Hillary’s health plan covers everyone at half the cost of Obamas plan that leaves 22 million out

[CompSciStudent]

Okey..can we plz have a real discussion about the FACTS here ? And no thanxs to Obama fans saying its nyt.com or mandates is bad..

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04krugman.html

Paul Krugman writes about Hillary vs Obama’s health plan. He refers to a new study by Jonathan Gruber of M.I.T, one of America’s leading health care economists,

He dissected both plans and "Gruber finds that a plan without mandates, broadly resembling the Obama plan, would cover 23 million of those currently uninsured, at a taxpayer cost of $102 billion per year. An otherwise identical plan with mandates would cover 45 million of the uninsured — essentially everyone — at a taxpayer cost of $124 billion. Over all, the Obama-type plan would cost $4,400 per newly insured person, the Clinton-type plan only $2,700."

Krugman writes; "As with any economic analysis, Mr. Gruber’s results are only as good as his model. But they’re consistent with the results of other analyses, such as a 2003 study, commissioned by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation that compared health reform plans and found that mandates made a big difference both to success in covering the uninsured and to cost-effectiveness.

And that’s why many health care experts like Mr. Gruber strongly support mandates."

"If you combine the economic analysis with these political realities, here’s what I think it says: If Mrs. Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, there is some chance — nobody knows how big — that we’ll get universal health care in the next administration. If Mr. Obama gets the nomination, it just won’t happen"

--------------------------------------------

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04krugman.html
-------------------------------------------

So basically:

Obamas plan: 103 billion a year, no mandates, covers 23 million of those 45 million uninsured, leaving 22 millions out, at $4,400 per newly insured person,
Clitons plan: 124 billion a year, with mandates, covers everyone of those 45 million uninsured at $2,700 per newly insured person

--------------------------------------------

According to HRC;
Of those 124 billion, 80 billion will be covered by savings due to the fact of electronically medical records with privacy protections.
On top of that, you bring the tax cuts for the wealthiest and oil/pharmacy companies back to 03 levels.
And you will get a holistic view on both Medicare and health insurance, meaning negotiating lower prices on drugs.
And let’s not forget a proactive plan to combat the "obesity" wave

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-03-13-rural-child-obesity_x.htm


--------------------------------------
So my questions are

1) Do you support Hillarys health care plan ?
2) If not, please explain why
3) Will you bring these facts out to your friends and the blog sphere at large ?

[tabatha]

1. This has been debunked.

I cannot remember where, but I'll look for the link.

[Cleita]

2. And John Conyer's plan co-sponsored by Dennis Kucinich,

H.R. 676, covers everyone for a fraction of the cost of either of those plans. So why isn't anyone talking about it?

[madrchsod]

5. you need to ask?

conyers/kucinich plan insures the people not the insurance companies...

[Cleita]

8. Exactly.

Let's hope it gets passed by Congress and that the new President whether President Clinton II or President Obama get enough pressure not to veto it. That will be the day that I will celebrate.

[CompSciStudent]

9. So you basically have no clue why it’s bad, just referring to rumors and rhetorical mind games

Why is hr 676 health insurance bill that good ? what is Obama and Clintons plan missing ?

[Cleita]

10. Have you read it? Do you know what is happening to it.?

Here are some links to get up to speed:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_bills&docid=f:h676ih.txt.pdf

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-676

Then come back and tell us why the other plans are better.

[CompSciStudent]

12. HR 676 will be financed by a small 3.6% payroll tax matched by the employer.= = 7.2 % Tax increase.

http://www.nationalview.org/newsletter/newsletter_060905.htm

1. It will make it more expensive for business to hire in US
2. The shared cost between the worker and the employer will give a 7.2 % total tax increase...and it will never, ever be a bipartisan vote and hence never pass booth Senate and the House

[tkmorris]

47. Yes, but you fail to consider the bottom line

You need to remember that those costs will be offset by the complete elimination of insurance premiums, both for the employees and the employer.

Hillary's plan simply assures that everyone will have health insurance. That doesn't even begin to solve the biggest problems with our health care system, the biggest of which is that self same insurance industry. I have health insurance, and it is bloody awful. I could go on and on about what it doesn't cover, the outrageous copays, the lack of choices, and so on. Hillary's plan not only leaves those insurance companies as a part of the system, it FORCES everyone to purchase their corrupt product.

I think you need to go back to school on this issue.

[Cleita]

53. I heard a woman on a local program yesterday call in to say

how most seniors are upset that their Medicare might be taken away from them. Seniors do not want to lose their Medicare as underfunded and imperfect as it is today because we seniors know how great it is compared to private insurance. This plan is an improved and expanded Medicare for all. We senior citizens can testify as to the workability of Medicare and how is should supplant all the other wasteful and inadequate for profit insurance and other health plans out their that leave both the patient and the health car provider without adequate coverage and compensation.

[Cleita]

51. The employers will benefit because it's they who benefit from

a healthy work force to begin with and 7.2% is a fraction of what is paid out now in health care dollars by employers. 7.2% will also enable mom and pop operations to cover their employees and their families something most of them can't do today so that those employees must buy their own health plan or go without and that often includes mom and pop, the owners. Health insurance costs almost $8,000 per capita today in the USA and we don't cover everybody. Our neighbors to the north get the same quality health care for less that $3,000 per capita and it includes everyone because they have Medicare, which this plan is about.

[sandnsea]

3. If a deal looks too good to be true

that's because it usually is.

How'd the Clinton Hope College Tax Credit work out? The one that was supposed to let everybody go to two years of community college.

Not so good?

Then why does anybody think her health care tax credits are going to work out.

Obama puts real money into his health care plan because he's serious about providing coverage. Hillary relies on phony triangulating word games, the way the Clintons always have.

[CompSciStudent]

7. Don’t give me politics of fear and BS...Let’s have a factual discussion plz!

Why cant you back up your statements with facts and not just empty words.

Its troubling that for the 3 answers given...one says its debunked but can’t find a link and don’t have any substantial knowledge of the issue at hand, the other one praises hr 676 health insurance bill, and you calls it phony triangulating word games.

[sandnsea]

11. Robert Reich debunked it

I take his word over 90% of the politicians and economists in the world.

"She says his would insure fewer people than hers. I’ve compared the two plans in detail. Both of them are big advances over what we have now. But in my view Obama’s would insure more people, not fewer, than HRC’s. That’s because Obama’s puts more money up front and contains sufficient subsidies to insure everyone who’s likely to need help – including all children and young adults up to 25 years old. Hers requires that everyone insure themselves. Yet we know from experience with mandated auto insurance – and we’re learning from what’s happening in Massachusetts where health insurance is now being mandated – that mandates still leave out a lot of people at the lower end who can’t afford to insure themselves even when they’re required to do so. HRC doesn’t indicate how she’d enforce her mandate, and I can’t find enough money in HRC’s plan to help all those who won’t be able to afford to buy it. I’m also impressed by the up-front investments in information technology in O’s plan, and the reinsurance mechanism for coping with the costs of catastrophic illness. HRC is far less specific on both counts. In short: They’re both advances, but O’s is the better of the two. HRC has no grounds for alleging that O’s would leave out 15 million people."


http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2007/12/why-is-hrc-stooping-so-low.html

[CompSciStudent]

13. Both the Conyers (H.R. 676) and the McDermott (H.R. 1200) include mandates

1. Robert Reich has a huge reputation and he has done great work for the American people
2. His statements were made as a commentator, not as a scientist.
3. Both Conyers (H.R. 676) and the McDermott (H.R. 1200) include mandates. So first one argues that Conyers are superior to Clintons plan. Given the high tax increase, then Robert Reich and others are used as an argument for debunking Hillary’s plan, saying mandates will do no good.

[sandnsea]

14. Those are totally different plans

I've got no problem with a mandate when you get a card in the mail that gives 100% health care to every American. That's the kind of mandate Conyers and McDermott are talking about. Hillary is talking about a mandate to buy insurance at unknown prices, and your assistance is in the form of a tax credit at the end of the year -- if you aren't homeless and jobless by then.

[CompSciStudent]

16. Not true! The premium payments are linked to precentage of income

And remember, HR 676 will be financed by a small 3.6% payroll tax matched by the employer.= = 7.2 % Tax increase.
HRC plan protects the current exclusion from taxes of employer-provided health premiums, but limits the exclusion for the high-end portion of very generous plans for those making over $250,000.

[sandnsea]

19. What?

Yes, I'm aware single payer health care, medicare for all, would be funded by a payroll tax.

I've got no idea what in the hell your second sentence says. Hillary hasn't released any specific figures on how much people are going to be mandated to pay.

[CompSciStudent]

22. she wants fiscal responsibility first, then prevent premiums from exceeding a % of family income

about the second sentence; limit Premium Payments to a Percentage of Income...Meaning the refundable tax credit will be designed to prevent premiums from exceeding a percentage of family income, while maintaining consumer price consciousness.

[sandnsea]

26. Right, no figures

just a vague tax credit after a family has had to struggle to pay a mandated premium all year long. Exactly what Robert Reich points to that has gone wrong in Mass, mandates didn't work for a variety of reasons. It's the wrong way to go. Implement all the cost saving plans, insurance regulations, quality controls, and subsidies - and then see whether mandates are going to make up any difference considering they don't create 100% compliance with auto insurance.

There are vagrancy laws too, and they haven't ended homelessness.

And I still don't know what your $250,000 sentence meant.

[CompSciStudent]

34. Agree but HRC will tackle fiscal responsibility and the huge China loans before using money

I do understand what you are saying, how can we trust her when she does not give me an excat tax limit ? The problem as I see it is the following. How do you know what to spend if you dont takle the huge loans first ? I mean, when you get your salary, the first thing you do is pay off the monlty payments and first then you start using money.

[sandnsea]

38. Huh?

We have to get competitive and that means health care. If we wait until the budget is under control, we may never get health care which is essential to getting our economy on track again.

And I hope you don't think she's going to change global trade to improve our economy.

[MagsDem]

29. So naturally, we should choose the plan that covers less people for more cost

Give me a fucking break.

[madrchsod]

4. if hillary or barrack make it to the whitehouse

and they have 60 plus democratic senators then maybe one of their plans will have a chance. either plan will be modified by the house and senate so what ever they say now really does`t mean much. this will take at least a year to go through the process so don`t worry about health care reform for another 2-3years.

[leftofthedial]

6. yeah, if you count "cost"

the way raygun counted "unemployed"

[MadBadger]

15. I though the number was 15 million? Get your facts straight buddy

[CompSciStudent]

17. Not my facts but Jonathan Gruber of M.I.T, one of America’s leading health care economics

:-)

[MadBadger]

18. Well, Hillary Clinton's talking points has said 15 million for months now.

[CompSciStudent]

20. Because he has a mandate for children, about 9 million...

Still, for the purists out there is always somebody like John Holohan, who directs the Urban Institute's Health Research Center and, as best as I can tell, has no direct connection to the presidential campaign. Holohan commands universal respect, too, having worked on these sorts of problems for two decades. And he's pretty much where Gruber and Nichols are on this question. Without a mandate, he told me, “Obama would still leave about 22 million, 23 million, but he has a mandate for children, about 9 million uninsured kids, so assuming you get most of them, you get pretty close to 15 million

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2007/12/03/so-about-that-15-million-figure-you-ve-been-hearing.aspx

[Orangepeel]

21. It is disingenuous to say Obama's plan "leaves people out"

There are various estimates of how many people will opt out. That is very different than leaving people out.

There are several legitimates points that would need to be debated before either Clinton's plan or Obama's plan could be enacted, including
1. The ethics of forcing people to participate vs. the ethics of letting people potentially free ride
2. How many people actually would opt out of a plan without mandates and how many people would refuse to comply with mandates
3. How would mandates be enforced?
4. All those other important details, including subsidies and how they would work
5. Costs, costs, costs

All of these points (and, I'm sure, many others) are very important and valid. Attempting to argue that Clinton's plan is universal and Obama's is not because fewer people will refuse to comply than will voluntarily opt out is, I repeat, disingenuous. Neither offer universal care and both offer universal availability of health insurance for some price.

[CompSciStudent]

24. Single payer health care with mandates is backed with over 50 studies nationwide!

Even Obama was for singel payer health care system back in 03.

here is just some of the studies:

http://www.pnhp.org/single_payer_resources/pnhp_research_the_case_for_a_national_health_program.php

Just to pick one:

The US could save enough on administrative costs1 (more than $350 billion annually) with a single-payer system2 to cover all of the uninsured.
1. Woolhandler, et al “Costs of Health Administration in the U.S. and Canada,” NEJM 349(8) Sept. 21, 2003
2. “Proposal of the Physicians’ Working Group for Single-Payer National Health Insurance,” JAMA 290(6): Aug 30, 2003

[Orangepeel]

25. those are arguments that single payer is better. Probably true, but that's not in either plan

Neither B or O's plan is single payer, and both offer universal availability.

Mandates may very well be the answer. I don't understand how they'd be enforced -- it's relatively easy to enforce mandates on liability insurance for drivers -- you can't do anything related to driving without showing proof of auto insurance and you can get a ticket if you don't have it. That won't work with health insurance.

But anyway, mandates may very well be necessary. But not having them doesn't make Obama's plan "leave people out." That's just a bullshit way of spinning it. Argue the merits of mandates, rather than pretending that not being forced to do something is the same as not being able to do something.

[CompSciStudent]

27. Gruber's data models are used by both Congressional Budget Office and the Treasury Department

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2007/12/03/so-about-that-15-million-figure-you-ve-been-hearing.aspx

from the blog:

"The reason so many people ask Gruber's advice is that he has developed a model, based on past data, for projecting how various policy changes will affect the number of people who obtain health insurance. It is similar to the model used by both the Congressional Budget Office and the Treasury Department. (You can read more about him in this Washington Post story.) Since all three of the leading Democratic contenders, including Obama, were known to be have sought his input this campaign cycle, I figured that made him a particularly reliable source of guidance.

Gruber told me that his projections showed that, without an individual mandate, a program of very generous subsidies and market reforms would bring in close to half the uninsured population. Adding a child mandate, he said, could bump it to two-thirds. Since Census figures showed around 45 million uninsured, I asked if that meant roughly 15 million would still lack insurance. He said that sounded about right. I put that figure in my story (although, in my quick translation of our conversation, I explained the step-by-step math incorrectly—saying that the starting baseline for coverage without a mandate was one-third, not one-half). I didn't attribute this to Gruber directly, though I'd cited his work elsewhere in the article, since that part of our discussion had been on background. He's since made these views public.

"

[Orangepeel]

31. yesssss......

but estimating the number of people who would say, "no thanks, I'll keep my money and take my chances," is not the same as estimating the number of people who would be told, "nope, sorry, no insurance for you."

The way that Clinton's campaign has phrased the difference between the plans makes it sound like Obama's plan does the latter, when it really allows for the former. As the latter is much scarier to the average voter, the way the Clinton campaign has phrased it is disingenuous.

There are all kinds of things about mandates that can be debated. For example, is it fair and/or cost effective to let people say, "no thanks." Those things should be hashed out and would need to be in the legislative process when any plan is debated. But it would help if both plans were presented accurately.

[CompSciStudent]

28. Gruber's projections: without mandate you only bring in close to half the uninsured population

Gruber told me that his projections showed that, without an individual mandate, a program of very generous subsidies and market reforms would bring in close to half the uninsured population. Adding a child mandate, he said, could bump it to two-thirds. Since Census figures showed around 45 million uninsured, I asked if that meant roughly 15 million would still lack insurance. He said that sounded about right. I put that figure in my story (although, in my quick translation of our conversation, I explained the step-by-step math incorrectly—saying that the starting baseline for coverage without a mandate was one-third, not one-half). I didn't attribute this to Gruber directly, though I'd cited his work elsewhere in the article, since that part of our discussion had been on background. He's since made these views public.

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2007/12/03/so-about-that-15-million-figure-you-ve-been-hearing.aspx

[StevieM]

23. Yep, and that makes it all the more unforgivable that Barak deceived the voters

in the debate by saying "we ran the numbers on your health care plan...."

Obama doesn't even care what the facts are--he just wants to win at all costs. And he knows that the biased news media will back him at all turns and apply that label to Clinton.

Obama isn't ready to president....and he's not deserving either.

Steve

[eridani]

30. 1) No

2) Because we can't afford it. We can, however, afford single payer.
3) We are already paying for universal health care. We do not need more money, as we spend twice what other countries with universal care (CARE, not "coverage") spend. We just need to spend it on health care.

Krugman and everybody else admit that this makes the most sense. It's political feasibility depends on people demanding it and quit being such wussy triangulators. Politics means compromise; therefore we should lead with our lowball offer? What horseshit.

[CompSciStudent]

33. HRC will tackle fiscal responsibility and the huge China loans before using money

What i like the most with Clintons ideas, is that they all are based on fisical responsibility. That is get the spening under control and rain in the loans to China. I do understand what you are saying, how can we trust her when she does not give me an excat tax limit ?

The problem as I see it is the following. How do you know what to spend if you dont takle the huge loans first ?

I mean, when you get your salary, the first thing you do is pay off the monlty payments and first then you start using money.

And thats the only way we can get the republicans in on it also. in the election they wil claim that the democrats for spending huge amounts of money before we have spendings under control, and can make some demands towards China.

2 & 3. We will save money on a single payer health care system: Every study shows that..You can just do a Google search and find huge amounts of evidence that will contradict your statement. Taiwan, shifting from a U.S. healthcare model, adopted a single-payer system in 1995, boosting health coverage from 57% to 97% with little if any increase in overall healthcare spending.

[eridani]

39. The rethugs will not cooperate with any health care plan

Having the government accomplish something other than spying on us and putting us in jail is against everything they stand for.

Clinton wants to stay in Iraq, so kiss fiscal responsibility goodbye.

[eridani]

40. The rethugs will not cooperate with any health care plan

Having the government accomplish something other than spying on us and putting us in jail is against everything they stand for.

Clinton wants to stay in Iraq, so kiss fiscal responsibility goodbye.

[eridani]

41. The rethugs will not cooperate with any health care plan

Having the government accomplish something other than spying on us and putting us in jail is against everything they stand for.

Clinton wants to stay in Iraq, so kiss fiscal responsibility goodbye.

[CompSciStudent]

45. That is not true...HRC will get US troops out of Iraq in a responsible and safe manner

Having said that, please stay on topic :-)

[eridani]

49. "Responsible" meaning that some will stay forever guarding

--the slave labor build US embassy palace and dictating Iraqi state policy?

[AtomicKitten]

32. Both Hillary's and Barack's plans are Mr. Toad's Wild Ride compared to Kucinich's plan.

If I have to choose between her plan and Barack's, Hillary failed before at healthcare, a plan concocted behind closed doors. My inclination is not to put much stock in her plan this go.

[CompSciStudent]

35. Give me facts for why Obamas plan is better, not your disrespect for HRC

You have decided to vote for Obama, that’s your democratic right. And he is a good candidate, but when it comes down to the issues, you seem unable to bring any substantial arguments for why his plan is superior to HRC other than showing disrespect for the other candidate.

[AtomicKitten]

36. Maybe that's because they are 95% similar and I prefer Kucinich's plan?

Which I clearly stated, so perhaps that makes your retort substance-free?

[Stand and Fight]

44. No, your answer is "substance-free". Stop avoiding the question with straw-men.

You have specifically been asked to state unequivocally why Obama's plan is superior to Hillary Clinton's. Throwing Dennis Kucinich's plan into the discussion is a miscarriage of logic because he's not in the race anymore. So, if you feel that Obama's plan is superior to Hillary Clinton's plan, why? If not, why not?

[AtomicKitten]

46. One more time ...

As I already stated, I think both Hillary's plan and Barack's plan are a mess, and certainly compared with Kucinich's plan. I also stated if push comes to shove and I'm forced to choose one of the two, I choose Barack's for the simple reason that she has already failed and put her plan together behind closed doors, two strikes against her right there in my book. 'kay? Now, you are perfectly welcome to disagree, but I'm kinda tired explaining the same damn thing to rude knuckleheads that need things explained six ways from Sunday. That's all there is. I don't really give a crap about the excruciating minutia of plans I think are inferior, but please continue the bludgeoning of one another over it.

[CompSciStudent]

37. Kucinich's plan will mean a 7.2 % Tax increase. No chance in hell to get bipartisan support!

We as a party need a candidate that can bring bipartisan support for a single payer health care system

[AtomicKitten]

42. But, it is a superior plan nonetheless.

You can keep moving the goal posts to try to gain some traction, but it doesn't alter the truth. Kucinich's plan is the best of the bunch.

[CompSciStudent]

43. Top 10 reasons for enacting a Single Payer Healthcare System

http://www.guaranteedhealthcare.org/fact/top-10-reasons-enacting-single-payer-healthcare-system

1. Everybody in,nobody out. Universal means access to healthcare for everyone, period --
the desire of 81% of all Californians, as reported in a January, 2007 Field Poll.

2. Portability. Even if you are unemployed, or lose or change your job, your health coverage
goes with you.

3. Uniform benefits. No Cadillac plans for the wealthy and Pinto plans for everyone else,
with high deductibles, limited services, caps on payments for care, and no protection in the
event of a catastrophe. One level of comprehensive care no matter what size your wallet.

4. Prevention. By removing financial roadblocks, a single payer system encourages preventive
care that lowers an individual's ultimate cost and pain and suffering when problems are
neglected, and societal cost in the over utilization of emergency rooms or the spread of
communicable diseases.

5. Choice of physician. Most private plans restrict what doctors, other caregivers, or hospital
you can use. Under a single payer system, patients have a choice, and the provider is assured
a fair reimbursement.

6. Ending insurance industry interference with care. Caregivers and patients regain the
autonomy to make decisions on what's best for a patient's health, not what's dictated by the
billing department or the bean counters. No denial of coverage due to pre-existing conditions
or cancellation of policies for "unreported" minor health problems.

7. Reducing administrative waste. One third of every health care dollar in California goes
for paperwork, such as denying care, and profits, compared to about 3% under Medicare,
a single-payer, universal system.

8. Cost savings. A single payer system would produce the savings needed to cover everyone,
largely by using existing resources without the waste. Taiwan, shifting from a U.S. healthcare
model, adopted a single-payer system in 1995, boosting health coverage from 57% to 97%
with little if any increase in overall healthcare spending.

9. Common sense budgeting. The public system sets fair reimbursements applied equally
to all providers while assuring all comprehensive and appropriate health care is delivered,
and uses its clout to negotiate volume discounts for prescription drugs and medical equipment.

10. Public oversight. The public sets the policies and administers the system, not high priced
CEOs meeting in secret and making decisions based on what inflates their compensation
packages or stock wealth or company profits.

http://www.guaranteedhealthcare.org/fact/top-10-reasons-enacting-single-payer-healthcare-system

[tkmorris]

48. HILLARY'S PLAN IS NOT SINGLE PAYER

I'm not one to shout much around here but damn, read what people are saying to you at least. Having an opinion is free, but at least have the common sense to recognize when you don't know what you are talking about. There are quite a few extremely knowledgeable people around here that would love to discuss this topic with you and cheerfully fill in all of the obvious gaps in your understanding of the issue, but you have to make an effort. Mindlessly cheerleading for Hillary just isn't going to help you grow.

[Vinca]

50. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Let's be truly honest. If Hillary is president and presents any universal health INSURANCE scheme to Congress, it will be deep sixed unless there is an overwhelming, filibuster-proof, Democratic majority. The right despises her and will be "ready on day one" to start their next campaign against her.

[Cleita]

54. Also, if her plan is the same unworkable and expensive plan

she offered before, it will be deep-sixed or considerable altered by a Democratic majority Congress as well. Let's hope they can convince her of the wisdom of passing H. R. 676, the plan that will cover more and cost less than any other plan put forth by either her or Obama. We need to pressure her to do so as well.

[Vinca]

55. Agreed. Obama's plan is as bad as hers. nt

[Cameron27]

52. K&R

Keep the discussion going!