Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Hillary's Heath Care Sham Won't Cure What Ails Us

Posted by TRex at 5:58 AM on September 18, 2007.


TRex: To proclaim that her plan provides, "Universal Health Care" is a decided misnomer. "Universal Health Insurance" is more like it.
denied.thumbnail
claim

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

This post, written by TRex, originally appeared on FireDogLake

You know, Hillary, we need to talk. Today you unveiled your shiny new health plan and I have to say that I am wildly underwhelmed.

First we need to get something out of the way. For you to proclaim that your plan provides, "Universal Health Care" is a decided misnomer. "Universal Health Insurance" might be more like it.

Universal Health Care is what they have in England and Canada and Spain and Germany and Japan and, well, every civilized nation in the world but ours. It's single payer health care provided free of charge with no need for interference by a greed-crazed insurance and pharmaceutical industry. Is that so freaking hard to understand?

Hillary Clinton yesterday set out an ambitious $110bn (£55bn) plan to introduce universal healthcare in the US more than 10 years after her earlier failed attempt.

Ms Clinton, who is one of the frontrunners to win the Democratic nomination for next year's presidential race, proposed a package that would open the way for health insurance for 47 million Americans at present without cover.

And that would be great, if private health insurance in this country didn't already suck for air.

Senator, your plan is basically a national version of Republican Mitt Romney's "Universal Health Care" plan for Massachusetts, which has still left thousands in that state uninsured and even more struggling to make the payments on their new policies, which they are now required to have by law, but which may not pay them one thin dime should they actually become sick or hurt. What you're trying to pass off here as some kind of bold new way forward is just another bureaucratic nightmare in the making, as the already staggeringly inefficient insurance corporations struggle to take on the millions of new clients and patients. That'll work. That'll work just fine...for rich people like you and your husband and the Bush family.

Is there anybody here who believes that this plan wasn't conceived and dictated to Senator Clinton by passels of high-end lobbyists for the insurance industry? Yeah? Well, I've got some sports memorabilia in a hotel room in Vegas that I'll sell you. No, really, it's mine. We just need to go in there with our guns drawn to get it.

You go first.

Digg!

Tagged as: health care, hillary clinton, romney, cato institute

TRex is a regular blogger for FireDogLake.


Hitler, Darwin and the Sasquatch
They're all inter-related, you know.
Post by General JC Christian. July 9, 2009.
After Casting Sole No Vote on Slavery Memorial, Rep. King Keeps Digging Deeper
This is one contorted excuse.
Post by Steve Benen. July 9, 2009.
Airing of Grievances: Right-Winger Incensed over 'Commie's' Jab at 'Saturday Night Fever'
Oh, and Pinochet was a good guy, damnit!
Post by Roy Edroso. July 9, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Hillary Clinton: "For Sale to the Highest Bidder"
Posted by: ~Fiona~ on Sep 18, 2007 6:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don't be fooled by all the hype, Hillary is "Business as usual" as far as powerful lobby interests are concerned. The "More of the same politics seen with the current administration will continue as long as politicians continue to accept bribes from large lobbies who's only interests are in disabling the democratic process to their exclusive benefit.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Single payer not gonna happen, time to think practically
Posted by: lamar on Sep 18, 2007 7:03 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I lived in Spain for awhile. I had to go to the emergency room after fireworks went off next to my ear. It took 12 hours to see a doctor, I saw an old man die in the waiting room, and the surgery I needed ASAP was scheduled for 6 months later. Naturally, I came back to the 'uncivilized' US for care and, thankfully, still have my hearing.

I think you should be supporting Hillary's attempt to rewrite the rules in a more egalitarian way. You aren't going to get a single payer system within the next 20 years (and with the disaster that the Veteran's Administration is, and the mess England's NHS is in, and Spain's problems, I'm not sure why you'd want it). The best you can hope for is to nudge the system in that direction.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the back door
Posted by: jkbowman on Sep 18, 2007 8:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems clear. If you want to subsidize private insurance companies, Hillary's your gal.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

YES, IT'S ALL HARD TO UNDERSTAND
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Sep 18, 2007 8:52 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are too many people who have nothing to do with "health care" making fortunes from it. The advertising is unecessary. Provide us with free information. Medicare (as in people over 65) should be expanded to cover everyone. It is single payer. The fraud has to carry a heavy penalty. Privatizing emphasizes profits. When healthcare was non-profit it was excellent. The idea is to treat the sick and prevent disease not to "create" wealth. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Her proposal was meant to appeal to the "middle ground"...
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Sep 18, 2007 8:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...those somewhere in between Michael Moore fans and people concerned that inserting a layer of government between a person and their doctor isn't too terribly great of a bandage.

Problem is, that middle ground doesn't exist. It didn't the first time she took her duties as the first ladies to include nationalizing health care; it doesn't now that she's taking her duties as a former first lady to include campaigning for president.

Say no thanks to more "deciders".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary's health care program
Posted by: jumperladd on Sep 18, 2007 9:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The health care industry is certified serial killers with the blessing of our government. Doing business with them in any form is criminal. I hope the people of America wake up soon to the crisis we are facing with an aging population. Who will decide who gets the care they need? You or 'them'? Profit in the stock market is a great place to increase one's income but shooting yourself in the foot by putting money into health insurance companies does not make sense. They will cut your health care to make more money to increase returns to the investors.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Off the bandwagon
Posted by: Intellect on Sep 18, 2007 9:04 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, Hilary was at the top of my list. I was planning to work locally on her election campaign when the time came, but with this "more of the same" health insurance with private insurance companies I am sorry, but I must get off her bandwagon and select a candidate that will offer a single payer health program for all American citizens.
Single payer = no insurance company in the middle to decide whether or not I can see a particular doctor, or whether or not I can get a particular procedure or pharmaceutical.
I have Medicare right now - not any of the advantage or plus programs that claim to provide more and don't (even though the government pays the insurance companies 12% more so the private insurance companies can "offer " more than Medicare" and then deny claims to make even higher profits). I like this Original Medicare plan just fine, although I must pay more for it. I can see any doctor when I need to - no long lines, no approvals needed, etc, and I have not run into a doctor or hospital that won't take my Original Medicare (direct) although I see signs on some of the doctor's walls announcing they won't take one or another of the plans that work through insurance companies.
I really do not want an insurance company between my doctor and me.
Too bad, Hilary, you lost me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Off the bandwagon Posted by: Trainer12
I can't decide.........
Posted by: tap17x on Sep 18, 2007 9:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
.............whether Hillary's plan is so conservative because she's indebted to the industry or because single-payer has no chance to get through congress. Either way, she's very deeply compromised to big business and she would be my last choice of the Dem contenders. (But, needless to say, way preferable to any conceivable Refucklican.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I can't decide......... Posted by: VZEQICVA
Hilary proves once again.........
Posted by: tap17x on Sep 18, 2007 9:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...........that the US has a two-party system, Conservative and Right-Wing. Pitiful. The people are not being listened to and I hope they get mad enough to do something.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No such thing as health "care"
Posted by: peacelf on Sep 18, 2007 11:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We don't have a health CARE system, we have a health maintenance industry for some people. The arguments for universal healthcare, a single payer system that is government run, range from healthcare being a right and a cost savings from the for-profit system currently in place. These are good arguments, but the fact is that americans need a universal healthcare system to balance out the disproportionate power and wealth held in the hands of the few. Medicare for everyone will take american health off the table as a bargaining chip for workers, and place wages and other benefits a priority.

Of course, the wealthy do not want that. One, the health insurance industry will be reduced to supplemental insurance companies for Medicare and universal healthcare will empower the worker. No longer will one's or one's family's health be at issue if a worker strikes. That goes for workers beginning to organize a union.

The reality is that everyone would benefit from universal healthcare. Every employer who struggles paying ever-increasing premiums will be happy to see their healthcare costs stabilized. That way the fockers [sic] can make more money in other dishonest ways.

peace

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

can't run for prez on single payor & win
Posted by: allyourbasearebelongtous on Sep 18, 2007 12:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anyone running for Prsident on a single payor health plan will be defeated because the insurance lobbies and the pharmaceutical lobbies will go all out for the other candidate. Make no mistake about it, if big insurance and big pharma join with big oil, the NRA, and the antiabortion lobbyists against the Democrats, we're going to be sitting out in the cold for another 4 to 8 tears while the GOP throws away several trillion more dollars, does nothing about global warming or the sorry state of the USA infrastructure (collapsing bridges for example), takes away even more of your freedoms, cuts taxes for the wealthy (but not for you) several more times, and gets us involved in more pointless wars that kill more Amercian soldiers. I'm going to vote Democrat no matter who gets the nomination because that IS the first step toward changing things for the better.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Sigh.... Posted by: CatDad
Confusing the issue
Posted by: indradawn on Sep 18, 2007 6:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anyone else notice how Shillary is using the term "Universal Health Care" to cynically represent something that should really be called "Mandatory Coverage Compliance?" These and other sneaky political triangulation tactics are why she does not deserve the nomination and will not get my vote no matter who runs. You can all go right ahead and string me up for throwing my vote away again when I cast it for Kucinich.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let's go back in time a few years.
Posted by: ccluelessfl60 on Sep 18, 2007 7:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I do not have the total solution but I remember a time when we had neighborhood clinics with fees based on income and ability to pay. They served thousand and thousand in this nation. They were open during the day .Appointments were set and doctors were either paid by institutions or they volunteered. How about a student loan credit for young doctors. Meds were also dispensed. This is how you give preventative care to the lower income group and elderly.TheProgram was subsidized by the government. Ronald Reagan shut them down to wage economic war with Russia. It is much cheaper to prevent the complications from chronic disease than treat them later. B/P meds are much cheaper then treating a stroke patient. Patient education for diabetics and screening is much cheaper then waiting to amputate. Being penny wise and pound foolish is not a good plan. Wake up AMERICA. We can do better than rely on private companies to look out for us or government to suck all the life from good ideas. Hillary what the hell happened to you?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

john polifronio
Posted by: johnp on Sep 18, 2007 9:37 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Can it be that all you dumkoffs don't understand that, believe it or not, Hillary is not responsible for the for-profit health care "business" in this country, and has simply done her best to extract whatever benefits she can out of the system, for the citizen. The author of this piece is a bonehead and a fool, if he thinks he can pretend that Hillary is the root of the corporate excesses we all, along with Hillary, face. If you don't like Hillary, admit it, but don't pretend that you have a good reason for your hatred, ass hole.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Burningman
Posted by: wcox on Sep 18, 2007 10:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When health insurance is privatized the money goes to the stock holders and CEOs and people don't get what they have paid for...they get much less. Until health care is a not-for-profit program our system will continue to be the most expensive in the world, but far from the best. Health Care must become a Right not a privilege for every American Citizen. Private health insurance will never be effecent enough to do that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]