Barack Obama’s Healthcare

[William769]

Last week Senator Hillary Clinton detailed her vision and plan for reducing healthcare costs. Her cost reduction plan for healthcare is part of a larger Progressive Agenda which she submitted to the public earlier this week. Hillary knows how treacherous the healthcare waters are. Hillary knows not to overpromise and not to underestimate the opposition nor the difficulty of achieving universal healthcare coverage.

A few days ago, Senator Obama produced his healthcare plan. Obama for months had spoken, as he so often does, with many inspirational adjectives about what he would include in his first ever national healthcare plan. Earlier this year, on January 25, 2007, according to his own website, Obama spoke at a healthcare forum and said this:

“In the 2008 campaign, affordable, universal health care for every single American must not be a question of whether, it must be a question of how. We have the ideas, we have the resources, and we will have universal health care in this country by the end of the next president’s first term.”

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

Obama’s statement was actually much more emphatic than his website let’s on. Preceding the Obama quotation above were these sentences:

“Plans that tinker and halfway measures now belong to yesterday. The President’s latest proposal that does little to bring down cost or guarantee coverage falls into this category. There will be many others offered in the coming campaign, and I am working with experts to develop my own plan as we speak, but let’s make one thing clear right here, right now: In the 2008 campaign, affordable, universal health care for every single American ….”

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/070125-the_time_has_come_for_universal_health_care/index.html

The Washington Post, unrefuted by the Obama campaign apparatus, quoted Obama’s actual words as even much more emphatic: “I am absolutely determined that by the end of the first term of the next president, we should have universal health care in this country,” Obama told a conference of Families USA, a health care advocacy group.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/25/AR2007012500764.html

All the high flying talk and promises aside, Time magazine has now reviewed Obama’s healthcare proposal and concluded:

“In truth, Obama’s plan could fall somewhat short of real “universal coverage.” It would exempt the smallest businesses from the requirement that they cover their workers. (The exact size of the exemption has yet to be determined, but one campaign official said it would apply to businesses employing “some number less than 15.”) And while it would require coverage of children, adults could choose not to take advantage of his plan and go uninsured, even if they could afford coverage.”

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1626105,00.html?xid=rss-nation

The Hillary and Edwards campaign are critical of Obama’s scheme: “One difference among the Democrats is whether all Americans should be required to have health insurance. Obama said he would mandate coverage only for children. Edwards has proposed mandatory insurance for everyone, and Clinton’s campaign said Obama didn’t go far enough. “We have to achieve true universal healthcare so that every American has health care coverage,” said Neera Tanden, the campaign’s policy director, in a statement yesterday.”

http://www.iowavotes2008.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=832&Itemid=37</p><blockquote><p>

Neera Tanden, policy director for the Hillary campaign added,

“We commend Senator Obama for entering the healthcare debate and supporting incentives to make healthcare more affordable; Senator Clinton has long fought to expand healthcare coverage and initiated the State Children’s Health Insurance Program that now covers 6 million children and has led the fight in the Senate to pass health information technology.

“Senator Clinton believes that in addition to making healthcare more accessible, we have to achieve true universal healthcare so that every American has health care coverage.”

Obama argues that his proposal will eventually succeed in achieving universal healthcare coverage. We laughingly suppose it is possible that, with sufficient deaths and cessation of births, by 2012 any plan could achieve universal coverage. However, unless you are Richard Lamm, that is not rational public policy. It is also not rational as Senator Obama seems to think, that somehow the opposition to universal healthcare will be anything less than ferocious, sustained, organized, well-funded, and highly partisan.

There are many ideas on healthcare being proposed. But only one candidate has the experience, has faced all the pitfalls already, to actually get the job done.

Years ago Hillary achieved her goal of getting healthcare coverage for millions of children. She is experienced, determined, and willing to fight to get healthcare coverage for all Americans.

[Connie_Corleone]

1. For a moment there I thought I was reading unbiased opinion.

Then I got to the bottom and realized it switched to pro-Hillary speak.

[Benhurst]

2. I guess when you live in The World's Only Superpower

you shouldn't expect much when it comes to health care -- or anything else, for that matter.

What a DUMP!

[rurallib]

3. Wish you would have put a notation that this was a Hillary commercial

at the beginning. So I could have read your post in that light.

[jefferson_dem]

4. Why do i feel i need to run this post through the turnitin.com plagiarism / BS checker?

Really, you should have noted it as a Hillary campaign commercial.

Nice try...

[DemDem07]

5. I'm Hillary Clinton and I approved this message.

:freak:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

6. This raises serious questions, despite it being a pro-HRC piece

Does Obama--who when he was limited to flashy rhetoric promised universal healthcare--differ from Edwards and HRC in not proposing universal health care? Should the Democratic party enter the general election without a universal healthcare proposal?

It is ironic that Obama seems to be more DLC, more triangulator on healthcare than even HRC. Fortunately for him, he has a glittering personality that still prevents some from separating his sizzle from his apparently increasingly similar to HRC steak...he seems to be running as HRC-lite. HRC without the negatives but also without HRC's experience.

[jefferson_dem]

9. Because it doesn't mandate universal coverage straight away doesn't mean we won't get there...

with his plan. Some critical analysis, courtesy of Ezra Klein (the Man on the healthcare issue)...


THE OBAMA HEALTH CARE PLAN CONT'D. Been working the phones and have a bit more detail. Here's where we are:

Mandates: I want to be very clear on this point. Obama's plan is not a universal plan. After it is implemented, it will not have 100 percent of the population covered. It will increase coverage by forcing some employers to begin offering insurance, but it is not particularly heavy-handed even there. This is a plan that makes universality possible -- that is budgeted for 100 percent coverage -- but does not use a government or individual mandate to force global buy-in.

The thinking goes like this: You need to get the system set up for universality before you actually demand it -- lest you find coverage remains too expensive, or too inaccessible, for some. So the hope is that by reforming the system, you'll be able to create universality softly, by just making coverage accessible and cheap. If not, the Obama campaign swears up and down that they're committed to 100 percent coverage, and if that means a second round of coverage-increasing policies in a few years, so be it. I don't particularly understand the thinking here, but the end result is this: The Obama plan will not bring us to 100 percent coverage in the short-term. It just won't. But it will take us much further along the road, ensure full coverage for all children, and create a system in which mandates could be more easily added later on.

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=05&year=2007&base_name=post_3811#016713

[draft_mario_cuomo]

13. Voting should not be a faith-based initiative

We can only go by what Obama is proposing, not faith that once we turn over the keys to him for four years that he will finally propose universal health care. He is long on flashy rhetoric, short on specifics. When he does provide some specifics it is politics as usual. I can't see any difference between him and HRC on the major issues, aside from HRC having a superior health care plan.

Thanks for the response, though. It was informative. You are a good champion of your candidate! :toast:

[Vinca]

7. Didn't help. I'm not voting for her and

now that I've seen Obama's plan I'm not voting for him. Edwards is out. What's a supporter of universal, single payer to do after Kucinich goes down in the primaries?

[Silence Dogood]

8. I holding out hope he pulls it together-

His health care plan is a disaster and sort of a hurry up job, didn't check my facts etc.

This election is Obams's to lose.

Go-Bama!

[Ethelk2044]

17. I will not vote for someone who will make

us lose the general election

[karynnj]

10. Hillary's team is inflating her role in S-CHIP

In Hillary's autobiography she had a vague comment that she helped Senators Hatch and Kerry behind the scenes on S-CHIP. Hillary did speak of the need for children's health care and even of the need to deal with them first and any one doing so likely knew she would be a strong advocate. It is clear in the autobiography that this is added to balance the commplete failure of Hillary's plan. This has now morphed to:

Neera Tanden, policy director for the Hillary campaign added,

“We commend Senator Obama for entering the healthcare debate and supporting incentives to make healthcare more affordable; Senator Clinton has long fought to expand healthcare coverage and initiated the State Children’s Health Insurance Program that now covers 6 million children."

It is clear that Hillary with several past first ladies and several children's and medical groups lobbied to get the bill passed. However, did she initiate it? She had no position from which to do this. It may come down to what "initiate" means.

Looking back in the Senate record and the NYT, here is the history I could find:

1) In 1996, Kerry and Kennedy introduced "THE HEALTHY CHILDREN FAMILY ASSISTANCE HEALTH INSURANCE ACT". This bill was to some degree similar to a Massachusetts bill that had recently passed. The funds for it were to come from an increase in the tobacco tax. Reading both Kerry's and Kennedy's Senate speech - though they mention the Massachusetts plan - they do not mention the First lady. (I can post their speeches if desired)

2) Here is an article which speaks of the MA plan (that was passed over Weld's veto (I had thought it was his plan but it wasn't) and Kennedy's and Kerry's intentions to create a similar national plan:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B02E3DA1231F93BA15751C0A961958260&sec=health&spon=&pagewanted=2

3) By 1997, the Democrats had lost Senators in the 1996 election and the Republicans had a solid majority. Kennedy worked with Hatch to create a plan that a sufficinet number of Republicans would vote for. It retained much of Kerry-Kennedy, but had significant changes. Hatch described how it differed from Kerry-Kennedy as:

" As my colleagues are aware, Senator Kennedy and Senator Kerry introduced a bill last year which addressed the child health insurance problem from a considerably different perspective than the bill we are finally going to introduce today.
I think it is important to point out the differences for the edification of my colleagues.
The bill we will file today is a bill that is a straight block grant to the States. The States have flexibility to determine their own eligibility standards with minimal Federal requirements.
The proposal is not an entitlement program. It is a fully funded program. It is a 5-year authorization. "

Hatch, not only didn't credit HRC, he went out of his way to bash the Clinton plan and to distance this bill from the Clintons. Kennedy and cosponsors, Kerry and Dodd all spoke none mentioned HRC. All three are the type to credit others and are gentlemen - if HRC initiated this wouldn't they say at least add a thank you?

4) Here is the NYT articles when S-CHIP was signed:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?

res=980DEFDC113CF932A2575BC0A961958260&sec=health&spon=&pagewanted=1

Here is Hillary's role:
"Within a matter of weeks, the organization brought together a coalition of 250 groups ranging from the Girl Scouts of America to the American Association of Retired Persons, won the aid of Hillary Rodham Clinton and two of her predecessors, Betty Ford and Rosalynn Carter, and began a nationwide radio and newspaper advertising campaign that asked politicians and the public to choose between ''Joey,'' a cherubic 4-year-old boy, and ''Joe Camel,'' the widely known cartoon character that until recently was featured in advertisements for Camel cigarettes. "

[doggyboy]

12. That doesn't sound right to me

IIRC, after the demise of Bill and Hillary's UHC proposal, there were efforts, at both the state and federal level, to increase coverage for children. The Kerry-Kennedy model seems to be, from what I read, that the increased coverage should be paid for by taxing tobacco. I don't see how this Mass. program shows that increasing child coverage was initiated in Mass by Kerry or Kennedy. Unless, I'm misreading your point.

Hatch, not only didn't credit HRC, he went out of his way to bash the Clinton plan and to distance this bill from the Clintons. Kennedy and cosponsors, Kerry and Dodd all spoke none mentioned HRC. All three are the type to credit others and are gentlemen - if HRC initiated this wouldn't they say at least add a thank you?

I could be wrong, but I think the distancing from Hillary's plan was a distancing from the entitlements it contained in order to please the repukes, who were now the majority.

IOW, I don't think (but I could be wrong) that the info you posted does anything to show who "initiated" the effort to expand coverage to children.

[karynnj]

19. You are misreading what I said and the links

S-CHIP is the legislation that was sponsored by Kennedy and Hatch that was signed by Bill Clinton. The person most responsible for it is Ted Kennedy. He was able to get the biggest increase in federal health insurance since Medicare through a Republican controlled Senate. The year before, he and Kerry had written the Healthy Families bill, which was partially modelled on the Massachusetts bill.

Kennedy modified his and Kerry's bill to compromise with Hatch. The reason the tobacco tax is key is that there was a Gramm/Rudman provision that if you increased benefits you had to offset that increase with either cuts to other programs or tax increases. Kennedy and Hatch put together enough Democrats and Republicans to pass the bill.

Here is a timeline:
1993 - Bill Clinton gets into office. HRC is given the task to develop a tax plan. She and Ira Magaziner met with various experts (including Howard Dean) and they put together a plan. The plan was totally unacceptable with the Democrats on the Finance Committee. Bill Clinton opted never to submit it to a vote.

1996 - Kerry and Kennedy introduce their bill. They reintroduce it in 1997 - but at that point the Senate was heavilly Republican

1997 - Kennedy enlists a group of Republicans who will support a version that makes it for 5 years rather than an entitlement and gives the states far more latitude in how to implement it (or not fully implement it as in the case of Texas then)

S-CHIP took a very different approach than Hillary had. I included the MA plan because it was similar and the Senators mentioned it. So, unless you say that because Hillary said that healthcare was important and suggested that it might be necessary to start with smaller pieces - that she initiated it. I find it more obvious to think that a Senator who was involved with creating Medicare and most health programs since then was self motivated.

[doggyboy]

21. OK, so I understand it a little better

I guess the reference to the Mass plan confused me. I see now that it's mainly historical background that shows Kerry's and Kennedy's early involvement. Did I get that right?

And you do show that the plan that passed was based on Kerry and Kennedy's plan and was passed with the efforts of both Kerry and Kennedy. Based on this, I think it's clear that Kerry and Kennedy have earned the right to claim it was "their" bill and that were critical initiators of this legislation.

IMO, the question still remains concerning Hillary Clinton's role in this. While the info you posted does show that Kerry and Kennedy were both involved early on, it doesn't prove that Hillary was not. In fact, the criticisms of Hillary's plan shows that Hillary was involved early on, and her efforts were geared to extending coverage for children.

And while we know that Kerry, Kennedy and CLinton were involved early on, and while we know that it was Kerry and Kennedy's bill that passed, we still haven't seen any proof as to who "initiated" the effort to cover more children

on edit: I was wondering where the quote about how Clinton "initiated" SCHIP came from. I found the following on her website. It doesn't say "initiated"

"She continued the fight by helping to create the State Children's Health Insurance Program, the single largest expansion of children's health care in American history. SCHIP provides coverage for more than six million low-income children."

[karynnj]

22. Actually the MA plan was included

because to leave it out would be wrong as Kerry/Kennedy did point to it as a model.

Kerry/Kennedy did not pass - it was modified to become Kennedy/Hatch (S-Chip), with Kerry as an original co-sponsor. Of course, Hillary was involved in healthcare - she had a whole failed program. This does not mean that she was involved in every health care bill written. Kennedy and Kerry are both veteran Senators who have very capably written legislation.

Kennedy is the main person who should be credited with S-CHIP. He and Kerry wrote the original bill and he then worked with Hatch, modifying it to get a bill that was not as good as the original, but which was able to pass a heavily Republican Senate. My point was that neither of these men, both known to be gracious in giving credit where due, mention Hillary in their speeches on the bill and neither did the NYT.

The quote saying "initiated" is from a Hillary spokesperson in the post I responded to in my first post. The problem I have is with that word - in the quote I gave, the NYT speaks of Hillary advocating for it. She did do that, but my guess is they wanted a more active verb.

[doggyboy]

24. thanks

I guess it comes down to what "initiate" means. No matter what the definition is though, I suspect there's at least a bit of exagerration there. Not the most egregious of failings, but certainly not a positive

[freesqueeze]

11. Healthcare? What's Next? Poverty?

Could we possibly be getting into a meaningfull discussion during a presidential election?



Quiet...I hear immigrant flag-burning married gay people coming from over the hill.

http://www.freesqueeze.com/obama.htm

[loyalsister]

14. I "laughingly"

point out that what starts out as a reasonable analysis ends absurdly condescending. That's a shame.

None of these health care plans are realistic. Congress will write the eventual plan and the president will sign it. The plan with the most intricate details is the loser because people will find favorite details during the campaign and they will get nixed as the real thing is created.

Keep in mind, Schip is implemented quite differently from state to state.

Any Democrat may implement a "universal health care" but the resulting program will likely vary from state to state with various state regs.
My state just did away with Medicaid entirely and replaced it with something they call MOHEALTH NET. It is perfectly legal for them to rename it and pull down federal funds to that structure, but they have changed it considerably.
Not only is it congress who is going to write the details, the actual program is not necessarily going to be what they put out.
At the end of the day, people will like to have a president who was straight with them about what the final sausage could be like.

[illinoisprogressive]

15. i live in illinois. obama has done successful and workable health care here.

my son broke his hip a month ago. without the bills obama did i would be looking at 30,000 in bills. Because of them i am safe. Eric, at 25, is covered.
hillarycare failed.
so, obama did it and succeeded and i am proof of it and hillary failed when she tried it.
try again

[illinoisprogressive]

16. forgot to point out; obama has the experience in actually doing healthcare that works.

[AZBlue]

18. "Obama said he would mandate coverage only for children."

I'm not good with that at all. I'm sick and tired of the adult and senior poor in this country being ignored and everyone acting like only children are in danger. Everyone should have the same health care available to them, no matter what their age.

[karynnj]

20. You are confusing "available" and "mandated"

Under Obama's plan, adults would have healthcare coverage AVAILABLE to them, for kids, it would not only be available but MANDATORY for people to get it.

[Silence Dogood]

23. I read up on his state plan today-

His plan charges adults $40/per person, per mo. For a family of 4 earning $25,000/yr.
How is that going to benefit me. Sounds pretty expensive for my family.

maybe he'll have a better plan in the future.

[AZBlue]

26. I agree, that's pricey.

Healthcare should be affordable to everyone, no matter what their income level.

[AZBlue]

27. Well, it's available to them now too. Lots of good that does them.

And even $40 per month for a person making minimum wage at a part-time job doesn't really seem "available" to me.

[ihelpu2see]

25. as a doctor in CT (Ins. Capital of the US) I firmly think we need and can

afford universal health care, not a half arsed attempt..... Edwards plan comes the closest, I think Obama should look harder at Edwards plan.