![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatFirst here's a series of links - so you can make up your own mind on this baby.
Hillary Clinton's 1993/1994 plan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Clinton_health_care_plan
Hillary vs. Obama Health Care Plans: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/17/health.care/index.html
Hillary vs. Obama Health Care Plans: http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed1/idUSN2363970720080224
Obaman's Plan:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/
Clinton's Plan:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/
Plans compared:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04krugman.html
Plan's compared:
http://www.ohiodailyblog.com/content/second-obama-mailer-slams-clinton-health-care-plan
Now, I know a little something about this that most people out there might not. In 1994 I worked in the Kansas State Senate for a Senator who desperately wanted a state health care plan and was actively co-sponsoring a bill for it. My job was to attend all the lobbyist meetings on the plan, check the bill, edit it, and research it. I wrote my paper for the class - Legislative Clinic - which I took in co-junction with the internship - on the path a bill made throught the legislature, whether or not it passed. This one didn't. And I was doing my research at a state level in a predominately conservative state at the same time that Clinton was doing her's at the national level. Ten years later, I found myself working for a health care insurance company. A company that had at one time been a non-profit, went for profit, and eventually was acquired by the nation's biggest health care company - which proceeded to lay me off in order to keep its stock-holders happy. The company I worked for by the way is the same company that funds most of the government's state and federal programs, including Congress.
The company is Wellpoint, otherwise known as Anthem and Empire Blue Cross Blue Sheild. On top of this - I have had to live without health insurance twice. In 2004 when my Cobra ran out, I actually attempted to get Metro-Plus or Healthy New York Insurance. I didn't qualify or I couldn't qualify unless I could supply at least one unemployment check or proof of self-employment. The fact I wasn't employed and not getting unemployment was beyond them. I gave up finally and prayed for a job. Cobra by the way is not cheap, it costs a single person anywhere between 380 to 600 dollars a month. For families - it is closer to 1400. HIPAA or the Health Care Portability Act - pushed through by the Clinton's and an act I'm beginning to hate, is supposed to ensure that our health insurance moves with us when we leave one job and jumpt to another, along with pre-existing conditions. It does and it doesn't. It only follows you if you are on Cobra and do not have a long period between no-Cobra and the new health insurance. In other words, if I had a pre-existing condition in 2004, it would not have been accepted by the new insurance, because I had a gap in health insurance. The other problem with HIPAA is that it has quadrupled the amount of paperwork. In some cases - such as my gynecologist - I can't get my health records sent to a new doctor, without faxing a form and signing it. A phone call isn't enough. In other instances - I don't get insurance at all if they get something as small as the month on my birthdate wrong. As far as privacy goes? Well, the health care company I worked for lost personal health information relating to mental health and employee assistance (drug rehabilitation) for over 1000 patients. But hey, its better than nothing, right?
In regards to the health care plans. Before the NY Primary, a close friend told me about the two candidates health care plans. I knew about Hillary's not about Obama's. I was planning on voting for Hillary at the time, partly because I thought she had a viable one at least. Obama, an unknown quantity. My friend told me that Hillary's plan mandated that people have health insurance.
Friend: People have to pay for it, they don't have a choice. Even if they don't have enough money to buy groceries.
Me: Wait, I thought the money would be deducted from their taxes or paycheck?
Friend: Yes - but if you aren't making that much...
Me: I'm sure they'll subsidize the people making below a certain amount.
Friend: That comes out of our paychecks then, right?
ME: It is to our benefit - we don't want people without health insurance on the streets. Trust me.
Friend: True. But what if you are barely making 15,000 a year, now you have to pay for health insurance and you barely go to the doctor? It's coming out of your food budget. Instead of buying food this week - you have to pay your insurance premium.
Me: Okay....that...uhm, I get your point. I remember deliberately choosing to go without health insurance after college for a while and at different points as did you in order to afford rent and food.
Friend: Do you really want the Government forcing you to do something? It's your body.
Me (I start seeing that old slippery slope creep upon me): If they can force health insurance, they can also control who our doctors are, hospitals, etc. We won't have any choices. (I remember running out of the nightmare inner city hospital to a less nightmarish inner city one.)
Friend: Exactly. Also do you really want our government telling us what is good for us? How we should take care of our bodies. What we should do with our money?
Me: But people may not do it otherwise. They will spend it on drugs or entertainment. When health care is so important.
Friend: Shouldn't that be their choice?
After that conversation, I started thinking hard about Clinton's plans. I remember what her healthcare plan was in 94. I studied it closely at the time, and until I did my own research, I was entirely for it. I remember what I learned from listening to those lobbyists that I met with. By the way, Lobbyists due serve a necessary function - they represent a variety of interested parties affected directly by the bill. In my case - these were the American Medical Association, the Small Business Association of Kansas, the Health Insurance Lobby (don't remember the name), Pharmacies, Patient Rights, amongst others. What they got across to me back then - was how was this going to affect the quality of care? To what degree would it affect their payment, their financial goals? Would the government tell them what tests they could or could not do? Would this be funded by taxes? Who would be covered by it? And they pointed out that there were medical advances that could not have happened if it were not for private funding - would this disappear? Would they have to rely completely on state funding now? Also to what extent would the government tell them how to handle a patient's care? (I work for a government entity now - trust me when I state the government is very careful with its money.)
I've looked at both plans - Obama's seems more likely to pass in my view. I can see it getting through Congress and potentially becoming a reality. Clinton's is a bit too paternalistic. It treats the public like children and the government is the parent. Obama seems to realize that people need and want to be treated like adults, they want to be involved in the process, not told what is best for them. They do not want someone telling them they have to buy insurance, when they are used to visiting their local doctor and not paying all that much, less than they would if they were paying for insurance. You don't know how everyone conducts business in this country. It is a BIG country. You need to come up with a plan that addresses the needs of a variety of people - the urban homeless person, to the farmer that just declared bankruptcy and has decided to forego health insurance for a couple of months. Or what about the young college kid traveling across country with his guitare, who doesn't have a job, and is just doing odd jobs to get enough to eat. He's not driving, instead he takes buses or hitches rides. Should he have to pay? OR would the government give it to him for free?
It's a complicated issue. And while countries like Canada, England, and Australia have universial health coverage - they have a completely different government and tax structure than the US. We have to come up with something that fits us.
That said - I'm going to say something about the political process. What we need in a Presidental Candidate is someone who can persuade others. Who is willing to compromise. Who can listen. Is not so married to his/her agenda that they can't be reasoned with. That they can't be willing to tweak something in the right way, so it is better. In short what we need is a TEAM PLAYER not a DICTATOR. I really don't care what these candidates plans are at the moment, all I care about is they have one. It doesn't have to be perfect. It can be sketchy in places. Just as long as they have a plan, and they are willing to work with others to try and get it passed. To try and make it work.
Obama states something interesting in his book that struck me - that we need to try to put ourselves in another's shoes. To find common ground. He also states that the only way we can get universial health coverage is if we are willing to give up something, but at the same time are on the same page. We can't force it on the American people, been there done that with the last Administration or have we all forgotten the Real ID mess? That's another thing Obama states in his book - that At its most elemental level, we understand our liberty in a negative sense. As a general rule we believe in the right to be left alone, and are suspicious of those - whether Big Brother or nosy neighbors - who want to meddle in our business.
The plan that will pass has got to be one that addresses choice. It can't be forced down our throats.
Hillary Clinton's 1993/1994 plan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Clinton_health_care_plan
Hillary vs. Obama Health Care Plans: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/17/health.care/index.html
Hillary vs. Obama Health Care Plans: http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed1/idUSN2363970720080224
Obaman's Plan:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/
Clinton's Plan:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/
Plans compared:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04krugman.html
Plan's compared:
http://www.ohiodailyblog.com/content/second-obama-mailer-slams-clinton-health-care-plan
Now, I know a little something about this that most people out there might not. In 1994 I worked in the Kansas State Senate for a Senator who desperately wanted a state health care plan and was actively co-sponsoring a bill for it. My job was to attend all the lobbyist meetings on the plan, check the bill, edit it, and research it. I wrote my paper for the class - Legislative Clinic - which I took in co-junction with the internship - on the path a bill made throught the legislature, whether or not it passed. This one didn't. And I was doing my research at a state level in a predominately conservative state at the same time that Clinton was doing her's at the national level. Ten years later, I found myself working for a health care insurance company. A company that had at one time been a non-profit, went for profit, and eventually was acquired by the nation's biggest health care company - which proceeded to lay me off in order to keep its stock-holders happy. The company I worked for by the way is the same company that funds most of the government's state and federal programs, including Congress.
The company is Wellpoint, otherwise known as Anthem and Empire Blue Cross Blue Sheild. On top of this - I have had to live without health insurance twice. In 2004 when my Cobra ran out, I actually attempted to get Metro-Plus or Healthy New York Insurance. I didn't qualify or I couldn't qualify unless I could supply at least one unemployment check or proof of self-employment. The fact I wasn't employed and not getting unemployment was beyond them. I gave up finally and prayed for a job. Cobra by the way is not cheap, it costs a single person anywhere between 380 to 600 dollars a month. For families - it is closer to 1400. HIPAA or the Health Care Portability Act - pushed through by the Clinton's and an act I'm beginning to hate, is supposed to ensure that our health insurance moves with us when we leave one job and jumpt to another, along with pre-existing conditions. It does and it doesn't. It only follows you if you are on Cobra and do not have a long period between no-Cobra and the new health insurance. In other words, if I had a pre-existing condition in 2004, it would not have been accepted by the new insurance, because I had a gap in health insurance. The other problem with HIPAA is that it has quadrupled the amount of paperwork. In some cases - such as my gynecologist - I can't get my health records sent to a new doctor, without faxing a form and signing it. A phone call isn't enough. In other instances - I don't get insurance at all if they get something as small as the month on my birthdate wrong. As far as privacy goes? Well, the health care company I worked for lost personal health information relating to mental health and employee assistance (drug rehabilitation) for over 1000 patients. But hey, its better than nothing, right?
In regards to the health care plans. Before the NY Primary, a close friend told me about the two candidates health care plans. I knew about Hillary's not about Obama's. I was planning on voting for Hillary at the time, partly because I thought she had a viable one at least. Obama, an unknown quantity. My friend told me that Hillary's plan mandated that people have health insurance.
Friend: People have to pay for it, they don't have a choice. Even if they don't have enough money to buy groceries.
Me: Wait, I thought the money would be deducted from their taxes or paycheck?
Friend: Yes - but if you aren't making that much...
Me: I'm sure they'll subsidize the people making below a certain amount.
Friend: That comes out of our paychecks then, right?
ME: It is to our benefit - we don't want people without health insurance on the streets. Trust me.
Friend: True. But what if you are barely making 15,000 a year, now you have to pay for health insurance and you barely go to the doctor? It's coming out of your food budget. Instead of buying food this week - you have to pay your insurance premium.
Me: Okay....that...uhm, I get your point. I remember deliberately choosing to go without health insurance after college for a while and at different points as did you in order to afford rent and food.
Friend: Do you really want the Government forcing you to do something? It's your body.
Me (I start seeing that old slippery slope creep upon me): If they can force health insurance, they can also control who our doctors are, hospitals, etc. We won't have any choices. (I remember running out of the nightmare inner city hospital to a less nightmarish inner city one.)
Friend: Exactly. Also do you really want our government telling us what is good for us? How we should take care of our bodies. What we should do with our money?
Me: But people may not do it otherwise. They will spend it on drugs or entertainment. When health care is so important.
Friend: Shouldn't that be their choice?
After that conversation, I started thinking hard about Clinton's plans. I remember what her healthcare plan was in 94. I studied it closely at the time, and until I did my own research, I was entirely for it. I remember what I learned from listening to those lobbyists that I met with. By the way, Lobbyists due serve a necessary function - they represent a variety of interested parties affected directly by the bill. In my case - these were the American Medical Association, the Small Business Association of Kansas, the Health Insurance Lobby (don't remember the name), Pharmacies, Patient Rights, amongst others. What they got across to me back then - was how was this going to affect the quality of care? To what degree would it affect their payment, their financial goals? Would the government tell them what tests they could or could not do? Would this be funded by taxes? Who would be covered by it? And they pointed out that there were medical advances that could not have happened if it were not for private funding - would this disappear? Would they have to rely completely on state funding now? Also to what extent would the government tell them how to handle a patient's care? (I work for a government entity now - trust me when I state the government is very careful with its money.)
I've looked at both plans - Obama's seems more likely to pass in my view. I can see it getting through Congress and potentially becoming a reality. Clinton's is a bit too paternalistic. It treats the public like children and the government is the parent. Obama seems to realize that people need and want to be treated like adults, they want to be involved in the process, not told what is best for them. They do not want someone telling them they have to buy insurance, when they are used to visiting their local doctor and not paying all that much, less than they would if they were paying for insurance. You don't know how everyone conducts business in this country. It is a BIG country. You need to come up with a plan that addresses the needs of a variety of people - the urban homeless person, to the farmer that just declared bankruptcy and has decided to forego health insurance for a couple of months. Or what about the young college kid traveling across country with his guitare, who doesn't have a job, and is just doing odd jobs to get enough to eat. He's not driving, instead he takes buses or hitches rides. Should he have to pay? OR would the government give it to him for free?
It's a complicated issue. And while countries like Canada, England, and Australia have universial health coverage - they have a completely different government and tax structure than the US. We have to come up with something that fits us.
That said - I'm going to say something about the political process. What we need in a Presidental Candidate is someone who can persuade others. Who is willing to compromise. Who can listen. Is not so married to his/her agenda that they can't be reasoned with. That they can't be willing to tweak something in the right way, so it is better. In short what we need is a TEAM PLAYER not a DICTATOR. I really don't care what these candidates plans are at the moment, all I care about is they have one. It doesn't have to be perfect. It can be sketchy in places. Just as long as they have a plan, and they are willing to work with others to try and get it passed. To try and make it work.
Obama states something interesting in his book that struck me - that we need to try to put ourselves in another's shoes. To find common ground. He also states that the only way we can get universial health coverage is if we are willing to give up something, but at the same time are on the same page. We can't force it on the American people, been there done that with the last Administration or have we all forgotten the Real ID mess? That's another thing Obama states in his book - that At its most elemental level, we understand our liberty in a negative sense. As a general rule we believe in the right to be left alone, and are suspicious of those - whether Big Brother or nosy neighbors - who want to meddle in our business.
The plan that will pass has got to be one that addresses choice. It can't be forced down our throats.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-02-25 04:21 am (UTC)Can't you just have taxes raised to pay for health care? You can even label this specifically as a health care tax and then at least you know where it's going. It's bizarre to me that such a capitalistic society would force health care costs onto businesses - wouldn't they be more competitive without having to pay that for their employees? However health insurance is a huge business, and keeping people's health care dependent upon their employment is a pretty effective method of social control.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-25 05:59 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-26 12:43 am (UTC)Want to hear something funny?
I asked my mother on the phone tonight, how do I explain to the Canadians I'm talking to online - why Americans don't want to do an universial health insurance program.
Her response? Because they are afraid it will be like Canada's. Most Americans do not understand Canada's health care system. We think it is nothing but red tape and low quality care. Michael Moore's Sicko was filmed partly to kill that assumption. Unfortunately a good percentage of Americans think Moore is crazy and didn't take his documentary seriously.
Another thing - there is a percentage of Americans who do not pay anything for health insurance. Government workers don't. And they can see any doctor they want, whenever they want, more or less. It depends on who you work for. Oh, and Americans are allergic to taxes. We hate them. I honestly think we hate them more than any other culture on the planet - could be wrong about that. The reason for this may be that a good portion of our population ended up here way back when because of the tax problem. My great-great-grandfather was imprisoned in Wales for income tax evasion and fled to the US the moment he got out. And well, the American Revolution came about because of taxes.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-25 03:49 pm (UTC)Sadly, that concept is really all one needs to know to understand the root purpose behind the current system.
Well...on the wire-tapping
Date: 2008-02-25 11:55 pm (UTC)Actually, people have complained about it. The ACLU has brought several cases to the courts and I think one may have made it to the Supreme Court. Also there's a bill that Obama and Clinton both voted against - granting Verizon and other phone companies immunity for handing over private citizens phone records to the federal government. They refuse to do it without immunity. Don't blame them.
As far as the neo-con's or conservatives are concerned...ah. Well, this will probably sound like troll logic but their view is in some ways a bit analogous to how most of us probably deal with the fact that our company can read any email we send or a post we place on the internet while we are at work using their system. We figure they won't pay that much attention to us and do not have time to read all our emails, so why worry? (Assuming of course that your company has this policy, it may not - some don't have the ability to do it, most of the companies I've worked in however did.) Or how we deal with the fact that the federal government can access anything sent electronically over the net and look at it. (That's what happened to one lj user.)
Most Americans look at the whole concept of wire-tapping much the same way.
My former boss - said that it made no sense to her why people whined about wire-tapping.
It's not like the government is listening in on all *your* conversations. They only care about people planning to blow up things or kill people. And if they'd had that capability sooner they would not have blown up the WTC and killed her co-workers. Her view is she'd rather be safe. Besides it's not like she's saying anything over the phone that is incredibly private. So she doesn't see the government as Big Brother - until it starts regulating companies and telling her what to do with her money.
Insane troll logic? Probably. But it is how many people think.
Businesses and Health Care
Date: 2008-02-26 12:21 am (UTC)Can't you just have taxes raised to pay for health care?
Sigh. If it only it were that simple. Bush, Bush Sr., and Reagan were all elected based on their promise not to raise taxes. Bush got approval because he cut taxes.
There is apparently nothing Americans hate more than taxes. We have a long violent history regarding this topic. Boston Tea Party ring any bells? Heck even the Civil War was partly about taxes. Talk to any American and the first thing they do? Complain about their taxes - have you noticed how many people on your flist (Americans) whine about doing their taxes? We all think we pay too much. (I pay city, state, federal and railroad, along with railroad medicare, and railroad social security - which is the same that congress pays and is higher than normal social and medicare. Most people pay property, car, state, and federal - some may do city.)
It's bizarre that a capitalistic society would force health care costs onto businesses, wouldn't they be more competitive without having to pay that for their employees?
Some companies don't pay, actually. And some pay - but very little. The dwindling health care benefit has become a huge problem and is most likely the reason universial health care has come up again as a viable issue (which it wasn't ten years ago, when most companies could afford to pay this benefit and stay competitive). In fact its gotten so bad, some employees have decided it is cheaper to purchase their own than to go through the company's plan.
What the companies do is they require that their employees contribute or carry a portion of the cost. One companies I worked for required that I pay at least 40%. Another gave me a choice - I got to choose which deductible - a low one with a limited number of doctors ( HMO), a high one with an unlimited range of doctors( PPO), or Total Blue - a nice cheap plan for employers in which the employee basically puts their money in what can best be described as a savings account reserved for health care expenses - you put $2000 to start and it goes down over time. All pre-tax, so you take your gross down a bit and save on federal taxes. The company contributes to it, but very very little.
By the way - health care benefits are considered part of a person's total compensation in the US. Some company's who can afford the benefit or choose to provide it - have been known to give you say a much lower salary (like the last place I worked which paid $10,000 less than market value but included stock options and free health insurance) but give you your health care benefits for free. No deductible. All you have to do is a cheap co-pay of $20 per doctor visit and maybe $5 for pharmaceuticals. The company can attract qualified people but at a lower salary,which keeps them competitive. And - many employees will stay with a company longer because of their need for the insurance - cuts down on turn-over. (Didn't work at the last place I was at, but is definitely a factor at the place I'm at now.)
And yes, Health insurance is a huge business. At the moment it is amongst the few that are still doing well on the NY Stock Exchange. When you have a moment - go check out WLP (Wellpoint) on NY Times.com stock - last I checked it was up 86, it may be at 75 a share now. That's amazing, when you think how low everyone else is. Wellpoint (the nation's largest health care company) made a little over a billion last year and employs close to 40,000 people across the country. How'd they do this? They acquired the Blue Cross/Blue Sheilds - which were once "non-profit" entities and became "for profit" so they could become more efficient and make lots of money (or that was the reason my company, which was one of those Blues gave me.)
TBC
Americans and Health Care
Date: 2008-02-26 12:31 am (UTC)Also, the wealthy - people who make over 250,000? They get a tax credit for the health insurance contribution. (I found that out recently. It's one of the things Obama and Hillary's plans want to do away with.)
Imagine not having to pay anything for health care, not taxes, nothing, just a little 20 dollar deductible and get to see a good doctor, get a second or third opinion, and get all your MRI's and tests for free?
Some people in the US have that. Why would they want to give it up? And why would they want to be paying taxes on it? A lot of Americans I've talked to, conservatives, have the view that they should not be asked to pay for someone else's health care. Why should I carry the cost? Why should I be burdened by someone who is a drug addict or whatever? They don't understand that the drug addict could come down with an infectious disease that could spread and infect their children, if left untreated.
Then there's the folks who well don't get sick or just get a cold and don't see why they have to pay for health insurance or have it at all. They may have a cheap catastrophic plan - which you can get in some states, not all states. (That's another thing about the US - each state has it's own guidelines on the issue. In Kansas and Colorado - the Blues offer Catastrophic - a fairly cheap plan that covers you in case of emergencies - lots of college students have it. I certainly did. New york however does not have it - I know I tried to get it again when I was unemployed.)
Finally, there's people who have gotten used to a high standard of care - the ability to go to any doctor they want, get any test, and get multiple opinions. They are afraid if we get universial health care - they will lose that standard.
That their hospitals won't be as clean, their doctors won't be as attentative or as good, because they won't be paid as much - so less people will want to be doctors.
They fear becoming like Canada - most Americans, believe it or not, think that Canada has horrible health care. They don't understand the Canadian system, what they know are the horror stories.
Re: Americans and Health Care
Date: 2008-02-26 01:06 am (UTC)Sicko, as all Moore's docs, has a lot of problems, but the basic message seems pretty sound: a system that pits individuals against profit-driven corporations is never going to work out well for the individual.
Re: Americans and Health Care
Date: 2008-02-26 02:00 am (UTC)It's why democrats are coming out in record numbers in the US to vote for him.
The problem with Moore is that people don't take him seriously - he goes after the jugluar, makes people feel guilty and defensive - and that never works. Also he forgets that a lot of people work for those profit driven corporations he targets, they make good wages, have stock options or 401ks, or may even be living off of the stock dividends they are getting from them.
Hillary .. I finally put my finger on what it was about Hillary that had always bugged me - she comes across as patronizing. And makes people defensive.
And McCain - well he doesn't believe we should have universal health care nor that all Americans should have it. He's of the view that if you want health care - you pay for it, you get the job, and do it on your own, the government should not be involved.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-25 06:52 am (UTC)What really pisses me off is hearing people say things like parents who don't provide health insurance for their children are bad parents, when we should all realize that most of the children in the country are in single parent homes. Many of these are parents who are doing everything they can to provide housing, food and clothing, they have to trust to providence that their children will stay healthy because they are already completely strapped.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-26 02:08 am (UTC)Your post inspired mine. I decided instead of responding to you directly, I'd do a little research and write my own post on the issue.
Today it finally hit me - what it is about Hillary Clinton that bugs me and I think turns off so many people - she's patronizing or at least comes across as patronizing.
I'm not sure she realizes it. And I think one of her weaknesses is that she is so smart and so logical and so filled with purpose - that she has trouble seeing the other pov.
What struck me in Obama's book and in the debate - was Obama was willing to try and see the world through Bush's eyes, Clinton just sees Bush as wrong. You've got to look at the other side, understand it, see it's argument, before you can begin to argue against it - it's an old negotiation trick. If you can't do that - then you won't win your argument, all you will get is a stalemate - which is what happened to Clinton in 1994.