Home | About | Donate

Bill Clinton Is Right, For-Profit Healthcare Is the 'Craziest Thing in the World'


Bill Clinton Is Right, For-Profit Healthcare Is the 'Craziest Thing in the World'

Lauren McCauley, staff writer

Bill Clinton gave a robust argument in favor of a single-payer healthcare system on Monday night—but you wouldn't know it if you read the news, or paid any attention to Republican nominee Donald Trump.

Speaking at Hillary Clinton campaign rally in Flint, Michigan, the former president discussed the importance of expanding access to Medicare and Medicaid while lambasting the for-profit insurance model that overcharges people and reaps enormous profit.


Looks like Clinton is doing a bit of his trademark triangulation.

He has zero credibility in this regard. Zilch.

This is pure politics to befuddle the masses into believing that Hillary has anything but disdain for a single payer system.


You are seriously misinformed if you think Americans pay less than $125 per month. A simple internet search contradicts your whole post. Your post is a lie.


I think Clinton is trying to say something true about the healthcare system while conceding without saying so there there is no way single-payer healthcare would ever get approved by Congress. I think he is searching some middle ground between the present system and single-payer. There doesn't seem to be any really good answer. It seems fairly obvious that the cost of many drugs is too high and the fee for many medical and surgical procedures is too high. Also, fee for service generates high costs without any regard to outcome. Basing fees on quality of care and outcome should reduce costs compared with fee for service.


Don is no doubt supporting TPP, TTIP and CETA or apathetic about it as many Canadians are. They don't understand that they have a hell of a lot more to lose than Murkins do when these regulatory capture scams disguised as "trade deals" pass, sending their drug prices into the stratosphere while medical bills send them into bankruptcy.

The $1200 dollar per month premium me and my wife pay for medical (no vision, no dental} is as big as all of our other monthly bills combined. At least our deductible is ONLY $1,000. i know many Murkins paying $1200 per month with a $6,000 deductible.


So? Bill has Medicare and likely some other government paid for private medical (not health) insurance for life.

More importantly, Bill is much smarter than Hillary, who may still lose the election. And Hillary would never bite the corporatist hand that feeds the Clinton family so well.


No, that's no what's wrong with the ACA, not even a little bit.


Mark so you're in favor of a strong Medicare for all with dental?


"under 10,000 a year it's free", yep, those poor should pay.



You seem to think that 30,000 per year is adequate pay for a family of 3, that's still poverty.


And about those who can or could have paid, but until the ACA weren't allowed to buy even crappy medical insurance?


Okay, what the cluck.



Bill's statement about insurance not working in the US contradicts Obama's September 9, 2009 TV speech promoting the passage of Obamacare where he said "health care reform must preserve insurance industry profits".

Obamacare has not only preserved but enhanced insurance company profits to the extent that we are now seeing more insurance company mergers than ever before. Insurance is working fantastic in the US, Bill ...for insurance executives and stockholders, just not the poloicyholders. Not to mention these larger insurance companies are too-big-to-fail so they can add a lucrative taxpayer funded bailout profit center like the Wall Street banks have.


We know, Clinton would be the President. (Push it and vote...thank you). So, let us have a single payer, non-profit Healthcare for future generations. Thank you.


Those of us who have been working for single-payer for many years fully understand there's no way Congress will soon pass it--until the people demand it. People wringing their hands about healthcare injustice should stop thinking like politicians and join the movement. https://www.healthcare-now.org/


I agree with you Bill. Maybe you and wife should talk more?
Hillary Clinton is on the record many many times, stating that she considers Medicare for all to be too expensive and a pie-in-the-sky dream.
At least that was the case when Bernie Sanders brought it up.


Pie-in-the-sky politically, but all credible studies show it would provide needed health care for all--everybody in, nobody out--for less than we're paying now. Obama said, in 2007, single-payer would be best, but it would be too disruptive. Disruptive to whom? The too-big-to-fail healthcare industry? Where have we heard that concept?


More apologetics for those who deserve none. The Clintons were largely responsible for ensuring that single payer was not on the table. When he appointed her Chair of his task force, (s)he saw to it that the deck was stacked against it...stacking the task force with private interests and offering no leadership for single payer. She resisted it ever since, and her surrogates on the DNC ensured that it was NOT in the Platform.

Like always, the Clintons speak out of both sides of their mouth - implying they support things that they (and especially their funders) oppose.

As for the implied excuse by blaming Congress: The Democrats held a majority at the time the health care crisis was again addressed; but the President offered no leadership while the Dem's waffled, saying that they had to come up with something the R's would accept. So instead of seeking what many of them professed to want, they settled on the highly compromised and problematic ACA, knowing full well that the R's weren't going to vote for it anyway. If Obama, the Democratic Party leadership or the Clintons had pressed for single payer just a little, it might have been on the table. But they didn't, and now we get this game-playing about positions.


My condolences to the other Canadians.


One group of people that is treated entirely differently from everyone else as it relates to health insurance, are those people who are between 55 and 65 who qualify for Medicaid and own their own homes. This group is the ONLY group that is required to pay back their 'subsidy.' This is done through Estate Recovery. The monthly cost of the Medicaid premium is tracked, added to what is actually spent for medical and medication benefits and is due at the time of the beneficiary's death. The children of the person who received the subsidy do not get to inherit the family home without having to pay back the parent's 'subsidy'. Typically the home has to be sold.

To illustrate: My partner receives a subsidy of over $500.00 per month for a silver plan. He will never have to pay that back. But since I am eligible for Medicaid my home would be sold to pay off my subsidy. Additionally, if someone is eligible for Medicaid they are not allowed to buy subsidized insurance on the state exchanges not even the lowest priced plan. If someone has income that varies through the year and falls below the Medicaid threshold, they will automatically be enrolled in Medicaid without their knowledge or consent.

When people are signed up for Medicaid they are sort of told about Estate Recovery but it isn't explained adequately. When I spoke to the state exchange last year I was told that there is only Estate Recovery for "higher dollar amount cases." This is simply untrue.

So I am 60, haven't had insurance for over 5 years, and unless something changes will not be able get insurance for another 5 years when i am eligible for Medicare. And unbelievably i am subject to a fine for not having insurance!

I can't tell you how scary it is to be in this position.

Another thing: When I went to the federally subsidized rural clinic for a small health matter, i was unable to see my regular provider, instead saw the head of the clinic. He was very confrontational and wanted to know why I wasn't on Medicaid. (He was able to see my income because i get a discount for being low income) I had to inform this doctor and clinic head about Estate Recovery and how it discriminates against people 55 to 65. After being hardnosed about not having Medicaid, he had to say "I didn't know that."

Single Payer

Stein/Baraka 2016