Hillary Clinton has now unveiled her health care proposal, and while it is very far from perfect, it is definitely better than anything the Republicans have offered.
Here's a synopsis of the Hillary proposal, as presented in a Daily Kos diary:
1. Will require all businesses to provide health coverage or pay into a pool (small business would get tax benefits to help them pay).
2. Will eliminate "pre-existing condition" discrimination in the individual policy market.
3, Everyone without insurance will be able to buy into either an enhanced version of Medicare or the FEHB (The federal employee program, same as members of congress get).
4. Everyone will be required to carry health insurance (similar to Massachusetts model and the Swiss health care system). Those who can't afford it will get subsidies to purchase it (from the pool that employers will pay into).
5. First will focus on containing costs and preventative care, then on expanding coverage.
6. Price tag set at $110 billion a year. Will be paid for by rolling back Bush tax cuts and other cost saving measures.
While the plan is well and good in many aspects (like, for example, eliminating the right of insurance companies to deny coverage due to "pre-existing conditions"), it falls well short of offering what America really needs-- a universal, single-payer plan paid for by taxpayers that provides free care (no co-pays) to all and free hospitalization when needed.
Hillary is right about one big source that could help fund any universal health insurance plan-- rolling back the Bush tax cuts for the richest 1 percent. But what Hillary (and other politicians) leave out is the fact that workers like myself already pay every week for our health insurance, co-pays when we visit our physician or go to the hospital, and even a large percentage of hospitalization and other health care costs that insurance companies don't cover.
Another BIG thing Hillary left out (as has the other candidates) is dental costs. Even under the most generous company-offered dental plans, workers like myself have to pay hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars if major care (crowns, root canals, etc.) is required.
So why is there not a word said about dental care?
One of Hillary's opponents, Sen. Barack Obama, had the following to say about her proposal:
In response, Obama said Clinton's plan is similar to one he proposed in the spring, "though my universal health care plan would go further in reducing the punishing cost of health care than any other proposal that's been offered in this campaign."
Here's Obama's proposal (as promoted on his campaign's web site):
Obama’s plan will provide affordable, comprehensive and portable health coverage for all Americans by:
• Making available a new national health program that will allow individuals and small businesses to buy
affordable health care similar to that available to federal employees. No one will be turned away or
charged more due to illness, and everyone who needs it will receive a subsidy for their premiums.
• Making available a National Health Insurance Exchange to reform the private insurance market. Any
American could enroll in participating private plans, which would have to provide comprehensive
benefits, issue every applicant a policy, and charge fair and stable premiums.
• Ensuring all of the 9 million currently uninsured children have affordable, high-quality health coverage
• Expanding Medicaid and SCHIP and ensuring they continue to serve their critical safety net function.
• Requiring employers to make a meaningful contribution to the health coverage of their employees.
Obama’s plan will reduce costs and save a typical American family up to $2,500 each year:
• Driving adoption of state-of-the-art health information technology systems
• Improving access to preventive care and chronic disease management programs
• Requiring hospitals to collect and report health care cost and quality data
• Reforming our market structure to increase competition in the insurance and drug markets
• Reducing the costs of catastrophic illnesses for employers and their employees
• Lowering drug costs by allowing importation of safe medicines from other developed countries and
increasing use of generics in public programs
Obama’s plan will promote public health by:
• Requiring coverage of preventive services
• Increasing state and local preparedness for terrorist attacks and natural disasters.
The Obama plan, according to the web site...
...will cost between $50-65 billion a year when fully phased in.
Like Hillary's proposal, at least part of the Obama plan will be paid for by rolling back the Bush tax cuts for the richest 1 percent.
There is much that can be said about the considerable merits of both the Hillary and Obama proposals, although both are far from perfect.
The Republicans, on their web site, dismissed Hillary's proposal as "Hillarycare" and patched together a series of headlines critical of Hillary's health care activities since 1993 without presenting any alternatives of thei own.
In the past, all Republicans have offered is tax breaks for those who purchase health insurance and "use it or lose it" health savings accounts that require contributors to spend from them during the year in which they contribute to it or lose everything they put into these plans.
Republicans have also in the past said nothing about the costs insurance companies don't cover and eliminating the right of insurers to deny coverage due to "pre-existing conditions."
So which side are the Republicans on? They sure aren't for average folks like myself.
They seem more interested in protecting the tax cuts they gave to the richest 1 percent and insurance company profits instead of protecting the interests of average folks like myself.
While the Clinton and Obama plans have their imperfections, they are far better than the pro-insurance company, pro-tax cuts for the richest 1 percent approach Republicans have presented.
__________________________
