Hillary Characterizes Bernie's Health Care Plan

[What Would Jesus Do?]

[my transcription from a clip on CNN]

"He wants to roll Medicare, Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance program, Affordable Care Act program, and private health insurance into a national system, and then turn it over to the states to administer."

I don't know if that is an accurate characterization - and frankly doubt the bit about private insurance - but let's assume it is.

What's so bad about that? Fewer programs, fewer gaps between programs, and handled at the state level.

 

[The Tradition]

Because then certain people don't get certain entitlements. The last thing the democrats want is for everyone to be treated the same.

 

[TexMichFan]

Have to know more details on what this national system would look like. As long as I can pick my doctors I am pretty much good with any program.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Because then certain people don't get certain entitlements. The last thing the democrats want is for everyone to be treated the same.

pssst...Sanders is a Democrat.

 

[soybean]

[my transcription from a clip on CNN]

"He wants to roll Medicare, Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance program, Affordable Care Act program, and private health insurance into a national system, and then turn it over to the states to administer."

I don't know if that is an accurate characterization - and frankly doubt the bit about private insurance - but let's assume it is.

What's so bad about that? Fewer programs, fewer gaps between programs, and handled at the state level.

Take a close look at Texas in this regard and you'll have your answer.

 

[The Tradition]

pssst...Sanders is a Democrat.

He's a socialist democrat.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Take a close look at Texas in this regard and you'll have your answer.

What would we see?

 

[tarheelbybirth]

He's a socialist democrat.

He's a Democratic socialist. All Dems are socialists...as are all GOPpies.

 

[soybean]

What would we see?

Start your journey here.... http://www.cnbc.com/2015/05/29/texas-pays-a-big-price-for-saying-no-to-medicaid-expansion.html

 

[soybean]

[my transcription from a clip on CNN]

"He wants to roll Medicare, Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance program, Affordable Care Act program, and private health insurance into a national system, and then turn it over to the states to administer."

I don't know if that is an accurate characterization - and frankly doubt the bit about private insurance - but let's assume it is.

What's so bad about that? Fewer programs, fewer gaps between programs, and handled at the state level.

Not all states are managed equally ....http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...r-refusing-to-expand-medicaid-under-obamacare

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

@ soybean - both of those are what's wrong with how we do it now, not problems with Bernie's approach.

Now if you are saying we may not be able to trust red states to administer a more coherent universal health care plan along the lines of what Bernie talks about, then you may have a point. Can't really trust Republicans with much. But the idea that states would administer rather than making it a totally top-down behemoth, should appeal to a lot of people across the political spectrum.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Honestly rolling them all into one would take quite a bit of complexity out of the system.

If there is one big improvement the ACA could use is removing the complexity to it.

 

[soybean]

@ soybean - both of those are what's wrong with how we do it now, not problems with Bernie's approach.

Now if you are saying we may not be able to trust red states to administer a more coherent universal health care plan along the lines of what Bernie talks about, then you may have a point. Can't really trust Republicans with much. But the idea that states would administer rather than making it a totally top-down behemoth, should appeal to a lot of people across the political spectrum.

Bernie wants to farm it out to the states...you think that is a good idea?

 

[soybean]

Honestly rolling them all into one would take quite a bit of complexity out of the system.

If there is one big improvement the ACA could use is removing the complexity to it.

If the feds managed it...not individual states.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Bernie wants to farm it out to the states...you think that is a good idea?

Depends on what he's farming out.

Single-payer approaches are mainly about the paying part. I don't care where that happens. State or federal level is OK with me.

The other part has to do with what is covered. That's where I think we need federal minimums. But states (and individuals, of course) ought to be able to aim higher than the federal minimum. So I suppose an argument could be made that administration at the state level might encourage states to improve upon the federal standards and objectives.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

Really? We have commiecare in tx?

 

[aflachawk]

I believe she dissed single payer

 

[moral_victory]

Didn't Hilary say she would just give poor people 5000 dollars to afford ACA plans in the last debate or something like that.

 

[sijoint]

He's a socialist democrat.

 

[thewop]

[my transcription from a clip on CNN]

"He wants to roll Medicare, Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance program, Affordable Care Act program, and private health insurance into a national system, and then turn it over to the states to administer."

I don't know if that is an accurate characterization - and frankly doubt the bit about private insurance - but let's assume it is.

What's so bad about that? Fewer programs, fewer gaps between programs, and handled at the state level.

Having lived in the UK and Germany, I remain highly, highly (that's 2 highly's) skeptical, based on real world experience and the experience of my co-workers, that nationalized healthcare across the board can serve its people better than what we had pre-Obamacare. It's not too bad right now, though Dr's are a little less accessible and costs for those with jobs are higher. We can still get access to good care now with Obamacare in place. In the UK, only those who make enough to pay for the "private" system get care quickly, and even that care is not as good as anything we have here (at least they don't believe it is). Average person waits for hours in a waiting room hoping to see a doctor for a basic ailment, and that doesn't always guarantee the see a doctor (employee's personal experience) In Germany, you can't even buy Advil (or the equivalent brand) without a prescription...why? Because someone decided the government should pay for all medicine, so all you can get is "natural" supplements OTC. I fear Bernie's plan would take us closer to what exists in the UK/Germany, and that is bad for everyone.

It's not without advantage. My wife got free Tamiflu when she got swine flu in the UK (2010), and we just had to show her passport/visa. We didn't even have UK National Insurance (my company carried a global policy for us as). That's the only advantage I see, and that's not really good for the people paying the taxes.

 

[CeMar_Clone]

[my transcription from a clip on CNN]

"He wants to roll Medicare, Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance program, Affordable Care Act program, and private health insurance into a national system, and then turn it over to the states to administer."

I don't know if that is an accurate characterization - and frankly doubt the bit about private insurance - but let's assume it is.

What's so bad about that? Fewer programs, fewer gaps between programs, and handled at the state level.

So how would the U of I hospitals stay open? More than 100% of the U of I's profit comes from private insurance. Every government patient that comes through the door loses money for the U of I. Most doctors would leave the business.

 

[22*43*51]

The good news is that it'll all be FREE!!!

 

[CeMar_Clone]

Having lived in the UK and Germany, I remain highly, highly (that's 2 highly's) skeptical, based on real world experience and the experience of my co-workers, that nationalized healthcare across the board can serve its people better than what we had pre-Obamacare. It's not too bad right now, though Dr's are a little less accessible and costs for those with jobs are higher. We can still get access to good care now with Obamacare in place. In the UK, only those who make enough to pay for the "private" system get care quickly, and even that care is not as good as anything we have here (at least they don't believe it is). Average person waits for hours in a waiting room hoping to see a doctor for a basic ailment, and that doesn't always guarantee the see a doctor (employee's personal experience) In Germany, you can't even buy Advil (or the equivalent brand) without a prescription...why? Because someone decided the government should pay for all medicine, so all you can get is "natural" supplements OTC. I fear Bernie's plan would take us closer to what exists in the UK/Germany, and that is bad for everyone.

It's not without advantage. My wife got free Tamiflu when she got swine flu in the UK (2010), and we just had to show her passport/visa. We didn't even have UK National Insurance (my company carried a global policy for us as). That's the only advantage I see, and that's not really good for the people paying the taxes.

People also have to realize that the social state of europe is only possible because the US is providing for the national defense. If those countries had to massively build their defenses and pay for it, their social programs would take a massive hit (and they are already seeing this).

 

[CarolinaHawkeye]

So how would the U of I hospitals stay open? More than 100% of the U of I's profit comes from private insurance. Every government patient that comes through the door loses money for the U of I. Most doctors would leave the business.

More than 100%? Wow.

 

[CarolinaHawkeye]

People also have to realize that the social state of europe is only possible because the US is providing for the national defense. If those countries had to massively build their defenses and pay for it, their social programs would take a massive hit (and they are already seeing this).

So why are we paying for their defense? Why are we the police for the world? Mainly because there are a dozen or so corporations making shitpots full of money at taxpayer expense.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Depends on what he's farming out.

Single-payer approaches are mainly about the paying part. I don't care where that happens. State or federal level is OK with me.

The other part has to do with what is covered. That's where I think we need federal minimums. But states (and individuals, of course) ought to be able to aim higher than the federal minimum. So I suppose an argument could be made that administration at the state level might encourage states to improve upon the federal standards and objectives.

I'm somewhat worried about states managing these things. Mostly because in my experience conservative states will do whatever they can to prevent people from getting on it or using it.

Look how many have rejected medicaid expansion just in an attempt to spite Obama.

 

[thewop]

People also have to realize that the social state of europe is only possible because the US is providing for the national defense. If those countries had to massively build their defenses and pay for it, their social programs would take a massive hit (and they are already seeing this).

That's interesting, I hadn't thought of it from that angle. I wonder what makes them confident we'll have their back at this point...

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Didn't Hilary say she would just give poor people 5000 dollars to afford ACA plans in the last debate or something like that.

Did she?

There was a debate?

 

[The Tradition]

I'm somewhat worried about states managing these things. Mostly because in my experience conservative states will do whatever they can to prevent people from getting on it or using it.

Look how many have rejected medicaid expansion just in an attempt to spite Obama.

It wasn't just to spite Obama. Medicaid expansion started "for free" for the states, but the federal money will dry up in a few years, leaving states to hold the bag.

Once you extend a benefit, it's much harder to take it away later. This is why Obamacare tried to bribe the states to do this. At the end of the day, it's politics on both sides.

 

[moral_victory]

Did she?

There was a debate?

Yeah it was at 4am on Christmas Eve. Didn't you watch it?

 

[moral_victory]

Did she?

There was a debate?

Here is what she really said.

"Those are all really positive developments. But out-of-pocket costs have gone up too much and prescription drug costs have gone through the roof. And so what I have proposed, number one, is a $5,000 tax credit to help people who have very large out-of-pocket costs be able to afford those."

I imagine that would make insurance companies smile.

 

[unIowa]

[my transcription from a clip on CNN]

"He wants to roll Medicare, Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance program, Affordable Care Act program, and private health insurance into a national system, and then turn it over to the states to administer."

I don't know if that is an accurate characterization - and frankly doubt the bit about private insurance - but let's assume it is.

What's so bad about that? Fewer programs, fewer gaps between programs, and handled at the state level.

Nothing.

 

[unIowa]

Have to know more details on what this national system would look like. As long as I can pick my doctors I am pretty much good with any program.

Well there would be price fixing and certainly some deflation of wages in the healthcare sector. Probably would cause a lot of our older docs and nurses to quit BUT once we get through that mess things should come out more cost effective on the other side (also assuming the speed of care would decline).

I for one would LOVE LOVE LOVE delinking health insurance from my paycheck.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Here is what she really said.

"Those are all really positive developments. But out-of-pocket costs have gone up too much and prescription drug costs have gone through the roof. And so what I have proposed, number one, is a $5,000 tax credit to help people who have very large out-of-pocket costs be able to afford those."

I imagine that would make insurance companies smile.

Instead of refighting the Obamacare battle on a monthly basis since it passed, imagine if we had spent that time and energy on cost-reduction in the health care sector.

The insurance and health care sectors got their boondoggle with the mandate. Now it's time - past time - to lean on them to cut costs.

The GOP has prevented this. Coincidence?

 

[unIowa]

Here is what she really said.

"Those are all really positive developments. But out-of-pocket costs have gone up too much and prescription drug costs have gone through the roof. And so what I have proposed, number one, is a $5,000 tax credit to help people who have very large out-of-pocket costs be able to afford those."

I imagine that would make insurance companies smile.

So instead of really helping she wants to tinker with the tax code so she can "sound like" she is helping by giving back people some of their own money. Seems like another kickback to the HC sector and big pharma.

Jesus this makes me hate her even more as this is such a republican type proposal.

 

[unIowa]

Instead of refighting the Obamacare battle on a monthly basis since it passed, imagine if we had spent that time and energy on cost-reduction in the health care sector.

The insurance and health care sectors got their boondoggle with the mandate. Now it's time - past time - to lean on them to cut costs.

The GOP has prevented this. Coincidence?

Cost reduction is the only way to get the sector under control. Hillary's proposal, while a potential political feel good solution, does nothing but help increase HC costs as it provides another path for easy money (to the providers) to make its way into the system (thus inflating prices further). Easy money political policies typically don't end up too well for our govt (see housing costs, see college costs, see HC costs).

The only real way we fix HC's rising costs is via mandated cost controls, a person is unable to have an honest negotiating session when their life is what they are negotiating. Put another way, HC isn't a real market, its ok if the govt takes it over (although I do worry about the political pandering and cost containment as our elected and running officials do love them some pandering promises).

 

[CeMar_Clone]

Yes, put the government in charge. Hospital executives have no clue. The Federal government is full of liberals, and we all know they are brilliant people.

I don't get it, why would someone trust the government?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Cost reduction is the only way to get the sector under control. Hillary's proposal, while a potential political feel good solution, does nothing but help increase HC costs as it provides another path for easy money (to the providers) to make its way into the system (thus inflating prices further). Easy money political policies typically don't end up too well for our govt (see housing costs, see college costs, see HC costs).

The only real way we fix HC's rising costs is via mandated cost controls, a person is unable to have an honest negotiating session when their life is what they are negotiating. Put another way, HC isn't a real market, its ok if the govt takes it over (although I do worry about the political pandering and cost containment as our elected and running officials do love them some pandering promises).

I agree with that.

 

[unIowa]

Yes, put the government in charge. Hospital executives have no clue. The Federal government is full of liberals, and we all know they are brilliant people.

I don't get it, why would someone trust the government?

Where are they going to go? Do you think these executives are just going to disappear if our govt takes up a single payer approach with tight cost control?

Also, I don't imagine the buildings will be owned by the govt. but I could see local municipals owning the buildings and leasing them out to doctors/specialsits etc. It would be like a hair salon that rents chairs to stylist but instead for doctor offices.

 

[The Tradition]

Where are they going to go? Do you think these executives are just going to disappear if our govt takes up a single payer approach with tight cost control?

Also, I don't imagine the buildings will be owned by the govt. but I could see local municipals owning the buildings and leasing them out to doctors/specialsits etc. It would be like a hair salon that rents chairs to stylist but instead for doctor offices.

And the doctors will be paid like hair stylists, too.

Can't freaking wait.