Bill Clinton was just elected president and there was a sizable Democratic Majority in Congress

[Toots]

National Health Care was a Major Issue. Clinton ran on that issue. The public wanted it overwhelmingly. Clinton introduced a bill for a beginning toward that goal and it was defeated,,,,Why? Although the bill was in no way a government takeover of the Health Care Industry (damn) but made the government the payee on up to forty million uninsured Americans and tried to establish a fixed rate for all Companies no matter the size. IBM was getting huge breaks in Insurance cost for their employees compared to Joe's auto wrecking.. The Clinton bill would have equalized that cost at the same level as IBM or any of the very largest Corporations in America. Democrats allowed the bill to be defeated,,,Why?...It was not the best bill, I agree, but way way way better than what we have now or even is being offered up by leading Democrats.

[villager]

1. Cowardice and capital

The Dems wouldn't stand up to the brainwashing that corporadoes were doing with their inane commercials, the GOP was already adept at demagogue-ing (the vast rightwing hate-land of AM radio, etc.)

And few truth tellers about. including -- especially? -- among the Democrats at that time, alas.

[SharonAnn]

6. Wawsn't the Senate Republican at that time? Doesn't it take Senate and House to pass a bill?

[villager]

14. not 'til two years later.... but the press immediately took its orders to attack Clinton...

n/t

[SharonAnn]

7. nd remember the very well-financed "Harry and Louise" TV ad campaign? It certainly wasn't

financed by people who needed to be insured. It was financed by those who benefit from the current system.

Anytime you see lots of expensive TV ads on an issue, you can be it's not in your best interests, it's in the best interests of the moneyed elite.

[villager]

15. absolutely right...

n/t

[Warpy]

2. They were afraid somebody was gonna call them Socialists

which is about what's got the lot of them totally paralyzed right now.

Plus, Clinton was busier ramming NAFTA and GATT through during his "honeymoon" period, a limited period when most new administrations get what they want. Had he held up NAFTA and GATT for ransom for universal care, we'd have Hillarycare denying all of us care instead of the patchwork of insurance companies denying only 80% of us care. Still, 20% of us wouldn't be ignored to death, we'd at least have a paper trail when the class action lawsuits started.

[Toots]

4. I don't think Rush could have said it better..

Hillarycare..:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Warpy]

9. It was a bad plan

Admit it.

[illinoisprogressive]

3. from what I remember there were some other major problems with it.

I agree it was better than what we have but, I believe some had to do with wanting it streamlined more and it was unweldy. I remember complaints of it being alot of bog down and stuff.
There was another reason and can't remember what. At the time no one could foresee what was to come a decade later. as bad as it has become. Maybe someone else can remember. I just remember neither side was overly pleased.

[frogcycle]

8. "At the time no one could foresee what was to come a decade later."

I beg to differ

perhaps not precisely, but the point then was that it was going fast in the wrong direction

it was killed out of pure jingoism. Sure it was flawed, needed a lot of rework, tuning, etc. to get right before being implemented.

but it was scrapped, and doing anything else was scrapped too, as a purely political move. It was associated with Hilary; she was a target, blah blah blah. The RW got their victory through propaganda and manipulation. The only REAL reason was big business not wanting it. Everything else was spin, propaganda, excuses, mind manipulation. Doing anything about healthcare got "branded" as not a good thing.

Tastes great.
Less filling.

[BlueManDude]

5. I'm having an Ira Magaziner flashback. AHHHHHHH!

[QC]

10. $100,000,000 from the medical industry.

You can do a lot with that kind of money.

[bigtree]

11. Moynihan from New York led the assault against it

I guess because of the huge Medicare population in his state and I think the bill would have replaced that system or changed it in a way he wasn't going to allow. I thought his efforts were petty and amazingly destructive. He was assisted by then-senate counsel Lawrence O’Donnell

[papau]

16. My memory also - never could understand why Moynihan was thought "smart" - he was not

an economist or stats person and understood little except businesses liked the idea of destroying social security with private accounts (I laughed when Clinton out smarted him and turned private accounts to destroy social security into addon private accounts with a government kicker that helped social security - Moynihan suddenly forgot his reasons for wanting those accounts!)

Oh well - image is everything! :-)

[Larkspur]

12. Why reinvent the wheel? why not enlarge Medicare to cover us all?

Insurance Companies can offer supplemental insurance so you can choose to be hospitalized in a private or semi-private room instead of a ward room. Let's say that Medicare would default you to be in a ward room, room with 3 or more patients. You can choose to pay premiums to an insurance company to put you up in a private or semi-private room.

[Warren Stupidity]

13. Yes but not crappy medicare for all.

The standard private insurance includes the moderately awful "semi-private room". Medicare should be up to that lousy standard. It isn't the room that costs so much anyway, it is the bed being occupied and the equipment and people needed to tend to that occupied bed that costs a fortune.

Shitty medicare for everyone would be a disaster. Good decent affordable medicare for everyone would be a huge success.