2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary flip flops on public option twice within 2 minutes
Hillary might be looking into a public health insurance option for people 55 and up... She would like to get behind it, but there's just no data to support it, but if there were, heck it could be a good idea, she'll look into it. Translation: Not a snowball's chance in hell.
Lovely. Glad to know she's on the case with this health insurance emergency that we are still facing.
asuhornets
(2,405 posts)NWCorona
(8,541 posts)Baobab
(4,667 posts)Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)asuhornets
(2,405 posts)You expect the stars, the moon, and the sky from Hillary...But when Bernie speaks --"he's so honest". And you don't even know his plan.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Those are our demands.
asuhornets
(2,405 posts)You don't make demands when you are losing. I'm sure when Hillary wins the nomination, she'll work with Sanders on a few issues. But there will be no demands.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)asuhornets
(2,405 posts)Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)asuhornets
(2,405 posts)silvershadow
(10,336 posts)and no Democrat can win without them. It has been explained over and over for months on end right here on DU.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)As human beings we should all be making that demand of health care for all.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Didn't you get the memo?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)to make America great again.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Trump like to make deals. She likes to "get things done". Same thing.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)For example, it cannot work alongside insurers. that is guaranteed to fail.
asuhornets
(2,405 posts)2cannan
(344 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Do you have a special app?
And far as Hillary explaining her position on anything, she rambles on and on with just rhetoric. Sanders believes that all Americans should be covered why do you find that so terrible?
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Is to allow people of any age to buy into it so you don't just have seniors with higher medical costs taking money out of the system but younger healthier people enrolled as well. Her statement is idiotic.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Pretty simple.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)payer at this point. She recognizes that moving everyone to Medicare for all might not be possible immediately, but moving 50 year olds on up would be a game changer and HUGE. She knows more about health care and what it will take to get through our current Congress and an electorate where over 40% are firmly against single payer. We can stay pure on single payer for all and get nothing, or worse, get the GOPers voucher system. I'd bet if you got Medicare for all, 50 and up, and Medicaid was folded in, we'd have single payer for all in short order and in the interim, premiums for the remaining people would be lower and stable.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)Wow.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Would be putting more unhealthy people into the system without any compensating younger people with lower healthcare costs. Stupid idea.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)In a screwed up system like ours, you can't just look at one sector.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)That would not be offset by younger healthier people who would still be paying private insurance premiums instead of taxes to get govt healthcare. Terrible idea.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)be subsidized. If we are going to subsidize everything over amount X, it doesn't matter if all the sick people are in Plan A, all the super healthy are in Plan B, all the young diabetics are in Plan C, we are pretty much going to pay the same amount. We are trying to get to single payer, by picking off groups that need it most over a relatively short period of time.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I know Obamacare...blah. But all that did is add a GOP "solution" and a layer of bureaucracy and complexity designed to protect insurance companies.
There are things the "markets" cannot do well. Healthcare is one of them.
Most of the world knows that, and either have public systems or mixed systems in which the government (public) calls the shots -- not investors.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)MisterP
(23,730 posts)CentralCoaster
(1,163 posts)"I want to help you folks out, some of you folks, but I need to see some numbers, um, and don't see the data to support that yet."
"Oh, and I have Oscar De La Renta on Speed Dial."
davidlynch
(644 posts)As I've written elsewhere, notice the wiggle room created by the conditional and tentative way she answered, including phrases "I don't yet see data..." and "if you were able to move...". Whenever you see these conditionals, Hillary is trying to leave the strong impression that she supports it without actually committing. This is what I call a "death and taxes" guarantee.
The Clintons are easy to read because they are addicted to this style of weasel-phrasing. I think they treat it like a sport: how much can you say that is literally true, but leaves the complete opposite impression? The Clintons would be harder to read if they occasionally just lied flatly, but they smugly use this approach, which is highly detectable. I think they do this because they're good at it, they've practiced and they kind of like it.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)"everyone needs", etc. They don't commit to anything. Her 5,000 word on whether she supports fracking is one of the best examples.
Shadowflash
(1,536 posts)We'll never see it.
She isn't even the nominee yet and Trump is pulling even with her in GE polling for key states. I'd worry about Trump's policies (such as they are).
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)It's a real possibility though.
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)to curb their profits.
pkdu
(3,977 posts)Tonight's BernieBingo. Thanks for playing.
Interesting that you either refuse to see it, or attempt to laugh it off.
Full Definition of cabal
1
: the artifices and intrigues of a group of persons secretly united in a plot (as to overturn a government); also : a group engaged in such artifices and intrigues
trudyco
(1,258 posts)Medicare has loadstones around it, doesn't it? Like not being able to negotiate drug prices.
I know Bernie is saying single payer but I like the idea of public option - where it's really an option. Open up Federal Insurance, whatever plan public employees get, and let the private sector compete with it. It's all about options.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)That would seem to make a huge amount of sense.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)ACA. Quit making stuff up.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Does she think there's evidence to support it, or not? Does she " want to get behind that" or is she actually going to use her power as president to fight for that?
This is real life. People's lives depend on this stuff. It's not a game.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)the idea of trashing the President's ACA. She stated that she wants to improve the ACA to cover those not currently covered. She does not support Sanders' idea of a public option because the votes do not exist in Congress to achieve that goal. She has been very clear about that.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)It's just totally unreal.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)opinion if she wished to deceive people.
mooseprime
(474 posts)A linguistic counterpart to the Möbius strip.
AzDar
(14,023 posts)this crap??
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Or maybe they just don't care about this issue very much. Or maybe they just really prefer warmed over Republican policies.
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)Dr. Strange
(25,929 posts)She evolved.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Not one that she can give.
The questioner's situation touched on so many different things that are wrong with the health system.
Like the employer mandates, the individual mandates, the high premiums. The clear answer is we're going to let everybody buy insurance from the government. Let everybody buy Medicare. She can't get there though. She just can't get there. Very disappointing.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)I'm sure Hillary understands the issue better, but you wouldn't know it from this answer
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Like a lawyers version of Sarah Palin's famous word salad.
7wo7rees
(5,128 posts)This is her best answer?
Vattel
(9,289 posts)Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)andym
(5,447 posts)Lieberman was publicly for expanding Medicare to 50 something year old Americans, but as soon as this possibility became a real option and his vote became critical, he backed off and killed it. We were one vote away from having this already.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)That was part of Howard Dean's health plan too, when he ran for president.
It's a fine idea if anyone would actually follow through. But these says I'm coming to the opinion that anything good will take a huge fight, we might as well fight for the whole banana. If we have to compromise that's fine, but don't pre-compromise before the battle even begins.
andym
(5,447 posts)Read this:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/joe-lieberman-not-the-man-he-used-to-be-on-medicare-buy-in
"Meet Joe Lieberman, Medicare buy-in advocate. It's the winter of 2000, and Lieberman is pressing flesh and kissing babies in Bangor, Maine as the presidential election approaches. After holding a town hall meeting with voters at Bangor's opera house on Main Street, Lieberman, the Democratic vice presidential nominee, sits down with the local paper to discuss the upcoming election and his ticket's plan to improve the nation's health care system by allowing some younger Americans to "buy in" to the government run program. As his running mate, Al Gore, has been doing on the trail for weeks, Lieberman talks up the value of a buy-in, eloquently arguing that it's a great compromise way to get incremental health care reform past members of Congress wary of a robust health care reform bill. "
"It's not clear exactly when the Lieberman of 2000 turned into the Lieberman of Dec. 14, 2009, but it looks like it wasn't too long ago. In a Sept. 8, 2009 interview with the Connecticut Post, Lieberman outlined his opposition to a public option but suggested a way coverage could be expanded without one: ..By allowing citizens who are not eligible for Medicare or Medicaid to buy in for a rate below the private market, the government can extend coverage to more of those who are currently uninsured, he said..."
and
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/14/health.care.lieberman/
"Dashing the hopes of Democratic lawmakers Sunday, Sen. Joseph Lieberman signaled he would oppose a health care bill that includes a proposal to expand Medicare to people as young as 55."...
"Unanimous Republican opposition so far means Senate Democrats need all 60 votes in their caucus, which includes Lieberman, to pass the sweeping bill."
So close.. if he did not change his mind so strongly it would be the law..
slipslidingaway
(21,210 posts)the most HC dollars to buy into the Medicare system, which will already be strained with the boomers, and let the for profit companies have the younger and healthier clients?
Do I have that right? Is that a good plan?
We are on year 7 of reaching the annual out of pocket maximum which amounts to well over $63,000 without premiums, which increased $200. per month in January.
We are fortunate to have been able to save for retirement, never thought we would use so much for medical expenses before ever reaching retirement age, but there are many people who have not had that luxury so we are lucky.
Still this is not sustainable which is why many people who file for bankruptcy Had insurance, we can do better, we need someone who is willing to challenge the companies who derive their profits from the suffering of others.