The Hill reported Clinton's health care proposal "comes at a heavy price tag," failed to fully report her plan to pay for it
SUMMARY: An article in The Hill described Sen. Hillary Clinton's health care plan as "com[ing]" with "a heavy price tag complete with federal mandates and vague in some key areas," adding, "She estimated it would cost $110 billion per year." While the article quoted from a Clinton campaign press release describing the plan, it did not note that the release addresses how the plan would be paid for.
In a September 18 article in The Hill, reporter Sam Youngman described Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) recently proposed health care plan as "com[ing]" with "a heavy price tag complete with federal mandates and vague in some key areas," adding, "She estimated it would cost $110 billion per year." While Youngman quoted from a September 17 press release issued by her campaign describing the plan, he did not note that the release addresses the issue of cost, including calling for "discontinu[ing] portions of the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000" and "limit[ing] the [employer tax] exclusion [for health care] for the high-end portion of very generous plans for those making over $250,000."
From the September 18 article in The Hill:
Clinton's new plan comes at a heavy price tag complete with federal mandates and vague in some key areas. She estimated it would cost $110 billion per year.
Her press release said "most savings would come through lowering spending due to quality and modernization." The release added that employers would help finance the system while the government "will ensure that health insurance is always affordable and never a crushing burden on any family..."
By contrast, a September 17 USA Today article, updated September 18, reported:
The front-runner in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination [Clinton] said that under her new plan, the federal government would spend $110 billion a year to help employers and individuals pay for insurance. About half of the money would come from repealing tax cuts and tax breaks for people with incomes above $250,000; the rest would be saved through efficiencies in the system, such as chronic disease management.
Additionally, Youngman described Karen Ignagni, whom he identified as "president and CEO of America's Health Insurance Plans [AHIP]," as "unimpressed" with Clinton's plan and quoted her criticism of it. But the article did not note that AHIP is a trade association that lobbies for private insurance companies, or that the Health Insurance Association of America -- which merged with American Association of Health Plans to create AHIP in 2003 -- funded the "Harry and Louise" ads that attacked Clinton's 1993 health care reform proposal.
From Youngman's September 18 article in The Hill:
Consistent with Clinton's insistence in stump speeches that healthcare reform can only succeed by bring together a coalition that includes employers, her campaign reached out to the business community Monday. Campaign staffers staged conference calls with representatives of the National Federation of Independent Businesses and other employer groups within hours of Clinton's speech.
Several industry groups declined to immediately comment on Clinton's plan.
But Karen Ignagni, president and CEO of America's Health Insurance Plans, was unimpressed: "The new Clinton plan includes important ideas to make coverage more affordable; unfortunately, some of the divisive rhetoric seems reminiscent of 1993."
The GOP's job ... and thus the "rightwing Mainstream Media's" job, is simply to demonize Democrats.
Inform the people? Don't be naive. Explain that health care in America ALREADY has a "hefty price tag"? That would not be helpful to the demonization of Hillary. It's SHE who must be made to be bringing that expense to Americans, and it must be made to seem unnecessary.
Thus, NO context on how inefficient the current system is, no information on how Hillary intends to pay for the plan (the info is THERE, so must simply be ignored), and certainly no reporting on the GOP contenders' plans ... ONLY HEADLINE THEIR CRITICISMS.
And the rightwing is STILL saying it's a "Liberal Media". Astounding.
The way you put it Tex really brings out how sleazy this approach is. The implication to any politician being that trying to actually get any of the hard work done to improve things is going to get you slaughtered in the press. Maybe that's why the bravest position being taken by Republicans is that they favor Winning a Victory! Oh and Honor. Bold stances there. The way politics is covered is clearly putting a chilling effect on getting things done.
I'm really hoping Hillary doesn't get the nomination. MM has documented well the continuous stream of misinformation about her that gurgles up through the mainstream media sources. I'm not basing my caucus (I'm in Iowa) decision based on how bad they're going to slime her. But it is going to be a seriously tiresome campaign if the Democrats give her the nod. I think there are some on the right who are baiting the Democrats to rally around her in the same way they went after Kerry when the nomination was still in doubt. They knew who they wanted to run against and surmised correctly that attacking him ufairly would get the party faithful to defend him, rally around him and eventually support his nomination. It smells like that's the deal with Hillary now. They're TERRIFIED of having to run against Obama and they'd prefer not to run against Edwards.
Sun,
I admire your telepathic abilities. :-)
Aint telepathy. Been a political junkie my whole life. It would be like you said, "They'd really rather send Lee Smith to the plate than the pitcher," and someone who doesn't know a baseball from a tomato says, "Gosh, AA, what are you, telepathic?" I might be just an old fan in the stands but I can see the odds and I'm guessing the manager in the other dugout can too.
Not Lee Smith, sounds like I don't know a baseball from a tomato. How bout Derrick Lee. There ya go. Lee Smith was a pither back in the 80's, so that original analogy would have been really dumb.
I think your explanation strikes out because the opposing pitcher would not be TERRIFIED at facing whatever batter came to the plate.
As one who roots for the other team, I am not concerned who pitch hits. I would hope the other team would put up their best hitter and I would hope my side would do the same.
Pass the apple pie when you get a minute please. ;-)
That doesn't make the analogy not work. The fact that YOU would want the other team to send up the best batter. Does that mean you think Rove wanted the Democrats to nominate the toughest candidate to beat? Are you being disengenuine our are you just not thinking about it? Are you just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing?
Clinton's health care plan would come with a heavy price tag...yep she says $110B and in government speak that means probably $200B per year.
Federal mandates...yep...you can't have a federal program without mandates. In government speak that means "we're from the government and we're here to help"...I can hardly wait.
Most savings would come through lowering spending due to quality and modernization...yep...this is pretty vague. Lower government spending and modernization doesn't compute. Our government doesn't have any idea how to reduce any spending...and is the most inefficient organization in America.
All in all...until Hillary brings more to the table about the specifics of health care...the Hill pretty much had it right.
How's the plan coming over under the big tent there Wes? Oh yea, they don't give a damn about this, I forgot. Too busy supporting brave initiatives like Victory. Where do they come up with such bold stances?
Now Dog, you know that protecting marriage from homosexuals is far more important than the health of our people. ;-)
Why is spending a problem for the GOP right now? They have gotten us into a war that future generations will pay for since they insist on borrowing and going on the cheap.
If spending is really a problem for the GOP, I suggest they pay for the war they wanted so badly before they start griping about potential spending from candidates who are not yet even in the White House.
"I'm from the government and I'm here to help". Bet those dead Iraqis have seen the true meaning of that statment.
Why are Republans afraid of Hillary? I am not of the thinking that they "want" her to be the Dem candidate. They seem to shake in their boots at the sound of the name Clinton. Anyone notice that the term Mrs. Bill Clinton is making its way in the Con scream. Fear not you sheeplike followers of the Con mantra, you will be hearing the new refrain...."We, the people are in charge and now you can be included."
But Prince why would they be afraid of her during the Democratic nomination process? Are they trying to help the Democrats come up with the right candidate? Do they think there won't be enough time to run against her during the general election?
Just consider that some of Rove's own people talked about this approach following the 04 campaign. It came out during some of the cocky brag time after Kerry went down. They didn't want to see Edwards during the general so they ignored him during the primaries. Any ammo they had designed for him they kept in the box. Remember how hard Ed went after Bush at one point and they just refused to be called out? Meanwhile they were throwing obviously unfair criticism at Kerry during the key couple of weeks when the Democrats decision was still in doubt. They did this to help the Democrats make the best decision? Of course they've clammed up on the 04 strategy since then.
Looking at it from an objective perspective it seems pretty obvious that of the big three, Clinton is going to be the most problematic campaign. "I just don't trust her." "She's just so political." These might be misguided sentiments but they are extremely widespread.
Think about why the right would feel the need to single out a Democratic candidate during the Democrat's own decision making process. Is it so she can refine her positions before the general election? If they really feared her in the general, they would spring this stuff when the swing voters finally start paying attention. This stuff is meant to play to the primary voters because that's who is paying attention right now. Think from the perspective of a GOP strategist. (shudder) Why would you be starting the fight now against who you are most afraid of?
Selling Hillary to the party faithful who vote in the primaries isn't the problem. The problem is that they'll be able to create the usual political burnout with the bored middle of the roaders during the general election campaign.
Sundog, well stated. But I view the Republans differently since November 07. They are running scared. The ammo for Edwards has been used and they believe that those Red States down South are no problem when it comes to Obama. They showed their "race" cards in elections down there last year.
Sen. Clinton, who is not my #1 choice, has the largest soapbox and the best "running mate", Bill. Her appeal, although Washingtonian, still reverberates across the nation in name recognition. Women voters in this area don't really say they like her but they respect her. The reasons range from smart to tough. And she hasn't even played the I AM WOMAN card. She doesn't have to do that since the Limbaugh types will do all they can to attack her as a woman. And let's face it, the mainstream woman, working, mom or both will give her a vote.
This group of so-called Republans will continue to rev up their hate-machine against her. We will know when they reach their end-game when the question her sexual preference. That will be their fatal flaw. But they cannot help themselves. As far as the dearly departed Mr. Rove once stated...Cut the head off before it can bite you. Actually, I made that up but he probably would have used it if he could.
I think the conservative machine will have a much more difficult time drumming up "new" things against Clinton than they would if another Dem candidate made it; Hillary has done nothing but improve her image, and that image is something that mainstream America now accepts more than perhaps they did in the 90's.
Also, I don't think you can write off the fact that, unless Thompson stages a successful coup of the nomination, that the Republicans will have a candidate that the religious/"moral" right wing of their party will be iffy on, which might just kink the machine workings in and of itself.
But they don't really run against a Democrat in the general election on any of the issues. They run on cynicism. They know they have the red states wheter it's Obama or Clinton. All that's in play is a narrow band of folks who actually don't pay that much attention. We all sweat all the details but we're not in play are we. To the folks who are in play in the general election all they worry about is creating a vaguely negative impression about their opponent. Hence Swift Boat etc. Did that turn a single loyal Democrat away from Kerry? It's important to think about who those few swing voters are. It's also depressing because of how poorly informed and easily manipulated they are. But why is everyone so mystified as to why the GOP continues to win with such horrendous candidates? People ackgnowledge that they have 'good' strategists but then ignore what those strategists actually pull.
Perhaps if you and your Democrats had more respect for those folks who are "in play", those who are "poorly informed and easily manipulated", then those folks wouldn't be so taken in by the cynical rightwing misinformers and manipulators.
Just a thought.......
Tommy,
My thought after reading Sundog's opinion was that if people are so easily manipulated, well by all means go ahead and manipulate.
(BTW, I don't agree with Sundog's assertion.)
Perhaps, but it's the endless dismissive disrespect many on the left have for "red staters" or anyone who isn't "progressive" enough to agree with their agenda or their view of the world......they are labeled woefully misinformed, or ignorant, or something.
It's one of the reasons no matter how much the Republicans screw things up, certain states will never be "blue", for those voter's disguist with the rightwing isn't anywhere near their distaste for the condescension directed at them from the leftwing.
Aint makin this stuff up folks. Tommy, to suggest that Rove and the GOP have lots of respect for the 'middle of the road' voters is the height of idiocy.
AA, this tactic has not only been described plainly by the people who worked it in 04, it makes perfect sense as a strategy to win. Just witness how much their campaign against Hillary has led a site like MM to bring her up. It rallies the base to attack a specific candidate during the primaries. So if you want the other party to pick a certain candidate, that's the one you go after during their selection process. What place do the GOP spinsters have picking apart Hillary's campaign at this point? She's currently running against other Democrats. What you would do and what they DO is to ignore candidates who are more of a threat and thus diminish them in the eyes of the partisans on the other side. Just look at Media Matters much of the time. By going after her in the media all the time, they've made a liberal site focus on defending her all the time. I'm not getting what is so complicated about such a simple strategy. They've explained how they do this and there's a lot of evidence that they're doing it now.
Sun,
I will give you the Rove factor, his sleazy attempts to win votes is a disgrace. But I was responding to your post about Democrats, so that was my point.
Sleazy ATTEMPTS? He's put Bush into the White House twice. And your posts about Democrats is just a cheap rhetorical trick. (gasp! surprise!) It's similar to Bush launching a really bad idea of a war and then blaming anyone who points it out for the disaster that ensues.
Any lower or middle income voter who voted for Bush has been screwed by that vote. I believe that voter has been manipulated. Pointing this out doesn't mean I don't care for that voter. It means I give a damn, otherwise I wouldn't be spending my time on this stuff. I'm in that demographic fer chrissakes so I've got a stake in how my fellow citizens vote. I've seen this 'elitist' crap from Limbaugh and all the worst hacks in the world. You must be so proud to emulate them. Good policies would demonstrate giving a damn about people. The GOP has utterly failed middle America so they use garbage like you've just demonstrated to pander to people who are too busy working to have time to figure your bs out.
Oh, calm yourself. Bush and Rove are off topic, you brought it up and I agreed, your HYSTERIA!! is misplaced at best.
I offered my opinion on the Democrats and many of their supporters take on the red staters, as you so eloquently stated, the poor misinformed souls.....you said it, I didn't.
In the words of a (wo)man smarter than me
Shoo fly.
That's supposed to read, "In the words of a smarter (wo)man than me." If I were smarter I would have done it right the first time. The rest of it was right.
baaah humbug.
In case you missed it.. since others have inserted comments. My reply was to Prince's "Fear not you sheeplike followers of the Con mantra, you will be hearing the new refrain...."We, the people are in charge and now you can be included."
I tried to ram it in there butt I probably just angora'd everyone. I wool try to do better.
Are ewe kidding me? That was so baad.
jest tryin to get yer goat.
You must have cried when they played the Republcan Anthem..."They'll Never Be Another EWE"....or is that Another American.
Wes,
Your diagnosis is dead-on. When a politician, any politician, especially one running for office, talks how savings will come from lowering costs through quality and modernization - that type of vagueness and non-specificity from campaign press releases scares me.
The devil is in the details, let's see 'em.
Umm, yeah, OK. Who was President before George W. Bush? Answer, Bill Clinton.
Question 2: What kind of a budget surplus existed when Bush took office in January of 2001? Answer; a large one.
Who made that possible? A democratic president. Your assertions of frivolous spending need to be sent in the direction of the republicans, both in the Congress and the White House, who have spent our country into a serious long term debt now owed to mostly foreign countries (ie, China). Democrats didn't get us there. Bush and his cabal of cronies did that. Well, last time we had a democrat in the White House, the economy was soaring, and there was plenty of money in the coffers. It always seems funny to me that republicans or conservatives decry Clinton (Hillary) maybe winning the White House as the end of the "good" (for the rich) economy, and how the country is going to turn to crap, and of course how she would spend us into oblivion. Umm, hello? We're already there.
- Recall that it was the Clinton White House that fought Republicans every inch of the way in balancing the budget in 1995...
It was Bill Clinton who, during the big budget fight in 1995, had to submit not one, not two, but five budgets until he begrudgingly matched the GOP's balanced-budget plan. In fact, during the height of the budget wars in the summer of 1995, the Clinton administration admitted that "balancing the budget is not one of our top priorities. - Cato Institute
Sorry Magnolia, but your statement does not match history...it was the efforts of Gingrich and the republicans that led the fight for a balanced budget.
And then, when they had control over the executive and legislative branch, they ran up the biggest deficits ever seen (even before wars)....
I agree that republicans have lost their way...the spending has gone out of control.
The failure of Pres.Bush to veto or at least threaten veto...and the subsequent drunken spending binge by both parties is shameful and dangerous.
$110 bill ($110,000,000,000) is a lot of money, regardless of how you're going to pay for it. What's the price tag on Iraq these days? Anyone wanna pick between the two if we're going to purchase one or the other in the near future again?
Once agian, how much are we paying RIGHT NOW for health care premiums? This includes government, businesses and individuals. Anyone know the facts?
Well, I don't think we're paying anything...you mean how much are we paying to provide healthcare for those who do not have insurance or adequate insurance?
And, i don't know if we can compare the two, because what we pay in healthcare does not equate to what insurance would have to cover, as I don't think people get free chemo, etc.
I mean, how much are paid in PREMIUMS!!!!
Somebody pays for the profits of the Insurance companies/HMO's.
Oh, I see what you're saying.
Again though, don't get mad at insurance companies making a profit in a capitalist free market. If you think healthcare insurance should not be something done by private companies (or at least not without gov competition/regulation), that's the issue.
Markets ain't free, Dex.
"how much are we paying RIGHT NOW for health care premiums?"
I can't find the most recent data but here's what the situation was a couple years ago...
"Managed-care companies, however, do not feel your pain. They are poised for another year of gains in 2005, with total revenues projected to increase 10 percent, to $272 billion, according to a forecast from Corporate Research Group Inc., a managed-care research and publishing group based in New Rochelle, N.Y."
Here's some other relevant and more timely tidbits:
"The U.S. spends an average of $7,000 per capita on health care. According to a 2007 analysis by McKinsey Global Institute, that's 28 percent more than any other industrialized country, even after adjusting for its relative wealth."
"In 2006 the annual premium for family coverage averaged $11,480--more than the annual paycheck of a full-time worker earning the minimum wage."
"In 2006, the nation's six biggest private health insurers collectively earned almost $11 billion in profits."
Pete,
Lets say the top six insurers accounted for $200 billion of the $272B revenue. If they made $11B profit - that would be 5.5% ROI. Would you consider that a fair rate of return?
To be clear, I have no idea what share of the revenue the top six companies actually get. This is only a philosophical question about what you might consider fair profits.
Oops. ROI is the wrong acronym. It is simply the % profit from revenues. Sorry for the confusion.
Sorry to butt in on your question to Pete, but if I may be allowed to answer:
I think the underlying issue is whether health care and health insurance should be for-profit industries at all. When they are, we can see that decisions are made by these companies based on profits, not based on what is best for the patient or for the general health and welfare. The examples of this in action are endless, and I'm sure that most of us even have personal anecdotes to that effect. And we all know that we are the only industrialized nation with for-profit health coverage and we get by far the worst results for the most amount of money spent.
Incidentally, this is where I disagree with Clinton's plan because she is trying to form a system within the current for-profit framework.
IMO, Any net profit is not reasonable when it comes on the backs of the sick and injured.
Profit is at the heart of the problem to begin with, right along side bureaucracy.
Insurance companies have enormous bureaucracies that suck up a portion of the premiums they receive. The total of the portion they keep to cover costs and profit from runs from 15 to 25% of premiums collected. The insurance companies don't care about health care costs because it never effects the percentage they get. The higher the costs go, the more that percentage turns into, and the less claims they approve because of it. PROFIT AND BUREAUCRACY MAKES HEALTH CARE INSURANCE INEFFICIENT.
Personally, I'd like to see the Government set up it's own Insurance company, and go into direct competition with the ones we already have. The difference would be that the Government's policies would be available to everyone regardless of pre-existing conditions. Premiums would be paid according to one's income, maybe using income tax brackets. Really poor people would pay no premiums, really rich people would pay the maximum premium, whatever that would be. Anyone could opt out and buy their own from a private company. This, to me, seems like the simplest solution, and I've even heard some conservatives support the idea.
It doesn't sound like this is where Hillary is going, but I'll keep an open mind.
Ergo, why I would like to know the premiums paid? Must be enough since there are enormous(capitalistic profits).
English does not seem to be your primary language.
I have Republan ears attached during surgery.
I think any universal system is going to require tax support of some kind. That's why I don't think it will ever happen. We can piss away billions in an unnecessary war, but offer healthcare to everybody? Hell NO! Too expensive! Socialism!
Whatever the details of Hillary's plan, you can be sure that the Republicans will lie and distort it until the general public will have no idea what's really in it.
Nerzog, I'm sure we both wish that the ultimate decision will come down to the people..but we know it'll be which interest group can sway Congress the most.
This biggest lie is that is a socialist plan. It's not. It's purely pirate capitalism, using the force of the Federal government to strong-arm the unwilling into handing over their money to the insurance industry. Armed robbery. But Repubs will call it socialism because they're total idiots.
An excellent idea, Nerzog. Paul Krugman doesn't think that the insurance companies will be able to float if they've lost all the customers he contends will go over to the gov. system. I don't think they'll all crash and burn, but they will have to adapt for sure.
I'm a little worried that if the gov. insurance program gets too big, it could literally dictate care, like they do in universal healthcare states. Therefore I hope the gov. insurance plan wouldn't be too good.
Nerzog,
The only flaw in your plan would be that the rich would not buy in if they could find cheaper insurance elsewhere.
Good luck finding insurance that's cheaper if you have a choice between one that's non-profit and one that exists for profit.
The federal government isn't going to be paying for Hillary's plan...YOU AND I will be paying for Hillary's plan. She will FORCE us to buy health care insurance from PRIVATE companies, paying for it with our own money, then giving us a tiny "tax break" once a year to "make it affordable". This is bollocks. There's a reason over 40 million Americans do not have insurance...they can't afford it now!!! Where's the money gonna come from? Those out there working $8 an hour jobs can't afford a $400 a month plan, even with a minute tax deduction on their 1040EZs. And family plans? Forget it. With the rates the insurance corpos want now, people will have to pay their entire paychecks to them. This is nothing less than an armed robbery. I can't believe anyone would shill for this!
It proves two things....Hillary is trying to get the insurance industry to back her campaign and that she has no clue and no care about the working poor of this country, who are the uninsured by-and-large. They can't afford this plan, it will bankrupt them. And she wants to make it MANDATORY....forcing the poor to pay money to corpos who will try to maximize profits and minimize care. This is Hillary's "let them eat cake" moment.
Greens will give Americans a Medicare-style (old Medicare, not before Bush and Congress sold it off to the pharmaceutical industry) plan funded by reducing the defence budget. We will not force you at gunpoint into the greedy clutches of the insurance industry, like Hillary is trying to do.
Want to reduce health insurance costs. Cap lawsuits.
From the U.S. Chamber: America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), the national association of health insurers, released a report on the current status of health insurance premiums. The study found that premiums rose an average of 8.8% in 2005, a slower rate of growth than found in 2002, when premiums rose by 13.7%. Notably, AHIP reports that medical liability and defensive medicine prompted by the threat of lawsuits account for 10% of the cost of medical services.
http://www.canys.org/newsletter/2006/Mar02-06.htm
I'm sure Edwards and Hillary will go for that. ;-)
You have to line-item the lawsuits to really understand whether they're making an impact. I work in the insurance industry dealing with bodily injury claims, and there are many claims that we settle with lawyers, or settle with the claimant, or that we end up litigating and letting the state-appointed judges decide if benefits are due. Do those all count as "lawsuits"? Can we differentiate those instances from the class-action suits that make the headlines? If not, the stats are flawed.
Dex,
You make a good point. My beef is with the class action suits and the few outrageous awards that overcompensate the lawyers and make everyone pay higher premiums. I'd be happy if all those pols in Washington would start there.
Yes, I would love to see the day when lawyers's compensation is regulated. LOVE it.
Maybe we can socialize the law business...
AA, you are right!! The LAWYER factor has not been talked about concerning any new Health Care Plan. But once the Limbaugh's get hold of it, Edwards will get his day in Radio Court.
Right. Let’s let Democrats to with the health care system what they did with the public education system: virtually remove competition, put government bureaucrats in charge, and penalize anyone who opts out and pays through their teeth for a private service. It did wonders for our children in the case of education. Imagine what a government run health care system can do for medical care.