Hillary Clinton specifies premium cap in her health care plan
Filed by: Alex Blaze
March 29, 2008 2:51 PM
The NY Times has an interview up (video at the link) with Hillary Clinton about her health care plan:
In an extensive interview on health policy, Mrs. Clinton said she would like to cap health insurance premiums at 5 percent to 10 percent of income.
The average cost of a family policy bought by an individual in 2006 and 2007 was $5,799, or 10 percent of the median family income of $58,526, according to America's Health Insurance Plans, a trade group. Some policies cost up to $9,201, or 16 percent of median income.
More after the jump.
That's definitely a good sign. When she released her health care plan, I was uneasy about the mandate in it; while a mandate is definitely necessary to deal with the health care crisis and to keep costs down, it can make the system much worse if it isn't coupled with effective cost-cutting measures.
She still hasn't discussed any specifics (or the Times didn't report them) on the enforcement mechanism for her mandate. I know, I know, it's all going to be washed away in dealings with Congress, but it would be good to get more of a sense of where she's coming from on health care. Edwards's government mandate, which he tried to use to gain traction against Hillary on health care, was about as close as any mainstream candidate got to talking about single-payer, and it would help move the discussion in that direction if another candidate picked up that ball.
But she did put this out there:
Mrs. Clinton presented a confident defense of her call for universal coverage, saying it reflected not only a moral imperative, but also the best chance to reduce costs and improve quality.
"I know that there are a lot of experts who may disagree about how to get to universal health care," she said. "But they agree with me that in the absence of universal health care it's very difficult to control costs, and it's extremely hard to incentivize quality improvements at the level you need to really see results."
Yeppers.
Share
Like what you read? Subscribe to The Bilerico Project by Email.
Want others to read it too? Use the buttons and links here to share this entry with others. (Move your cursor over a button or link to learn more about it.)
6 Comments
Yes, Alex. What is your enforcement mechanism, indeed. I think you need to specify the agent of action, too. And while we're at it, it's a voting issue for reasons of fairness and ground.
(Sorry, bad debate joke for all you non-debaters out there. But Alex knows it funny!)
Serena Freewomyn | March 29, 2008 3:42 PM
Reply to this comment
Seriously, Serena, when I read her original plan, I was thinking, I'm going with 9-minutes of vagueness. I have no disad ground and you know she's going to shift her advocacy.
Haha, remember being a first-year and thinking 9 minutes of vagueness was a real strat? Put it out there and blow it up in the 1NR, Alex, jeez.
Alex Blaze | March 29, 2008 3:52 PM
Reply to this comment
LMAO! Good times! Good time!
Serena Freewomyn | March 29, 2008 7:50 PM
Reply to this comment
this issue is moot. hillary has no chance of being elected. and i am not trying tto be biased. she might go kicking and screaming, but she will go. on the bright side, she is the first woman who has ever had a chance of being elected president. times are changing. the next woman who gets nominated stands a better chance. that woman will just have to have a different name than hillary. i would love to vote for a female president. the men haven't done very well....and they have had plenty of opportunities. as in all of them since the nation was founded. now, canadian money is worth more than our own. as important as it is, health care is not our greatest problem. the nation stands on the brink of financial collapse.
jerindc | March 30, 2008 1:24 AM
Reply to this comment
Wow, you mean the money I brought back from canada has appreciated?
Yipee, I'm rich!
oh wait, it was only about $40 and some change,
nevermind!
diddlygrl | March 30, 2008 1:45 AM
Reply to this comment
A household income of $58k is above the national average,US Census, which is below $49k. Median income is a deception of numbers. In Atlanta 2/3rds of the households are under $25k in combined income.(Driven through Bankhead and Browntown lately?) If you are a family where there are 3 children, a single mother, someone is going to starve and not find adequate health care. Complicate that with issues of Transgender work place exclusion, one person may face daily starvation. All of this something tha the political runners are separated from, and Barney has no concern.
Stellewriter | March 30, 2008 9:05 AM
Reply to this comment