Home | About | Donate

Clinton Reminds Us That She's Part of the Problem


#1

Clinton Reminds Us That She's Part of the Problem

Tom Gallagher

If the Hillary Clinton campaign had its way, supporters of Bernie Sanders – whose backing she will obviously want in November should she win the Democratic nomination – would feel that, while Clinton might not be all that they want in a president, she would at least go part of the way there. But if you followed the third debate deep enough into the night, you witnessed, in what stands as the most disingenuous moment of the Democratic race thus far, Clinton not simply disagreeing with Sanders on his Medicare For All, single payer health insurance plan, but knowingly distorting it.


#2

I admire Mr. Sanders taking the high ground in thus far not resorting to any form of attack. However, if he could find an even-keel way to explain that the loss of a single payer system consigns thousands of people to DEATH (if not misery) each year, and then compare these numbers to the phenomenal sums wasted on foreign wars... under the guise of providing Americans with security, he could make quite a compelling case.

In a subtle way, the comparison of these statistics/numbers would expose the underlying fallacy of the war on terror: in that it does virtually nothing to provide real safety or security for Americans. And to those thousands struggling with very real dire health prospects, a different kind of "national security" could be offered.

Mrs. Clinton is not the expert chameleon that her tricky dick husband was. Thus, she faces the virtually impossible task of seeming like a populist--concerned with issues that matter to most voters (those who actually work for a living) while having to do the bidding of the high-paying corporate donors.

Of course, if she is the one the elites want, they can tweak the vote counts as was done for Bush back in 2000. The control of mass media allows for any number of FALSE, albeit official stories to follow that would do their best to set up a case for plausible deniability.

After all, no one in a position of high authority is yet to come clean on the truth about the JFK assassination or 911, for that matter. Lies told often become the currency of the land... but for those brave truth tellers, seekers, and researchers who understand the dangers of living by, for, and under Lies.


#4

The $18 to $20 trillion that Hillary complains she won't want to spend on Medicare for all is readily available when you consider the $26 trillion of US taxpayers' money that Congress has earmarked to bail out too-big-to-fail banks that were unleashed during the Clinton Administration.

The banksters and their corporate cronies continue to reward the Clintons with an eight figure annual corporate speaking fee income ($17 million in 2013 alone) so Hillary doesn't want to divert any of the $26 trillion away from the banksters and into Medicare for all, and thereby risk derailing the speaking fee gravy train.


#6

Healthcare is such a complicated issue that it is hard to delve into it. One thing however that should be made clearer is that private insurance companies are not the cause of high heathcare costs. They are at the mercy of doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and device manufacturers. Private insurance companies simply pass along the absurdly high prices charged by the four groups mentioned. So whether we have a one-payer system or our present system, to lower costs has to mean much less money going to doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and medical device companies. They are the ones making out big time and how to address this is unclear.


#7

Warren never had as intelligent a student as Clinton...nor probably as corrupt and slimy.


#8

"... private insurance companies are not the cause of high heathcare costs. They are at the mercy of doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and device manufacturers."

This is simply bullshit. Your willingness to conform to "inside-the-box" frames is on display again.

Yes there are multiple profiteering opportunities, designed into the intentional mess that is the present "health care system" in the USA. Thus, the share of looting and profiteering that goes to the ABSOLUTELY UNNECESSARY predatory leech insurance corporations is indeed less than 100%. Other entities within the medical-pharmaceutical-looting complex do carry out their share of looting, at the expense of real people who not only spend more money but also go through increased suffering and early death because of it.

But for you to claim "Oh it's so complex!" and yet conclude that those poor maligned insurance companies are "at the mercy of" the REAL looters in the system, is almost beyond comprehension as to how you could possibly make such a blatantly false assertion.

The "health insurance" predatory looters are a MAJOR structural cause of the endlessly-ratcheting outrage of "health care costs" in the USA. The multi-million-dollar "executive compensation packages" for the Chief Executive Looters in these corporations is one reference point for the giant sucking that these corporations do. But even regarding the vast sums of money sucked out by "insurance companies" that go not to the bank accounts of billionaires, but to costs like paying employees in the sector: There is ZERO NEED for any of the hundreds of thousands of "jobs" in this leech sector; ALL that money is a "cause of high health care costs."


#10

And then of course, that champion of SP, Sanders, votes for the antithesis of SP, the ACA ...

If you want SP, ya gotta vote Green ...


#11

Oh, it's real simple how to address it - SP will mean they will have to bargain with a much bigger gorilla, the gov't, to get reimbursed.

The other issue - private insurance companies are businesses whose primary concern is to make money. Business 101 says that to do that ya gotta increase revenue and decrease overhead, in this case, revenue is premiums, overhead is paying for healthcare - this ain't rocket science ...


#13

Clinton lies about Sanders health care plan and you attack Sanders.

That's your usual modus operandi.

I don't know what you really believe, but it's evident you're not a progressive.


#14

She will not get the votes of millions of us who are "Bernie only" primary voters. In fact, a lot of us will actively work to defeat her if she is the nominee. The conventional rules do not apply this cycle. F@#$ Hillary.


#15

I agree that private insurance companies add to the cost. That is one factor. Of course there are many others such all the technologies that are used for diagnosis and the high fees specialists charge for performing various procedures. I don't think physicians in most countries make the kind of the money they make in the US. Drugs also apparently cost more here. We also have the best specialized medicine in the world. No other country compares in specialized medicine and it is very expensive. I don't agree that the situation with healthcare is simple. None of the single-payer systems are perfect and I think the UK has an alternative private system. Our system has certain advantages over single-payer systems but there are also a number of disadvantages. I don't believe it is possible to get a single-payer system politically in the United States. Of all the things Bernie has proposed a single-payer healthcare system would probably be the most difficult to get into law.


#16

The Clinton Plan (1993) was actually quite good although whether or not the taxes imposed would have been enough to balance out of the cost of providing care. However it did threaten the private health insurance with possible extinction. Medical providers likely wouldn't have had the ability to charge what they do, nor would the drug companies have been able to get the high prices that they do. There no doubt would have been some "rationing" involved too. Longer waiting times for specialist care as is the case today in Canada. Effectively financing would have been through a payroll tax system where the employee paid half and the employer paid the other half. Total taxes would have started at 7.8% and gone up to double that at 15.6%. Employees would have seen lower "take home" wages and consumers would have seen higher prices.Higher trade deficits, more businesses moving their production "off shore". Unemployment would edge up.

There are of course means to reduce US health care costs. All of them result in less money going to health care. Which means of course that those involved in health care are likely to see a reduction in incomes since incomes in the health care field are well above what they'd be without "protection" through government enforced monopolies of various types including patents and copyrights. Along with prescription laws which give doctors a legal government enforced monopoly over access to medical drugs. All of this drives up the cost of care to the benefit of the few over the loss to the many.Take away these "protections" and the cost of health care will drop. Especially as elimination of monopoly makes it possible to create software that effectively reduces the need for primary care doctors and without the power of prescription laws, people will be able to take care of their health for considerably less money in many cases...


#18

The Clinton Plan of the 1990s was equally as bad a corporate sellout as the Obama plan turned out to be. It's nonsense to pretend otherwise, pandering to the "Clinton has progressive leanings" campaign myth.

Clinton worked her ass off to sell out the US health care system, and she failed to do so. Obama finally completed the job.


#25

I'm beginning to think a lot of folks here wouldn't know a prog if they fell over one ...

That's not all that went on in that debate - i find it curious that some of the other stuff wasn't covered here - though actually I think I know why (smile)

http://vtdigger.org/2015/12/20/173105/?utm_source=VTDigger+Subscribers+and+Donors&utm_campaign=7f0c25e9d3-Weekly+Update&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_dc3c5486db-7f0c25e9d3-374880881


#26

tomjohnson...that is frightening.


#27

I agree - some of the "providers" are charging too much, and Big Pharma is absurd - drugs don't cost more to make, they are just being overcharged - Big Ph spends more on advertising than on R&D - much of that is actually done by the gov't - There are too many leeches in the system, and the insurance companies are a big one - and totally unnecessary, they provide not one dollop of health care, not simply as middlemen sucking off the system but actually coming between docs and patients, in essence deciding what they can and cannot do ...

They are unnecessary and counterproductive and there is no excuse for them ... as for SP, the momentum is growing and has been - i submit that was the reason for the big push for the ACA, to head SP off at the pass ...


#28

And how, pray tell, did you come to that conclusion from my post - which was a slam at the insurance companies. Or don't you get how it really works ...


#29

The subject of single-payer health care has been discussed for years. I remember discussions on Bill Moyers' show about it and comparisons of our system with the Canadian single-payer system. When it comes to the health care system we are all in over our heads. Hillary Clinton found that out soon after Bill Clinton became president. I know the health care system is full of corruption. Almost all of the leading physicians receive money in some form from pharmaceutical companies. These physicians of course claim they can remain objective but that is hard to believe. Only rather recently have journals required authors of medical papers to declare possible conflicts of interest when they submit a paper for peer-review. There are still articles on drugs that are probably ghost written by medical marketing agencies. The marketing departments of pharmaceutical companies have too much influence in the continuing education of physicians. Obamacare was supposed to have a public option which would probably have reduced costs but the Republicans screamed socialism and he had to withdraw it to have any chance of passage. Blame the Republicans not Obama. It was Obamacare that gave rise to the Tea Party and now we have Ted Cruz possibly becoming the next president. If Bernie wins I don't think he will ever get single-payer passed but he could start the ball rolling and perhaps in 10 or 20 years it might be passed. We will all learn more if it becomes a subject of national discussion.


#32

First of all, for the umpteenth time I am a reg indy, not a reg Green, and secondly, I have also talked about SP a number of times, and Sanders betrayal of it with the ACA, one of many things you don't "know of" - don't have time or space to mention them all ...

You and wf and SR are part of a "tag team", as she would put it, who, when they are unable to address an issue, choose to distract by shooting the messenger ...

I don't give a rat's patooty about "convincing" you of anything - that is a lost cause - one of those for whom the phrase, "Don't confuse me with facts. my mind is made up" was coined ..


#34

Good grief! The only thing pathetic here are your replies ....