of it. But she also seemed to recognize that doing so runs against the nature of many insurers today -- noting that even some of the industry's erstwhile allies in the corporate world are getting fed up. "I think there's an awareness," she said, speaking of CEOs she's met, "that the health insurance industry is not working in a way that makes economic sense for the rest of the economy -- and I think that's a revelation for them."

What a clever rhetorical construction: It pits the interests of the business community against the interests of the insurance industry, effectively splitting the traditional opposition to universal coverage. And it may hint at the political strategy Clinton intends to pursue if she gets elected. While she isn't signaling compromise on universal coverage or going soft on insurers, she is embracing business -- constantly invoking the wisdom of CEOs, talking up the need to establish partnerships with them, and tailoring her proposal with their companies' needs in mind. Clinton would require all larger firms to contribute toward their workers' health benefits. But she would let these firms provide workers with coverage directly (rather than simply pay a tax) if that's the company's preference -- because, she notes, even CEOs frustrated with rising benefit costs "still want to have control." Firms with fewer than 25 employees would be exempt from the requirement to pay for health insurance, although, if these firms did offer their workers insurance, they would get a tax credit.

That last part seems to be a unique feature of Clinton's plan; neither Edwards nor Obama have indicated they would let firms with so many employees off the hook (although they would give those firms access to much cheaper insurance than they can get now). And, substantively speaking, that's a serious concession. According to Professor Jonathan Gruber of MIT, such a large exemption concedes about two-thirds of the total available revenue from employers. In other words, Clinton gives up a large pot of money -- money necessary to finance the subsidies for low-income people -- that she then must find elsewhere. (She finds most of it through efficiency gains.) Clinton's advisers say the difference isn't as stark as it seems, since most other proposals would end up easing at least some of the burden on small businesses -- generally by exempting or subsidizing the very smallest employers. Whatever the impact in terms of dollars, though, the decision to avoid slapping small-business owners with a requirement to pay for health care seems to be primarily political. The small-business lobby played a pivotal role in bringing down the old Clinton plan. And, while some of this opposition reflected nothing more than ideology, much of it stemmed from that plan's small-business mandate. In one of the most memorable episodes of that fight, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce effectively reversed itself -- backing out of a planned endorsement of a mandate on business -- because a rival organization, the National Federation of Independent Business, was winning over members who wanted no part of such a requirement.

Taken together, these moves suggest a divide-and-conquer strategy, in which Clinton would try to pry the business community from the ranks of the determined opposition. And this may reflect the influence of Clinton's uniquely experienced advisers. All three Democrats have turned to the same informal network of health-care experts for ongoing counsel -- people like Gruber and Hacker and the New America Foundation's Len Nichols. And all three candidates have smart people working exclusively for them. But it was Clinton who inherited the senior staff from her husband's White House, including Chris Jennings and Gene Sperling, who spent years figuring out how to navigate legislation through a hostile Congress. (Whether that experience is helpful today depends, admittedly, on just how good you feel about the old Clinton era.)

Of course, the degree to which Hillary relies on these and other advisers is open to question. "A lot of people ask me, who is Senator Clinton's closest health adviser," says Nichols, who was first called to brief her about two years ago. "The truth is, Senator Clinton does not really need a lot of health advising. ... She has what we health policy wonks do for a living down cold."

Make no mistake, Clinton still carries into the fight on health care plenty of political liabilities, starting with her lack of sheer oratorical talent. She can't exude passion and empathy the way Edwards (or her husband) can; she can't convincingly offer soaring, transformational rhetoric like Obama. Those are no small things, given the necessity of rallying public support to overcome hostile special interests. Moreover, Clinton starts with a greater reservoir of ill will than either one of her rivals. Consider a recent Zogby poll commissioned by Forbes Small Business. The poll asked small-business owners about their attitudes on health care reform and discovered a discernible turn to the left. Not only was the cost of health care their top political concern, but a plurality, 34 percent, said they thought the best solution was to have the government step in and somehow make sure everybody got insurance. "Small-business owners normally fear and loathe the government," John Zogby, whose polls have tracked small business owners since 2000, told the magazine. "But, in this instance, we could be at a tipping point caused by health care insecurity." That's good news for fans of universal health care, but not, as it turns out, for Clinton -- because, when Zogby asked about presidential candidates, she finished first in both the "least favorite candidate" and the "least likely to do something for small business" categories. And which Democrat did they feel was most likely to help small business? Edwards. Obama, meanwhile, fared better than not only all other Democrats but also the leading Republicans in the favorability category.

Then again, Clinton has already proven capable of winning over fans in surprising quarters. On The New York Times op-ed page last week, the accolades for her health care plan from David Brooks were no less strong than those from Paul Krugman. E.J. Dionne had only good things to say about her in The Washington Post, which perhaps isn't so surprising. But Brit Hume was also praising her on Fox News, which most certainly is. The rap on Hillary Clinton has always been that she lacks her husband's political dexterity. But, too often during the 1990s, Bill's trademark triangulation succeeded only in angering both sides of the political divide. With her health care roll-out, Hillary has done the opposite: generated serious enthusiasm from observers across the ideological spectrum. If she can keep that up, she'll go very far indeed.

Insipid

To be fair, poetrychick raised her points in a nice and cordial way without any vitriol. I do thank her for that.

poetrychic

there is no insurance in england unless you buy private insurance on your own in order to have elective surgeries when you want them...the money to pay for the system comes strictly from taxes, not from paying premiums to an insurance company and except for those taxes, their citizens don't pay a dime for doctor's visits, surgeries or hospital stays...i'm not sure what you are trying to equate the english system with, if it's the insurance system we have to participate in here in order for us to be able to pay our medical bills, then you are way off the mark...

so, if i quit my job do i still have to pay social security and medicare taxes? nope!

you know why? because it is not a mandated tax, unless i am working i am not required to pay it and no one is going to fine me or punish me for not doing so...

mandates don't work, why do you think every other state has abandoned them in their quest for universal health INSURANCE? see the problems with massachusetts....a perfect example of a good programme that works is our all kids and moms and babies coverage that obama helped draft while he was in springfield...it has worked very nicely for the years that it has been in place and many children who would otherwise not be insured are able to get health care because their families can pay for the insurance now...by the way, it's not mandated yet i believe almost every kid in the state is covered, well, except for those who belong to our illegal immigrants....

as for a national mandate on health insurance, what happens when someone can't afford it without the federal sudsidies and let's say that person owes back taxes...how would you suppose they then pay for their health insurance? because they sure aren't going to benefit at all from the subsidy once the government confiscates that money to pay their past due taxes...if they can't get insurance because of that, how do you suppose they'll pay their fines?

anyway, it's late, hope that made some sense and you didn't think it too nasty...

__________________
"it was a creed written into the founding documents that declared the destiny of a nation, yes we can!"

Insipid

No you're fine. I'm too tired to respond in much detail myself. Read the articles i posted, most of these concerns are addressed in them, if not all. I myself would prefer single payer, but neither barack nor hillary call for that. But as said in the previous article i posted, if private care has to compete with government run care, i think private care will fall by the wayside. And perhaps that is the best, political and expedient way of getting to universal health care.

You must admit that the last scenario you gave is pretty uncommon. It's hard to make an insurance plan that covers EVERY eventuality.

StillNoScript

No surprise. Entitled white women are always pissed when they don't get what they want.

No worries, though. They'll still vote for Barack. He has that "certain something", and knows just what to say to those sweeties. They'll be in his corner by November, humming the tune to Obama Girl.

Obama's only going to lose some of the blue collar types. Some of those rubes have proven before that they'll vote Republican if it looks like niggas are starting to take over the country. But he won't lose enough of them. The middle class is in a crisis right now, and Barack is their only hope. The rank and file will embrace pants sagging and spinning donuts in intersections if it's their only shot at a retirement.

__________________

PursuitOfHappinessParty

Insipid;
I am aware of Hillary's plan. First off, she's dead and so is it. Second, it is VERY pro-privatization. Just because it has liberal spins for the ultra-poor to satiate the Democrats she was targeting for votes doesn't lessen the corporationism inherent in it.

It would be ruinously costly. Comparing it to the current cost is a cheat, like saying a fart smells good (if you compare it to poo). The main way to cut costs in health-care is to remove the extra for-profit loop of privatized insurance and MORE IMPORTANTLY change the way hospitals view and administer costs and profits.

You do realize that with a true dual system (pvt and gvt) you reinforce the already rampant class seperation in this country? Universal health care must in fact be universal in order to work.

__________________
" Tie two birds together and though they have four wings they cannot fly " Blind Master in 'Circle Of Iron'

Insipid

Will you guys kindly argue with the ACTUAL plan we're talking about, not with what Obama's campaign SAYS about the plan or with what corporations say about the plan, not with Romney's plan, but with the REAL plan. Because the ACTUAL plan addresses almost all of the issues that everyone's raising. What you're saying about it being costly and pro=corporate is just false. That's not just my opinion that's the opinion of independent research groups who studied criticisms of the plan.


I'm going to call this Edward's plan from now on because it seems like it's impossible to mention the H word without people flying off into a tizzy about me being in denial and me being an Obama hater etc. If Obama would change his mind about this and stop echoing Republican talking points on mandates, i'd be his biggest supporter. My issues with him are substantive and issues based, not personal. But i like him a zillion times more than McCaine.

With that out of the way, you did not study Eward's plan because Edwards plan (identical to she which cannot be named) because it is no more or less pro-corporate than Obama's plan. ALL the cost cutting measures Obama has in place Edwards plan had. Furthermore, the Pro-mandate plan forces private insurance to compete with public insurance. I don't believe they can compete so this is hardly pro-corporate.

The pro mandate plan of the other Democratic nominees is significantly less costly than the current plan on an individual basis and addresses the concerns you people have. By constantly arguing with Romney's plan, and refusing to address the fact that Edward's plan has provisions to make it affordable for even the most strapped middle class family, you're setting up straw-man arguments.

But by not having mandates there is a fatal flaw in Obama's plan which was, again, addressed by Paul Krugman in the article that no one seems to want to actually read. I'll re-paste just a snippet of it:

The central question is whether there should be a health insurance “mandate” — a requirement that everyone sign up for health insurance, even if they don’t think they need it. The Edwards and Clinton plans have mandates; the Obama plan has one for children, but not for adults.

Why have a mandate? The whole point of a universal health insurance system is that everyone pays in, even if they’re currently healthy, and in return everyone has insurance coverage if and when they need it.

And it’s not just a matter of principle. As a practical matter, letting people opt out if they don’t feel like buying insurance would make insurance substantially more expensive for everyone else.

Here’s why: under the Obama plan, as it now stands, healthy people could choose not to buy insurance — then sign up for it if they developed health problems later. Insurance companies couldn’t turn them away, because Mr. Obama’s plan, like those of his rivals, requires that insurers offer the same policy to everyone.

As a result, people who did the right thing and bought insurance when they were healthy would end up subsidizing those who didn’t sign up for insurance until or unless they needed medical care.