I think we need too forget about the corporate and libertarian driven “everything is just fine, nothing to see here” mentality. It’s not going to go away. And gov’t either works for the people, or for corporations. Or it doesn’t work on purpose for corporations. And we’re ALREADY footing a significant tax bill for healthcare. Who benefits? Not us plebeians in the middle classes!
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0718/p17s01-wmgn.html
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/PrescriptionForChange/story?id=2563381
And I don’t agree with Hillery Clinton on a lot, and don’t particularly like her much either despite the fact that she was formerly my Senator. But her healthcare plan is far from “socialized medicine,” and when Republicans have even talked about the need for healthcare reform because Bush’s White House has effectively used tax cuts as an excuse to wash his hands and dump the problems on the states (effectively shifting your national tax bill to your state and local tax bill, and actually raising taxes on some since “blue” states like Cali’funia, Massachusetts, and New York that drive the US economy get less and pay more )…
http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9825823&top_story=1
http://www.pbs.org/healthcarecrisis/healthinsurance.html
[i]How much does health insurance cost? The cost of health insurance has increased dramatically over the past decade, far surpassing the general rate of inflation in most years. Between 1989 and 1996, the average amount an employee had to contribute for family coverage jumped from $935 to $1,778. In 1990, American companies spent $177 billion on health benefits for workers and their dependents; that number rose to $252 billion by 1996, or more than double the rate of inflation.
Who pays for the rising costs of health insurance? Employees, consumers and taxpayers pay. Businesses pass along a portion of rising premiums to their workforces in the form of lower wage increases. Companies add the cost of the fringe benefits, including health insurance, to the price of their products and services. Government programs pay 47 percent of the health care tab in the U.S.; spending on health care makes up 20 percent of the federal budget, and most state budgets too. If you paid $5,000 in taxes last year, around $1,000 went to health care programs. (source: http://www.nchc.org)[/i]
Hillary’s cure-all
Seeking a second chance
Sep 18th 2007 | NEW YORK
From Economist.com
Hillary Clinton’s ambitious health-care plan
AP
ON MONDAY September 17th Hillary Clinton became the third of the three Democratic presidential frontrunners to offer voters a comprehensive health-care plan. It is a sign of how far America’s health-care debate has shifted that the first opponent to fire a broadside at it was Mitt Romney, a Republican who also hopes to be president. Predictably, Mr Romney criticised her proposal as a heavy-handed plan that would generate a lot of bureaucracy. But as governor of Massachusetts Mr Romney brought a similar, and widely-praised, scheme to his home state. Such has been the shift in attitudes towards covering America’s 47m uninsured.
Both her methods and her past are sure to make Mrs Clinton’s plan controversial. The concept is that Americans would have an “individual mandate”, like the insurance coverage required by car drivers. Everyone is obliged to be covered in one way or another: through an employer’s plan, privately purchased insurance, or one of two government plans, either a version of Medicare (currently for old folks) or a scheme covering federal workers. Larger employers would have to pay for insurance or pay a penalty. The concept of a “mandate” irks the small-government Republicans. And some Democrats find it too pushy, believing the state should act as the single payer for health care instead. But the idea is close to mainstream opinion about how to extend coverage to all Americans.
Mrs Clinton’s plan resembles not only Mr Romney’s in Massachusetts but also that of John Edwards, who is running for the Democratic nomination a little to her left. Mr Edwards sought to steal attention on the day she launched her plan by promising to take away the health insurance of congressmen and senators unless they passed a universal health-care bill by mid-2009. The idea is unlikely to pass, but scores easy political points at the expense of Congress, always the most unpopular branch of government. Barack Obama, the other top Democratic contender, wants to bring down the cost of insurance, but his plan lacks the individual mandate.
Mrs Clinton’s approach is unsurprising in itself—all Democrats must have ambitious coverage plans these days. But her announcement was striking because of her role in her husband’s administration, crafting a health-care plan in 1993-1994. That has passed into political folklore as disaster on such a scale that it led to a Republican takeover of Congress. Mrs Clinton’s defenders say that her plan was not so bad and that many elements have since become fashionable. Right-wing detractors, however, accused her of trying to socialise a huge swathe of the economy. Democratic Hillary-haters say she was bullying and uncompromising, threatening to “destroy” even Democratic congressmen who were not wholly behind her.
Yet just as the health-care debate has moved on, so has Mrs Clinton. Many Republicans say they would vote for the devil himself before the junior senator from New York. But her steadiness and caution, though often caricatured as cynicism, has won her admirers, including a few reluctant Republicans. She has lengthened her lead in the polls over Mr Obama for the Democratic nomination. Though his advisers claim that he is deliberately aiming not to peak too early, she remains the clear frontrunner.
Mrs Clinton has shown herself astute at picking unpopular enemies: to pay for her plan, she would seek ways to cut costs but would also raise taxes on those making over $250,000, she says. She boasts that “these proposals will not make me the insurance industry’s woman of the year.” But Mrs Clinton also stresses the positive, using the word “choice” at every opportunity (to allay Americans’ traditional fears that government health care will take away their right to select the doctors and hospitals they want). If her politicking puts her in the White House in 2009, and if she also enjoys a Democratic majority in Congress, she would finally get a second chance to do something about America’s health-care mess.
