Home | About | Donate

The Disappearance of Hillary Clinton's Healthcare Platform


#1

The Disappearance of Hillary Clinton's Healthcare Platform

Benjamin Day

In an extraordinary magic trick, performed on a national scale, Hillary Clinton's healthcare platform has been disappeared. While policy analysts, news anchors, and columnists have been engaged in an intense debate over Bernie Sanders’s “Medicare for All” proposal, Clinton’s incremental alternative has escaped almost all scrutiny - even among those who say they prefer it.


#2

What's funny is that while progressives and conservatives are bitching about Trump being short on details of any kind on any of his proposals, they almost universally never examine or challenge anything that leaves Hillary's lips. Just read her comments, listen to her speeches. She quite literally can talk all day, and say absolutely nothing.
Like Trump, Hillary is a bullshit salesman with a mouth full of samples.


#3

A true one note samba:

HRC: :musical_note:"I have used up all the scale I know and at the end I've comeTo nothing I mean nothing":musical_note:


#4

Although I still harbor a good deal of disdain for Healthcare-NOW misrepresenting Vermont's failed Green Mountain Care as single-payer healthcare reform, I do think Day's analysis is credible...for the most part...despite the fact he includes no links to anything in the public record to verify any of his claims. Not exactly what one should expect from someone complaining about "the corrosion of informed democracy."

Clinton's moderate tweaks to the healthcare status quo discussed here, (more here), by people who actually know what Single Payer healthcare actually represents: Change.


#6

By any metric Clinton and Trump are two sides of the same coin...long on hyperbole, low on substance.


#8

During one of the debates Martin O'Malley said that in Maryland they reduced healthcare costs by having hospitals charge fees based on outcome rather than the usual fee for service. Clinton responded that she was aware of this and that if elected she would look at this model and healthcare models from other states. Obamacare is modeled after the Massachusetts plan. Probably whatever appears to be Clinton's healthcare plan for incremental change is less important than what would result from review of the heathcare models from various states if she is elected. In other words, there is no way of knowing would we would get until that review is completed. From what I know from hearing O'Malley, Maryland has done a lot to reduce hospital fees which are responsible for most of healthcare costs.


#9

Her plan is what her insurance paymasters tell her her plan is.
Stop asking Clinton. She's a cypher. Ask the people that actually decide this: the insurers.


#10

The question is "where is Hillary?" She was invited on CNN last evening, Bernie accepted, she declined, both were in Wisconsin. The woman is so unpopular her operatives search for the smallest of venues to make her look good. In all the years I've followed politics I can not recall a campaign as counterintuitive has Hillary's. She and her operatives want as little public exposure as possible, they've been counting down since 2008, waiting to collect the prize she feels is her's by right. In Wisconsin she is counting on Milwaukee Ward Heelers and African Americans to squeak to another victory. The notion she is 40 points ahead is nonsense, she was 40 points ahead in Illinois and won by %1.


#11

Day sez:
"Incremental reforms that work within the market-based healthcare system of the U.S. are ... easier to enact but dramatically more likely to fall short of their goals.

Gonna have to disagree with the conclusion. They are easier to enact because they always achieve their goals — to place a great deal more money in a small handful of pockets.

An example is provided by drone1066 a couple posts back.


#12

I admire you!
You have a stronger stomach than me!!


#13

Psychopaths are over represented amongst the rich. Indeed one of the "values" needed to become rich is low empathy for others. This is how Trumps daddy made his fortune as a landlord.

Beach Haven ain't my home!
I just cain't pay this rent!
My money's down the drain!
And my soul is badly bent!
Beach Haven looks like heaven
Where no black ones come to roam!
No, no, no! Old Man Trump!
Old Beach Haven ain't my home!

(woody Guthrie)


#15

So true. Her old platform in the 90's was very much like what Obama has done. In fact he was against the by-in when they were running and then bought it when he was elected. They never intend to do single payer now or in increments. The corporate over-lords would not approve and they can't have that.
The fact that the pundits never press her on anything is just part of the Bernie black out. It's her machine and the DNC. She's a lousy choice after Obama's centrist administration and she would take it further to the right. If the DNC doesn't get that we don't want her it's their loss.Trump could beat her in the general.


#16

I have many friends that are voting for Bernie Sanders and none of them are going to vote for Hillary if she wins the nomination. But the Democratic Party prefers to lose with Hillary than to win with Sanders, they know the left is not going to vote for her anyways since she is part of the establishment and top 1%, more so than even Trump. That is why the media is all for warmonger Hillary.


#17

Benjamin Day's article discusses the media's coverage of healthcare as addressed by Clinton and Sanders, as well as the media's coverage of the 'public record'. The critique is about the media. All quite obvious

Lamenting about the author's lack of links in his healthcare article is to virtually say readers are incapable of purchasing a sweater on amazon.com. Using routine search methods on the net anyone can obtain a vast network of links in the time it takes to steam a pot of vegetables. No “corrosion of informed democracy" involved. If one can read your comments on the net they can research the topic of your comments via the net. Who isn't aware that Single Payer healthcare actually represents change? Exposing the healthcare system that was designed to advantage special interests and was put into effect because of wealth and the influences that wealth has on everything in a capitalist country including the enormous influence on the functioning of governance, is to expose the even bigger picture that everything else in the country is embedded in. Change indeed.

Addressing a particular subset on the healthcare topic as with your “disdain for Healthcare-NOW misrepresenting Vermont's failed Green Mountain Care as single-payer healthcare reform”, can be facilitated by 'adding a link'.


#18

Your comment made me think of "Where's Hillary?", similar to "Where's Waldo" but with Clinton as the character you look for.

Page One: In a crowd on Wall Street.
Page Two: Monsanto Headquarters
Page Three: ???


#21

"The notion she is 40 points ahead is nonsense"
You are correct about that. I was flipping through the channels this morning [ Wed.] . They had Sanders ahead by 3 points over Clinton in Wisconsin.


#22

And why are they a disaster? Because even a supercomputer system can't make an irrational system rational. Case in point: the Maryland rollout mess. A Medicare for All rollout would have been quick and easy; just one example of the administrative savings with single-payer.


#23

This is the takeaway from this article:
"Clinton has been taken at her word that her incremental plans will be politically feasible, succeed in improving affordability and access to care, and are not shared by her opponent."
On the one hand, I am glad that Hillary, as a woman, is not on the losing side (as usual) of the double standard. On the other hand, I'm disappointed that a double standard is even in play here, since I don't believe Hillary has given much details as to what her improvements to our current healthcare system will be. I've watched all of the debates and I have always felt that her points were rather vague on most of the policies, either vague or copied from Bernie's proposals. And I have always felt that she was given the benefit of the doubt especially when it came to her foreign policies. Yes, she can speak the "language" of her foreign policy experience, but I think her failures and her hawkishness do not always show good judgement. So I guess this election has so far shown that a female candidate is still subjected to harsher treatment than a male candidate, but since Hillary is the candidate chosen by the rich and the powerful, she is still expected and promoted to win. I believe the same thing happened in the 2008 election -- Obama's skin color could have doomed his candidacy (certainly did with the Republicans) but he had the support of the rich and powerful (along with open-minded people who didn't care about race.) Perhaps in this case, in the primary, gender did trump race. (Just ask Shirley Chisholm about this!) Sorry, this turned into some kind of thesis. But hopefully you get my point.


#26

Thank you, drone.
For a while, Hillary was saying in commercials, "We will save Obamacare!"

That was depressing, as O-care is screwing me with high-cost and lousy health insurance coverage. Here, and Facebook, and personal letters I'll continue to recount that on January 1, 2016, our health insurance increased by $204 per month, aka $2448 increase per year, for terrible coverage. The wealthiest professionals in Dubuque exploit some of the lowest for financial gain. And it's legal, thanks to Obamacare, and that's what Hillary wants to protect.

Boy, did the Democrats screw up on ACA in 2010! Obama made sure it would be implemented after the 2012 election, and it was a big loser for the Dems in 2014.


#27

Huffington Post (noted in this article) is owned by AOL, which itself is owned by
Verizon. Huff isn't quite the "liberal" alternative it once was, and
is still thought to be by many.
Mainstream corporate media do not care to criticize the ACA too
much...say by pointing out that it's Compulsory Capitalism (via IRS
penalties for failure to sign up) and that for-profit health insurer
beneficiaries invest Billions of their "earnings" (from direct payments
or tax-funded vouchers) in health-damaging industries such as typical
cigarettes, GMOs, pesticides, chlorine, oil, fracking, prisons, nukes,
pharms that make tobacco pesticides, military contractors, coal, and the
rest...that is....huge investments in Wall Street.
Which is the bigger Clinton-supported Obama gift to Wall Street? The Bail Out, or the ACA?