Buckeye State Blog - Hillary's health care mandate is corporate welfare at its worst - Comments

Here is an excellent take on healthcare plan strategy

BuckeyeNation — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 16:52:44 -0800

written by a poster on Talking Points Memo, by Laura Jordan:

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/hillary_shame_on_you_barack_ob.php#comments

What I think Obama (correctly, in my opinion) realizes is that the U.S. is still a more conservative nation (relative to other industrialized countries) and there will be a psychological resistance to mandates among VOTERS (important to distinguish between conservative sensibilities in VOTERS and conservative interests of politically powerful DC insiders). It's his judgment that this would likely be the most powerful resistance (among the ELECTORATE) that the Republicans may be able to successfully exploit to derail progress toward UHC, and he removes this potential by reassuring more conservative voters that, "hey, you still have a CHOICE." Fear of mandates, fear of wage garnishment--gone.

I believe this underpins the difference between Sen. Clinton's and Sen. Obama's approaches--it's simply a judgment call on reading public mood and sensibilities.

Obama judges the public mood as sufficiently conservative to enable the Republican noise machine to exploit public fear of "socialist" policy. He says he doesn't want to blow our chance to move toward UHC by going too liberal and undermining political will among VOTERS.

On the other hand, Clinton judges the public mood as sufficiently progressive to make demanding full, mandated healthcare the safest bet. She thinks the most dangerous potential obstacle to movement toward UHC is not public mood and voters' political will; it's failing to start negotiations with the politically powerful DC interests from a position of demanding the whole enchilada. She says it's important to set the price high and negotiate down, and setting the price lower before negotiations is a mistake.

Both have compelling reasons for their differing approaches. But I believe they're based on trying to intuit public mood and predict how the future political battle over healthcare will play out.

For me, it boils down to deciding which candidate has the better political intuition. Though Sen. Clinton is a skilled and competent politician, based on everything I've seen in her admittedly impressive career, I have more confidence in Obama's political intuition than in hers. His career accomplishments (and this primary season) give me reason to believe he has very keen political intuition, in addition to skill and intellect.

Posted by laurajordan February 23, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink

Also

Goldie — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 16:11:36 -0800

And, both candidates advocate health care transparency and increasing efficiency to improve the quality and lower the cost of the health care system. But if you want to ensure that you're not paying "health care welfare," everyone has got to contribute to the plan. The mandate is necessary. Obama's plan, at best, will lower premiums (but not at much as Clinton's plan), or, at worst, is an unworkable money-suck that will guarantee that our premiums stay high, doesn't cover anyone who isn't already covered, and doesn't change anything.

Health Care--Who Will Pay For It?

Goldie — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 16:01:05 -0800

This blog has it absolutely backwards. So Hillary Clinton wants to include a mandate that requires everyone to participate in the Health Care System. Barack Obama thinks everyone will buy insurance if we can lower the costs enough. Paradoxical question: where will the money come from to lower the price if we don't require consumers to purchase health care? Yes, there are people out there who do not buy health care, not because they don't need it, but because they would rather not spend their money on it (they are called "free-riders.") Then, when they go to the doctor, their care is subsidized by the rest of us who do buy health insurance. Not requiring a mandate is the same as paying "health care welfare," which causes prices to go up as those costs are passed on to the rest of us. He might be able to lower the prices enough to convince some people to buy health care. But his plan will still keep the costs artificially higher than they need to be, because there will continue to be people who would rather spend the money on something else, regardless of income. Clinton's plan will lower the cost of health care the most and cover everyone. It is just the better plan.

Affordable Health Care

Healthbase — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 07:00:20 -0800

More and more people are going out for affordable health care. Healthbase has created affordable healthcare plans for businesses as well as uninsured people. The savings are immediate from 50-90% depending on the procedure and location. Checkout patient videos at https://www.healthbase.com/hb/pages/testimonials.jsp . More information on the plans and free quote at http://www.healthbase.com

re: Mandated insurance

JeanLR — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 07:24:15 -0800

(I agree, from my other posts on this topic:

Mandated insurance

First, I already have insurance, through my job, it's just that the coverage sucks, the deductible is up and so are the co-pays. They deny covering an expense then if you appeal they review themselves and deny you again. Meanwhile, the hospital is billing you and so you get to call the hospital and try to get them to re-submit the bill to insurance and while doing that you get to lose any notion of medical privacy-

The problem isn't access to insurance, people I know who have zero insurance and little income simply go to Metro and get "rated" and then get free health care on demand. Oh, and free dental too.

The problem is that employers are socked with gigantic insurance costs to cover employees, and employees are having to pay a larger share out of our wages to boot.

To mandate that "everyone" buy insurance is the same thing as saying "buy this private company's product or else the State will step in and force you to buy this company's product".

So this is supposed to *help* the situation, this mandate to force all Americans to support an insurance industry that is sucking off cash and standing between human beings and thier healthcare?

I'm sorry, that's a tough sell for me and I don't see how this will help people. The Clintons tried to do "something" 16 years ago and failed miserably. Ever since that time our situation has gotten worse and worse and not only threatens the health and general well-being of the people but really puts American business at a disadvantage.

The health insurance industry is bollocks! Obama might not be proposing anything better at the moment, but I feel like Hillary is obsessed with a huge top-down plan, and I think Obama's vision makes room for the opinions of others.

IndUShealth Gobal Healthcare Options

Tom Keesling — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 05:47:32 -0800

As corporate healthcare benefits have continued to soar, IndUShealth has created a global healthcare solution that can generate immediate hard-dollar savings, and is also easy to implement. Because the first question is typically, “how much can I save?” IndUShealth has created a Global Healthcare Option Calculator that allows corporate benefit managers to obtain estimates of potential savings. See http://www.indushealth.com/corpsavcalc.htm Offering a Global Healthcare Option to subscribers has also been demonstrated to lower the annual cost increases faced by employers located in certain communities, especially those with fewer competitive local offerings. IndUShealth programs have also begun to result in a reduction in stop-loss insurance claims, thereby reducing premium increases associated with their annual policy renewal. It is estimated that within two to three years of launching their IndUShealth Global Healthcare Option programs, these two forms of additional savings related to access to care in their local communities rival in magnitude to the hard-dollar savings achieved by those plan participants who elect to travel overseas for care.

Hillary's health care mandate is corporate welfare at its worst

Tim Russo — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 07:31:15 -0800

Everyone's noticed the wild proliferation of TV ads for every conceivable pharmaceutical imaginable. But have you ever noticed how Walgreen's and CVS pharmacies have been popping up like dandelions over the last decade? Particularly here in Ohio? Ever wonder why? For the same reason the drug ads are taking over the airwaves.

Medicare. For a long time now, health care in this country has been one giant corporate race for government dollars after another. The Medicare prescription drug program is just the latest. That program is basically funding the placement of a CVS on one corner, and a Walgreen's across the street, at every intersection in sprawlurbia. If they could build a CVS in your house, they would. Because when you sign up for government subsidized prescription drugs, for which Medicare currently has no authority to negotiate price, you're basically helping big pharma create a pipeline from the taxpayer to their bottom line via your doctor's Rx pad. It's that simple.

That's what Hillary's mandate for health insurance will do for the insurance industry. It will create a government enforced legal requirement that everyone in America buy a product from a private insurance company. Car insurance mandates did the same thing for the likes of GEICO, 1-800-Safe-Auto, etc. Same dynamic. Who wouldn't want to be in the business of providing something every consumer is legally forced to purchase? It's almost as good as a monopoly. Actually, it's better. It's practically free money.

For all these same reasons, prescription drug price inflation has become completely uncontrollable. Because in order to get the benefit, you have to go through Medicare, so there is no incentive for big pharma to control prices. Apply this to Hillary's health care mandate, and the dynamic worsens, because there is even less incentive for a provider of a legally required consumer purchase to moderate cost. The business will come because the law says it will. If the government forced every American to buy a pomegranate, the same thing would happen with pomegranates.

The health insurance industry must be licking its chops at the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency. The profits would be astronomical. And those profits would be made on the backs of 47 million Americans who cannot afford the health insurance anyway, and would be fined if they didn't pony it up. How very progressive of her.