Discussion for article #244527
Perhaps the biggest single failure of the Obama administration was to not support the Public Option. We could have had the two visions of health care compete head to head and like the rest of the industrialized world, proven once and for all that the government can do a better and more cost-effective job than the insurance industry.
I fear that Hillary Clinton doesnāt believe in government involvement in health care, and will slowly undermine what progress Obama did make. Or maybe sheās just pandering to a campaign donor.
1 Like
Iāll never understand why people think that the best entity to govern their healthcare is an insurance company.
5 Likes
Very strongly disagree. As President Obama has said specifically, given the politics at the time, single payer would never had made it through Congress. Aside from unanimous GOP obstruction there were a number of Democrats who would not support it either. To call that Obamaās biggest single failure is absurd. And to view it as you do is quite myopic. And simply wrong based on the precise dynamics that were at play. In an ideal situation single payer would have been the best of all possible worlds. Congress is never an ideal situation.
10 Likes
Do you really believe we could have gotten Public Option through? Not a chance, Plus from all I have read, it wasnāt such a good option because of the cost and that it wouldnāt give insurance to everyone and single payer would literally put private insurers out of business If you think that private insurers would stand for that you got another think coming. I am not sure how many people are employed by these companies but it has to be in the tens of thousands and that would not have gone over well in 2009 when the country was suffering a huge economic crises and had the country had already lost millions of jobs
3 Likes
Beyond baffling belief.
I wonder how many people were employed be the medical industry whose only job was to deal with insurance companies? Add them to all employees of the insurance companies and you may not wonder why we pay twice as much as everyone else.
3 Likes
During her presidential campaign, Clinton has suggested Sandersā plan amounts to a tax hike for the middle class and in a speech this week, suggested that it was a ārisky dealā that would turn "over your and my health insurance to governors."
I do not follow Clinton here. I fully believe a well-designed Medicare For All type of plan would be best ā for us, but not for the insurance industry. Hillary Clinton is incorrect with this analysis because the plan would be federally-based, not even administered by a state or its legislators ā¦ just like Medicare today. She is wrong and I believe she knows this.
4 Likes
People are welcome to buy more insurance. Single Payer allows everyone to see a doctor when theyāre sick. Not having insurance keeps most from getting required care.
Would the insurance industry be able to continue buying politicians? More than likely, yes. The insurance agencyās couldnāt couldnāt own them, like they currently do.
After Ted Kennedy died, Senate committeeās voted down a public option and said it would have been filibustered.
Republican opponents said private insurance could not compete with a public option.
Strange that so many Republican states used a āpublic optionā for their exchanges.
1 Like
Really, Hillary, you should not criticize a public option or single payer. Heck, in 2022, in the unlikely event that Obamacare premiums start increasing much faster than inflation, you might want to try it. Just say, āI understand why it is an attractive idea, but I donāt think it is best to pursue it right nowā¦ā
1 Like
I agree about the timing, the very bad economy, very sour attitude from all Republicans and even some Democrats ā that was definitely a different world. Regarding the jobs of insurance company employees, the large majority of them would very likely be hired by the federal government, what with a large expansion of Medicare. If executed properly, a Medicare-For-All plan would cover us all. Nearly everyone would be required to pay a monthly premium, have applicable deductibles and co-insurance amounts, etc. The feds would need a lot of experienced folks to administer such a plan ā thus, a pretty good majority of insurance company employees affected by the concurrent downsizing of private plans would likely be very welcome to transition over. Additionally, folks would still have the option of purchasing additional health insurance coverage to cover Medicareās deductibles, co-insurances, etc. Supplemental. I sincerely believe this would be a very workable set-up ā and also frees up pretty much anyone who still feels tied to a workplace just to keep the better insurance options.
and in a speech this week, suggested that it was a ārisky dealā that would turn āover your and my health insurance to governors.ā
Isnāt this already the case with the ACA and Medicaid implementation as well? A little disingenuous I believe.
Except it would be on a larger scale, and not just a gap, that was caused because of the SCOTUS.
No one remembers Joe Liebermanās opposition? He refused to even consider a lower age elibility for Medicare and I seem to recall that Susan Collins was adamantly opposed to the public option. I guess some people wanted Obama to lose the whole thing by stubbornly demanding something Congress would never give him?
3 Likes
Hillary Clinton does not believe in government involvement in Health Care!!! Where were you when she headed up the proposals for government health care during her husbandās presidency?? The proposals were defeated in Congressāand she was criticized for not staying home and baking cookies. You have no knowledge of that history???
5 Likes
Fixed it for you.
It really is bewildering, isnāt it? Theyād rather deal with a company with 22% - 25% overhead, compared to Medicareās roughly 2%, and theyād rather deal with a claims adjuster who is rewarded for turning down as many claims as possible.
2 Likes
Iād be overjoyed at this point just to see it offered as an option. You can purchase health insurance from Aetna, or you can sign up for Medicare (no matter what your age). Then free up Medicare to do some tough negotiating with providers, pharma, etc., and sit back and watch what happens.
5 Likes
It is the right wing oligarchs, think Koch bros and others, who donāt believe in health care no matter how itās funded, nor do they believe in wage equality, higher taxes on the wealthy, fighting climate change, the right of unions to organize and more. The R candidates will pander to any right wing billionaire who says heās against these, and their pandering will get far more of a return than any perceived pandering from the HRC campaign
2 Likes
As a matter of policy, there really arenāt any good arguments against Medicare For All, at least not from a progressive perspective. The arguments that Hillary is making are without meritā¦and she knows it.
Of course there is an argument to be made that Medicare For All is not yet viable politically ā indeed Iām pretty sure Bernie would agree that it would never pass under the current Republican domination of Congress ā but itās shameful for Hillary to be out there denigrating the concept, which any real progressive should support. And extra shameful that sheās spreading misinformation and false right-wing narratives to do so.
Triangulation, insurance industry donor pandering, or true colorsā¦or are they one in the same in this case?
Either way, not Hillaryās finest moment in this campaign, and Bernieās right to tweak her for it.
3 Likes