ABC News: "Obama Health Plan Could Go In Clinton's Direction"

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by stevento, Jun 26, 2008.

  1. stevento macrumors 6502

    stevento

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2006
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #1
    We all know Barack Obama's energy plan is a copy of Hillary Clinton's. However, the major difference between the two candidates health care plan, or any of their plans for that matter, is that Obama would not include a mandate saying everyone has to get into the system one way or another and hence his plans fell an estimated 15 million people short of being truly universal.
    When campaigning in Ohio, Hillary Clinton said this:
    Now ABC is reporting that he may just copy her again.
    Hopefully Obama will stop trying to appease moderates, learn the meaning of the word universal, and add a mandate to his plan so that we will have zero uninsured Americans.
     
  2. Kashchei macrumors 65816

    Kashchei

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2002
    Location:
    Meat Space
    #2
    From your lips to Obama's ears.
     
  3. themadchemist macrumors 68030

    themadchemist

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Location:
    Chi Town
    #3
    If Obama wanted to stop trying to appease the moderates, he wouldn't take Hillary Clinton's crap healthcare plan either. They are both bloated, nonsensical, and compromises to the point of assured failure.

    There's no need to go and create 31 new flavors of healthcare ideas: HR 676 is already sitting in the House with a hundred co-sponsors. Obama should embrace a fiscally-sound, highly efficient, single payer plan, one that he has already admitted is better in the ideal than his own. That way, we can create a sustainable solution to American healthcare instead of beating around the bush (no pun intended) with all of these half-baked proposals.
     
  4. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #4
    Though I continue to lament your continuing fixation with Hillary - from what I remember reading - her plan is better than Obama's in many ways.

    As MC noted, however, there are better alternatives than either out there.
     
  5. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #5
    sorry but I honestly think HR 676 bill is crap. I know my current heath insurance offers more benfits than what HR 676 would offer. I do not trust the goverment to run the system very well. The universal heath care means the people with more money get screwed. Instead of getting better coverage from there work instead it goes down...... Not a fan. Personally I think a lot of the ideas have issues.
     
  6. themadchemist macrumors 68030

    themadchemist

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Location:
    Chi Town
    #6
    Employer-based coverage is steadily declining. As the cost of insurance goes up, benefits are going to continue to be cut and even those with cushy plans from their employers could find themselves hung out to dry.

    But I am actually interested to hear. What are the benefits you think HR 676 is lacking? This is actually an issue to which I devote a fair bit of time, and it's always good to hear the counter points.
     
  7. it5five macrumors 65816

    it5five

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    New York
    #7
    Ah thank you! Finally someone brings up HR 676 when discussing the weak weak Obama/Clinton plans. Single-payer is our only solution here. Uninsured people is only half of the problem. We still need to address the fact that health insurance companies are looking out for their profits, not the health of the insured. Until the health profit corporations stop denying coverage, denying essential operations, or dropping people all together, we still have a problem.
     
  8. themadchemist macrumors 68030

    themadchemist

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Location:
    Chi Town
    #8
    Glad to see another single payer supporter! Single payer drew me with the chance for solid coverage for everyone, but it has kept me coming back with its economic feasibility. It's great when both the big e's, economics and ethics, can converge to make good policy. This is one of those situations, and I hope the movement keeps picking up steam. :)
     
  9. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #9
    By your own proof, it isn't.

    I liked some of Edwards' plans, but none of them are perfect. We need to do something though. Preferably something that doesn't just help the insurance companies, or whichever of McCain's many plans he's pushing now, none of which were great either.

    And for those who say we shouldn't do anything, come on, we're going to have to deal with this eventually, as we already pay more than any other country per person even while we get less.
     
  10. stevento thread starter macrumors 6502

    stevento

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2006
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #10
    that's why Hillary's (as soon to be Obama's) plan says that if you've got good coverage that works for you, then YOU KEEP IT, nothing changes for you except you premiums drop by an average of $2500 per year per family.
    the plan caters to people who don't have any or enough health care or have crappy plans or are paying way too much, or any combination of those.
    We are liberals. That's what we do to rich people, but we dont like to use the word "screw"; we like to use the word "tax". Shared responsibility leads to shared prosperity. the system will work better for everyone including the rich when everyone is in the system including the poor.
     
  11. themadchemist macrumors 68030

    themadchemist

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Location:
    Chi Town
    #11
    Clinton's plan is irresponsible. The place we're going to get cost savings in healthcare is the inefficiency of duplicated bureaucracy and corporate payout in the private market and the advantages of economies of scale. If the government picks up only people who don't have good healthcare right now, it's going to get stuck with a disproportionately unhealthy, disproportionately poor population. Those people cost more to insure, so the government will spend more on healthcare without a real opportunity to recover costs. That's why both Medicare and Medicaid suffer--the elderly and the poor are probably the two most expensive groups of whom to take care...And all their costs get dumped on the government without the benefit of covering net-positive young, healthy, and wealthy people.

    And here's the other dirty little secret of this public/private arrangement. If everyone's not in it together, then you reduce the accountability for the system. Why does Medicare generally fare better than Medicaid? In part because the elderly are a more politically powerful group than the poor. So if the rich can opt out of a government system, then there won't be any personal investment in keeping it strong, and it's going to get raided and distorted, just as Medicare has, just as social security has, just as Medicaid has.

    If the government wants to cover everybody, then it's going to have to cover everybody. That's where shared sacrifice comes in.
     
  12. stevento thread starter macrumors 6502

    stevento

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2006
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #12
    the way to keep Hillary's plan from bankrupting America is paying for prevention. for instance if someone needs to have $600 for early diabetes treatment, then we should pay for it. but that this point their plans don't, but when that person needs a $30,000 foot amputation 4 years later that will get paid for. an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
    what's going to happen is there is going to be a huge influx of lower income people into a single-payer-like system. and they will cost more to insure, and the way to pay for that is by putting the tax code back to where it was in the 90s.
    and might i add Hillary's plan does not create a huge gov't. it does not create one single department, bureau or agency.
     
  13. themadchemist macrumors 68030

    themadchemist

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Location:
    Chi Town
    #13
    Not necessarily. If you keep people living longer, they are around longer to consume healthcare. Probably, most of the prevention stuff is a wash, but it's great because it helps people's healthcare. Where prevention might save money is by keeping people off of things like dialysis (which supports your diabetes example), because dialysis is extraordinarily expensive.

    Not really. We've already got the lowest-income people in Medicaid. And we've already got a single payer system (called traditional Medicare) that works quite efficiently, even though it only insures high-cost folks. A single payer system would bring all of the higher income people into the fold, and average down individual cost, plus create more accountability into the system.

    Yeah, and that's part of the reason why it's not terribly efficient. The fact is that the government is really good at paper-pushing and large-population management. And that's what insurance is. It makes the most sense to have the government manage the paperwork bureaucracy and leave it to private enterprise to actually provide the care.
     
  14. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #15
    The rich will still be able to pay extra for health insurance if they want...

    Though Universal health care isn't perfect, the Singaporean approach is better on this.
     
  15. Daveman Deluxe macrumors 68000

    Daveman Deluxe

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2003
    Location:
    Corvallis, Oregon
    #16
    +1 million

    Matthew Miller has been saying the same thing for YEARS. Just because we have health care provided to everybody doesn't mean that we would also have to give up the benefits of the efficiency of a market economy for health care. If health care was publicly funded but still privately administered, then hospitals would still be competing based on quality of care and on fining ways to be more efficient and productive with their capital. It's a win-win because nobody would be without health care on the one side, and on the other side, having many private actors in the market would retain market efficiency.
     
  16. Scarlet Fever macrumors 68040

    Scarlet Fever

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    Location:
    Bookshop!
    #17
    Admittedly, I don't know a whole lot about American politics, but aren't Clinton and Obama supposed to be running for the same party? If not, why can't they have similar ideals?
     
  17. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #18
    They can, and do, but the OP doesn't like Obama because he really liked Hillary, so he has to say things like that, even when they aren't true.
     
  18. themadchemist macrumors 68030

    themadchemist

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Location:
    Chi Town
    #19
    Unlike the arrangement in the NHS, the US single payer proposal would not allow topping up of insurance in categories where the government provides coverage (none of the "after hours" clinics like you folks have in the UK). The idea is that we've already got enough cash flowing into the system (around twice as much as the UK, per capita) to handle the capacity and having everyone in the same boat would force accountability. One might argue that allowing people to pay extra not to use NHS reduces accountability by decreasing the personal interest that the wealthy and politically influential have in the system.

    I guess the one possibility for non-system healthcare would be if a healthcare provider completely rejected the government system and provided care on a cash-only basis. Somehow, though, I am skeptical as to how successful most practices in such an arrangement would be.

    Absolutely. Personally, I am more interested in hospitals competing to ensure the best and most efficient care, not insurers competing to maximize the efficiency of being the middle men.

    In fact, I think there are ways in which single payer would actually increase competition. Right now, we all select from providers in our insurance networks. But those networks are limited, meaning that providers are insulated from a certain amount of competition. Moreover, those without insurance do not have agency as consumers to exercise choice and influence the market. By consolidating the funding for healthcare into one system, all providers would compete against each other for an even larger pool of consumers, who would be making decisions based on quality, not on who is "in network," who will provide free/subsidized care, etc.
     
  19. stevento thread starter macrumors 6502

    stevento

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2006
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #20
    Obama had previously criticized Hillary for the mandate, and now he's copying it, possibly.
     
  20. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #21
    No he isn't.
     
  21. stevento thread starter macrumors 6502

    stevento

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2006
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #22
    well ABC says he could and if he adds that kind of mandate then there will be no valid argument that he didn't copy it
     
  22. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #23
    If he does, maybe (though Connecticut did it first, no?), but there's no indication he'll actually take her plan, which he criticized because it wasn't great.
     

Share This Page