Clinton's health plan is viable, knowledgeable and works for everyone

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070930/OPINION04/709300309/-1/NEWS04

Clinton's health plan is viable, knowledgeable and works for everyone

September 30, 2007

Opinions:

The American Health Choices Plan outlined by Sen. Hillary Clinton shows a sound diagnosis of our health-care system. It offers viable, evidence-based solutions to address that disparity, starting with cradle-to-grave access to primary health care..........more
-Marilyn K. Hauk,
Des Moines




I hope every person who has concerns about health care reads Hillary Clinton's proposed plan. It truly provides health care for everyone, while building on what's right with our system and addressing what's wrong.

It is not the same plan proposed in 1994. This 2007 plan shows that Clinton has done a great deal of homework. As a result, this plan is even better......more
- Joy Newcom,
Forest City




Presidential candidate John Edwards is dead wrong in his attack on Hillary Clinton's newly proposed health plan. He reminds me of President Bush, who will not talk to those countries that are against us.

>

I think the Clinton plan is the best plan I have heard yet. It strives to get coverage to each American without breaking the bank of the federal government and without "one plan fits all."
- Anna Louise Woods,
Ankeny

.

Her plan forces Insurance companies to compete with each other for the lowest premium to the insured. Out of all the top tier candidates, her Plan is the best with no rate hikes or denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions.

Dems Back Clinton On Health Care

As Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton unveils her health care plan today, Democratic primary voters express more confidence in her ability to handle health care than in her chief Democratic rivals, Senator Barack Obama and former Senator John Edwards, a new CBS News poll finds.

Sixty-one percent of those who plan to vote in a Democratic primary express confidence in Clinton’s ability to make the right decisions about health care. Forty-two percent say they have confidence in Obama, while 39 percent say they have confidence in Edwards. Forty-nine percent say Clinton would do a better job on health care than her Democratic opponents.

Registered voters see Clinton's experience with a failed health care proposal as an asset rather than a liability. Sixty-six percent of all voters, and 77 percent on Democratic primary voters, say her past experience will help her to reform health care if she becomes president. Clinton was appointed by her husband, then-President Bill Clinton, to chair a commission on health care reform in 1993. Just 25 percent of all voters, and 15 percent of Democratic primary voters, say that experience will hurt her.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/17/opinion/polls/main3269421.shtml

it would be the worst thing ever, quality of care would go right out the window, and certain necessary procedures, like pap smears and prenatal care would not be profitable enough for the lowest bidder.

c'mon, you gotta look at this objectively and take the fact its your candidate out of the equation.

Big Pharma - Big Insurance collectors are rapping at her door now.

:hi:

The current wretched system is better than Clinton's proposal, because at least now we have the option of NOT being forced to buy crappy private insurance.

public policy.

What's to dislike in her plan? :-)

Also adverse selection...

And what the HELL is "Medicare like"? That could be Medicare Advantage plans rolled out on huge scale.

Papau, I'm really surprised at you.

And after sHillary's done triangulating, what's it really going to look like?

I can't believe people are falling for this. She won't even bring forth a bill in Congress.

Where's her damn bill?

Oh, and we all know, don't we, papau, about what that "Retiree legacy" part really is, don't we?

And please, please, tell me how Medicare's current funding problems will be fixed. Have you done an actuarial analysis, or do you know of one?

from 15% of GDP to say 12 is less important than the procedure changes that affect medical inflation.

Medical inflation is Not my area of expertise - but Edwards and Hillary plans at least appear to get us on the right path. Even Obama's voluntary plan gets us moving in the right direction - albeit much slower. Richardson's Medicare at 55 and DK's single payer are better ways to go but the question is whether we could get them passed - indeed getting an Edwards or Hillary plan passed will be a great deal of work.

There should be no excuse for not passing DK's single payer or Richardson's Medicare at 55.

There are too many unanswered questions right now for anyone to claim this is a good deal.

Uh yeah -- it's a *real option* - NOT. :rofl:

"Presidential candidate John Edwards is dead wrong in his attack on Hillary Clinton's newly proposed health plan. He reminds me of President Bush, who will not talk to those countries that are against us".

Oh please. This is just one more thing Hillary shares with Bush and tried to bash Obama for agreeing to talk with other countries.

Nice try....

is nothing more than jibberish... thanks for kicking the thread.

where I come from, they call it *Bull Shit*!

:rofl:

Let's start with the quote I found ironic....""Presidential candidate John Edwards is dead wrong in his attack on Hillary Clinton's newly proposed health plan. He reminds me of President Bush, who will not talk to those countries that are against us".

Well...yes, it is true that President Bush doesn't want to talk with those countries that are against us. However, Obama recently pledged that he would do just that. Hillary then called Obama "naive and frankly irresponsible" for saying he would talk to these countries. And the gaggle of Hillary supporters chimed in their agreement that this proved Obama was not yet ready for prime time.

Funny, Tellurian....when the gaggle of Hillary supporters thought it was terrible to agree to talk with our enemies....a position that put them in agreement with Bush....I didn't hear a peep from the gaggle saying anything that this was bullshit! In fact, I don't think anyone in the gaggle called this "jibberish".

Hillary said it, so it must be so. Even if it was basically the same thing Bush would say: don't agree to talk with our enemies.

So...somehow...the gaggle gets fired up about John Edwards being like Bush in this regard.....but if the Hillary gaggle does the same thing, not only is it ok...if someone points out the irony, it is dismissed by the holier-than-thou gaggle as "jibberish".

To use a word you so irreverently used....bullshit!

hillary ,obama,and edwards must think everyone in the usa has a job or make enough to afford the co pays on their employer health plan..


i`ll wait for 4 more years so i will have my communist "one plan fits all" socialized "break the bank" of the usa medical care...

would be covered under an expansion of federal programs such as medicare. Edwards and Obama do not have that provision in their Health Care proposal.

Or will they have to "qualify"?

And you and everyone else would know it, had you done your homework on Hillary Clinton's health care plan. I won't re-iterate what other posts here point out acurately. I'll just say again- it is NOT a comprehensive health care plan. It comes no where near to being one

It serves only the corporatae interests who have something to gain by it.

Shame on you, Hillary Clinton. You knew better once upon a time. Grow a set of balls under the cleavage everyone is fascinated with and come up with something better.

The substance I believe you are looking for is the one you may have missed when most of our DLC affiliated candidates were recently addressing how to drive down health care costs through systemic changes. They, including Hillary, were talking about preventing medical errors, better record keeping and steps to enhance preventative care- all great things... IF YOU ARE LUCKY ENOUGH TO HAVE A HEALTH CARE INSURANCE POLICY.

So, let me be more specific with substance to support my "allegations" of how shallow HC's health care policy is. Let me tell you something you already be able to recite by heart, being a HC supporter- Mrs. Clinton estimates that at a cost of about $110 Billion, she, like Edwards, would demand that "every American have health insurance", and then goes on to state this would result from every employer either covering their workers directly "or pay for their costs under one of the other options" of her plan. Then, "to soften the requirement for smaller businesses", offer a tax credit for coverage. That leaves the rest of those NOT COVERED by employer health plans to "enroll in private insurance programs pattered on the options given to federal employees OR join a new public insurance program MODELED on Medicare".

True, this may be better than the existing insurance based coverage, which is pure shit, but she is still advocating INSURANCE based coverage. It is not a national health plan of government run (like the most popular Medicare program, which obviously better than what HC has offered up to the masses. Insurance might be the option for those who may WANT an insurance plan, but what about basic coverage for Americans? Do you realize we are the only industrialized nation who is out to lunch on this? Why the fuck is THAT?

You should know that we already have de facto health care RATIONING due to the vast numbers of UNINSURED Americans and UNDER-INSURED Americans with employer based policies (EMPLOYED OR NOT) who show up in the ER across the country. It is the ultimate high cost end result of no comprehensive health care plan in place. As a front runner candidate, she should be offering solutions, not continuing to dance to corporate based health care.

Now, put down your pom-poms and consider this for a while. Hillary Clinton knows better and she still isn't offering America what America needs.

Have a nice day. :spank:

Here's the strategy. More than likely there will be a Dem majority in both Houses with a Dem president this time around. The first hurdle will be bringing the Insurance companies to heel with respect to the new legislation which will require a competitive process for an insurance company to qualify as an insurer. Second hurdle will be the pharmaceutical companies to cut pricing costs to qualify as a vendor. Third hurdle will be getting this legislation passed, which looks more probable considering a Dem majority basically supports the premise of Universal Health Care.

I don't use Pom-Poms, so I have nothing to put down except what I think is the strategy we will use to even bring universal health care into the debate process. No one can promise what you're wishing for immediately. If what Hillary is offering is the best plan we have for now, it's a beginning and a very good beginning at that.

Everything I've just explained in detail, and you vaguely touch in 2 paragraphs has a higher probability of coming to fruition under a presidency which has long outlined healthcare being extended from something that is already in place- specifically, the version of Medicare (the most popular and successful model, unlike HRC's healthcare plan). The success is this is that an exteneded Medicare already brings big pharma to its knees because it makes them BE competitive. We already have a so-called, "competitive bidding" insurance process and it has absolutely failed under the guise of managed care. Where have you been for the last 35 years? Were you born yet? Have you forgotten how successful Medicare already is and how efficienctly it runs. Why should you all of a sudden think HRC has the best health care plan?

I ask you to consider that as long as it's corporately controlled, and part of the employees "benefit", Insurance companies will never "heel" when providing comprehensive health care coverage. The HRC plan is like going back 40 years and introducing a process of an elephant giving birth to a mouse!

Health care, after our abysmal foreign policy is in a state of crises. So, under HRC, we can begin to pass legislation in another 8 years? Where do you get all this stuff?

You make no point with something you only touch on, and therefore, must be a cheerleader. Go pick up your megaphone, I'm sure it's somewhere. I see no value in supporting HRC, because she lost her vision.

No more of... "Meet the new boss.... :crazy: same as the old boss... "

We won't get fooled again, HRC cheerleaders! It's a RAW RAW RAW deal.

Then, the rest of the industrialized nations that get cheap pharmaceuticals because we (Americans) have paid for the research and develop, business costs, and profits through our exhorbitant drug prices - welll - let's just say that they might be paying a little more for their drugs.

As far as the drug companies, I'm not inclined to take all of the profit motive out; otherwise, we'll all lose out. One of the reasons Canadians get so much bang for their buck is because they don't spend nearly as much money on research as wel do, when you factor in all the "private" research spending. Yeah, a lot of it is total waste on garbage, but in the end, we still end up with more drug and medical choices "if you can pay for it."

For instance, through 2006, 10 Americans won Nobel Prizes in medicine, 3 foreign born scientists working in the U.S. won Nobel Prizes, and 7 have gone to researches in all other countries. That's pretty lopsided in my opinion.

These are the kinds of these we do excell at, and the rest of the world benefits, but it would be great if Americans don't have to pick up such a huge part of the research budget. The citizens of other countries can pay a little more for their drugs, so we can pay less.

I have no reason to believe they will now.

Some months I have trouble making rent or the electric bill. I have no excess money for an additional bill of any kind. I don't make much so I either don't pay taxes or I pay very little.

How is her plan supposed to help me?

Here is an overview of the plan.
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/summary.aspx

Too many people don't qualify now for it - how would I know they could qualify under her plan. I fear too many will still be left out.

I do think that it will be a good solid component of the plan. She has mentioned specifically that those of us who dont have the financial means will be covered directly.I think its hard for any of the candidates to pinpoint specifics on how the medicaid coverage will work, since its a joint funded (state and fed) state managed process now. I think guidlines will likely be set and then states will implement.

I agree though, thats its hard to get on board without specifics nailed down.

I think our best chance of getting anything close to full coverage for all, is for us to support one of these hybrid plans offered by several candidates. The element of choice, IMO, helps to defuse those who are happy with their coverage and are unwilling to give it up. I think its the easiest way to SOMETHING about the situation, as quickly as possible.

I'm just bummed because that was my most important issue and no one's really come up with a plan that I absolutely support (that is, as their plans are now - I'm sure there's probably more to come). I know I had high hopes, but still.

but those proposals get shot down really fast because people dont want to let go what works for them.
And they arent going to budge. We might be able to move towards something more uniform down the line. I'll take piecemeal as long as everyone has some sort of good health care.

sucks donkey dicks. As does Edwards', which is essentially the same plan.