HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Hillary Clinton Doesn’t H...

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 10:20 AM

 

Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Have a Practical Plan, or Any Plan, for Universal Health Care Coverage

(Bold added for emphasis.)

Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Have a Practical Plan, or Any Plan, for Universal Health Care Coverage

By Ben Mathis-Lilley - FEB. 12 2016 1:31 PM

Clinton's plan is to "grind out victories of compromise in Congress," Vox's Ezra Klein writes in a piece called "Hillary Clinton and the Audacity of Political Realism." By contrast, says New York's Jonathan Chait, "in place of any practical road map to enacting his ideas, Sanders substitutes the 'political revolution,' an event he invokes constantly that will sweep aside all impediments." (While Chait's statement implies that he thinks Clinton is a superior candidate, Sanders supporters themselves don't necessarily see Sanders' ambition or rhetoric about "political revolution" as a bad thing.)

The primary issue that has been most often framed in terms of the fantasy/practicality divide is health care, specifically the matter of universal coverage. The Affordable Care Act has significantly reduced the number of Americans who don't have health insurance, but about 11 percent of the population remains uninsured. Sanders advocates for a single-payer health-care system that covers all citizens, saying it is more or less a moral necessity. Clinton says Sanders' plan is unrealistic and that universal coverage should be achieved incrementally. Here's Clinton herself on that subject in last night's debate:


I can only say that we both share the goal of universal health care coverage. ... [In the early '90s] I took on the drug companies and insurance companies to try to get us universal health care coverage. And while I am a staunch supporter of President Obama's principal accomplishment, namely the Affordable Care Act, I know how hard it was to get that done. We are at 90 percent coverage. We have to get the remaining 10 percent.


Listening to this, or reading health care policy expert Jonathan Cohn write in the Huffington Post that "Clinton wants to build on the existing system" to achieve "universal health care," one might presume that Clinton has proposed some sort of non-single-payer plan for expanding coverage, for getting that "remaining 10 percent." I myself assumed that, given Clinton's vaunted command of practical detail and real-world strategy, she must have released some detailed policy plan on the subject—a practical road map. It frustrated me that she never talked about what that plan was, but I was sure it existed.


It does not. On Clinton's campaign website, for instance, there is a discussion of the need to "expand affordable coverage" and "make progress toward universal coverage" in general terms, but no proposal on the means for doing so. There is no plan. There is no practical road map. I asked the Clinton campaign about this, and they directed to me to several progressive proposals she's made that are in fact quite specific about how she would reduce costs for people who already have insurance. But if you can tell me how President Clinton would provide coverage to the 11 percent of Americans who don't have it right now, I'll send you one American dollar (and update this article).

Read more:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/02/12/hillary_clinton_doesn_t_have_a_practical_plan_or_any_plan_at_all_for_achieving.html

9 replies, 1449 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 9 replies Author Time Post
Reply Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Have a Practical Plan, or Any Plan, for Universal Health Care Coverage (Original post)
think Mar 2016 OP
djean111 Mar 2016 #1
think Mar 2016 #2
stillwaiting Mar 2016 #3
think Mar 2016 #7
Triana Mar 2016 #4
WDIM Mar 2016 #5
Jefferson23 Mar 2016 #6
nichomachus Mar 2016 #8
rhett o rick Mar 2016 #9

Response to think (Original post)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 10:26 AM

1. She has no intention of doing anything that would affect the profits of the health insurers.

 

If anybody thinks she would do anything at all that will affect profits of corporations, banks, Wall Street - they are foolish indeed.
Any "victories" ground out would be incremental GOP victories, they would be Third Way victories.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #1)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 10:34 AM

2. Sadly you are correct...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Original post)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 10:36 AM

3. A LOT of those WITH coverage have really shitty coverage.

The coverage these people have is NOT good enough.

That is not going to pass for universal coverage for me even if this craptastic insurance is given to those Americans that currently don't have any.

It would be supremely substandard compared to other major countries in the world. And, we can do much better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stillwaiting (Reply #3)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 10:42 AM

7. Medical bills are still the #1 reason for bankruptcy. And 72% of those people had health insurance

 

Top 10 Reasons People Go Bankrupt

03/24/2015 04:23 pm ET | Updated May 24, 2015

1. Medical Expenses

A recent Harvard University study showed that medical expenses account for approximately 62 percent of personal bankruptcies in the US. Interestingly, the study also showed that 72 percent of those who filed for bankruptcy due to medical expenses had some type of health insurance, thus debunking the myth that only the uninsured face financial catastrophes due to medical-related expenses.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/simple-thrifty-living/top-10-reasons-people-go-_b_6887642.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Original post)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 10:37 AM

4. Why would she? She doesn't believe in it.

 

It would upset the Big Insurance lobby so #NoWeCan't

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Original post)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 10:38 AM

5. She has no respect for life only dollar signs.

She is pro war and anti-healthcare and pro mandatory health insurance.
Both the war industry and health insurance industry finance her. All she sees is dollar signs the human life on the other end doesn't matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Original post)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 10:42 AM

6. Highly recommend. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Original post)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 10:46 AM

8. I still can't figure out why anyone

Would support this wretched woman. She's a liar and a phony, despises people other than the One Percent®, and can't stop sutffing her pockets with money.

If she were to make her way to the White House, it and everything in it would be for sale.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Original post)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 10:48 AM

9. The Ruling Class recognizes that universal health care would cut into their wealth accumulation.

 

Wealth accumulation is very important to the Ruling Class. The Clintons are amassing about $10 million a year for the last 15 years. And if you think they worked hard for that money, ask a welder, a nurse, a sandblaster, a teacher, etc. what hard work is really like.

Clinton doesn't have a comprehensive plan for anything. Look at her website. She wants to help college students by giving their parents a $2,500 tax break. First of all that will only cover books. Secondly, the tax break means the rest of us in the 99% will share the burden and her friends in the Ruling Class won't pay a cent. She also is going to tell the States to try to be efficient and hold down costs. That is a hoot. Like telling Wall Street to "cut it out." What she will probably do is spend a lot of the 99%'s tax dollars to a private company to monitor the States instead of giving that money directly to the students.

The major corporations benefit from an educated potential workforce but they don't want to pay their share.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread