http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/17/washington/17cnd-clinton.html?hp
These are the rules: you must post your own thoughts and you must comment on the thoughts of someone else. This requires that you know what the article is about and that you formulate an opinion about what you’ve read. Find a way to shape your own unique voice – don’t simply repeat the comments of others or say you agree. Be specific – what works? What doesn’t? What would you do differently? Is there a solution? What is it? – are some questions you might contemplate as you read and comment. I want us to dialogue about the news rather than simply try and memorize what’s happening. Dialogue begins with knowledge and is always respectful, but I hope also controversial! Don’t be afraid to have an opinion – that’s the point.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
I think that this is an interesting idea/concept. Universal health care is a great idea. And I think that being able to keep an old plan is nice. I'm a little skeptical of how exactly Clinton is planning on raising $110 billon a year. That is an incredible amount of money. She claims that there will be billions of dollars in saving from the reorganization of the health care system. Ending tax-cuts for people who earn over $250,000 a year seems like a reasonable means of raising money. Obama and Edwards also had a few interesting things to say about health care and their specific proposals (see their quotes). It's nice to see Clinton learning from her mistakes in the early 1990s's. To wrap up, I think her health care coverage plan is a great idea on paper. In execution, however, we'll have to see.
I agree with Billy's last sentence. This seems to me to propose a lot of good conceptual ideas, but doesn't provide any details of execution. How can the government provide an expansion on the current system without having some sort of "bureaucracy" to mandate it? The government and private insurance companies are two completely different entities, and there is no explanation of how the two would coordinate; it merely states that they will. To have this sort of cooperation REQUIRES a bureaucracy: it simply doesn't make sense. I also don't understand how the "expansion" system would work, besides the cooperation aspect. Does it mean that those with good coverage have other areas not covered by insurance covered? The vagueness of this description leaves me to believe that there could be significant overlap between the two and that several loopholes could be revealed. Oh, and how on earth does she think drug companies will ACTUALLY lower prices. It won't happen unless money is offered to them in an alternative method. Also, something early in the article troubled me that was briefly addressed later: the size cut-off for large business vs. small business. If a small business does not make the legal cut-off for subsidies, it could have serious effects not on and individual level but on the entire small business economy.
I like that Mrs. Clinton is determined to face such a big challenge in our society. She is taking great initiative to improve health care insurance in our country. One positive factor about her goals is that insurance would be available to everyone and it would be more affordable. In addition, pre-existing diseases would not disqualify anyone from getting health care insurance. Currently, many people are getting turned down from receiving insurance and that is a disappointing thing that I am glad to see Mrs. Clinton hopes to change. Another positive factor is that people who are satisfied with their current insurance coverage can keep it or have additional choices. There are a few drawbacks to Clinton's proposal though. The additional cost of 110 billion dollars is a large amount of money that is needed for her plan. Her idea of reversing republican tax cuts would mean that many Americans will pay more taxes, leaving them with less spendable income. This is likely to be unpopular. Another drawback, although she denies that this will occur, is that if a new government bureaucracy is created, it could greatly affect the quality of care in a negative way. Lastly, one thing to think about is that insurance companies may choose to pay a tax or fine if it costs them less than what providing health care insurance would cost. If Clinton is able to accomplish this plan, hopefully it will be more successful than her attempt in 1994.
While yes, I feel that universal healthcare is both very important and crucial for our country, I do not feel like this healthcare plan is practical. Right now, our country is in deficit, and proposing a $110 billion a year plan does not seem plausible. The way Clinton plans to make this amount of money EVERY YEAR is by eliminating tax cuts for high-income people and reorganizing the current health-care system. This does not seem like enough. The reasons why her plan failed last time was because she did not have support of the other parties or the insurance companies, and the people did not want to have to change their current healthcare, but what has changed? The Republicans will still fight against her because of the higher taxes required and the elimination of the tax cuts for the wealthy elite. The insurance companies won’t back her because they will be forced to lower the costs of health insurance (which would be very beneficial, but I highly doubt the insurance companies will go along with this). And while the main focus of Clinton's new plan is that people don't have to change their existing plans, if she plans on reorganizing the country's healthcare system how does she plan on allowing people to keep everything as it was? Americans will also not be too happy about an increase in taxes, which will be necessary to raise the funds for this endeavor. In order to get this plan even considered, I feel the Democrats will have to have a majority in both the House and the Senate, so we'll have to see if that happens. Also, how does she plan on getting all this done without another government bureaucracy? (While I’m on this topic, what’s so bad about creating a new federal agency solely for the purpose of national healthcare?) Another issue that bothered me was that both John Edwards and Barack Obama had ideas for universal healthcare months before Clinton put forth her idea. I feel like she is putting forth this plan merely to catch up to the other two forerunners and/or to get herself elected. She has made some changes to her plan, but will it be enough to get this plan put into effect? She may get the people on her side in the election with a plan like this, but we always hear about politicians that make promises in the campaign but never follow through, why should this be any different? The idea is great, but I feel as though putting the idea into effect will be a problem. If Clinton can get this done, by all means go ahead, the idea is great, but I don't know if she can get it done to the extent she's talking about. I guess have to wait and see if she gets elected and how she does this.
I think that the fact that Hilary Clinton has gone through a previous attempt at installing a new health care system works entirely to her advantage. Especially because that attempt was a failure. She knows what the arguments against her are going to be, she can predict the inevitable road-blocks, and most importantly she is aware of how to work through and around the issues. Her experience, which IS her selling point, really does cause me to trust her ideas more than say Obama, who pales in comparison. Although I don't really know much about health care or the issues that pertain to it, I find myself having confidence in Hilary's abilities--and her determination--to succeed in her second effort at universal health care.
However, I do think it is absolutely crucial for Hilary to defend her assertion that her plan will NOT be a new Beaurocracy. People as a whole do not like to be forced to change, and if the Republicans are able to convince them that Hilary's health care plan is--like her first one--another murky mix of underlying policies, people will not want to support her. Ironically (in light of the past 8 years' events), the American population hates to be deceived. Whether we always pick up on this deception is debatable--however, no candidate wants to be branded a liar. Almost as much as no citizen wants to be branded a fool.
I totally agree with Clinton's new health care plan. Year after year the costs of health care skyrocket because insurance and drug companies are the desicion makers. There should be a way to cut costs but the government has no way to do so since the insurance industry controls everything. Her plan ensures that everyone has the benefit of affordable health care. If there are members of a household without insurance, it has to be paid with their after-tax income. For high-income families, which assume that they can afford insurance for every member of the household, there isn't much to worry about. But low-income families suffer from devastating costs if someone gets sick. On paper, $100 billion looks like an impossibly huge amount, but there's always another way to cut national spending (i.e. national defense), since tax cuts aren't enough. Also, i think tax cuts are unreasonable; people earning $250,000+ should contribute more anyways since everyone benefits from this plan. As for the bureaucracy issue, health insurance will be so costly in teh future that the government should create a federal agency to step in before it becomes an even bigger mess. However, the biggest problems w/ Clinton's plan is that A) she promises no bureaucracy, which leaves people to question how on earth will her plan work? and B) Republican opposition. There are some holes, and it's not a perfect solution, but it's a start.
I think that Lauren's skepticism about drug companies lowering prices is very valid. I wonder most about how Clinton plans on convincing insurance and drug companies to provide lower cost care. Although the execution pr the idea could be very beneficial for many Americans, I find it difficult to believe that she will be able to put this plan into motion. On a business level, the insurance and drug companies will most likely be very reluctant to support less profit. Although Clinton claims that she "doesn't want to put the health insurance industry out of business," requesting insurance companies to lower the the cost of health care coverage would be almost like asking grocers to lower the prices of food so that everyone can easily afford three full meals a day: a noble plan, but not one that the people who are already making good money would support.
This sounds like a great idea to me. Two summers ago, I went on a social/political activism teen tour across the country, and we spent a day speaking to Dr. Eleanor Christianson, a member of Physicians for National Healthcare, about this issue. Before that, I had never known that anything like universal healthcare existed because we have never grown up with the concept. When she told us that Canada, Britain, and the Netherlands all use the system, I started thinking it was a logical idea. Senator Hilary Clinton’s plan has the ability to appeal to many different economic classes. Obviously, it appeals to people with less money because they are guaranteed affordable, quality health care. Also, the competition between insurance companies will keep prices low. Wealthier people would probably be happy that they can remain with their current insurance companies (although they might not be fond of the tax increase). Also, it’s good that people with poor health status cannot be turned down by an insurance company—after all, don’t they need coverage the most? Giving everyone a choice will hopefully increase her American Health CHOICES Plan’s popularity since 1993. I think it will be really interesting to see the nuances between the healthcare proposals of Clinton, Obama, and Edwards.
I like the idea of what Mrs. Clinton is doing but how she is going to raise 110 billion annually is hard to fathom. taxes would have to be raised substantially for this plan to be plausable and they would hav to be raised on the wealthy. athough many people will think this is a good idea in theory i doubt realistically that rich americans will be able to pull themselves together enough to see past the fact that this plan would require tax raises and realize it is meant for people less fortunate than them. also the fact that both obama and edwards have already suggested universal health plan like this makes clinton look like a bit of a stragler. other than that i think the plan is a solid one if she can actually raise to 110 bill a year.
As Charlie said, Obama and Edwards DID have a plan for universal health care before Clinton, but we cannot forget that she first attempted a change in the health care system years ago. I agree with Nora in that her failure in 1994 could be to her advantage because she now knows what to expect from people who argue against her and she can learn from the mistakes she made in her earlier attempt.
my gut reaction is thank god, finally a plan for the people proposed without trying to please the wealthy or big corporations. i don't think many people would deny how important it is for us to redesign our current healthcare system. universal healthcare is, or should be, a basic concept that we accept as neccesary for survival in a society. i feel like we need to focus less on the intimidating amount of money needed and consider where the money we do collect in taxes is being spent. we can no longer spend taxpayers' money overseas to fund murder. if we brought troops home and started to focus on fixing our flaws we would find more than the needed sum. i do not think she will have trouble in fullfiling this plan. one issue that i feel is being completely ignored is the preventative aspect. we, as a nation, tend to belive that we are all knowing and therefore get very stuck in our ways. i feel we need to support a strong nutritional education program. we need to work at preventing disease and health conditions before the stage where medicine becomes neccesary. this is not a substitute for universal health care, i am not claiming that asparagus will cure aids, but it is a neccesary step to be considered when revising the way we look at health care. for the most part, way to go hillary, we can always learn from our mistakes.
Charlie and "anonymous": I think that the fact that Clinton presented her plan a few months after Edwards and Obama presented their's shows political savvy on her part. First of all, she was able to assess the strengths and weaknesses of her competition and therefor devise better ideas for the structure of her own health care plan. She was then able to observe how the other candidates were promoting their plans, and how people were responding to the ideas. Using this knowledge, Hilary could create a more informed plan that plays off the reactions her opponents received. She could adjust her promotional strategy and her political angle based on the failures or successes of the other democrats. I think that describing her as a "straggler" for coming up with a plan a few months late is a weak argument. Even if you don't agree with what I said above, it still doesn't hurt her to take more time to construct a universal health care plan. It's a pretty big undertaking, and I think the fact that she was slower only indicates that she used that time to the fullest, constructing a COHERENT plan.
Allie: you do bring up a good point about Canada, Britain, and the Netherlands and how this idea is implemented in other very successful countries, I'm not sure that Clinton's plan is the same thing. I was under the impression that Britain (not really sure of the other countries) uses a socialized healthcare program, which is run by the government's insurance company, while the main point of Clinton's plan was to use private insurance companies but with restrictions on prices, and allow people to maintain their current insurance plans if they wanted. I think that Britain requires their people to use the government's policies, which is not what Clinton was going for. I could be completely wrong though, not completely sure on that one.
Sal: I do agree that this plan is good because it is not catering to the bigger corporations and it is meant solely for the people; however, I think that this will only hurt her in her campaign to get this going because she will need their support (AKA the Republican support) to get this done. I also think your idea of prevention is a great idea, but it will not eliminate diseases and health issues not related to how one maintains their body.
Nora: I don't agree and don't think Clinton revised her plan based on the other plans, I think she revised it on her own plan from 1993-4. I think she only put this forward because the other candidates did so in order to get herself the nomination, so I don't agree with your assessment.
In response to Sal/Jackie: bringing up the war is interesting in that the next president's actions in ending/wrapping up the mess over there will have a huge effect on all of the new domestic plans. HOWEVER this also brings up the point that in ending the war our economy is going to experience a huge shift as more tax dollars are coming in for domestic agendas, but I'm interested in seeing how the industries are going to shift economically. Obviously, companies like GM are going to suffer huge losses when über amounts of weapons are no longer being purchased from them. SO, this may snowball and end up affecting the medical and insurance economies as well. I'm really no economist and haven't heard or read any predictions regarding these specifics, but I think it's important to think about balancing the economy and ginormous budget gap we currently have before going on any healthcare crusades. Also, the whole issue is generally a right vs. left debate, and if any democrat is elected we have a general idea of what we're in for. Personally, I'm extremely moderate, and all I think we need is someone who's going to fulfill the necessary steps in restoring what's been destroyed in this country before trying to execute a save the poor agenda funded by billion dollar plans. We don't want to end up with a War on Healthcare, now do we? Granted, curing AIDS and killing Iraqis can't even be compared, but the economics of both could be comparable. And Sal: prevention = awesome. Definitely needs to be implemented. I know from first hand experience that many people who rely on public health services generally don't take the necessary steps needed in preventing what brought them there in the first place. DARE is a failure, statistically. Planned Parenthood is not accessible enough. Five a Day hasn't done much either. These are cultural issues as well as we become a more technologically-centered and less active country. AH something else- the problem of healthcare for illegal immigrants. Unsafe work conditions often leave these people with major accidents and nowhere to turn. This is something not even mentioned in Clinton's plan, but is also an issue that overlaps with the immigration discussions in general. I think it merits discussion, whether inclusive or exclusive in the healthcare plans.
I think HIllary's plan could use a little tweaking but for the most part it is a well revised plan. I think it is about time that we retire the current health plan and go for a different approach. Of course the fact that everyone will have affordable health care sounds well beyond great but then comes the financial issue. Our current health care plan is expensive and this new plan opens many doors. The question that remains is how she will be able to make 110 billion dollars a year however, I feel that our current healthcare plan is not sufficient enough for everyone and that it is so bad it wouldn't hurt to try for some change. Though it is a very challenging task I believe HIllary has what it takes to accomplish the goal. In order for this plan to succeed, we must hang the current health care plan. Only in time will we be able to tell if this new plan is a success. I am willing to take my chances on HIllary.
I think this is a good idea especially since it's target is to help the low income Americans afford decent health care but it could use a little changing. I just dont think it should be required for all Americans to have health care and the reason is because there are going to be people, even if this plan comes into effect who still will not get health care for their own reasons. But one of the things I was wondering is if reorganizing the healthcare system would actually provide enough money a year to support a 110 billion dollar a year project. Also I think she will lose lots of needed support from the insurance and health care companies themselves becaues lots of them wont be able to provide a lower cost health care because of their financial obligations and needs. They also will lose money. But otherwise, I think the plan is well thought out.
Wow. It's so interesting to see what everyone has written because I never would have come up with these ideas. Everytime I read a new comment, I begin to agree with whatever is being argued. Firstly, a lot of people think that it will be difficult to raise $110 billion a year. After it was brought to my attention, I began to agree, but as soon as I read Lauren's idea about the end of the war bringing our tax dollars back to domestic affairs it seemed to make sense. The only question is, when exactly will all of our troops be home? Also, I definitely agree with Nora that Hilary's previous experience with this issue will give her a leg up, but I don't think that it was necessarily a better move to release the details of her plan later than the other candidates. Another factor that might give Hilary the upper-hand is her husband. Bill Clinton was a pretty good president as far as I know (which, I have to admit is not very far!), and he comes with the package. No matter who her vice president, secretary of state, or attorney general are, Bill Clinton will inevitably by part of her cabinet (honorarily, of course). But that's getting off topic. I'm also wondering what the concern is with the insurance companies refusing to lower costs? If Hilary forms this new affordable universal health care program, then existing insurance companies would be threatened, thus causing them to lower their prices in order to keep their clients. Am I wrong? I don't know much about how the economy works.
i can deffinetly see how republican support is needed. a succesful plan needs to adress the issues at hand without catering to any political group, but also manage to gain support from the people in power. lauren's fear of a bureaucracy is completely justified. we can not allow government corruption to spread into healthcare. we need to find a way to be involved, to assure that the american public is recieving healthcare, without having polititians control hospitals. i'm not completely sure about nora's theory that hillary's late plan was a purposeful move, but it is a possible, interesting idea. jimmy, i'm a little confused about your argument against universal healthcare. obviously it wont be perfect, but don't you think that it will be worth it for all the people who will benefit vs. concentrating on the exception?
Lauren's last comment brought up a really good point that by pulling all this money from so many different sources that the shift in the economy will be a sort of domino effect. No drug company wants to lower prices and Republicans will not support this kind of plan. After reading everyone else's comments, it made me think that Clinton's universal healthcare plan may be too good to be true. Clinton is trying to please everyone by changing little things in her previous plan. Essentially, ending tax cuts and lowering health care costs seems like a good step by step approach, but no drug company will be willing to follow this and very few Republicans would appreciate having zero tax cuts. Clinton's plan requires such drastic changes and is so different from our current one that finding support could be difficult.
I think that Nisha brings up an interesting last point about the insurance companies. I agree with Charlie in thinking that many Americans will not be to happy about the increase in taxes. Lauren says that at this point in time, there is a certain vagueness and ambiguity about Clinton's plan, which I second. Lauren's post about putting money from the war in Iraq back into domestic affairs is a very interesting and valid point. I just read a brief article this morning about how Bush is asking for $200 billion for the war just for 2008. See there link here.
Sal: I agree that this is an issue that should not cater to a particular political party. So, we need to be careful about that.
I didn't think about this before, but after reading everyone else's comments, I'm a little skeptical about drug and insurance companies offering medication and coverage at more affordable prices. How exactly is this going to be achieved?
Wow, thanks to everyone that has posted on this blog. You all have brought up some good ideas. Thanks for making this blog so much fun to read and post on.
Although I support it, I feel that Clinton's Universal Health Care Plan is unrealistic and a bit of a stretch. I'd surely agree that the idea would be beneficial for our community, but I'm skeptical about the funding of the plan and her strategy to execute the concept. Although she might be experienced from a previous attempt, as Nora said, how is she going to convince the entire Republican party, along with small business owners, current healthcare workers (since she'd be streamlining the healthcare system, potentially causing them to lose jobs) and all wealthy americans that her plan will be sucessful and advantageous to the society? I think it's also impractical that her healthcare plan is required. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that there would be coverage for everyone since I agree that no one should be excluded from medical treatment, but to make insurance required could also put money to waste. The tactics to accumulate the money is efficient, but the likelihood of achieving the 110 billion a year expection does not seem attainable. I'm in support of this healthcare plan, I just hope her operation can be sucessful and overcome the drawbacks.
I'm about to contradict myself and agree wtih coco. Hillary's plan seems like a phenomenal idea but it is a stretch. Her plan to come up with the money seems close to impossible. And convincing the Republican Party that her plan will be successful also seems a bit out of reach since there are many loopholes in her plan. Hillary is bright in that she has a plan that is attainable but at the same time she needs to cover up every setback her plan displays. Like coco i am all up for her plan but i dont think it will work yet at the same time our current health care system is beyond embarassment that there is a need for change and maybe this will be good for our country.
Ok so obviously this is late but here are my thoughts.
I completley agree with most people in the idea that it is a great concept, however the execution seems almost impossible. In order to make this plan work, she has to sucsessfully be able to reform the tax system also, which is not going to be an easy thing to do. I also am concerned that even if this plan did work, the healthcare system will still be totally flawed. There is no way to ensure completely equal coverage for all people, but still we should try to get as close to that as we can. Even if all people are covered, it still doesn't address the issue of the huge difference between the wonderful doctors most of us go to, and the overworked, underpayed doctors who work at the clinics. These clinics are understaffed and usually don't have enough time to see all the patients they should see. I know this would be impossible to fix so suddenly, but I think Clinton could possibly address it, maybe suggesting a way to provied adequate funding for free clinics. My housekeeper's 8 year old son had to wait for 5 hours once at a clinic, while he was totally broken out in hives and barely breathing, just to get a shot of epinehrine. I liked what Edwards said about cutting off health care to Congress until his bill was passed, but I doubt that would actually go though. In conclusion, I think that universal heath care is a wonderful idea, but I think it will be hard to achieve, but Clinton's speech wasn't detail-oriented, so maybe she has a few ideas she is keeping under wraps. I would love to see this healthcare plan pass.
Alexa brings up a good point, there's a huge difference between the doctors at Cedar Sinais and the ones who work at free clinics. Without improvement to the lower class healthcare system, the insurance will just go to waste. How practical is it to be insured without a reliable doctor or sufficient treatment?
your commentary is truly wonderful. I learned so much from reading your thoughts and I especially appreciated all of the personal stories and opinions -- combine that with facts you pulled out from other sources and you've got really strong arguments. anyway....blown away.....you guys are really sharp. I want to keep taking this to the next level. two of you did not post twice. please keep an eye on that and make sure to post in time so that you do have the space to really contemplate everyone's ideas. really really wonderful! I'm excited.
Post a Comment