What the PNHP has to say about Clinton's health care plan.

[Cleita]

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2007/september/hillary_clintons_a.php

At the bottom of this article from Hillary Clinton's website about the health care plans offered by the mainstream candidates is this comment.

Comment:
By Don McCanne, MD

Hillary Clinton’s proposal “preserves existing health insurance,” and includes the responsibility of individuals “to get and keep insurance” through the current private insurance market, or through a “Health Choices Menu” of private FEHBP-type plans, or through a Medicare-type public program.

Thus her proposal is an individual mandate to purchase private insurance that is no longer affordable for average-income individuals, or to purchase a public plan that will be even more expensive because of adverse selection.

To make the plans affordable for individuals, she would use a combination of refundable tax credits and a cap on premiums at a percentage of income. Assuming that the plans would provide adequate benefits and adequate protection against financial hardship, the increased spending through the tax system would be exponentially more than the estimates in her plan. And most of the proposed savings to pay for these increases are largely nebulous, and some of those measures would actually increase costs.

Further, the administrative complexities of refundable tax credits and means-tested premium caps would still leave many without coverage. Coverage will never be universal unless it is truly automatic for everyone.

If we are going to use the tax system to pay for health care anyway then why should we waste funds on the profoundly inefficient system of segregated private health plans? A universal risk pool that is equitably funded through the tax system is the most efficient and least expensive method of ensuring comprehensive coverage for everyone.

Many will try to contrast the differences in the Clinton, Obama and Edwards proposals, but they are all basically the same. In spite of their rhetoric, they have each made the protection and enhancement of the private insurance plans a higher priority than patients.

I only have one small disagreement with this doctor about John Edward's plan. Edwards proposes offering an improved Medicare to the public to buy if they choose. The purpose is to compete with privatized insurance forcing them to either provide the same coverage or get out of the business. Personally, I prefer insurance to be eliminated from the health care business altogether.

[Vincardog]

1. I prefer insurance to be eliminated from the health care business altogether.???

Is that the choice? WE can either have health care paid by insurance companies or the health care industry disappears?
Why can't we have UNIVERSAL PUBLIC FINANCED HEALTH CARE? you know MEDICARE without any age restriction.

[Cleita]

4. Sure, that's what I believe we want.

I don't like privatized insurance at all. Did my post not say that. I'm all for an improved Medicare for all with no deductions or copays. It can be done with the money that is thrown away in insurance company profits. Medicare if it pays the doctors and caregivers fees that they can operate on operates very efficiently and with very low adminstrative costs.

[Warpy]

2. Forcing insurance plans to take all comers

and depriving them of the ability to deny care will take the profit out of it for them.

THEY will back universal single payer if that happens!

[Cleita]

5. I hope so Warpy. I hope so. n/t

[ljm2002]

9. No it won't...

...because there are *no* caps on premiums for private insurers under Clinton's plan. So people will be priced out of private insurance and will have to use Medicare. So the end result will be a boon for private insurance: they get to keep the healthiest segment of the population and charge what they can get away with, and the government programs will get to keep the expensive patients. So it will strain that system, which will give the rabid rightwing another talking point about how "inefficient" government systems really are, and -- it just can't work in the long run.

Universal single payer health care for all, paid for by taxes, and with private insurers and their profits out of the picture entirely. That is what we need, and it's what progressives should all be fighting for IMO.

[antigop]

10. ljm. that's EXACTLY what I was thinking....

Medicare will get the "expensive" patients and the private insurance plans will get the healthier patients. IT STINKS!

I agree -- we should fight for single payer for all, paid by taxes -- NO private profits.

[endarkenment]

3. Everyone in the same boat.

It is that simple concept that has kept both social security and medicare alive despite endless attacks from the kleptocracy. We should demand nothing less from universal healthcare. Medicare for everyone, everyone in the same boat.

[Cleita]

6. Yes, and we really need to fight the for profits. They are very

powerful, which is why our politicians pander to them so much. It's gonna be us who topple them, I'm afraid with little help from our leaders.

[Cleita]

7. Here's a NYtimes story about the matter.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/17/washington/17cnd-clinton.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

[Cleita]

8. ...

:kick: