« Better Living Through Bush | Main | Does 1994 Help Clinton Or Hurt Her? »
September 17, 2007
The Hillary Plan
Let me try and give a quick sketch of the Clinton proposal before I have to run for a meeting. Here's the thumbnail: Clinton's plan is of the "individual mandate" variety, in which universal coverage is achieved by mandating that every American purchase health care. In order to ensure that that's both possible and affordable, the Clinton plan creates a few new coverage options, reform the insurance industry, limits coverage costs to a percentage of income, and washes your car.
Okay, it doesn't wash your car. It does open the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program to everybody, ensuring that anyone can access the same menu of regulated private options that federal employees get. FEHBP is the program that already insures millions of current government employees, including the members of Congress, by offering a variety of regulated private options to choose from. Throwing the doors to that program wide open is the most basic and ubiquitous of coverage solutions.
More importantly, the plan also creates a new public insurance option, modeled off, but distinct from, Medicare. That's a big deal: The public insurer offers full coverage and is open to all Americans without restriction. Public insurance is what I feared her plan would avoid, and instead, she embraced it wholeheartedly. The concern with a plan like this (as with the Edwards plan), is that insurers will market coverage to the young and healthy and subtly tilt the public plan's risk pool towards the old and sick (the check is that governmental plans are, for reasons related to administration costs and care incentives, cheaper). At the end of the day, there's not much that can be done about that, unless you want to tax insurers with overly healthy pools, as they do in Germany. Come to think of it, that's exactly what they should do -- it was even in the 1994 bill.
And if you don't go through the newly expanded FEHBP or the public option, preferring to keep your current insurance, you'll still be dealing with a heavily-regulated and reformed insurance industry, which can no longer price discriminate based on preexisting conditions or demographic characteristics, refuse you coverage, or deny renewal of your policy -- including if you change your job. So if you like your current insurance but quit your cubicled existence at MegaCorp, your insurer can't drop you. All this matters because it keeps the private programs from having too much capacity to undercut the risk pools of the other options. It also destroys the elements of the insurance industry's business model that rely too explicitly on screwing you over.
There are a variety of affordability measures, the most important of which, by far, is a refundable tax credit limiting the cost of insurance to a certain percentage of family income. The plan doesn't yet define what that percentage of income is, but it'll presumably be reasonable. In this, the plan differs from Edwards' plan, which uses sliding scales of subsidy up to a certain level of income. On the other side, the employer tax deduction will now be limited to standard plans for middle-income folk, while gold-plated health care for wealthy individuals at will be subject to taxation.
So the policy is very, very sound, and includes other sundry goodies like a Best Practices Institute that will vastly accelerate the amount of research done and distributed on the cost-effectiveness of treatments, better chronic care incentives, and so forth. The rhetoric is interesting too, being entirely about "choice." It's called the "American Health Choices Plan." The first section, on the opening of FEHBP and the creation of a new public insurer, is titled, "Providing a Choice of Insurance Plans." The first bullet point assures readers that every American will be able to keep their current coverage if they so desire. Etc, etc. This is very distinctly aimed at the criticisms of the 1994 plan, which is that it would reduce choice and constrain medical freedom. This plan won't, and its ability to expand options is laced through the document, and through the statements her advisors have made.
The plan is more ambitious than her 1994 effort in some ways, less in others. The 1994 plan fully integrated the health care system into a whole new structure. It was probably a better structure -- particularly in its global budgets and growth caps, which would forcibly arrested the absurd growth in health costs -- but it would've caused far more disruption for most families, and was thus easier to attack. This plan leaves intact most every current program, including Medicaid and SCHIP (which come in for expansion), and offers a public option, which the 1994 plan didn't.
The only question is how serious of a proposal it is, i.e, whether it's what she plans to fight for from her first day in office, or whether it's to keep Edwards and Obama from opening up an advantage on her left flank. For now, there's no way to know. But given how smart she's been about neutralizing the other candidates' potential advantages -- including, with this plan, cutting their legs out on health care -- we're likely to find out.
September 17, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
the question isn't whether she can say pretty things. it is whether she means it.
Posted by: akaison | Sep 17, 2007 2:13:58 PM
So the policy is very, very sound.
Couldn't agree more, especially given political realities. My quick reading is that it gets us to 99.9% coverage, and it's politically feasible, at least if the Democrats do reasonably well in 2008. I'm thinking Clinton might have considered throwing a bone or two to the insurance industry, because they won't like the plan (at least based on my quick reading). Maybe some reinsurance could be offered as a sweetner to buy their consent.
Posted by: Jasper | Sep 17, 2007 2:16:49 PM
What a complete crock of sh!t.
Posted by: John L | Sep 17, 2007 2:18:51 PM
Happy to hear that public insurance will be offered as one of the "choices". Very pleased to hear HC commit (in public) to a plan that includes this.
Posted by: Robin Ozretich | Sep 17, 2007 2:23:35 PM
Where is the public option? I trust that its there, I'd just like to be able to read about it myself.
Posted by: Leah | Sep 17, 2007 2:23:56 PM
Oh, now I see it; no details yet, but I agree that it's important that she's included the option.
Posted by: Leah | Sep 17, 2007 2:26:23 PM
I can't believe that any progressive would find this plan "sound." This plan leaves in place the worst actor in our health care system, the insurance companies, and even partially subsidizes them. If you really want a plan that gives people "choices," single payer is the way to go. Instead, we get "choices" about which personal insurance plan we want to be forced to buy! That's not choice. Individual mandate plans are completely antithetical to social justice, and present the most blatant opportunity for "capture" I've ever seen. I'm sure that the "public-private" entity regulating new devices will be subjected to significant political influence, just as whatever regulatory body that sets the "income percentage" will be.
In addition, Senator Clinton's plan appears to impose a regressive tax on the middle class! I know coastal elites won't understand this, but forcing a family of four in the midwest to pay $1200 per month for health insurance will be poorly received. This plan is an insurance company giveaway, and if this is the best the Democrats can offer, its time for progressives to start a new party. This is a neo-liberal joke.
Posted by: Father Figure | Sep 17, 2007 2:29:49 PM
akaison nails it.
Clinton's biggest healthcare initiative since the collapse of Hillarycare has been to stand with Newt Gingrich in favor of healthcare IT. That's doesn't smell like progressive leadership so much as it stinks of opportunistic triangulation.
If Edwards hadn't thrown down the gauntlet with a near-identical plan, do you think she'd even be having this discussion?
Posted by: anonymous | Sep 17, 2007 2:33:17 PM
I've got a better idea. Forget about the complex stuff, the individual mandate, the new regulations, the pay or play, and the giveaways of our money to Hillary's campaign contributors in the insurance industry.
Instead, we'll just create that new public program, modeled on Medicare. Everyone will be eligible for it, and we will use the money that would be paid to private insurers under Hillary's plan to enroll everyone in it.
It won't cost anymore, it won't be as complicated, and it will cover everyone without a mandate.
The question for Hillary and everyone else is, why is it necessary to give our money away to insurance companies to get us to universal coverage?
Posted by: Dilan Esper | Sep 17, 2007 2:35:55 PM
Sounds like it is calibrated to undercut the opposition talking points. Who can disagree that the average citizen should have access to the same plan the Congress and Executive branch has? (rhetorical, of course they will disagree)
So, politically this scores high. Single payer universal is still my first choice, but that is politically unrealistic. If she is able to enact something like this plan (with the public insurance program as an option - a truly viable plan it must be) then we could over time end up with a sizeable public insurance program as an alternative to private insurance. That's a welcome prospect.
I'm still hung-up on the 'mandate'. How is this enforced? Without a workable enforcement method we will still have folks going to the ER without insurance.
One way to enforce: You must declare your insurance on your income tax (with policy number, etc.) and if you don't have insurance, you get a membership card for the public insurance plan, and the IRS figures out if you owe more taxes or get a refund. Without IRS-like enforcement, the mandate is not a mandate.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Sep 17, 2007 2:38:23 PM
"Sounds like it is calibrated to undercut the opposition talking points."
That's exactly what it's meant to do. Win or lose Edwards has redefined the debate- hence why she's feel the pressure to say this. A few months back you couldn't even get a straight answer out of her.
Posted by: akaison | Sep 17, 2007 2:43:05 PM
I can't believe that any progressive would find this plan "sound." This plan leaves in place the worst actor in our health care system, the insurance companies, and even partially subsidizes them.
I can't believe any progressives still cling to the notion that our political culture bears any resemblance to that of Canada or Denmark. Of course, when you're a progressive who possesses your own robust health insurance coverage, I can see why it might be a tad easier to cling to said notion.
Posted by: Jasper | Sep 17, 2007 2:45:16 PM
fehbp isn't public, though, right? It's a collection of private for-profit or nonprofit plans that must meet certain coverage requirements set by the govt. Now, maybe that's fine, or maybe I'm wrong.
I am getting tired of back-door social engineering through the tax code. "The IRS's comparative advantage is using random terror to elicit voluntary compliance with the tax code on the part of relatively rich people." I mean, I get the Summers argument that people need help, and sometimes you have to worry about getting them help first and economic efficiency second, but it's going to cost tons to administer this through the IRS.
We also have to ask the magic six words: "how do you pay for it", though that's somewhat secondary.
Posted by: Nicholas Beaudrot | Sep 17, 2007 2:50:09 PM
JimPortlandOR-
My sense is that most people without insurance have incomes that are too low for them to be paying income tax (and many of those do not file) so I'm not sure this makes sense as an enforcement mechanism. Presumably, uninsured people could be reported by emergency rooms and receive an initial warning together with info on plans and subsidies, to be followed by small fines for subsequent "violations." This strikes me as a weirdly punitive approach, but it would work.
On the broader question, I think Hillary views health care in much the way that George W. Bush viewed Iraq: she sees it as her husband's failure, which she will redeem. So I don't think there's any question she would push hard for reform, but who knows what the actual legislative strategy would look like.
Posted by: Rich C | Sep 17, 2007 2:50:20 PM
Having seen "Sicko" by M. Moore, I have no faith at all in any of the candidates. The health care lobby gives everyone plenty of money. No insurance, a true universal system based on England or France systems is the only answer. Get HMO's out of the loop. Can universal health care be any more 'socialist' than universal public education? No Democratic candidate has the guts to go universal, they are all beholding to the HMO lobby. Maybe Hillary or someone else would like to pay for the mammogram that my wife's doctor says she needs twice a year. My caring HMO won't. But they get a nice bonus at the end of the year, and candidates get more cash from the lobby. Hillary has no new plan. Same old stuff, money in, favors out, consumer left paying more, getting less.
Posted by: Charles Corn | Sep 17, 2007 2:53:30 PM
what you view and what she has said is two different things. she said earlier in the year that she would wait until her second term to attempt healthcare reform. doesn't sound like an urgent priority to her despite the pretty rhectoric now, except as I said for the fact that Edwards has pushed her to respond because she was losing traction in the early states with his message.
Posted by: akaison | Sep 17, 2007 2:55:18 PM
Edwards doesn't accept any money from DC lobbies, especially on healthcare. You can look it up.
Posted by: akaison | Sep 17, 2007 2:56:28 PM
Like Atrios, I still don't understand the point of individual mandates. If you're going to make everyone buy insurance, why not just do it the same way everyone 'buys' national defense - through our taxes?
Other than that, I think it's a good plan. I agree that she'd have put forward something considerably weaker if John Edwards hadn't driven the discussion, but I'm willing to believe she's going to fight for it. Since her name is already strongly associated with health care, she'd look pretty damned wimpy if she didn't try to get this program through Congress.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | Sep 17, 2007 2:56:45 PM
"I can't believe any progressives still cling to the notion that our political culture bears any resemblance to that of Canada or Denmark."
Yeah, Canada has nothing in common with the United States.
Senator Clinton hasn't udnercut the opposition talking points. She has undercut the centrist/beltway talking points. This plan is not socially just, nor will it be feasible for right-wing zealots. But I'm sure David Broder and the DLC folks will love it.
On a serious note, our "political culture" is far more open to progressivism than the neo-liberals want to admit. The public wants us out of Iraq. The neo-liberals scream, "we can't leave now, or we'll be called defeato-crats!" The public hates health insurance companies. The neo-liberals whine, "we can't advocate single payer or nationalized insurance, or we'll be called socialists!" The Republcians don't have to deal with this. When their politicans speak at Bob Jones, or Adelphia Mississippi, they show the country that they don't think their base is crazy. Democratic politicans hide from or criticize the base at every possible oppurtunity. If Hillary is the nominee, this plan may be the final blow that pushes progressives out of the Democratic party.
Posted by: Father Figure | Sep 17, 2007 3:03:20 PM
I am a republican, but I was all set to vote for Hillary until I saw her health plan. Any plan that keeps the insurance companies involed ot the point they are subsidized by the US Govt means one thing,
more money for the Insurance companies, and less insurance for the people. I have one question for Hilary, If somebody is homeless, has no job, no money,
files no income tax, and has no medical saving plan,
what kind of healthcare do they get,,,the answer is
"NONE", no health care. I was fortunate enough to use
several of europes "universal helth care plans, France,
UK, and Italy,, all of them are better in treating all
of their citizens than the USA. And of course, if you had money, you could pay for even better care, but everybody was covered, weather you had a job or not.
The USA is the only Industrualized country that has no
true universal healthcare for our citizens, and from the canditates we have to choose from, it looks like
our health care will not imprive either.
Posted by: stan | Sep 17, 2007 3:11:23 PM
Dunno... my [admittedly cynical] take is that the public, Medicare-parallel part would be the first thing ditched in the name of an 'acceptable compromise.' Since, as akaison pointed out, she's already said that she doesn't actually plan to address healthcare until her second term (the one I think she won't have, but that's another discussion), that makes this proposal nothing more than an attempt to neutralize others' attacks... if she's proposing something now that she doesn't plan to pick up again until 2013 or so, she knows perfectly well that it would have been picked to death by then.
Posted by: latts | Sep 17, 2007 3:21:55 PM
Ezra,
Your post back in May:
While on the subject of Hillary, she's released her plans for cost control (though not, as of yet, her plans for coverage or quality). I've sort of been waiting for the whole proposal before diving into it, but those who want to go piece-by-piece should certainly do so. My snap reaction is that Hillary knows a helluva lot more about health care than any of the other candidates, and her initial focus on cost control is actually quite smart. If given a choice between passing mediocre health reform and strong cost control measures, I'd go with the latter, saving universality for another day and not discrediting the goal by wrapping it in a plan that's likely to fall apart. I haven't spent enough time looking into her proposal to decide whether it's strong enough on controlling costs, but it's an interesting approach, and a strain of incrementalism I could actually imagine getting behind. More later, as they say.
I wholeheartedly agree that that cost control is and should be the pre-eminent issue. I don't think she's addressed it adequately-- you've seen the plan now, how about you?
Posted by: wisewon | Sep 17, 2007 3:38:24 PM
stan,
it's funny i have a lot of republican friends like you. this is why i think my party, the democrats, fundamentally don't understand how things have changed on this issue.
Posted by: akaison | Sep 17, 2007 3:44:16 PM
ezra
i only see her limiting the employer exclusion for very rich people (250k and above) with expensive plans (undefined).
i'm fine with this, and, i like that the limitation is income-based, not just plan-cost based (since a lot of what looks like cadillac insurance in terms of cost is actually pretty basic coverage sold to higher-risk people), but, this can't save much money, i don't think, so, i'm a little unclear why she's doing this.
Posted by: josh bivens | Sep 17, 2007 3:51:48 PM
You guys bemoaning the fact that insurers still have a major seat at the table are delusional. There is no way a person right now, in the year 2007, can put forward a plan that eliminates private insurers *and get elected*. Sure, Kucinich might have that plan, and he's awesome for that, but is he gonna get a chance to implement it? If not, who cares?
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. First, everyone gets insured. Then, insurance companies get phased out as Americans realize the government *can* insure people better and cheaper.
It's the only way it's gonna happen here.
Posted by: Joshua | Sep 17, 2007 3:56:21 PM
I agree with Edwards (sorry Hillary got the wrong name- my bag) because I think its the right approach from what i understand of it.
BUT, I find this statement untested other than being the CW. THat is to say its completely worthless unless one wants to pretend one is a political elite.
"You guys bemoaning the fact that insurers still have a major seat at the table are delusional. There is no way a person right now, in the year 2007, can put forward a plan that eliminates private insurers *and get elected*. "
How can you possibly know this since no one has ever proposed it? Because they will fight it right? Well again as I wrote else where this wimpy approach may make some of you think you are "with the American people" but really it's just a sign of weakness.
Posted by: akaison | Sep 17, 2007 4:00:11 PM
There is no way a person right now, in the year 2007, can put forward a plan that eliminates private insurers *and get elected*.
Yeah, exactly. We can't nationalize an industry, sorry if that makes me a hand-wringing centrist.
On the other hand, you don't have to make private insurance illegal to have single payer, and I hope that's where we'll end up eventually. There's still plenty of room for private insurers to offer benefits that go above and beyond what a public system provides.
Posted by: Steve | Sep 17, 2007 4:03:34 PM
Joshua:
I don't want to eliminate private insurers. I want the government's money to go to a government plan.
I assume that just as in Medicare, there are private plans that supplement the government's coverage, there will be room for private insurers (paid by policyholders or their employers, not the government) in a system where the government guarantees coverage. But since insurance companies add a layer of costs without adding any public benefit, there's no reason to give them any public funds (except as a kickback scheme to pay off Hillary's campaign contributors with our money, which I don't find particularly important).
Posted by: Dilan Esper | Sep 17, 2007 4:04:28 PM
"First, everyone gets insured. Then, insurance companies get phased out as Americans realize the government *can* insure people better and cheaper."
Right, just like personal mandates eliminated private auto insurance.
This plan isn't "good;" it reinforces the problem. This plan presents multiple access points for simple capture by insurance companies. When Al Gore offered these types of tepid public policy proposals, it lead people into the arms of Nader. If Hillary is the Democratic nominee, it will do so again.
Posted by: Father Figure | Sep 17, 2007 4:08:22 PM
Don McCanne's analysis from Physicians for a National Health Program:
Hillary Clinton’s proposal “preserves existing health insurance,” and includes the responsibility of individuals “to get and keep insurance” through the current private insurance market, or through a “Health Choices Menu” of private FEHBP-type plans, or through a Medicare-type public program.
Thus her proposal is an individual mandate to purchase private insurance that is no longer affordable for average-income individuals, or to purchase a public plan that will be even more expensive because of adverse selection.
To make the plans affordable for individuals, she would use a combination of refundable tax credits and a cap on premiums at a percentage of income. Assuming that the plans would provide adequate benefits and adequate protection against financial hardship, the increased spending through the tax system would be exponentially more than the estimates in her plan. And most of the proposed savings to pay for these increases are largely nebulous, and some of those measures would actually increase costs.
Further, the administrative complexities of refundable tax credits and means-tested premium caps would still leave many without coverage. Coverage will never be universal unless it is truly automatic for everyone.
If we are going to use the tax system to pay for health care anyway then why should we waste funds on the profoundly inefficient system of segregated private health plans? A universal risk pool that is equitably funded through the tax system is the most efficient and least expensive method of ensuring comprehensive coverage for everyone.
Many will try to contrast the differences in the Clinton, Obama and Edwards proposals, but they are all basically the same. In spite of their rhetoric, they have each made the protection and enhancement of the private insurance plans a higher priority than patients."
I would only disagree with Don insofar as saying that Obama's plan is significantly even less than this, and Edwards a bit less bad. A pleasant surprise that Hillary's is offering something this "bold" and not a surprise that it is more subsidy and support for the private for profit insurers that have given so much to her campaign.
Once again, time to point out that Medicare overhead of 3-4% versus the private for profits overhead of 15-20% is $350 billion not going to health care, but going to an unneeded middleman. Plus further savings by not having the paperwork involved in determining and rejecting eligibility if everyone is eligible, and all the many other reasons single payer is the way to go to provide Universality & Comprhensive coverage & cost-control.
Posted by: dr.steveb | Sep 17, 2007 4:17:15 PM
$2000 a month for a family of 4.
$2000 a month for a family of 4.
Repeat it until you think it automatically, because that's the part of the plan that's going to be hard to sell.
Posted by: SamChevre | Sep 17, 2007 4:21:46 PM
Okay, somehow I missed the "The plan also creates a new public option, modeled off (but distinct from) Medicare."
Posted by: Nicholas Beaudrot | Sep 17, 2007 4:23:16 PM
SamCherve, where do you get $2,000? I have read that the Massachusets experiment resulted in policy proposals by insurance companies that cost roughly $300 per person per month, or about $1,200 per month for a family of four.
Posted by: Father Figure | Sep 17, 2007 4:28:03 PM
"How can you possibly know this since no one has ever proposed it? Because they will fight it right? Well again as I wrote else where this wimpy approach may make some of you think you are "with the American people" but really it's just a sign of weakness."
I know this because no one has proposed.
Okay, chicken and egg. But these companies, you know, exist. They account for a huge percentage of GDP. They have lots of employees. Employees, real people that get paid by them. Those people then go home and live in their house and eat food paid by an insurance salary. Those people live in districts, and those districts are represented by people who would be responsible for approving the proposed plans.
The point is, you can't eliminate insurance companies right now. It's not gonna happen. I'd love to see, as Dilan proposes, the elimination of subsidies. If the free market is so awesome let them compete head-to-head with the government. But you know what? That's not gonna happen either. Look at the student loan industry, it pretty much exists to, (1) do a worse job than the government of loaning money to students, and (2) siphon money away from the government. Yet any attempts to cut them off from the trough gets met with fierce, fierce resistant. They're not going anywhere.
And medical insurance entities are dug in about 500 times deeper. It's just reality.
Posted by: Joshua | Sep 17, 2007 4:30:48 PM
Father figure,
I get $2000 a month by the following calculation.
US GDP per-capita ($37,800)
16% of GDP goes to health care
This plan seems to eliminate underwriting, so a best-estimate is that to cost per person is uniform--everyone pays average costs.
Posted by: SamChevre | Sep 17, 2007 4:35:56 PM
So, what sort of return are the Big Insurers planning on getting back for their support of Hillary, and their promise to let her tinker at the edges of their profitability? Because this plan smacks of accommodation, like so much of her thinking. (Not to mention the horror of what would be left of it after the legislative sausage mill.)
Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Sep 17, 2007 4:40:39 PM
SamChevre's exaggerating, I think. But not by very much. FEHB 2008 rates are out. Blue Cross/Blue Shield Standard (which is chosen by something like 60% of the people covered, IIRC) self only is a tad under $450/mo, family is a tad over $1025/mo. FEHB is affordable for Federal employees (and Congresspeople) because the Government pays most of the premium, about $315/mo for self only, about $715/mo for family on BCBS Standard. If you open it to others without subsidy, you'll see few takers. How big a subsidy can the tax system provide? That becomes a critical detail. Which isn't provided. I don't necessarily share Ezra's belief it will be reasonable.
Posted by: jim | Sep 17, 2007 4:45:51 PM
Joshua:
I understand that it takes political courage to take on insurance companies, but I actually don't believe that the elimination of subsidies will eliminate the health insurance industry.
The nature of health care is that there will almost certainly be things that the public plan doesn't cover, or doesn't cover quite as well as private plans do, or covers but requires a co-payment or deductible, etc. Thus, many seniors buy Medicare supplement insurance. I would assume that there will be a substantial market for supplemental insurance to a national health care plan too.
The point of government-guaranteed health care is to set a floor for health care services that everyone is entitled to. It is not to set a ceiling. And thus, there will be plenty of profits for private insurance companies that offer supplemental coverage.
But-- of course-- insurance companies won't do as well as they will do if they are able to siphon off funds from the universal care component as well.
Posted by: Dilan Esper | Sep 17, 2007 4:47:05 PM
From what I saw of the speech she was very careful to say that pre-existing conditions couldn't keep you from being covered, but did not say that they couldn't charge you a different price if you have a pre-existing condition. All her materials say is that they can't "discriminate". Ezra has read this as "price discriminate" but do we actually know if that's true?
Posted by: Asa | Sep 17, 2007 4:52:23 PM
I have read that the Massachusets experiment resulted in policy proposals by insurance companies that cost roughly $300 per person per month, or about $1,200 per month for a family of four. - Father Figure
Even that's too much for some people ... who technically don't qualify for state-subsidized insurance as things stand now. Even if there is some room for changes with Hillary Clinton's plan, it'll still be demogogued as "Hillary Clinton is going to make you, Joe Youngperson starting out his/her life making 25-30K/year, pay for health insurance that you cannot afford".
Posted by: DAS | Sep 17, 2007 4:55:28 PM
Also, remember basic economics folks: once you "mandate" health insurance, it's demand becomes more inelastic ... which results in higher prices.
Consider, e.g., what happens with auto-insurance. When states do try to regulate prices, companies just threaten to pull out of the state. And they play games too: they help municipalities enforce speed traps and then turn around and charge people who pick up "points" (not for doing anything in any way correlated with actual bad driving but for going 40 MPH on a major thoroughfare when there happened to be a sign, hidden behind some trees, saying the street was a 25 MPH zone) more for insurance. It's a complete racket.
Health insurance is bad enough ... we don't need to add the worst aspects of car insurance to it.
Posted by: DAS | Sep 17, 2007 4:59:42 PM
jim,
The reason I think that $2000/month is about right is that a "family" (for $1000/month per family coverage) is 2 working-age adults, plus (estimated 2) children. Children are really cheap to insure. If you can't discriminate based on demographics, children will pay as much as adults; older adults will pay a little less, but children will pay a LOT more.
Posted by: SamChevre | Sep 17, 2007 5:06:21 PM
I don't get how tax credits help the truly poor, when they are not really paying taxes anyway. Unless it will end up being an EITC-like negative income tax. But is that what she means? Otherwise, if someone has to pay $300 a month to buy into a plan, and gets back the $500 they owed in taxes that year (after their other deductions), then that's not really helping them that much. You'd still have a lot of people who might decide its not worth it. And since opting out is illegal, what will that mean?
Posted by: Jon Willits | Sep 17, 2007 5:18:09 PM
Maybe next the politicos will solve hunger by mandating that everyone buy enough food ;-O
Then they can solve homelessness by requiring everyone to purchase shelter; what an amazing new paradigm ;-(
Posted by: What would Zeus do? | Sep 17, 2007 5:35:28 PM
... and I remember a time when HMOs were trumpted as the "saviors of American healthcare."
This sounds like an insurance deal to me, not healthcare.
We'll never resolve our healthcare problems until we start addressing health. That will mean penalizing (and dropping subsidies for) unhealthy choices, offering real incentives for both producers and consumers of healthy choices, and emphasizing primary care, preventative medicine, and public health over expensive, land-a-man-on-the-moon elite medicine.
Posted by: Anonymouse | Sep 17, 2007 5:43:37 PM
FEHBP will work for everyone very easily. I figured it out once, years ago, in my spare time. Bear in mind that I don't know the details of Hillary's plan, but what little I do know sounds needlessly over-complicated to me.
The way it would work is: first, the plan is extended to everyone in the US. Second, employed people will get the employer's share paid by their employer, as it would be now, if they were covered. Third, people who are not employed, or who don't make enough for this to cover their needs, would have the rest of the premiums paid by whatever medical coverage they are available for, whether it be Medicaid, or their state's basic health plan, or whatever. That is, the money that would have gone to pay for that coverage, will pay for the employer's share plus their share, or part of the employer's share plus their share, or whatever is needed. This wouldn't actually cost more over-all, but it would call for a lot of redistribution of funds. The federal plan as it now exists preserves some function for the private insurers, and of course, anyone who wanted to opt out and just pay a private insurer directly could do so, although I think transferability and portability of coverage ought to be extended to cover such people (otherwise it wouldn't be a "universal" plan). There is enough money being spent on health care, but it isn't buying what it ought to buy.
Posted by: Older | Sep 17, 2007 6:03:32 PM
I'm excited to hear about this. I love candidates like Mike Gravel & Dennis Kucinich but let's be realistic. Hillary, Obama, and Edwards are only real shots of getting any sort of health care reform... So I was definitely waiting to see what Hillary brought to the table and from you've said it looks like more than what I was expecting (if not quite what I was hoping for... see Kucinich's plan)
Posted by: Presidential Candidates | Sep 17, 2007 6:13:55 PM
One of the results of this plan, should it come to pass, will be to force consolidation in the insurance industry. With rates (and profits) effectively capped, health insurers will have to cut overhead to preserve shareholder returns.
Much of the administrative capacity of the industry will become redundant anyway due to the banning of coverage based on pre-existing illnesses, and the requirement of portability. There will simply be less need for the thousands of private-sector bureaucrats whose current job it is to refuse claims and deny coverage to the sick.
Hillary's plan will lead to a smaller number of bigger insurance companies, providing a more regulated and accessible service with greater efficiency, at lower overhead cost.
Single-payer is the way to go, but it isn't possible politically in America today. The fiscal underpinnings of this plan are somewhat sketchy (how do you compel participation by everybody through the tax code?), but the political logic is very shrewd: everybody gets to have what federal employees get, at a capped cost, without pre-conditions. That's smart.
Posted by: Donna Trump | Sep 17, 2007 6:23:08 PM
Ezra has described Hillary's plan as "very, very good". No way. Where is the money going to come from to avoid burdening moderate income Americans with premiums they can't afford or sticking them with insurance in name only that doesn't provide decent coverage of medical costs? Why guarantee America's health system will be 15% more expensive than it needs to be by keeping insurance companies in the picture? Why buy into the nonsense about individual responsiblity? Health care should be one of many socially guaranteed economic rights, financed through progressive taxes. Hillary's plan falls so far short of this ideal that it can best be described as barely mediocre. To be fair, the plans put forward by Edwards and Obama aren't much better. Physicians for a National Health Program, John Conyers and Dennis Kucinich have the right idea: single-payer health care. The top-tier Dem presidential candidates lack the courage to embrace it. They shouldn't be excused for their cowardice.
Posted by: Randy Silverman | Sep 17, 2007 6:43:40 PM
With rates (and profits) effectively capped, health insurers will have to cut overhead to preserve shareholder returns. - Donna Trump
What guarantees they'll cut overhead and not their quality of service? Anyway, even now, they still need to compete to preserve shareholder returns ... and how do they "cut costs"? By figuring out how to deny claims to everyone ... they figure they have the administrators hired anyway, so they might as well use them. It might not be rational, but businesses are not necessarily rational ... there is no market fairy bestoying rationality on people (of whom businesses are made) as soon as money gets involved. Indeed, anyone who's ever been involved in a contested will, divorce or such will tell you the opposite is true!
So what'll happen? Teh evil Hillary and her "socialized medicine" will be blamed for worse medical outcomes (cost-cutting) as well as laying off of administrators (who are people too).
I realize politically that we can't just jump to single payer (indeed, many of those who wanna just make the jump and keep wondering why health-care is tied to work really oughta learn their history -- they forget about the largely positive role that unions have played in at least making sure some people had health care!) ... but to talk of mandates, etc., is a political (as well as practical) looser too (even if you need some sort of mandate to be able to spread insurance costs).
I dunno what the solution is, but it probably would be best to make health care an ever expanding safety-net. First make sure people with "benefitless starter jobs" can get cheap health care with government subsidized clinics, emergency care, etc. (I'm being selfish here). Also first make sure every family gets this sort of health care (of course, it won't be as good or steady as employer provided health care, but make it better than what happens to the un-insured now) ... and exponentially (i.e. start out kinda slow but quickly increase the pace) increase the scope of the safety net until it covers us all.
Posted by: DAS | Sep 17, 2007 6:44:06 PM
One of the big costs health insurers have is redundant bureaucracies. I'm wondering what will be done to create a single, central patient tracking and billing system so that hospitals can get back to the business of healing patients instead of managing them.
Posted by: Steve | Sep 17, 2007 6:49:38 PM
Rich C:
"My sense is that most people without insurance have incomes that are too low for them to be paying income tax (and many of those do not file) so I'm not sure this makes sense as an enforcement mechanism. Presumably, uninsured people could be reported by emergency rooms and receive an initial warning together with info on plans and subsidies, to be followed by small fines for subsequent "violations." This strikes me as a weirdly punitive approach, but it would work."
Where I live, and I'm one of these uninsured poor people, the cost of living index for poverty status was put in place well over 20 years ago. So, it has little bearing on real cost of living. Of course, this is how they keep public health care costs down while also appearing to offer a safety net for those who can't afford coverage. But, that is the nature of our system, cut overhead while giving yourself political cover, all at the expense of the most vulnerable. So, despite an income of $9,000, the state says your share of monthly costs health care costs is over $150 because poverty is defined as earning less than $600 per month, before taxes.
As it applies to federal standards, IRS administration and enforcement, to the best of my knowledge there's little difference, particularly if you’re poor and self-employed or a contract laborer. So when you say the poor don't pay income tax, that's not necessarily a true picture. An adjusted gross income of around $9,000 produces an $1125 self-employment tax obligation. Since, as a practical matter, no one can live in the USA (with a roof over their head) on the remaining $7875, they enter the IRS payment program because coughing up $1,125 in SE taxes is simply wishful thinking. Add penalties and interest and that12.5% becomes 17%. Either way, failing to pay that $1125 will get you into the IRS’s delinquency system.
Do you see how this works? Unless there’s a redefinition of the federal poverty standard, the poor are going to offset or disproportionately underwrite the cost of any national health care program, either by not participating until forced to or by being required to pay more than is economically feasible, which will surely drive poor people further to the margins, if not underground.
Posted by: Titus Pullo | Sep 17, 2007 6:55:34 PM
It suddenly all comes clear to me: Hillary is afraid of the private insurance companies ("scars" you know). Just as she crapped out on the credit card bankruptcy bill (which earlier version she talked lame-duck hubby into vetoing) after receiving enough corporate contributions as a Senator (See Elizabeth Warren's book The Two Income Trap).
Extra paperwork adds to or is responsible for 30% of private insurance costs: 20% on the part of the insurance firm and 10% on the doctor trying to keep up with the firm.
So many competing plans and payment schedules and different lists of available drugs, not to mention procedure denying machinery make multiple sources of insurance as about as sensible as dozens of competing electricity companies with competing generators and wire grids.
Going the over-complicated route (which may please policy wonks if the complicated formula pleases them) tends to raise more questions with the general public than a simple Medicare-for-everyone (who wants it) formula -- and creates a terrific target for the Republican lying machine (and they are oh, so good at it). But, I suspect Hil is more worried about the opposition of special interests than with whether or not Americans get universal health care.
Posted by: Denis Drew | Sep 17, 2007 7:17:09 PM
"We'll never resolve our healthcare problems until we start addressing health. That will mean penalizing (and dropping subsidies for) unhealthy choices, offering real incentives for both producers and consumers of healthy choices, and emphasizing primary care, preventative medicine, and public health over expensive, land-a-man-on-the-moon elite medicine."
You make a good point, but it's my understanding the current health care costs are heavily weighted to preserving the last weeks of life. Until someone has the political courage to take on that issue, the matter universal coverage is doomed IMO.
The poor already understand this, only for the poor the calculus is a bit different. They really don't get to fade out comfortably in a fully equipped ICU plugged into the latest technology. If you're poor and contract a serious disease like cancer, it's likely to kill you in relatively short order. The civilized countries tend to mitigate the two options by doing what they can and when they can't do anymore more, give you your boarding papers with some compassion.
Posted by: Titus Pullo | Sep 17, 2007 7:21:50 PM
"Physicians for a National Health Program" is a joke. Less than one half of one percent of the physicians in this country have signed on to support their proposal. There is no reason they ought to have any more credibility than any other tiny think tank.
Posted by: akaka | Sep 17, 2007 7:51:04 PM
The point of government-guaranteed health care is to set a floor for health care services that everyone is entitled to. It is not to set a ceiling. And thus, there will be plenty of profits for private insurance companies that offer supplemental coverage.
Dilan Esper: what you're describing is more or less the role that private insurers play in France. While I think such an outcome would be desirable (and while I also think such an outcome might well be a possibility, in the fullness of time), the health insurance industry will not gladly participate in its relegation from major player to bit player. I guess what I'm trying to say is: I highly doubt the health insurance industry would agree with your assessment that offering supplemental coverage is likely to be a business that enables them to earn "plenty of profits."
I would like to suggest that we all wait for the reaction of the health insurance industry. If they embrace Clinton's proposal, maybe it would indeed be a sign that it's a plan deeply contrary to the country's health needs. My own guess, though, is that they won't care for this plan one little bit. Think they want Big Government telling them they've got to get out of the business of turning people away?
FEHB is affordable for Federal employees (and Congresspeople) because the Government pays most of the premium, about $315/mo for self only, about $715/mo for family on BCBS Standard. If you open it to others without subsidy, you'll see few takers. How big a subsidy can the tax system provide? That becomes a critical detail. Which isn't provided. I don't necessarily share Ezra's belief it will be reasonable.
jim: I agree it's a critical detail. Which is a good reason to elect liberal Democrats to Congress. Wouldn't it be something if a Clinton administration were forced to go further to the left than it wants to by the People's representatives?
Like Atrios, I still don't understand the point of individual mandates. If you're going to make everyone buy insurance, why not just do it the same way everyone 'buys' national defense - through our taxes?
Because right now we don't have the votes.
Right, just like personal mandates eliminated private auto insurance.
Fatherfigure: the auto insurance business doesn't face the same degree of challenge in controlling costs as the health insurance sector. One reason I'm willing to get behind this type of less than ideal plan is that any truly major shakeup in the status quo will, in my view, quickly begin to shift the landscape into one in which the contradictions will start to be heightened. If private health insurers genuinely are proscribed from denying people coverage, I think they'll quickly begin to go out of business, or be forced to merge. This obviously could create a lot of short term pain in an environment where coverage is significantly less than universal. But if the Clinton plan -- or any similar program -- can really get us to universal coverage -- it will create irresistible public pressure for the government to increase its involvement in the provision of healthcare when/if private insurers begins to flag. Simply put, Americans, once they've gotten a taste of true, guaranteed, you're always covered, universal healthcare access, won't willingly give it up.
In some respects I'd say we have similar degrees of faith in the American polity's ability to eventually give the country universal, government-guaranteed access to robust healthcare. It's just that you (apparently) think we can get it "upfront" and I, on the other hand, reckon the political economy of the United States means it is much more likely to come to pass after a transitory phase characterized by the type of compromise being proposed by Clinton and Edwards. To put it another way, we more or less are going through this "contradiction heightening" transitory phase (the gradual disintegration of the status quo) already. It's just that the aforementioned transitory phase basically consists of ever more millions of Americans losing or lacking access to decent healthcare. Eventually we'll make it through this transition and arrive at a solution comparable to those embraced by other rich countries. But it could be a good number of years yet (did anybody in 1993 think we'd still be dealing with millions of uninsured in 2007?). So in the interim I'd just as soon get everybody covered, even by the less than perfect, corporatist schemes being touted by centrists.
Posted by: Jasper | Sep 17, 2007 7:53:00 PM
Don't forget, next to Bush, Hillary runs second in the
amount of lobbyiest's money paid by insurance/medical
company. Yea, she did try to get universal healthcare
years ago, fought a battle, lost, but who is she fighting now, definately not insurance companies, federally mandated insurance, backed by insurance companies, subsidities, means cash flow to insurance companies. Remember Hillary said in her speech "affordable" health care for everybody,,,,, Titus how "affordable" can you take. We might not ever get real socialized medicine, or even single payer, but until we start cutting the apron strings the
govt has given insurance companies, our health care system will not improve and millions will still have no insurance,
Posted by: stan | Sep 17, 2007 8:03:50 PM
The question for Hillary and everyone else is, why is it necessary to give our money away to insurance companies to get us to universal coverage?
Bingo
Posted by: craigie | Sep 17, 2007 8:13:15 PM
The problem with these schemes is that they are happy to put requirements onto people ("you must buy health insurance") but they require nothing of insurance companies. Indeed, they give them more free money.
At the very least, the other side of the deal should be that any insurance company that wants to sell health insurance has to sell it at the same price to all comers. Although even then, all they would do is "compete" by denying every claim they received. Much as they do now.
Posted by: craigie | Sep 17, 2007 8:18:38 PM
I am struck by the fact the Americans can argue and eviscerate any program put before them. They are masters at cutting to bits anything politicians advance. I am here in Canada, a cancer patient. I received the best care, got over my illness - 10 years now - and enjoy good health. What is it in the American psyche that produces so much nonsense. No Canadian goes without essential health care. Sure we don't have cosmetic surgery for free. But you are supposed to be the greatest nation in the world, with a whole lot of educated people but when it comes to health care you behave like a bunch of idiots. I lived in France and England and never wanted for medical attention. I cannot say the same for the US. You can send cruise missiles to a pinpointed destinations. You can be generous to tsunami victims - Good God you can be totally generous - your Navy did wonderful things then - you can help earth quake victims in Pakistan. So how come you cannot help the people of New Orleans or yourselves when it comes to health care?
Posted by: bp | Sep 17, 2007 8:18:53 PM
I'm still waiting for anybody to put forth a plan to deal with our huge primary care physician shortage which will only be made worse with universal access, not to metion our nursing shortage and how incredibly fat and lazy the American lifestyle is now. If you have a health insurance card and there is no doctor or nurse to take care of you does it really matter?
Posted by: Dingo | Sep 17, 2007 8:19:44 PM
Dilan Esper: what you're describing is more or less the role that private insurers play in France. While I think such an outcome would be desirable (and while I also think such an outcome might well be a possibility, in the fullness of time), the health insurance industry will not gladly participate in its relegation from major player to bit player.
Jasper:
I don't expect the health insurance industry to gladly participate in any reform. But that doesn't mean that Hillary's plans-- whether in 1994 or 2007-- aren't designed to ensure that lots of government subsidies end up in the pockets of health insurers rather than paying for care. They are so designed.
In any event, I don't think it is accurate to say that the insurance industry is a "bit player" in my scheme-- Medicare supplemental insurance is big business. I would expect supplemental insurance over the government's scheme would also be big business. They just wouldn't get the extra money from being able to skim profits from government subsidies.
Posted by: Dilan Esper | Sep 17, 2007 8:19:57 PM
But BP why does the Canadian Prime Minister to be come to the good ole USA to have here surgery done if we are so substandard in regards to healthcare? She let her feet do the talking in that regard on to which system is better.
Posted by: Dingo | Sep 17, 2007 8:23:02 PM
How do tax credits pay for the insurance of unemployed people? What happens to people who don't enroll in a plan? And as for anti-selection, Hillary's covered about 2% of the issue by preventing loss of coverage for already insured people. What about those who aren't? The insurance companies will dump every bad risk on the government. Like they always do. This plan stinks. Hillary should just become a lobbyist for Humanna.
Posted by: Benedict@Large | Sep 17, 2007 8:37:19 PM
Posted by: Joshua | Sep 17, 2007 3:56:21 PM
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. First, everyone gets insured. Then, insurance companies get phased out as Americans realize the government *can* insure people better and cheaper.It's the only way it's gonna happen here.
You're describing Edwards plan there ... he has the option for everyone in a Health Market to buy a public plan if they wish.
As described, Hillary has the option to buy into publically regulated private plans.
Posted by: BruceMcF | Sep 17, 2007 8:40:48 PM
In any event, I don't think it is accurate to say that the insurance industry is a "bit player" in my scheme-- Medicare supplemental insurance is big business.
Dilan: Maybe I'm misinterpreting your plan, but if you're talking about abolishing private insurers in favor of single payer, and then "allowing" them to offer supplementals, then, yeah, I'll stand by my "bit player" assessment. Private health insurance in the US is a $700 billion industry. Getting them out of the picture when it comes to funneling dollars to pay for healthcare (in favor of of a mere supplemental role) would surely mean a massive reduction in the industry's size. I mean, paying for the upgrade to a private room is a lot smaller role than paying for the chemotherapy and the surgeon's bill.
Again, while your position obviously has a lot of merit in principal, it also quite obviously is going to attract the furious opposition of a powerful sector that understandably will object to being largely legislated out of existence. And I reckon that simply makes it exceedingly unlikely to get such a plan enacted any time soon. Waiting another thirteen years for UHC wouldn't be the end of the world. Unless you're an American who lacks insurance. In which case it may well mean premature death.
Posted by: Jasper | Sep 17, 2007 8:41:42 PM
Posted by: Jon Willits | Sep 17, 2007 5:18:09 PM
I don't get how tax credits help the truly poor, when they are not really paying taxes anyway.
That's tax deductions you are thinking of. That's why any serious effort to use the funnel subsidy for premiums (for private plans in Hillary's plan, for a choice between public and private plans, in Edwards plan) involves tax credits rather than tax deductions.
Posted by: BruceMcF | Sep 17, 2007 8:45:23 PM
Posted by: BruceMcF | Sep 17, 2007 8:40:48 PM
As described, Hillary has the option to buy into publically regulated private plans.
Too tired, she has both access to publically regulated private plans and access to a plan modelled on Medicare. Looks like time to grab some shut eye.
Posted by: BruceMcF | Sep 17, 2007 8:54:31 PM
Dilan, your point is an important one--there is plenty of money to be made selling the butter, once our taxes have funded a slice of the bread for everyone.
For instance, couldn't the insurers make a killing--pun intended--selling any boomer who wants it a 'full coverage end of life policy'? You know, we're going to cover basic needs for everyone of all ages, and if you want to be sure that a hospital will extend every bell and whistle in the last weeks of life, buy a Continue-to-Resuscitate policy. Seriously, offer hospice in the home with adequate pain control as the Chevy option for dying people, with the Caddy option being an extra they can choose to pay for.
Or how about the ever-growing long term care industry?
There is plenty of money to be made by scaring the hell out of people about problems they may never have. Supplemental insurance sold to those who currently have the basics under an employer plan is big business.
Posted by: PhoenixRising | Sep 17, 2007 8:55:03 PM
bp: "I am struck by the fact the Americans can argue and eviscerate any program put before them. They are masters at cutting to bits anything politicians advance."
Dude, you are sooooo right. Nearly wall to wall wankers on this comment board. Yours is the most cogent post here. However, I suspect it's Cyberspace comment board culture, not just American culture.
Both Edwards' and HRC's proposals are 100% better than the graft-fest we currently have in U.S. health care. And all the 'netroots' can do is holler about how much they hate Hillary. Yawn. Everybody forgets to total crushing she took during her original health care proposals 5-6 years back. Lass has courage (as do Edwards and Obama).
Posted by: Bob | Sep 17, 2007 9:02:39 PM
Waiting another thirteen years for UHC wouldn't be the end of the world. Unless you're an American who lacks insurance. In which case it may well mean premature death.
For a chronically ill person who doesn't have access to group insurance, 13 years may be a lifetime under the present system. As soon as a candidate explains to me how that person (in this case my wife) is going to be better off under his/her plan, I will quit my job and travel the country explaining it to others.
However, this plan has the same hole in it as the current system: Anyone who isn't covered by an employer provided plan is going to get screwed, but this time we have to pay for it monthly.
The for-profit insurance companies are going to fight every damn dollar they are required to pay out to providers, until the minute they are forced into a different business by a single-payer plan. Any reform that doesn't account for that reality is not going to extend care to those who are currently not covered, nor contain costs.
If you're self-employed and have insurance today, anytime you need to use that insurance you have to spend days on the phone and writing letters, getting the vendor to comply with its contractual obligations to you, the customer. Meanwhile, diagnostic care is being denied and collectors are calling to try to get paid for any critical care that's been used.
The definition of what my insurance company exists to do is not going to change under this plan; they will still be an organization devoted to maximizing shareholder profit. Requiring me to do business with one of these privateering outfits, by law, is an insane suggestion.
And if you think it's unrealistic to sell a bunch of cranky, broke, formerly middle-class Midwesterners single payer, try selling them mandatory health insurance that requires them to buy it and get paid back later. By the government.
"Everyone is now covered by Medicare, buy a supplement or go to a pay-to-play doctor if you want shorter waiting times for an appointment' is simpler to say and understand.
Posted by: PhoenixRising | Sep 17, 2007 9:15:50 PM
You guys are missing the forest from the trees. This plan does NOTHING to contain costs.
Take a look around the world sometime guys. There is only one proven model to reduce costs, and thats a single payer model. No private payer model has EVER resulted in reduced costs in any nation on earth. Let me say that again: there does not exist a single example anywhere in the world where a private healthcare industry resulted in reduced costs, not a single fucking one.
The only way that nations have EVER been able to reduce costs is with a single payer monopsony with strict price controls in place.
Mark my words: you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until Hillary's plan takes hold. The rate of increase in healthcare costs is going to go UP, not down with this plan.
Its time to quit fucking around and move to a single payer socialized medical system. Solve the fucking problem people. Its the costs, dummies.
This Hillary plan is identical to the giveaway to the private pharma industry, except in this case its even worse because its a direct giveaway of hundreds of billions of dollars to inefficient middlemen (insurers) who provide absolutely no real value to the system. AT least big pharma actually provides a valuable commodity (the drugs). The insuranse sector is gettting paid billions of dollars to do nothing more than shuffle paperwork around and figure out how to make their CEOs rich.
Posted by: joe blow | Sep 17, 2007 9:41:21 PM
One of the important counterarguments against right-wing propaganda against national health care such as Hillary's plan/s is this: they will talk about "how much it costs" as if the program cost was an *additional* expenditure by the public. Of course, the true effective cost is how much her program costs minus what we already pay now. You might be surprised how often they actually try to generate confusion over this issue, and how many duhds actually fall for it.
Also, you hear complaints about "choice" being taken away. But we always have choice from among whatever options exist. The real question is: how desirable to most of us are the options and their consequences?
Posted by: Neil' | Sep 17, 2007 9:41:44 PM
The government can create a public re-insurer, which deliberately takes over from private insurance, individuals, who have developed chronic conditions, which make them uninsurable.
Depending on the terms, this is a way to phase out private insurance, or to make it possible for private insurance companies to be less intensely discriminatory.
Posted by: Bruce Wilder | Sep 17, 2007 10:05:29 PM
Rich C:
My sense is that most people without insurance have incomes that are too low for them to be paying income tax (and many of those do not file) so I'm not sure this makes sense as an enforcement mechanism.
Your sense would be wrong.
http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/05/uninsured-cps/index.htm#income
Posted by: Lauren | Sep 17, 2007 10:18:23 PM
Rich C:
My sense is that most people without insurance have incomes that are too low for them to be paying income tax (and many of those do not file) so I'm not sure this makes sense as an enforcement mechanism.
Your sense would be wrong.
http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/05/uninsured-cps/index.htm#income
Posted by: Lauren | Sep 17, 2007 10:19:06 PM
Why does she want universal INSURANCE but not universal CARE???
Because she is a corporate whore like the rest of them....we are ALL completely screwed, folks.
Posted by: Nick, Phoenix, AZ | Sep 17, 2007 10:27:29 PM
I don't think any plan that equates the public welfare with corporate welfare deserves support. Nor do I think it politically expedient in a democratic context. Government should not play sugar daddy to corporate interests under the guise of serving the public health.
Posted by: WB Reeves | Sep 17, 2007 10:35:43 PM
"In some respects I'd say we have similar degrees of faith in the American polity's ability to eventually give the country universal, government-guaranteed access to robust healthcare. It's just that you (apparently) think we can get it "upfront" and I, on the other hand, reckon the political economy of the United States means it is much more likely to come to pass after a transitory phase characterized by the type of compromise being proposed by Clinton and Edwards."
If we are arguing about strategy, I must state that it is wildly counterintuitive to give more resources to the very actor that prevents change. Its like arming the Sunnies in Anbar; they aren't just going to hand back their guns and say, "thanks; time to take our place as second-class citizens!" The insurance companies will use these resources to capture the system, making it more regressive and profitable, while simultaneously attempting to poison public attitudes about single payer or nationalized plans. That doesn't seem beneficial.
Posted by: Father Figure | Sep 18, 2007 12:44:17 AM
For those who believe in markets, or ehem, reality, the Guiliani plan is far better.
RG calls for ending the balkanization of the insurance industry that defers regulation to the states, opening up a national market for health insurance, with a basic benefit standard that can be offered anywhere in the country -- even where states currently mandate higher levels of benefits, greater intrusion into markets, and special rights for favored constituencies. States could enact alternatives, but they would have to compete with the national standard.
Posted by: apetra | Sep 18, 2007 2:32:21 AM
For those who believe in markets, or ehem, reality, the Guiliani plan is far better.
My god, it only took eighty posts for someone to say something really stupid.
Posted by: mightygodking | Sep 18, 2007 3:25:57 AM
Father Figure:
Right, just like personal mandates eliminated private auto insurance.
It's not the personal mandates that are the beautifully subversive part of this proposal, it's that it sets up a national health insurance system on an opt-in basis. If it genuinely IS more effective (and we have every reason to hope it will be), then we may eventually see the HMO industry phased out-- and the market will do most of the heavy lifting for us. I'd love to see a system with a state-guaranteed base and an optional private supplementary component, along the lines of the French model-- but it seems politically untenable.
This is all the more true when you consider that HRC is running as the Democratic candidate furthest to the right. Since she's likely to win, and since it's better than Obama's plan and close to as good as Edwards, I'm happy that she's been backed into a political corner and essentially forced to come out with at least some version of a universal plan. She did NOT want to do this, and it's a testament to the base that her feet have been held to the fire.
I do hope we follow Ezra's advice and implement a German-style tax on over-healthy risk pools. That would go some ways towards making this more workable.
Posted by: Anthony Damiani | Sep 18, 2007 3:55:39 AM
Everybody forgets to total crushing she took during her original health care proposals 5-6 years back.
14 years, not 5-6.
That's a political eternity.
Posted by: Anthony Damiani | Sep 18, 2007 4:04:12 AM
Yet any attempts to cut them off from the trough gets met with fierce, fierce resistant. They're not going anywhere.
Instead of a campaign team trying to come up with a fast ad response to the commercials the protection racket industry would air (I recall them from the last time), the Democratic nominee would be able to call upon thousands of video creators to fashion an effective response.
That's a huge amount of talent that's been added to their quiver. And 2 out of 3 Americans would be eager to support any archer with the backbone to launch that fight.
Remember, the free market of insurers has had the same number of years to resolve the crisis as governments have had. The notion that any industry is beholden only to produce profits for shareholders while neglecting the needs of customers is extremist capitalism, lacking a moral compass.
They've failed their customers. Neither healthcare nor healthcare access has been improved by their approach. So is it the responsibility of government to launch a program as complicated as our income tax regulations just to please a poorly performing industry?
Government exists to serve all, not the few. And the demand for a solution has grown to a point that can easily surpass anything insurers could muster in response.
In any legislative effort, if you begin by aiming for halfway, you usually settle for less at the end of the legislative process. So the Big Three should be aiming for far more. If the end result's like this, okay, that's a decent advance. But we're going to get far less if this is their opening salvo.
Since this is a chief criticism of Hilary's past performance, you'd think after 14 years before getting her shot at a do-over, she'd be putting up something that would make her detractors cheer.
Oh well, she may prove electable even without us more stubborn liberals. But I suspect we control more votes than the insurers do.
Posted by: Kevin Hayden | Sep 18, 2007 7:35:59 AM
One thing I would like to see as part of this plan is greater government regulation of the private plans, so Americans are not subjected to the kinds of arbitrary payment denials that Jane Hamsher is describing on her blog.
Posted by: bob h | Sep 18, 2007 7:50:15 AM
The reason for Hillary or any Democratic candidate to pull back from calling for a single-payer solution, which doesn't have the flaws of this proposal, is that it will be very difficult politically to achieve.
Does anyone think for one moment that the insurance, health care and pharma lobbies will sit still for even a halfway measure like this plan? Hardly. They will fight ANY reasonable health care plan tooth and nail, so why not go for the best possible plan if you intend to take them on? Why give up before you even start? (Sorry, forgot that was the DLC position).
A strong leader would get out there and say that health care is a human right and an essential need of society and should not be run for profit. A strong leader would say openly that the insurance companies are adding nothing to our health and costing us billions. We need a strong leader in 2008, not someone whose initial position in a negotiation is to triangulate.
We also have to factor in the Clinton family track record on proposals to help working people. Like her husband, Hillary talks the talk but there's no evidence that she walks the walk.
Posted by: Charles Dunaway | Sep 18, 2007 8:27:02 AM
I don't get samchevre's point above about $2000/month for a family of four. He arrives at that figure by saying that's what people pay now for health care... so what does that have to do with anyone's proposal in particular?
Posted by: LN | Sep 18, 2007 8:31:12 AM
110 BILLION dollars a year is the figure that I have heard about the Hillary plan's cost to the federal government.
Is that accurate?
Posted by: El Viajero | Sep 18, 2007 8:48:45 AM
I don't get samchevre's point above about $2000/month for a family of four. He arrives at that figure by saying that's what people pay now for health care... so what does that have to do with anyone's proposal in particular?
That's what people pay ON AVERAGE, but almost all families with children pay much much less, because the children are young,a nd so cheap to insure.
Any plan that bars pricing based on demographics increases costs for younger people and decreases them for older people. This really really sucks for familes with children.
Posted by: SamChevre | Sep 18, 2007 9:14:28 AM
The insurance companies will use these resources to capture the system, making it more regressive and profitable, while simultaneously attempting to poison public attitudes about single payer or nationalized plans.
I disagree. I think being forced to issue a policy to every applicant -- regardless of preexisting conditions -- will so fundamentally alter their business plans that private health insurers will a) pretty quickly begin to resemble public utilities and/or b) pretty quickly begin to collapse. This is especially true in light of the provision for Americans to be able to opt for FEHBP. This is a very good first start. It may be far from perfect, but it's politically feasible. And in the final analysis, if you really want to proceed directly to single payer (I think a Hillarycare-style system may well collapse/evolve into single payer in due course), you need to improve the concept's political viability. And the first place to start is to get a single viable candidate to propose it.
Posted by: Jasper | Sep 18, 2007 9:27:20 AM
"It's not the personal mandates that are the beautifully subversive part of this proposal, it's that it sets up a national health insurance system on an opt-in basis."
The personal mandates are going to be incredibly unpopular with the middle class, and with the young and healthy. They constitute a massive subsidization of the health insurance industry; forced payments to private companies. That eliminates the vilification of the insurance industry as a political issue, and I believe that such would be an incredibly sucessful issue.
"If it genuinely IS more effective (and we have every reason to hope it will be), then we may eventually see the HMO industry phased out-- and the market will do most of the heavy lifting for us."
I doubt that it will be. Insurance companies will "select" the government's advantange away. As for the assertion that single payer or nationalized health systems are impractical, I assert that the neo-liberals' constant defeatism on these issues deleteriously affects public support for them. We have to try to go in through the back door, which causes the public to distrust us. Let's stop playing games, and elect a candidate who actually believes in social justice.
Posted by: Father Figure | Sep 18, 2007 9:36:16 AM
For a chronically ill person who doesn't have access to group insurance, 13 years may be a lifetime under the present system. As soon as a candidate explains to me how that person (in this case my wife) is going to be better off under his/her plan, I will quit my job and travel the country explaining it to others.
Well, for starters, no insurance firm would be able to deny your wife coverage. This is a pretty major change over the status quo. Secondly, by law she would be able to join the same type of gold-plated plan covering members of congress. Again, that's major.
However, this plan has the same hole in it as the current system: Anyone who isn't covered by an employer provided plan is going to get screwed, but this time we have to pay for it monthly.
Such a person will be "screwed" to far lesser degree than with the status quo. By law the size of their premium will be capped according to a percentage of income. And again, they'll be insured. Many people under the status quo can't get covered at any price. Indeed there are millions of them.
Posted by: Jasper | Sep 18, 2007 9:46:02 AM
We have to try to go in through the back door, which causes the public to distrust us.
If Americans were some day in the future able to enjoy an efficient, robust, nationalized healthcare system, why would they "distrust us" for having taken a circuitous route to get there? I would imagine, if the system were indeed such an improvement over the status quo, they'd be delighted to have finally arrived there, and grateful to the party that started the country on the road to much-needed reform.
Posted by: Jasper | Sep 18, 2007 9:59:33 AM
Lauren
that chart doesn't show what you seem to think it does.
i read it as 71% of the uninsured having incomes below 200% of the FPL. This is a group, as Rich C notes, that will have trivial-to-no income tax liability.
re: SamChevre's calculations, HRC's plan, whatever its other flaws/virtues, doesn't touch the 45% of current spending currently done by public plans. So, right away your calculation regarding premiums is off by around a factor of two.
Plus, of private costs, about 20% or more are paid out-of-pocket, and, it's not clear that the HRC plan does a whole lot to change this.
That premium is starting to look a bit more reasonable to me.
Posted by: josh bivens | Sep 18, 2007 10:19:04 AM
Yes, Jasper, people will distrust us. It would be nice if the Democratic party stopped attempting to trick the voters, and started to actually stand up for what it believes in. The party might be able to shift public opinion, if it acted honestly.
"And again, they'll be insured. Many people under the status quo can't get covered at any price. Indeed there are millions of them."
Yes, they will be insured because Senator Clinton will tell them to buy insurance!! That's not progressive, or positive. The price at which they will be forced to purchase ever-increasing insurance will be much, much higher than most can afford. Assume a single male, who makes $20,000 per year (double the poverty level). That's $1,666 per month. If the cap is set low, at 5%, that's $1,000 out of his pocket that he isn't currently spending. If he's healthy for the entire year, he is wasting $1,000 that he clearly needs. He will hate the Democratic party for forcing him to spend that money, and he will be quite receptive to Republican advances about "freedom" and the like. Individual mandates to purchase private insurance are not progressive, and they will come back to haunt the party in the future.
Posted by: Father Figure | Sep 18, 2007 10:25:42 AM
Yes, Jasper, people will distrust us. It would be nice if the Democratic party stopped attempting to trick the voters, and started to actually stand up for what it believes in. The party might be able to shift public opinion, if it acted honestly.
This is the 'Nanny' mentality of the party. It smacks of elitism and Leona Helmsley-ism with disdain and disregard for the governed. Few in the party believe that the people have a right to make these decisions.
Father Figure is correct. If the party stood on solid moral ground and exercised leadership instead of looking to maximize their short term popularity at all costs, they would do better. I believe people respond to honesty.
Posted by: El Viajero | Sep 18, 2007 12:25:55 PM
The federal government forceing a person to buy insurance from a private-for-profit entity. A true progressive should have a problem with that. I know I do. It sounds like a symbiotic relationship between government and the corporate powers that be.If we are going to have universal health care then a Canadian-style single payer system is the way to go. We have national defence paid for through taxes.We have schools paid for through taxes.Also public roads,police,parks,libraries,etc.etc,etc.But when someone suggests public health care there are people who scream "socialism". A single-payer system would not do away with private-for-profit hospitals, People could still go to private health care providers if they can afford to.But Hillary should stop calling mandated insurance "universal health care"and call it what it is.
Posted by: Dan P. | Sep 18, 2007 12:51:29 PM
Republic Jasper:
"If we are protecting Americans by violating the constitution, why would the public "distrust us" for having taken a circuitous route to protect them?"
When non-politicoes get a whiff of this attitude, they become cynical about politics in general, for good reason.
Posted by: Father Figure | Sep 18, 2007 1:15:49 PM
But Hillary should stop calling mandated insurance "universal health care"and call it what it is.
If coverage is indeed universal, why does the mere presence of private insurers make calling it "universal health care" a misnomer -- especially when these firms are heavily regulated along the lines of public utilities? Obviously the devils in the details, and, for starters, there's that little matter of actually taking back the White House. Still, if everybody got covered, and the coverage is decent, I fail to see why it wouldn't reasonably be called "universal". Folks, a preference for single payer on liberal health care blogs isn't the same as a preference for it among the general public -- much less a sufficient number of votes in the congress. And again, to point out the obvious, single payer is not yet on offer. Not by Hillary Clinton. Not by Barrack Obama. And not by John Edwards.
Posted by: Jasper | Sep 18, 2007 1:27:56 PM
Yes, Jasper, people will distrust us. It would be nice if the Democratic party stopped attempting to trick the voters, and started to actually stand up for what it believes in.
I'm not talking about "tricking" voters. I'm talking about doing what is politically feasible. To. Get. Everybody. Covered. Now. So that fewer people, you know, like, die from lack of adequate access to health care. I just happen to think that a substantive reform of the type being discussed is likely to lead in short order to further reforms. I could be wrong. Heck, for all I know Americans will be so delighted with their newfangled universal health care access -- and the underlying economics so fundamentally strong -- that the political pressure necessary to force more radical change won't materialize. I wouldn't have a problem with that. Would you?
Posted by: Jasper | Sep 18, 2007 1:37:14 PM
About every state has mandated car insurance but nobody calls it "universal car insurance". Away,no government forces anyone to own a car.If someone doesn't pay his insurance premium,he loses the right to drive that car.What does Ms. Clinton expect to do with the people who will not or can't pay their health insurance premiums? Does she think they lose the right to live? Does she want to put them in jail? What about the people who work for 7 or 8 dollars an hour and are having a hard time paying their electric bill,gas for their car,car insurance,rent,etc.The DLC does not want to represent those people and the Clinton plan is right out of the DLC playbook.Democrats used to care about the little guy.And if the Democratic party will not include him,who will?
Posted by: Dan P. | Sep 18, 2007 2:08:48 PM
The personal mandates are going to be incredibly unpopular with the middle class, and with the young and healthy. They constitute a massive subsidization of the health insurance industry; forced payments to private companies.
1) Any universal healthcare proposal will represent a shift of resources towards the old and the sick. This does not vary whether you call the fee a tax or you call it a premium.
2) It's NOT a forced payment to private companies, because it creates a public option. Yes, it's a hybrid system, but because this is America, there are going to be a lot of people who do not and will not trust the government to manage the program effectively. Say what you will about defeatism, that's just the way it is-- and these people are going to deeply resent it if you cut off all market opportunities. So: either you can pay the fee to the government, or you can opt out and pay to private companies.
3) Insurance companies will "select" the government's advantange away.
amusingly, the government gets to set all sorts of standards here which limit that-- and are strengthened under the Hillary/Edwards proposals. No discrimination for previous conditions, the ability to keep your insurance if you change jobs (which bolsters labor), and an increase in st
4) You seem to be advocating a pure single payer system, along the lines of the Canadian or British models. The right has spent decades trying to reduce all healthcare alternatives to those two, while poisoning them in the public mind. And, to be really honest, I don't think those are the best systems to emulate. The French, German
Posted by: Anthony Damiani | Sep 18, 2007 2:27:38 PM
(Sorry, hit the button by accident)
The personal mandates are going to be incredibly unpopular with the middle class, and with the young and healthy. They constitute a massive subsidization of the health insurance industry; forced payments to private companies.
1) Any universal healthcare proposal will represent a shift of resources towards the old and the sick. This does not vary whether you call the fee a tax or you call it a premium.
2) It's NOT a forced payment to private companies, because it creates a public option. Yes, it's a hybrid system, but because this is America, there are going to be a lot of people who do not and will not trust the government to manage the program effectively. Say what you will about defeatism, that's just the way it is-- and these people are going to deeply resent it if you cut off all market opportunities. So: either you can pay the fee to the government, or you can opt out and pay to private companies.
3) Insurance companies will "select" the government's advantange away.
amusingly, the government gets to set all sorts of standards here which limit that-- and are strengthened under the Hillary/Edwards proposals. No discrimination for previous conditions, the ability to keep your insurance if you change jobs (which bolsters labor), and an increase in standards. IF the standards to which they are held involve at least as much coverage as available under the state plan (that is, they are de facto supplementary plans), the dynamics should look pretty close to the French model. IF some sort of penalty is placed on insurers who cherry-pick healthy pools, it should look pretty similar to the German system.
4) You seem to be advocating a pure single payer system, along the spent decades tryinlines of the Canadian or British models. The right has g to reduce all healthcare alternatives to those two, while poisoning them in the public mind. Add the fact that they're genuinely vulnerable to charges of state rationing, and you have something that a lot of people are going to resent-- that's how they killed it in 93. Even beyond the politics, they're probably not the ideal models to emulate-- there are good healthcare systems out there with a substantial private component.
Posted by: Anthony Damiani | Sep 18, 2007 2:37:26 PM
Senator Clinton's plan has a fundamental flaw.
Simply this. People who are stretched too thin to afford paying medical insurance premiums NOW - are going to be stretched too thin to pay medical insurance premiums tomorrow, next week, next year, whenever. SO they will go without insurance.
And just as they do now, they will avoid going to doctors even when they are very sick. I know that when I was unemployed and uninsured that is what I did. And had I become fatally ill - I would have died.
This type of BS program only brings us another step closer to a return of the "Serf" system of the middle ages. $300/month additional to my current bills would be impossible to absorb. (Based on the $1200/family of 4 divided by 4). The question becomes "food, or health insurance?"
The ONLY equitable solution is a non-insurance, government program. The republicans have, however, always insisted that this is a slippery slope toward communism, however, so don't hold your breath waiting for a program like the ones in the UK or France.
Posted by: Sewmouse | Sep 18, 2007 2:55:50 PM
"Any universal healthcare proposal will represent a shift of resources towards the old and the sick. This does not vary whether you call the fee a tax or you call it a premium."
Well, from the fact that you ignored my point, Ill assume you agree with it. A single payer, or nationalized, system that is paid for with general revenues would not be nearly as noticable, especially if it were funded with a sharlpy progressive income tax (say, a return to our rates before Kemp-Rothman). The individual mandate will be seen (accurately) as a system that maintains the outrageous costs of the current system, forces those costs on people who can opt out of the pool, and does so in a manner that benefits one of the most unpopular institutions in the US, the health insurance industry. If I were a conservative operative, I would be salivating at the opportunity to turn back the gains the Democratic party has made with the young. I am a relatively "young person," and I am friends with many people who could never afford an extra $100 a month. To have a technocratic nanny force them to do so, while simultaneously taking away their guns and their smokes? Unpopular barely begins to describe it.
Yes, people will be able to choose a public plan, but the public plan will likely be run similarly to private plans. It will advertise, determine coverage, and do all the other nasty things that increase administrative costs. Private insurers will entice me (and my friends) by using new actuarial tools to find preexisting conditions without asking the question directly, and thus offering cheaper policies.
"the ability to keep your insurance if you change jobs"
What does that even mean? I have that "ability" now, if I pay for it, through COBRA. The premiums are so high that, when I looked into that three years ago, I actually laughed out loud. This is meaningless, unless you mean, "the ability to receive free health care if you change jobs."
"The right has g to reduce all healthcare alternatives to those two, while poisoning them in the public mind."
Those are the best alternatives, and if neo-liberals would refrain from constantly conceding the issue to the right wing, we would probably have one of them today. Look, Democrats in 93 failed to implement health care reform, because they were scared of the voters. How did that work out for them? Republicans are shwoing us right now that the American public will punish legislators who appear feckless and desparate more than they will punish ideologues who ignore public opinion.
Posted by: Father Figure | Sep 18, 2007 3:06:51 PM
Let's suppose you're seriously ill and unable to work and don't have the money to purchase any health insurance at all, whether from the government or from private insurance companies. Would this plan cover you? Any serious health plan has to assume that if you're ill you don't have any money to pay for health care. That is the crux of the entire problem. This isn't a "health plan", it's a plan to increase corporate profits, which is what you would expect from the Clintons (and the rest of the Democrats).
Posted by: mikep | Sep 18, 2007 3:34:21 PM
1) Any universal healthcare proposal will represent a shift of resources towards the old and the sick. This does not vary whether you call the fee a tax or you call it a premium.
That's true, but there are two points I think you are overlooking.
1) A per-person fee is the most regressive tax there is, and that's the structure this has.
2) Many people deal with the cost issue by "under-insuring"--not buying the best possible coverage. This plan makes that impossible.
Posted by: SamChevre | Sep 18, 2007 3:48:37 PM
Those are the best alternatives
I don't believe they are. That model has "a high floor and a low ceiling," unlike the French or German models which avoid the social injustices without the "ceiling" of potential state rationing.
1) A per-person fee is the most regressive tax there is, and that's the structure this has.
A good point, and I'm concerned by that as well. A per-person fee capped to a percentage of income (and offset by subsidies) may be a different kettle of fish. Now, what that percentage IS, mind you (and whether that scales progressively or not) is definitely one of those devil-in-the-details things.
Posted by: Anthony Damiani | Sep 18, 2007 8:40:45 PM
Dennis Kucinich offers an alternative to the mandated insurance plans of the frontrunners. Their plans will make the insurance companies richer while the quality of care continues to suffer. The Kucinich plan is single-payer, not-for-profit health insurance. It takes the money that is currently being wasted on paperwork, insurance company profits and ridiculous executive compensation and directs those dollars directly toward patient care. This is the only way we can cover everyone with a high quality of care and keep it affordable and sustainable. However, Dennis Kucinich is being ignored by the media and shut out of the debates. People don't even understand that there is an alternative. It's really tragic and sad. The other candidates say we can't have a single-payer system because the private insurance companies are too powerful. How is it that we they could vote to allow President Bush the authority to wage war to supposedly overthrow terrorists if they don't even believe we have the power to overthrow the insurance companies in our own country? There are six times as many people that die every year from lack of insurance as there were that died from the tragedy that occurred on 9-11, and it happens year after year. That doesn't include the number that die because of insurance company procedure denials, too-short hospital stays, etc., and none of those problems will be solved with patchwork solutions. Technically, we are at more risk of dying because of the practices of insurance companies than we are of dying at the hands of foreign terrorists. Think about it. The frontrunning Democrats seem most concerned about coming up with a plan to satisfy those that have profited from this horror of human suffering. Please stop listening to the media. They won't give adequate or fair coverage to Kucinich because their sponsors don't want them to. Look at the advertisements. Think about who the sponsors are. Then think for yourself. Research the Kucinich position on health care. If you truly believe that people are more important than profits, vote for Dennis Kucinich.
Posted by: Cheryl Emmons | Sep 18, 2007 9:47:47 PM
They don't cover him because Kucinich isn't really a candidate for president, he's a parasite attempting to use it the process to promote his own (generally worthy) issues. He has roughly the same chance of becoming president this cycle as I do.
Posted by: Anthony Damiani | Sep 19, 2007 2:55:15 AM
Under what constitutional authority does Clinton believe the federal government has the right to force the governed to purchase health insurance??
Posted by: El Viajero | Sep 19, 2007 7:25:28 AM
"Under what constitutional authority does Clinton believe the federal government has the right to force the governed to purchase health insurance??"
Good point. Driving is a privilege which can be withheld if you don't insure your vehicle. Under what constitutional section could the federal government order people to purchase anything? Could such a mandate even violate one of the first ten amendments -- the Bill of Rights? Sounds like something for a constitutional law professor or two to seriously tackle.
Posted by: Denis Drew | Sep 19, 2007 11:33:10 AM
Hillary's answer to constitutional authority for mandate?:
AP
She said she could envision a day when "you have to show proof to your employer that you're insured as a part of the job interview â?? like when your kid goes to school and has to show proof of vaccination," but said such details would be worked out through negotiations with Congress.
Posted by: Denis Drew | Sep 19, 2007 12:24:24 PM
"Mandate" that I purchase health care? Mandate! The word enfuriates me. I will not be mandated anything--particularly in the form of yet another socialist program. Since FDR opened the door to socialism we have crept closer and closer to the communist ideal. Revolution is what's being mandated.
Posted by: bill | Sep 19, 2007 3:13:47 PM
I trust this socialist medical care system as much as I would trust sending my child to an inner city public school. (actually, even less because I can make up for some of educational shortcomings by teaching my kid myself). I cannot make up for low quality healthcare providers, which would be what we end up with: Dr.'s being provided a minimal salary (considering their extensive schooling) by the government or hospital to do just enough not to keep their job, as in any government controlled bureaucracy.
What ever happened to market competition? The whole health care system competition went out the door in the late 60s when Medicare and Medicaid were introduced. As soon as someone OTHER than the market providers of a service (Dr.'s) set prices and people shop for the best value (price vs quality) based on their needs - the system started breaking down. On top of that, frivolous lawsuits forced Dr.'s to provide unnecessary treatment and procedures to cover their ass in case they were sued.
Posted by: Michael | Sep 19, 2007 3:31:03 PM
Thanks to the reader who reminds us of the Constitution. Yes, we have one, don't we? How can Hillary force us to but health insurance as a prerequisite to work? Where is this allowed in that great document?
Posted by: Dr. John | Sep 19, 2007 8:06:14 PM
Michael,
Actually doctors' incomes went up 20% after so-called "socialist" Medicare and Medicade were introduced. Of late -- 1995 through 2003 -- doctor's incomes have dropped 7% while average (per capita) income rose 12% in our winner take all Republican economy -- the good doctors being too busy looking after us to look after themselves in the ever more unfettered free-market.


