Clinton calls for universal health care

[rodeodance]

Source: ap

Clinton calls for universal health care

By BETH FOUHY, Associated Press Writer 24 minutes ago

DES MOINES, Iowa - Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton called for universal health care on Monday, plunging back into the bruising political battle she famously waged and lost as first lady on an issue that looms large in the 2008 presidential race.


"This is not government-run," the party's front-runner said of her plan to extend coverage to an estimated 47 million Americans who now go without.

Her declaration was a clear message to Republicans, the insurance industry, businesses and millions of voters who nervously recall what sank her effort at health care reform 13 years ago in her husband's first term — fear of a big-government takeover.

In unveiling her plan, she called for a requirement for businesses to obtain insurance for employees, and said the wealthy should pay higher taxes to help defray the cost for those less able to pay for it. She put the government's cost at $110 billion a year.

Mindful of the lessons of her failed attempt, Clinton said that under her new plan anyone who is content with their health coverage can keep what they have. She insisted no new government bureaucracy would be created even as it seeks to cover tens of millions uninsured.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070917/ap_po/clinton_health_care;_ylt=AoYQmfWwEEOCyKTXV9mPMACMwfIE

[lovuian]

1. ahh Somebody needs to tell Hillary what Universal Health is

single payer government run

[depakid]

4. Maybe someone ought to tell the journalists and their editors

Candidates will always puff and lie.

Responsible journalists on the other hand, shouldn't have to spread those lies.

[leftchick]

7. they do for the M$M anointed nominee

:(

[reggie the dog]

15. right

she says "
"This is not government-run," as if having something run by the government for the people (not for a profit) is a bad thing. The problem with health insurance in the USA is that private companies are taking profit. the government could do the same thing for a much lower cost because they do not need to make a profit.

[Vincardog]

2. Correction Clinton calls for universal health INSURANCE requiring everyone to boost Corporate PROFIT

[Lasher]

31. That's what it should be called.

Individual mandate = universal health insurance.

Single payer (Medicare for all) = universal health care.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

35. BINGO -this is rehash of the '93-94 scam

people didn't get behind it hen and they won't now.
In order to defend any plan from misleading rightwing attack, it will need the backing of the left--SO GIVE US SINGLE PAYER!

[Gidney N Cloyd]

3. So... we'd still tie healthcare to employment?

[TexasBushwhacker]

58. Yeah, I just don't get it

I don't know how health insurance got tied to employers in the first place, but it seems like a needless middleman that adds to overall costs. I realize that changes can't be made overnight, but I think that a gradual transition (over 5 years?) from employer funded insurance to self-funded insurance (through payroll deduction) seems preferable. Insurance companies could still be used for processing claims. Most big insurance companies have divisions that handle Medicare already. They could still sell supplemental policies to cover co-pays and deductibles.

[xchrom]

5. mandated consumer insurance.

americans are now consumers. that is all.

[leftchick]

6. excuse me? This is MANDATORY HEALTH INSURANCE!

Healthcare has ZERO to do with it. :grr:

[OzarkDem]

8. Universal - IF

IF you can afford the premiums

IF you have a job and an employer who provides health insurance

IF you don't get sick and can't work

[Cobalt Violet]

70. And IF you can afford to buy into your employers plan.

That been a bit of problem with the mandatory insurance here in MA. Some of the working poor are still getting screwed. I'm not sure how Hillary's plan deals with this issue. These people who dream up these plans always seem to ignore that there are people who don't earn enough to buy into their employers plan.

[erpowers]

9. Things I Do Not Like

I am in favor of Universal healthcare/insurance if the country can afford it. However, there are some things that I do not like about Clinton's program. First, I am not in favor of raising taxes on people making $250,000 a year. I think the rich should pay more in taxes than the poor, but I do not see people making $250,000 a year as rich. The tax rate of those making $250,000 should be left as it is. I would even except a reduction in the rate of taxes for those making $500,000 a year. I just think paying 33% percent of $500,000 is a bit much. Second, I do not think insurance companies should be forced to give coverage to people who have preexisting conditions, especially if those conditions are the result of poor health choices like smoking. I think insurance companies should be forced to give coverage to all people who are healthy or fairly healthy when the people apply for the insurance.

[OzarkDem]

10. So let me see if I understand

You think insurance companies should only be required to provide health insurance for people who aren't sick.

Who is supposed to provide coverage for people who are sick? Do you include yourself in that category? If you get sick you think its ok for your insurance company to stop covering you?

[erpowers]

42. Pre-existing Conditions

I said I thought insurance companies should not have to accept people who have pre-existing conditions, mainly problems caused by smoking. If a person was with an insurance company and then became sick the insurance company should be prevented from dropping that person. When I think of people with pre-existing conditions I am moreso thinking of people who are really sick. Not someone who has asthma. In addition, as I said in the first post I am mainly aiming that people who smoked for years and then became sick. I am not the biggest supporter of insurance companies having to cover that person if they had not been covered before. So, once again when I say an insurance company should not be forced to cover a person with a pre-existing condition I am saying if that person had not been covered before. If the person had coverage and their company was trying to get out of paying for medical expenses then the company should be forced to pay for medical bills. If that is what Clinton was talking about than I am okay with that part of her plan. I may have just misunderstood what she was trying to say.

[PSPS]

12. What you're describing is the broken status quo

For insurance to work, it has to take everyone. It's called "pooled risk," and it's the only way health insurance of any kind really works.

What you're describing is basically what we have now -- private insurance companies taking only those that they feel confident will never make a claim. Where does everyone else go? To a segregated system? How will that work? Sky high premiums because there's no pooled risk.

No, the only solution is a single payer system which uses the proper pooled risk model. Some people will make claims, others won't. But the fund covers everyone regardless. And it has to paid from general tax revenue. It's true that taxes will go up, but the tax increase will be less than the amount saved from not having to pay private insurance's bloated premiums which are largely used to finance the lavish liefstyles of their billion-dollar CEO's and their vigoresh ("campaign contributions.")

[superconnected]

21. Thank you for that excellent post.

:toast:

[bemildred]

14. My definition of "loser" is someone who takes home $350K and cannot make ends meet. nt

[Donnachaidh]

41. bemildred -- you're being kind!

I would define someone as a loser if they couldn't make ends meet with a salary of 100K per year.

[WillTheGoober]

56. Exactly ...

Right!
100k is wealthy.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[reprobate]

20. You forgot the "sarcasm" smiley. Surely you weren't serious.

An adjusted income of $250,000 a year is not rich?

What would you call it?......comfortable?.......impoverished? .......destitute?

And let me invite you into the real world by just saying that anyone with an adjusted income of a quarter million dollars who is paying 33% on that money is a fool, or has a really good professional liability claim against his CPA. Anyone in that income class is not taking ordinary income, but has arranged his finances so that it's coming as dividends, etc. And that is paid at 15%, or just less than half of what you and I are paying.

Why do you think so many people are so pissed at the unfairness of the income tax system we have?

"I am in favor of Universal healthcare/insurance if the country can afford it." The two words you should have avoided are 'insurance' and 'afford it'. First of all, I think no one here is talking about insurance in the classic form you are, with private carriers, underwriting each person as to health and previous health history. No, we are mostly talking of a national single payer health financing system. And please don't tell us that you'll have nothing to do with anything run by the government. That of course is your prerogative, just do without. Just ask the citizens of all the other industrial countries how theirs work. The one thing that politicians in those countries will NOT do is suggest they give up their national system and pick up the American system. The politician who does that will soon be working in private enterprise.

Now let me address the "if the country can afford it". Statistics show that we pay way more than double per capita for health care than any other industrial country (though I'm not sure that 'industrial country' accurately describes us anymore). At the same time our health outcomes are lower than any industrial country....outcomes such as birth weight, birth mortality, life expectancy, and any other measure you want to quote. And some say our system doesn't work?

As one who spent twenty years before my retirement in the insurance industry, let me give you the short course "Insurance 101".

Insurance is defined as a means to spread the risk from the individual to the group. The larger the group, the lower the risk and therefor the premium for each member. It works really well when, for example, the group is 300 million, like the population of the US.

Another factor is the overhead of underwriting the members of the group. This overhead of course includes things like profit, but many forget the little things that add up, like underwriters, legal staff, secretarial staff, oh, and sales commissions, of which usually three levels get a cut. The overhead of the private insurance carriers runs from twenty five to forty percent. Compare this with Medicare, which has an overhead of 2-3% and then tell me why we pay so much more.

Let me tell you about one government run health financing system I'm familiar with....Medicare. Been on it almost two years now and I can tell you it's the best I've ever been covered by. No waits. No big deductibles, just one medical deductible per year and that's usually covered by your first doctor visit. Hell, it's better than crunchy peanut butter.

Our country could do far worse than extend Medicare to everyone, and let those under 65 buy into it. Oh, wait. We ARE doing far worse, aren't we?

[ScottytheRadical]

30. I wish I had a way of getting that information to everyone I know...

Excellent post. That's a good short summary of everything that needs to be fixed with our healthcare system. I have such a hard time explaining to people that private insurance ends up costing more than government-funded healthcare - I wish I could quote all of that off the top of my head!

[area51]

33. What a great post.

It should be on the Greatest page. :thumbsup:

[ProudDad]

36. You're describing HR676

"Our country could do far worse than extend Medicare to everyone, and let those under 65 buy into it. Oh, wait. We ARE doing far worse, aren't we?"

HR676 - Medicare for everyone...

http://www.house.gov/conyers/news_hr676.htm

[erpowers]

43. Middle Class

I tend to think of the people making $250,000, before taxes, as middle class or upper middle class. When I say "if we can afford it" am I am saying that I hope the country will not be put deeply in debt. I am not against government run programs. I think government run programs are fine. I would like it if eveybody could be covered. However, I think it is okay to make sure that the country can afford a single payer program.

[MilesColtrane]

49. Those who earn $250,00 a year or more are rich.

Despite how you tend to think of it.

Those who earn $250,000 or more a year are in the top 1.5% of wage earners in the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States#_note-US_Census_2005_Economic_Survey.2C_income_data

edited to add link

[erpowers]

51. Just Looked Up Middle Class On Wikipedia

Thank you for the link and I will examine it. However, I just looked up middle class and other groups, like upper middle, that are linked to the middle class on Wikipedia. I think it said much the same as your link is going to say. From what I looked up on Wikipedia, $100,000 is considered upper middle class. I did not know that people making $250,000 were in the top 1.5% of wage earners. That seems like a small amount to be in the top 1.5%. I look more at the people making tens of millions of dollars as the top 1.5%. I trust that you are right I am just saying compared to the mega millioniares $250,000 seems small to be in the top 1.5% of earners. No, I am not trying to give the $250,000 group a pity party I am just saying what I think. I did not realize they were in that group.

[ClintonTyree]

23. You don't see someone making $250,000 as year as rich?

Pray, tell me, what do YOU consider rich? In 2006, the median annual household income according to the US Census Bureau was determined to be $48,201. You're telling me that someone making over 5X that amount isn't rich? :eyes: And you won't even stop there. You're in favor of tax cuts for people making A HALF MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR! :wtf: You don't consider them rich either?

I don't know what you're smoking, but put it down. Step away from the bong. :banghead:

[erpowers]

44. $1,000,000

I do see those making $250,000 as being middle class or upper middle class. My idea of a tax cut for those making $500,000 a year is a little different than what some people might think. I have never been a supporter of the Bush tax cuts. I have always thought they should be rolled back. However, I have also thought that the $500,000 group should not be in the top tax bracket. It seemed to me that if you roll back the tax cuts and still leave the $500,000 group out of the top tax bracket that is most likely still a tax cut. So, I would be willing to restore the top level tax bracket back to 39%, but I would like to see the people making $500,000 a year put in the next lower bracket. So, yes I would be I would be fine with leaving the tax rate at 33% for those making $500,000 a year if that is not the top bracket.

[TexasBushwhacker]

62. $250K IS NOT MIDDLE CLASS!!!!

A household income of $250K is in the top 1.5%. 2006 figures from the Census Bereau:

Spliting the population into quintiles - 23.2 Million Households each

Lowest 20% - Less than $20032 per year

2nd 20% - $20032 to $37770

3rd 20% - $37771 to $59999

4th 20% - $60000 to $97029

Top 20% - $97030 and up

Top 5% - $174000 and up (5.8 Million Households)

Although only 42% of all households have 2 or more earners, the number goes to 65% to 75% for the top two brackets. So, if you want to be in the middle class or better, you pretty much have to have 2 incomes.

[SayWhatYo]

64. I consider anyone who makes over 30k to be rich...

Just 'cause it's funny.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

28. Have you been wasting your time racking up 1,000+ posts

on the wrong board?

Rich people don't pay any higher percentage of their income in taxes than middle class people, thanks to St. Ronnie's tax "reforms."

(And people who ARE rich never seem to think they are. If you make $250,000 a year, you're making approximately 8 times the median income.)

[erpowers]

45. No

I have not been wasting post by posting on the wrong board. I am a very proud liberal. As I said in my first post I am in favor of rich people paying more in taxes than middle class and poor people. I do not make $250,000 a year. I just did not see people making $250,000-$500,000 as being rich. I see them, especially those making $250,000 as middle class or upper middle class. As I told another person who responded to my first post my main thinking came from the fact that I have always been agaist the Bush tax cuts, but I have also felt that people making $250,000-$500,000 should not be in the top tax bracket. So, even if you restore the tax level to before Bush's tax cut I would still want people making $500,000 a year left of the top tax bracket. I saw that as still giving them a tax cut. I am fine with leaving those making $500,000 a year at 33%. If I said different in the first post I misspoke. Also, I am not a supporter of Ronald Reagan.

[Donnachaidh]

40. and here is your typical consumer response

"I do not think insurance companies should be forced to give coverage to people who have preexisting conditions, especially if those conditions are the result of poor health choices like smoking. I think insurance companies should be forced to give coverage to all people who are healthy or fairly healthy when the people apply for the insurance."

TRANSLATION: "Yah -- why SHOULD people with pre-existing conditions be insured? Let them drop dead on the streets, to hell with them."

Better hope YOU don't develop diabetes, or cancer, or Alzheimer's, or any number of other ailments that will plop your ass into that dreaded *untouchable* *pre-existing condition* zone dude. It can happen in the blink of an eye. And once labeled, you're basically *f*cked*, especially with attitudes like yours out there.

And BTW, get a copy of SICKO and watch it. You are in need of an education.

[JeanGrey]

67. I disagree. What do you mean, only give insurance to

"healthy" people? And what happens when you become "not healthy"? What do we do with those people, let them die? You'll be in that group too, sooner or later.

[Emillereid]

11. Get insurance companies out of the health care business and extend medicare

to every American. Only a single payer system will work. Democrats should expect nothing less from their presidential candidate!

I have an employment based insurance plan, but as Michael Moore discovered, it's crap. I have to fight with them all the time to get them to pay out.

[Kweli4Real]

13. I haven't read her plan, but ...

If I'm an Insurance Company ... I'm loving Ms. Clinton right about now. I just got promised 47,000,000 new customers.

Way to go status quo.

[papau]

24. Hillary's plan is the same individual insurance approach used by Obama/Edwards/etc. except DK-indeed

Mitt's plan he signed into law in Mass is the same type of plan.

While it doesn't take ins "risk" profits out of the system, it reduces them by more than 50% as the Federal Government gets "group health insurance" premiums on offer from the ins. co's that have less than half the risk charge that is charged individuals in HMOs via employment and less than 1/6th of that charged individuals buying directly

[ProudDad]

37. And they all FUCKING CRIMINALIZE

those who cannot afford "health insurance"

and...

We're still stuck with health INSURANCE COMPANIES telling us what they'll cover and what they won't and hiring hundreds of gatekeepers to make sure that they DON'T have to pay claims and breathing down the necks of the Health Care Professionals; telling them how to do their job...

In other words, BULLSHIT as usual!!!

I'm not surprised, I wouldn't expect anything better from the Queen of Recipients of health insurance mafia and big pharma dollars... She's Number One!

[papau]

46. Hillary outlaws the Ins co's ability to say they won't cover because of pre-existing

conditions.

[superconnected]

16. Didn't the clintons already run on that ticket - and not do it.

Why yes, yes they did.

[bemildred]

17. Hey, maybe they won't fuck it up this time?

On the other hand, why are they entitled to do-overs?

[ileus]

18. 110B won't cover California's cost.

110B wouldn't cover West Virginia for that matter.

110B + 366 bucks per person That would leave prolly 4k on average per person.

[WillTheGoober]

22. It's a great plan ...

Quite simply -- it's a stepping stone.
It's a giant stepping stone at that.

Require Health Insurance -->
Set a % of income that should be devoted to health care -->
If that % is exceeded, your health care is provided by government -->
If you cannot afford health care, your health care is provided by government.

It ups participation in private health care because it will force the cost of health care from insurers down (from participation alone) -- but also because insurers will suddenly be in competition with the government health care.

If insurers raise their rates, then it will cut out a percentage of people who will then be spending more than the % on health care; and they'll lose customers.

This transcends and includes capitalism.

This is smart and realistic -- and passable.

[depakid]

25. Only smart and realistic if you don't understand basic concepts

of health economics- like adverse selection.

It also doesn't address major inefficiencies- particularly administrative costs imposed by parasitic middlemen on themselves, on patients and on providers.

[ProudDad]

38. capitalism has NO PLACE

in health care!

There's a much easier and proven solution -- Medicare for ALL -- Universal Single-Payer...

Cut the for-profit leeches of the insurance companies and big pharma OUT OF THE HEALTH CARE EQUATION...

[IronLionZion]

50. Healthy young people will get corporate insurance, sick old people will get gov. insurance

so the corporatations still get all the money while the gov. plan goes bankrupt. We need healthy and sick people to be on the same plan for it to be financially viable.

[WillTheGoober]

55. ummm

You're making some assumptions there that aren't necessarily true.

....

In general, I'm over the liberal all-or-nothing quagmire that has actually put us farther back instead of forward.

[ProudDad]

59. Exactly - HR676 does that

It makes it illegal for a for-profit insurance company to sell the same coverage as the Universal People's Plan!


http://www.house.gov/conyers/news_hr676_2.htm

Brief Summary of HR 676

· The United States National Health Insurance Act establishes an American national health insurance program. The bill would create a publicly financed, privately delivered health care system that uses the already existing Medicare program by expanding and improving it to all U.S. residents, and all residents living in U.S. territories. The goal of the legislation is to ensure that all Americans will have access, guaranteed by law, to the highest quality and most cost effective health care services regardless of their employment, income, or health status.
· With over 45-75 million uninsured Americans, and another 50 million who are under- insured, the time has come to change our inefficient and costly fragmented non health care system.

Who is Eligible

· Every person living in or visiting the United States and the U.S. Territories would receive a United States National Health Insurance Card and ID number once they enroll at the appropriate location. Social Security numbers may not be used when assigning ID cards.

Health Care Services Covered

· This program will cover all medically necessary services, including primary care, in patient care, outpatient care, emergency care, prescription drugs, durable medical equipment, long term care, mental health services, dentistry, eye care, chiropractic, and substance abuse treatment. Patients have their choice of physicians, providers, hospitals, clinics and practices. No co-pays or deductibles are permitted under this act.

Conversion To A Non-Profit Health Care System

· Private health insurers shall be prohibited under this act from selling coverage that duplicates the benefits of the USNHI program. Exceptions to this rule include coverage for cosmetic surgery, and other medically unnecessary treatments. Those who are displaced as the result of the transition to a non- profit health care system are the first to be hired and retrained under this act.

Cost Containment Provisions/ Reimbursement

· The National USNHI program will set reimbursement rates annually for physicians, allow for "global budgets" (annual lump sums for operating expenses) for health care providers; and negotiate prescription drug prices. The national office will provide an annual lump sum allotment to each existing Medicare region; each region will administer the program.

· The conversion to a not-for-profit health care system will take place over a 15 year period. U.S. treasury bonds will be sold to compensate investor-owned providers for the actual appraised value of converted facilities used in the delivery of care; payment will not be made for loss of business profits. Health insurance companies could be sub-contracted out to handle reimbursements.

Proposed Funding For USNHI Program:

· Maintaining current federal and state funding of existing health care programs. A modest payroll tax on all employers of 3.3%. A 5% health tax on the top 5% of income earners. A small tax on stock and bond transfers. Closing corporate tax loop-holes, repealing the Bush tax cut.

[Spangle]

26. Just lost my SUPPORT!

She was my front runner. I'm wishing for Gore. But since he isn't in, I was swaying her way. This finished it.

I'm not stupid. She must think I am. I also think Gore isn't running so that he isn't going up against her. He's rolling over for HER? And THIS is what she is going to give us.

Nope, I'm tired of it. This is the first time I've spoken of this matter. Might be the last time I mention it, cause I hate to trash our own people. But good Grief! I"m sick of these guys (all of them) tossing trash at us and we are suppose to be excited about it, just because we are Democrats and they are Democrats! STOP GIVING US REPUBICLAN ideas! STOP protecting REpublican intrests! THAT isn't what we elect you for! ALL OF YOU!

[Doremus]

27. Ditto.

Who's left? Obama and Edwards both have proposed similar plans.

After Iraq, health care is my biggest concern.

If Gore doesn't jump in I guess I'll write in Dennis. I'm through voting for DINOs.

[clixtox]

48. Kucinich Is a Democrat! A Real Traditional Democrat!

Maybe you meant dinosaurs?

Hopefully DK will still be in the Democratic party and listed among the potential nominees to be the Democratic Party Candidate for President in November, 2008 when the primary election is held in your state.

Dennis Kucinich's positions on the crucial issues include getting the USA completely out of Iraq now, Universal (Single Payer) Health Care, ending the war economy and investing in America's infrastructure, limiting the power of corporations in politics, effective election finance reform, diversifying media ownership and bringing back the "fairness doctrine", resume protecting consumers from the most rapacious corporations and start regaining friends all around the world so we wouldn't be targeted by terrorists anymore, hopefully.

I can certainly understand how someone might not realize that DK was among the potential Democratic presidential nominees, his message is being suppressed by the corporate media and even the "moderate", corporate toady Democrats like Clinton, Obama and Edwards.

It turns out that the Democratic party bosses don't believe in a fair, transparent, democratic nomination process or even in representing working people, minorities or the poor among us.

These groups used to be the base of the Demo Party, now their votes are taken for granted and then they are lucky to get a pre-chewed on bone thrown out to appease them and keep them quiet.

Ignorant, blind devotion is what the Demo Party bosses want and DK ain't playing by their rules.

[Doremus]

53. As I said, I will probably end up voting for Dennis as a write-in.

Apparently you missed that part of my post.

I will have to write in his name because you and I both know he won't make it past the primaries.

BTW, I live near his district and have known of Dennis since he was mayor. I supported him then as I do now.


:hi:

[paulk]

54. you're not going to get single payer

this plan is not much different than the other front running Dems, and those plans share another thing in common - they could actually get passed...

don't let the good be the enemy of the perfect.

[JeanGrey]

29. Insurance?

Isn't this just "Universal Insurance"? It isn't taking out the insurance companies at all.

[Lasher]

32. Yes, that's exactly what it is. Universal health insurance.

Kucinich is the only presidential candidate who endorses Medicare for all, which is universal health care.

[JeanGrey]

65. Well I have Medicare too and it is NOT all that.

Medicare leaves you owing a ton of money as well. Especially on drugs.

[Lasher]

68. Medicare Part D (drug benefit) is not a good example of single payer health care

When I cite 'Medicare for all' I'm talking about the model provided by Parts A (hospitalization) and B (doctor care). Part D heavily involves insurance company middlemen, and is an example that we should not follow.

[area51]

34. Welcome to DU, JeanGrey.

And welcome to all the X-Men. :hi:

[JeanGrey]

66. Why, thank you!

[cornermouse]

39. mandatory healthcare = more corporate welfare

and even less healthcare for us. Let's just go for the government run system instead of playing around with this issue.

[Highway61]

47. Putting it simply

It isn't enough. What don't they understand about taking away profit from health care??? It pisses me off as they are trying to appease us AND the Insurance and pharma companies. It's a bunch of bull and they take us for stupid by giving us more of the same, Dennis is the ONLY one who has a plan that will work for ALL of us.

[Fovea]

52. another f'd up attempt at UHC, requiring a band aid

be provided by businesses for all employees with brain tumors.
The current system (and here I insult anything that is actually a system) is destroying American competitiveness as surely as outsourcing skill and dumbing down education.

I mean, never mind the unestimatable human misery the current healthcare system causes. It's not as if we the people mean anything.

But Good Gods! I have tried to keep an open mind, but this tears it for me. I am a life long Dem, and I will write in my own name before I vote for Hillary Clinton, or anyone who floats this kind of crap as a solution.

My reason:

I am a better Democrat than this.

[Vinca]

69. That's a good way to put it: Democrats are better than this.

Democrats should not be Republican light and that's what this is. There is one amusing item though. Mitt - whose own plan appears to have been partially lifted for the Clinton plan - is trashing it. You can't make this stuff up. Next up, Fred Thompson, who'll look puzzled and say, "Health care problem? What problem? No one told me there was a problem."

[donkeyotay]

57. Mandatory insurance is not universal health care

No more than nuclear power is "alternative energy." $110 Billion/year IS "a big government takeover," with the problem being that instead of going toward solving the problem for America's CITIZENS, it goes as a subsidy to corporations that treat patients as consumers. Might as well let it fester the way it is rather than offer false solutions that continue to transfer our taxes to corporations.

[ProudDad]

60. If my congresscritter ever voted for one of these

privatization schemes (and I will tell her to her face -- ooops, already have) I will work my butt off to get her unelected even if it means this district goes republican again...

This is my third rail. This is my drop-dead issue.

The USAmerican People deserve and MUST HAVE two things out of Congress and a pResident in order to have any chance at a democracy -- public financing of all elections and Universal Single-Payer Health Care...

Right now, their lack are the two major impediments to a decent society in this country...

[ProudDad]

61. Corporate Welfare can NEVER equal Health Care

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3529732#3529988

[Renew Deal]

63. It sounds like she wants to extend the misery of our current system to everyone

Who decides on treatment, doctors or HMO's? Are HMO's permitted to make and keep profits? It's the same broken system for everyone.