HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Hillary has been fighting...

Sat Nov 21, 2015, 11:43 PM

 

Hillary has been fighting for health care reform since the early 1990s

Remember that? She was skewered and roasted by the Republicans and the health care industry, so much so that no one tried to tackle health care reform for a decade.

You may not agree with the destination but at least she tried to move the country to a better system. Even that didn't manage to pass.

Now, why in the name of * does anyone think she's in the pay of the health care industry now? Do you really think she went through that experience for fun?

I have NEVER seen any serious proposals from Bernie on where he wants to move the health care system. By serious proposal I mean policy details, transition plans, sources of funding, etc.

But just because he says "single payer healthcare" or "Medicare for all" his supporters get so excited without asking for more details.

40 replies, 1430 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 40 replies Author Time Post
Reply Hillary has been fighting for health care reform since the early 1990s (Original post)
hill2016 Nov 2015 OP
think Nov 2015 #1
hill2016 Nov 2015 #9
think Nov 2015 #14
riversedge Nov 2015 #27
Jarqui Nov 2015 #2
hill2016 Nov 2015 #10
Karma13612 Nov 2015 #13
AgingAmerican Nov 2015 #35
bravenak Nov 2015 #3
Duckhunter935 Nov 2015 #4
bravenak Nov 2015 #6
Duckhunter935 Nov 2015 #8
merrily Nov 2015 #7
AgingAmerican Nov 2015 #36
Duckhunter935 Nov 2015 #5
hill2016 Nov 2015 #11
Duckhunter935 Nov 2015 #12
hill2016 Nov 2015 #15
think Nov 2015 #17
Duckhunter935 Nov 2015 #21
Vinca Nov 2015 #22
ismnotwasm Nov 2015 #26
AgingAmerican Nov 2015 #37
Duckhunter935 Nov 2015 #20
AgingAmerican Nov 2015 #40
ljm2002 Nov 2015 #34
colsohlibgal Nov 2015 #16
Rilgin Nov 2015 #18
karynnj Nov 2015 #19
Vinca Nov 2015 #23
karynnj Nov 2015 #24
tazkcmo Nov 2015 #30
MoonRiver Nov 2015 #25
NurseJackie Nov 2015 #28
Hoyt Nov 2015 #31
tazkcmo Nov 2015 #29
UglyGreed Nov 2015 #32
JoePhilly Nov 2015 #39
ljm2002 Nov 2015 #33
AgingAmerican Nov 2015 #38

Response to hill2016 (Original post)

Sat Nov 21, 2015, 11:47 PM

1. Here are links to a summary & full text of the 2013 Single Payer bill Sanders submitted to congress

 

I would imagine any newer plans he may be working on are similar.

Summary:

http://www.healthcare-now.org/index.php?s=Bernie+Sanders+S.+1782

Full text of bill:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/1782/text

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #1)

Sun Nov 22, 2015, 12:13 AM

9. LOL

 

He wants the states to implement single payer programs. What about starting with Vermont?

And the federal government CANNOT force the states to set up single payer programs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hill2016 (Reply #9)

Sun Nov 22, 2015, 12:31 AM

14. Canada's healthcare system developed in a similar fashion. Does America lack the ability

 

to join the modern world in providing healthcare as a basic right?

Bernie wants to evolve like Canada, most of Europe, Australia, Japan, South Korea and many other countries already have.

Something to consider while you mock what the rest of the modern world has already achieved..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #1)

Sun Nov 22, 2015, 10:14 AM

27. Too many red states exist--Look at what has happened to the folks in

red states--left behind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hill2016 (Original post)

Sat Nov 21, 2015, 11:48 PM

2. I posted this earlier today

There's a fair amount of detail there:

180? page bill plus:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=835104

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jarqui (Reply #2)

Sun Nov 22, 2015, 12:16 AM

10. like Hillary pointed out during the second debate

 

it's left to the states to implement. Which the federal government CANNOT force them to do.

And it gets rid of the federal programs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hill2016 (Reply #10)

Sun Nov 22, 2015, 12:29 AM

13. Medicare.For.All.

Federal.

End.Of.Story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hill2016 (Reply #10)

Sun Nov 22, 2015, 02:20 PM

35. Which Red states do not have Medicare?

 

?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hill2016 (Original post)

Sat Nov 21, 2015, 11:49 PM

3. I have no idea why anyone thinks we can get single payer through congress.

 

Obamacare was voted down by Republicans over and over and over. Medicare for all? Smh

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #3)

Sat Nov 21, 2015, 11:54 PM

4. And you think Hillary can

 

Get anything through also

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #4)

Sun Nov 22, 2015, 12:00 AM

6. No. That's why these crazy promises make me irritated.

 

Words are just air escaping the mouth with sounds. Action is harder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #6)

Sun Nov 22, 2015, 12:11 AM

8. We can agree on something

 

Lol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #3)

Sun Nov 22, 2015, 12:01 AM

7. LOL! The Clintons couldn't get HeritageFoundationCare through Congress.

I'd rather have someone try hard for the desirable thing and fail than try hard for something much less desirable and fail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #3)

Sun Nov 22, 2015, 02:22 PM

36. A good chunk of the New Deal was passed using executive orders

 

And the bully pulpit. The past is prologue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hill2016 (Original post)

Sat Nov 21, 2015, 11:56 PM

5. Wow another post against Bernie

 

and his plan. What's that, like 4 today? Seems like you must not have liked the many answers that you received on those other threads.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #5)

Sun Nov 22, 2015, 12:22 AM

11. no

 

I'm on a roll!!!

You notice that most responses from the Bernie crowds don't have policy details or other substantive points? Just variations of "you're an idiot!".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hill2016 (Reply #11)

Sun Nov 22, 2015, 12:26 AM

12. Link to one that called you an idiot

 

I saw quite a few that tried to explain and linked to how he was planning on funding as that was you main issue about it. I also saw you never answered any questions put to you about Hillary's plan other than her thoughts on drug prices.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #12)

Sun Nov 22, 2015, 12:40 AM

15. here you go

 

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251835388#post51

Link me to one that tried to explain how he's funding universal health care (and I mean specific numbers).

Where are the questions on Hillary's plan?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hill2016 (Reply #15)

Sun Nov 22, 2015, 12:50 AM

17. Here is the funding method from the link I provided you previously above:

 


“SEC. 59B. HEALTH CARE INCOME TAX.

“(a) Imposition Of Tax.—In the case of an individual, there is hereby imposed a tax (in addition to any other tax imposed by this subtitle) equal to the applicable amount with respect to the taxpayer for the taxable year.

“(b) Applicable Amount.—For purposes of this section—

“(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of a taxpayer not described in paragraph (2), the applicable amount with respect to any taxable year shall be determined in accordance with the following table:



“If taxable income is: The applicable amount is:
Not over $200,000 2.2% of taxable income
Over $200,000 but not over $400,000 $4,400, plus 3.2% of the excess over $200,000
Over $400,000 but not over $600,000 $10,800, plus 4.2% of the excess over $400,000
Over $600,000 $19,200, plus 5.2% of the excess over $600,000.
“(2) JOINT RETURNS AND SURVIVING SPOUSES.—In the case of a joint return or a surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)), the applicable amount with respect to any taxable year shall be determined in accordance with the following table:



“If taxable income is: The applicable amount is:
Not over $250,000 2.2% of taxable income
Over $250,000 but not over $400,000 $5,500, plus 3.2% of the excess over $250,000
Over $400,000 but not over $600,000 $10,300, plus 4.2% of the excess over $400,000
Over $600,000 $18,700, plus 5.2% of the excess over $600,000.
“(3) INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.—

“(A) IN GENERAL.—In the case of any taxable year beginning after 2015, each of the dollar amounts in the tables contained in paragraphs (1) and (2) shall be increased by an amount equal to—

“(i) such dollar amount, multiplied by

“(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable year begins, determined by substituting ‘calendar year 2014’ for ‘calendar year 1992’ in subparagraph (B) thereof.

“(B) ROUNDING.—If any amount after adjustment under subparagraph (A) is not a multiple of $1,000, such amount shall be rounded to the next lowest multiple of $1,000.

“(c) No Credits Against Tax; No Effect On Minimum Tax.—The tax imposed by this section shall not be treated as a tax imposed by this chapter for purposes of determining—

“(1) the amount of any credit allowable under this chapter, or

“(2) the amount of the minimum tax imposed by section 55.

“(d) Special Rules.—

“(1) TAX TO BE WITHHELD, ETC.—For purposes of this title, the tax imposed by this section shall be treated as imposed by section 1.

“(2) REIMBURSEMENT OF TAX BY EMPLOYER NOT INCLUDIBLE IN GROSS INCOME.—The gross income of an employee shall not include any payment by his employer to reimburse the employee for the tax paid by the employee under this section.

“(3) OTHER RULES.—The rules of section 59A(d) shall apply to the tax imposed by this section.”.

(b) Clerical Amendment.—The table of parts for subchapter A of chapter 1 is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

“PART VIII—HEALTH CARE RELATED TAXES”.
(c) Effective Date.—The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2014.


SEC. 813. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS.
(a) In General.—Part VIII of subchapter A of chapter 1, as added by this title, is amended by adding at the end the following new subpart:


“Subpart B—Surcharge On High Income Individuals

“Sec. 59C. Surcharge on high income individuals.

“SEC. 59C. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS.
“(a) General Rule.—In the case of a taxpayer other than a corporation, there is hereby imposed (in addition to any other tax imposed by this subtitle) a tax equal to 5.4 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $1,000,000.

“(b) Taxpayers Not Making A Joint Return.—In the case of any taxpayer other than a taxpayer making a joint return under section 6013 or a surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)), subsection (a) shall be applied by substituting ‘$500,000’ for ‘$1,000,000’.

“(c) Modified Adjusted Gross Income.—For purposes of this section, the term ‘modified adjusted gross income’ means adjusted gross income reduced by any deduction (not taken into account in determining adjusted gross income) allowed for investment interest (as defined in section 163(d)). In the case of an estate or trust, adjusted gross income shall be determined as provided in section 67(e).

“(d) Special Rules.—

“(1) NONRESIDENT ALIEN.—In the case of a nonresident alien individual, only amounts taken into account in connection with the tax imposed under section 871(b) shall be taken into account under this section.

“(2) CITIZENS AND RESIDENTS LIVING ABROAD.—The dollar amount in effect under subsection (a) (after the application of subsection (b)) shall be decreased by the excess of—

“(A) the amounts excluded from the taxpayer’s gross income under section 911, over

“(B) the amounts of any deductions or exclusions disallowed under section 911(d)(6) with respect to the amounts described in subparagraph (A).

“(3) CHARITABLE TRUSTS.—Subsection (a) shall not apply to a trust all the unexpired interests in which are devoted to one or more of the purposes described in section 170(c)(2)(B).

“(4) NOT TREATED AS TAX IMPOSED BY THIS CHAPTER FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES.—The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax imposed by this chapter for purposes of determining the amount of any credit under this chapter or for purposes of section 55.”.

(b) Clerical Amendment.—The table of subparts for part VIII of subchapter A of chapter 1, as added by this title, is amended by inserting after the item relating to subpart A the following new item:

“SUBPART B—SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS”.
(c) Section 15 Not To Apply.—The amendment made by subsection (a) shall not be treated as a change in a rate of tax for purposes of section 15 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

(d) Effective Date.—The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2014.

Subtitle C—Other Financing Provisions

SEC. 821. TAX ON SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS.
(a) In General.—Chapter 36 is amended by inserting after subchapter B the following new subchapter:


“Subchapter C—Tax On Securities Transactions

“Sec. 4475. Tax on securities transactions.

“SEC. 4475. TAX ON SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS.
“(a) Imposition Of Tax.—There is hereby imposed a tax on each covered transaction with respect to any security.

“(b) Rate Of Tax.—

“(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, the rate of such tax shall be equal to 0.02 percent of the fair market value of the security.

“(2) SWAPS.—In the case of a security described in subsection (d)(1)(D), the rate of such tax shall be equal to 0.02 percent of the fair market value of the underlying property with respect to, or the notional principal amount of, the derivative financial instrument involved in such transaction.

“(3) SHORT-TERM DEBT INSTRUMENTS.—In the case of a covered transaction with respect to a security described in subsection (d)(1)(C) which has a fixed maturity date not more than 1 year from the date of issue, the rate of such tax shall be equal to 0.02 percent of the fair market value of such security.

“(c) Covered Transaction.—For purposes of this section, the term ‘covered transaction’ means—

“(1) except as provided in paragraph (2), any purchase if—

“(A) such purchase occurs on a trading facility located in the United States, or

“(B) the purchaser or seller is a United States person, or

“(2) any transaction with respect to a security described in subsection (d)(1)(D), if any party with rights under such security is a United States person or if such transaction is facilitated by a United States person, including a trading facility located in the United States or a broker.

“(d) Security And Other Definitions.—For purposes of this section—

“(1) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘security’ means—

“(A) any share of stock in a corporation,

“(B) any partnership or beneficial ownership interest in a widely held or publicly traded partnership or trust,

“(C) any note, bond, debenture, or other evidence of indebtedness issued by a nongovernmental entity the beneficial ownership of which is traded on an established market, or

“(D) any evidence of an interest in, or a derivative financial instrument in—

“(i) any security described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C),

“(ii) any specified index, or

“(iii) any other note, bond, or debenture issued by a nongovernmental entity.

“(2) DERIVATIVE FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT.—The term ‘derivative financial instrument’ means any option, forward contract, short position, notional principal contract, credit default swap, or any similar financial instrument.

“(3) SPECIFIED INDEX.—The term ‘specified index’ means any 1 or more of any combination of—

“(A) a fixed rate, price, or amount, or

“(B) a variable rate, price, or amount,

which is based on any current objectively determinable information which is not within the control of any of the parties to the contract or instrument and is not unique to any of the parties’ circumstances.

“(e) Exceptions To Imposition Of Tax.—

“(1) EXCEPTION FOR INITIAL ISSUES.—No tax shall be imposed under subsection (a) on any covered transaction with respect to the initial issuance of any security described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of subsection (d)(1).

“(2) EXCEPTION FOR RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS, ETC.—No tax shall be imposed under subsection (a) on any covered transaction with respect to any security which is held in any plan, account, or arrangement described in section 220, 223, 401(a), 403(a), 403(b), 408, 408A, 529, or 530 (including assets held in a segregated asset account described in section 817 as part of any such plan, account, or arrangement).

“(3) EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN MUTUAL FUND TRANSACTIONS.—No tax shall be imposed under subsection (a) on any covered transaction—

“(A) with respect to the purchase of any interest in a regulated investment company (as defined in section 851) which issues only stock which is redeemable on the demand of the stock holder,

“(B) by a regulated investment company (as so defined) which is 100 percent owned by 1 or more plans, accounts, or arrangements described in paragraph (2), and

“(C) to the extent such tax is properly allocable to any class of shares of a regulated investment company (as so defined) which is 100 percent owned by 1 or more plans, accounts, or arrangements described in paragraph (2).

“(f) By Whom Paid.—

“(1) IN GENERAL.—The tax imposed by this section shall be paid by—

“(A) in the case of a transaction which occurs on a trading facility located in the United States, such trading facility,

“(B) in the case of a transaction not described in subparagraph (A) which is executed by a broker, such broker,

“(C) in the case of a transaction not described in subparagraph (A) or (B), with respect to a security described in section (d)(1)(D), the party identified by the Secretary, or

“(D) in any other case, the purchaser with respect to the transaction.

“(2) WITHHOLDING IF PURCHASER IS NOT A UNITED STATES PERSON.—See section 1447 for withholding by seller if purchaser is a foreign person.

“(g) Administration.—The Secretary shall carry out this section in consultation with the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

“(h) Guidance; Regulations.—The Secretary shall—

“(1) provide guidance regarding such information reporting concerning covered transactions as the Secretary deems appropriate, and

“(2) prescribe such regulations as are necessary or appropriate to prevent avoidance of the purposes of this section, including the use of non-United States persons in such transactions or the improper allocation of taxes to classes of shares described in subsection (e)(3)(C).”.

(b) Credit For First $100,000 Of Stock Transactions Per Year.—Subpart C of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 is amended by inserting after section 36B the following new section:

“SEC. 36C. CREDIT FOR SECURITIES TRANSACTION TAXES.

“(a) Allowance Of Credit.—In the case of any purchaser with respect to a covered transaction, there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this subtitle for the taxable year an amount equal to the lesser of—

“(1) the aggregate amount of tax imposed under section 4475 on covered transactions during the taxable year with respect to which the taxpayer is the purchaser, or

“(2) $250 ($500 in the case of a joint return).

“(b) Aggregation Rule.—For purposes of this section, all persons treated as a single employer under subsection (a) or (b) of section 52, or subsection (m) or (o) of section 414, shall be treated as one taxpayer.

“(c) Definitions.—For purposes of this section, any term used in this section which is also used in section 4475 shall have the same meaning as when used in section 4475.”.

(c) Withholding.—Subchapter A of chapter 3 is amended by adding at the end the following new section:


“SEC. 1447. WITHHOLDING ON SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS.
“(a) In General.—In the case of any outbound securities transaction, the transferor shall deduct and withhold a tax equal to the tax imposed under section 4475 with respect to such transaction.

“(b) Outbound Securities Transaction.—For purposes of this section, the term ‘outbound securities transaction’ means any covered transaction to which section 4475(a) applies if—

“(1) such transaction does not occur on a trading facility located in the United States, and

“(2) the purchaser with respect to such transaction is not a United States person.”.

(d) Conforming Amendments.—

(1) Section 6211(b)(4)(A), as amended by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, is amended by inserting “36C,” after “36B,”.

(2) Section 1324(b)(2) of title 31, United States Code, is amended by inserting “36C,” after “36B,”.

(3) The table of subchapters for chapter 36 is amended by inserting after the item relating to subchapter B the following new item:


“Subchapter C. Tax on securities transactions.”.
(4) The table of sections for subchapter A of chapter 3 is amended by adding at the end the following new item:


“Sec. 1447. Withholding on securities transactions.”.
(5) The table of sections for subpart C of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 36B the following new item:


“Sec. 36C. Credit for securities transaction taxes.”.
(e) Effective Date.—The amendments made by this section shall apply to transactions occurring more than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.


https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/1782/text#toc-HFBDCE6D9AD1C489A97F718FB5256733

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #17)

Sun Nov 22, 2015, 08:40 AM

21. I guess that is not good enough

 

Lol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #17)

Sun Nov 22, 2015, 09:35 AM

22. You and your darn facts. LOL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #17)

Sun Nov 22, 2015, 09:59 AM

26. Holy crap

THATS how he thinks he going to pay for it? I haven't read the whole thing, but does it address, for instance current governmental bundling reimbursement as well as the new coding system? Or will he stick with the codes as-is and leave bundling alone?

I'm no expert, but this looks like an outline not a comprehensive plan with exactly zero chance of getting through congress as is. It needs a LOT of tweaking and work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ismnotwasm (Reply #26)

Sun Nov 22, 2015, 02:24 PM

37. It's way cheaper than what we have now

 

It's that simple.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hill2016 (Reply #15)

Sun Nov 22, 2015, 08:38 AM

20. That's a link to your own post

 

I did not see you calling yourself an idiot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hill2016 (Reply #15)

Sun Nov 22, 2015, 02:52 PM

40. You said: "There's nothing medically that can be done to cure diabetes or obesity right?"

 

And someone said the statement was 'ignorant' which is true.

I have a friend who was cured of Diabetes when he received a pancreatic transplant. He was on the six month kidney transplant list for a year. Because he was so near death, and a type 1 diabetic, they transplanted in the pancreas with the kidney he received. That was 13 years ago and he is alive and well with Season tickets to the Seahawks, attending every home game with his son. When he awoke from the operation, he was no longer diabetic. He can eat whatever he wants, but since he was diabetic since age 3, he never developed a taste for sweets. He does love a nice big piece of pie every now and again though!

As for Obesity they do stomach reduction surgery, aka stomach staple.

So your post IS ignorant, which doesn't mean the same thing as 'idiot'. It merely means 'uninformed' which describes 4/5 of what you post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hill2016 (Reply #11)

Sun Nov 22, 2015, 02:12 PM

34. So right here in this thread...

...are links to the 2013 bill that he sponsored, yet you persist in complaining that "most responses from the Bernie crowds don't have policy details or other substantive points"...

Evidence suggests there may be a reason for those other "variations" you speak of...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hill2016 (Original post)

Sun Nov 22, 2015, 12:44 AM

16. For Profit Healthcare Is So Wrong

Insurance companies should not be about making big profits. It didn't used to be like that. Thanks Nixon and Reagan.

We need a low overhead public system, a number of office personnel in any region with a boss or two making 60 or so percent more. No CEO skimming off tens of millions for absolutely nothing.

We pay for it by raising top marginal rates, cutting our defense spending, adding a VAT tax, etc.

Minus our political system of legalized bribery we could benefit the many over the few.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hill2016 (Original post)

Sun Nov 22, 2015, 01:01 AM

18. Do you know the Health Care Reform Plan of the Clinton Administration and in 2008?

The Clinton Health Care Plan was loosely based on the Aspen Plan and was similar to the current Insurance Plan. Market places and groups of uninsured. Government involvement was just setting up a group and negotiating for that group.

It again enshrined corporate insurance companies as the gatekeepers of American Health. It also got lots of support from the Big Insurance companies who like now would not be threatened by a health care reform that went further. At that time it was a big issue and looked like reform was coming. The small Insurance companies were going to be put out of business and they fought hard against it.

Arguing that people have wanted or developed health care plans in the past is meaningless. It is all in the details. The republicans have also wanted what they call Health Care Reform for years. There reform plan was to cap liability and allow insurance companys to compete against state lines. This reform would not work, it would just lead to stuff like the credit card companies establishing themselves in the Dakotas with favorable laws as they seek suckers/customers across the nation. The fact that the Republican Plan is horrible does not mean that they have not sought it for years.

The Clinton Plan was big insurance company favorable as a regulatory measure just like the current system. Since it enshrined the Insurance Company's the left didn't like it. Since it had a government role, Republicans ran against it. No one liked it and so it lost.

In 2008 she ran on something very close to what we ended up with under Obama who ran against Obamacare and the mandate. Clinton was against a public government option and wanted a mandate to buy private insurance companies and a marketplace.

That's the history of the Clinton fight for Health Care Reform. It has always involved propping up rather than eliminating corporate Insurance Companys

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hill2016 (Original post)

Sun Nov 22, 2015, 01:09 AM

19. Bernie wrote the provisions in ACA for community health

Centers. This is an important option.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #19)

Sun Nov 22, 2015, 09:38 AM

23. He's also responsible for the opening of local VA satellite clinics.

It's not like he's been sitting around picking his nose and doing nothing all these years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vinca (Reply #23)

Sun Nov 22, 2015, 09:55 AM

24. Exactly, both of these are important and help people and he is the primary legislator

responsible for the community health centers (they would NOT have happened without him) and the lead Senator on the entire VA bill. As you state, he has not been sitting around doing nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #24)

Sun Nov 22, 2015, 10:23 AM

30. "...lead Senator on the entire VA bill."

Which got me in to see a doctor within a couple of weeks after the bill passed giving the VA 5 million dollars for more doctors and nurses after months of cancelled/re-scheduled appointments. A whole lot of nothing in some people's eyes, I guess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hill2016 (Original post)

Sun Nov 22, 2015, 09:57 AM

25. Yes she has!

Unfortunately, she was blocked at every turn by the Thugs. She'll be ahead of the game this time, thanks to Obama and the ACA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MoonRiver (Reply #25)

Sun Nov 22, 2015, 10:16 AM

28. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MoonRiver (Reply #25)

Sun Nov 22, 2015, 11:48 AM

31. That's what I think too.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hill2016 (Original post)

Sun Nov 22, 2015, 10:20 AM

29. And failed.

And now says single payer is too expensive just like the WSJ.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hill2016 (Original post)

Sun Nov 22, 2015, 12:06 PM

32. You are not allowed

to include Bill Clinton's Administration according to some HRC supporters. Plus HRC has evolved and now hates healthcare reform and favors the no new taxes meme.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UglyGreed (Reply #32)

Sun Nov 22, 2015, 02:32 PM

39. Two words. Hillary Care.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hill2016 (Original post)

Sun Nov 22, 2015, 02:09 PM

33. First of all...

...I knew, way back then, that it was a big mistake to give her the reins on the health care bill. Not because she was not capable, but because at the time she was *not elected*. In my opinion that was one of the factors that doomed her efforts from the beginning. As someone else pointed out in another thread, that sort of thing is usually delegated to one's vice president, not one's spouse.

Secondly, her efforts were very similar to what we got with ACA: a complicated system that tries to give citizens a slightly better deal, slightly better access to health *insurance* (as distinguished from *care*), while protecting the position of the private insurers. In other words, a bandaid on a huge gaping wound. The insurers loved the mandate, they just hated the extra regulations that came with it.

Like Obama, Clinton will not consider single payer in any form. One can speculate on why that is, but it is a fact. Ergo, the health care industry as it exists today will like her better than they like Sanders.

As for details, there are plenty of details out there including the bill that Sanders introduced in 2013. Not that hard to find. Unless for some strange reason, one does not want to find it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hill2016 (Original post)

Sun Nov 22, 2015, 02:27 PM

38. She was pushing insurance reform

 

And calling it Healthcare. Corporate crapola like we have now.

If you want to see a serious proposal, look at Sanders bill. You won't see anything with your head in the sand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread