Clinton unveils new health care plan

[bethin]

des moines, iowa (cnn) -- democratic presidential candidate sen. hillary clinton will roll out a health care reform plan on monday that would cost the federal government around $110 billion and require all americans to have health insurance, clinton campaign sources said.

under the plan, federal subsidies would be provided for those who are not able to afford insurance, and large businesses would be required to provide or help pay for their employees' insurance.

[color=#004276]clinton's package would also require insurers to provide coverage for anyone who applies for it and would also bar insurance companies from charging people with greater health care costs more for their premiums.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/politics/09/17/health.care/index.html

[Lizstill]

The only problem with state based insurance is some states are so much more properous than others. I want the residents of Missisippi to have the same health care as New York and California. Single payer is the best way. I like Hillary's energy but I need to read up on Edwards' and Obama's health care plans.

[Lizstill]

I had a friend that HAD insurance and needed open heart surgery at age 40. The copays alone amounted to over 500,000. She has not been able to pay and will end up in bankruptcy. Some say, "let her pay for her whole life if that's what it takes." But then she will end up an old woman with no savings. Is that what we want? Who will take care of her then? Shall we let her die on the streets?

I believe we should band together as a nation and a species and help each others when need is great. We send money to poor nations. Why not help our own disadvantaged? A federally run system with a tax on everyone in exchange for universal care is the best way. If the young, healthy, earners opt out it will weaken the system and the coverage may not be there for them when they decide they need it later. Insurance is the most economical and fair if EVERYONE participates.

[banditrn]

Hi Tom!

Actually "we" don't love her . . .. .check out the link below, from the website "Stop Her Now".

http://www.stophernow.com/site/PageServer

Hey, stevielynn, COOL!! Thanks!!

[sharona97, BSN, RN]

I agree, the others running aren't coming out so forward or is it that some of us are just diluted of Hilary? Good point Liz.

[teeituptom, BSN, RN]

Hi Tom!

Actually "we" don't love her . . .. .check out the link below, from the website "Stop Her Now".

http://www.stophernow.com/site/PageServer

That site is so conservative it almost comes off as near racist in nature, the way I see it.

[Jolie, BSN]

FWIW, I don't think that any of us needs to worry about being unable to collect our social security. The worst case scenario is payment of 75% of promised benefits without any reform for at least the next 75 years.

So you find it acceptable for SS to pay you roughly 75% of what you are due when you reach retirement age? Can you give any other examples of situations in which you are willing to accept 3/4 of what you are due? How about your paycheck? Would it be acceptable for your employer to unilaterally decrease your pay by 25% after you have already worked the hours to compensate for the employer's fiscal irresponsibility? How about your tuition? I assume that you pre-pay tuition for the semester. What if your school decided unilaterally that it was going to cut off instruction after the 12th week of a 16 week semester? What if your landlord tossed you out on the street on the 24th of the month, stating that he had run out of money to provide you with the shelter that you had pre-paid for a full month?

The truth is that any of these situations would send you kicking and screaming to management, the union, the Better Business Bureau, or a lawyer, and rightfully so. But because the federal government is involved, you find it acceptable to be shortchanged. That's nuts.

And that is what you will eventually receive with government mandated healthcare. Social Security didn't start out badly. It got that way due to lack of foresight regarding societal changes in birth rates and longevity, mismanagement of funds, promises of excessive benefits made by vote-hungry politicians, and changes in the attitudes of the American people regarding their own personal responsibility. (Why plan and save for retirement when the taxpayers will take care of me?) Now we have politicians who lack the cojones to fix the system for fear it will cost them votes, and American public unwilling to accept changes in benefits they have been promised and earned thru years of involuntary payroll taxes. The pyramid scheme that exists will eventually come crashing down, leaving no funds for anyone, regardless of need. That is hardly compassionate.

Healthcare will follow the same path. The promises being made now of cost savings and better quality care may exist for a short time for some, until it becomes impossible for the tax base to support the program. Funds that should be "lock-boxed" for healthcare will be raided for other government spending, leaving an empty acount unable to pay healthcare expenses. Then it will be time to cut benefits, and raise premiums (taxes). Because the private insurance industry will be destroyed in the process, there will be no alternative, even for individuals who have the means to purchase their own coverage. Evidence Medicare: It is virtually impossible for an American citizen over the age of 65 to obtain private medical insurance (a basic plan, not a Medicare supplement), even if they wish to do so at their own expense. Private companies have bowed out of that sector because Medicare has been allowed to monopolize it. So, in a short time, we will have mediocre coverage for all, with the threat of system-wide collpase.

It makes far more sense fiscally and logistically to implement a small-scale means-tested plan for those who can't obtain healthcare coverage thru the usual channels (employment, Medicare, Medicaid, VA, Military) and those who run up catastrohpic expenses in excess of their insurance limits. But since such a plan would not allow the government to take over our entire healthcare system, it is not of interest to the current crop of Democratic candidates.

[banditrn]

FWIW, I don't think that any of us needs to worry about being unable to collect our social security. The worst case scenario is payment of 75% of promised benefits without any reform for at least the next 75 years.

So you find it acceptable for SS to pay you roughly 75% of what you are due when you reach retirement age? Can you give any other examples of situations in which you are willing to accept 3/4 of what you are due? How about your paycheck? Would it be acceptable for your employer to unilaterally decrease your pay by 25% after you have already worked the hours to compensate for the employer's fiscal irresponsibility? How about your tuition? I assume that you pre-pay tuition for the semester. What if your school decided unilaterally that it was going to cut off instruction after the 12th week of a 16 week semester? What if your landlord tossed you out on the street on the 24th of the month, stating that he had run out of money to provide you with the shelter that you had pre-paid for a full month?

The truth is that any of these situations would send you kicking and screaming to management, the union, the Better Business Bureau, or a lawyer, and rightfully so. But because the federal government is involved, you find it acceptable to be shortchanged. That's nuts.

And that is what you will eventually receive with government mandated healthcare. Social Security didn't start out badly. It got that way due to lack of foresight regarding societal changes in birth rates and longevity, mismanagement of funds, promises of excessive benefits made by vote-hungry politicians, and changes in the attitudes of the American people regarding their own personal responsibility. (Why plan and save for retirement when the taxpayers will take care of me?) Now we have politicians who lack the cojones to fix the system for fear it will cost them votes, and American public unwilling to accept changes in benefits they have been promised and earned thru years of involuntary payroll taxes. The pyramid scheme that exists will eventually come crashing down, leaving no funds for anyone, regardless of need. That is hardly compassionate.

Healthcare will follow the same path. The promises being made now of cost savings and better quality care may exist for a short time for some, until it becomes impossible for the tax base to support the program. Funds that should be "lock-boxed" for healthcare will be raided for other government spending, leaving an empty acount unable to pay healthcare expenses. Then it will be time to cut benefits, and raise premiums (taxes). Because the private insurance industry will be destroyed in the process, there will be no alternative, even for individuals who have the means to purchase their own coverage. Evidence Medicare: It is virtually impossible for an American citizen over the age of 65 to obtain private medical insurance (a basic plan, not a Medicare supplement), even if they wish to do so at their own expense. Private companies have bowed out of that sector because Medicare has been allowed to monopolize it. So, in a short time, we will have mediocre coverage for all, with the threat of system-wide collpase.

It makes far more sense fiscally and logistically to implement a small-scale means-tested plan for those who can't obtain healthcare coverage thru the usual channels (employment, Medicare, Medicaid, VA, Military) and those who run up catastrohpic expenses in excess of their insurance limits. But since such a plan would not allow the government to take over our entire healthcare system, it is not of interest to the current crop of Democratic candidates.

Jolie - unfortunately, a lot of people are just looking at things for the quick fix. I simply do not want another government buraucracy in my life! Enough big government!

While working in Ambulatory surgery I had opportunity to see how much it cost to have medicare overseeing everything! Special classes had to be held so that the clerks would know how to 'code' everything - when you admitted a medicare patient, things had to be done differently - and just when you had figured it all out - the goverment CHANGED it all. It was a major headache for the people that worked with it, and the doctors offices, etc.

Does anyone think that this will be any different?

And the chances for fraud and abuse are great.

I've seen in my lifetime the loss of more and more freedoms just for the sake of comfort and security. God help us when the 'medical police' come pounding on our doors.

[rigmedic]

It all ultimately comes down to, "Who do you trust more; Big Government or Corporate America?". After decades of watching Corporate America downsize, rightsize, outsource, create "preexisting conditions", deny coverage, and generally allow their greed to get the best of them, I think most people are ready for a change. It is a rightwing fantasy to suggest that "If only people saved more, all would be well". Meanwhile wages are flat, energy and food are going through the roof, and the Republicans want to steal Social Security. The American people have had ENOUGH of risk and uncertainty. We need to at least be able to count on the availability of healthcare.

[Jolie, BSN]

It all ultimately comes down to, "Who do you trust more; Big Government or Corporate America?".

You have done an excellent job of concisely stating our difference of opinion. You put your faith in Big Government and I don't.

[HM2VikingRN, RN]

it all ultimately comes down to, "who do you trust more; big government or corporate america?". after decades of watching corporate america downsize, rightsize, outsource, create "preexisting conditions", deny coverage, and generally allow their greed to get the best of them, i think most people are ready for a change. it is a rightwing fantasy to suggest that "if only people saved more, all would be well". meanwhile wages are flat, energy and food are going through the roof, and the republicans want to steal social security. the american people have had enough of risk and uncertainty. we need to at least be able to count on the availability of healthcare.

and social security.

as to the 75% of benefits figure i quoted we may never reach the trust fund exhaustion date of 2042 as that is an estimated date. a better solution is at http://www.brookings.edu/dybdocroot/views/papers/orszag/200504security.pdf for addressing the very minor disparities of the current system.

we cannot afford to continue to give 30% of our health care dollars to administrative costs.

dean baker has an interesting comment:

“the long-term fiscal problem truly is fundamentally one involving the rate at which health care costs grow and much less about the aging of the population.”

this is hugely important. the way to deal with scary long-term budget projections is to fix our health care system, not to gut social security and medicare. while aging will impose some additional costs in the future, this is not new; life expectancies have been increasing ever since the united states came into existence. the new threat is a health care system that is projected to consume more than 30 percent of gross domestic product in just over three decades. if health care costs in the united states looked more like those in any other wealthy country, we wouldn’t have to look at scary budget projections.

source: http://commonsense.ourfuture.org/stop_blaming_baby_boomers_deficits?tx=3

for a visual of the real challenge see:

look at that gentle slope for social security! you could do that in rockports! mt. medicare and medicaid, by contrast, require climbing gear. as the center for budget and policy priorities explains, "first, medicare is by far the largest contributor to the overall growth in expenditures through 2050 because it bears the full brunt of both demographic changes and health care cost growth (and because it is a bigger part of the federal budget than medicaid). social security contributes less to the growth in expenditures because it is not a health program — its per person costs do not grow faster than the economy."

source: http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/charts/index.html

[fronkey bean]

I believe we should band together as a nation and a species and help each others when need is great. We send money to poor nations. Why not help our own disadvantaged? A federally run system with a tax on everyone in exchange for universal care is the best way. If the young, healthy, earners opt out it will weaken the system and the coverage may not be there for them when they decide they need it later. Insurance is the most economical and fair if EVERYONE participates.

I know this is a little off subject, but the reason we send money to poor nations is b/c they really are POOR. I've been on medical missions in third world countries where the only thing we had to give a lepard attack victim while we stabalized his compound fx for the two hour drive to the nearest medical facility was 60 mg IV Toradol. It worked pretty good though b/c he had never had any pain meds. Another time I started IV flds on a young mother of two w/ a severly infected cut and infused 3 liters before she even started to urinate. A weeks worth of IM PCN (no IV, can't imagine anyone in the states putting up w/ that kind of pain) and we think she was alright. I could recount dozens of similar stories and none of these people "opted out" of insurance, or were under insured or whatever. They just simply had no services any where near them.

Americans spend so much time griping and moaning about how much more their neighbor, Mr Jones, has that they don't realize we are the global Mr. Jones. If we really want to make things fair we need to send 90% or so of our health care dollars to Africa, Asia and S. America. There is very little room to complain in the US, even the poorest and least insured among us has more medical care than most of the rest of the global population.

[rigmedic]

For all the warts of "Big Government", and there are many, at least the citizens get a vote in how it runs. Corporate America answers ONLY to the Board of Directors of that particular corporation. Individual shareholders have virtually no say so in how the company is run, let alone a non-shareholder. So, having demonstrated the fact that their greed knows no bounds, Corporate Healthcare's days are numbered.....