December 7, 2022

Within the Feedback thread at present to my submit yesterday titled “Clinton Publicizes When She Will Disclose Her Healthcare Insurance coverage Enchancment Plan: She’ll announce it simply as quickly because the Republican presidential candidates inform us theirs,” reader City Legend wrote, as a part of a several-paragraph remark:

Whereas a single payer plan is superior in concept — and has been confirmed in apply — thought needs to be given to the acute political hazard of providing a program at the moment that may and can be painted by Republicans as one that can destroy half 1,000,000 jobs in many alternative states. There was greater than spite in Joe Lieberman’s objection to the general public choice. Assume Hartford, Connecticut, insurance coverage capital of the nation. We might see “Harry and Louise” in spades. (Look it up for those who’re too younger to recollect, and see what occurred to Congress within the following election in 1994.)

I responded:

Guys, I’ve just about given up on attempting to persuade Dem child boomers and silent generationers that it’s now not the ’80s and ’90s and that the Bernie-is-a-SOCIALIST factor would imply a George McGovern-like trouncing and a Repub sweep in congressional elections. Lastly, that argument is now not being made by the punditry; as a substitute it’s now the reverse: Can Clinton beat Trump, given the general public’s now-obvious anti-Koch-brothers-Republican-platform temper.

However I do need to reply to Beginner Socialist’s considerations about Harry and Louise, whom I bear in mind fairly properly.

The explanation for the success of the insurance coverage business’s anti-Hillarycare advert that includes the younger couple Harry and Louise was that the essence of Hillarycare was that it could all-but-force individuals who had choose-any-doctors-and-hospitals-you-want insurance coverage into HMOs or PPOs that restrict the selection of medical doctors and hospitals to these in a community, generally a small community, particularly again then, and that generally required a referral by a main care physician for entry to a specialist.

Most individuals again then had employer-provided insurance coverage that didn’t have these limitations.  Their insurance coverage was like Medicare—often like Medicare with a supplemental plan is now.  The issue again then was that there nonetheless had been tens of tens of millions of people that had no entry to insurance coverage, lots of them due to preexisting medical circumstances, and likewise that premiums had been skyrocketing. And all of the sudden many employers had been now not paying your complete premiums.

However in fact now, only a few employers present insurance coverage that doesn’t contain healthcare networks.  And only a few now pay the complete premiums.  And most insurance policies have a lot bigger copayments and far bigger deductibles.

These are the actually large issues with the ACA’s market plans, too.

And these are the issues that Sanders’ Medicare-for-all proposal would get rid of.  No supplier networks, no massive copayments, no massive deductibles, and reasonably priced premiums.

In different phrases, Harry and Louise would help the Sanders plan now.

Sufficient stated on that, I’d suppose.

The 2 paragraphs in City Legend’s remark that precede the one I quoted learn:

I agree that the Thorpe alleged take-down of Sanders’ single payer proposal is ridiculous. As you say, you may’t anticipate a candidate to dot each i and cross each t in a broad marketing campaign proposal. The expertise of different nations signifies virtually certainty that in the long term, everybody would come out forward with a “Medicare for All” system.


I disagree utterly that Clinton has no proposals for healthcare. She has fairly particular proposals, together with tax credit as much as $5000 to cut back co-pays and deductibles (which she says are extreme), efforts to succeed in 16 million people who find themselves eligible for Medicaid (a single payer plan) however haven’t signed up, and revival of the general public choice, the first objective of which was to make a real non-profit, environment friendly insurance coverage providing out there and power insurance coverage prices additional downward via direct competitors. Whether or not they’re ample or not is a matter of opinion, but it surely shouldn’t be stated that she has no proposals. They’re there for everybody with a finger and two seconds to see.

The primary of these paragraphs refers back to the major level of my submit: the sheer silliness of Emory College healthcare economist Kenneth Thorpe’s most up-to-date try at a takedown of the Sanders proposal. The second of the paragraphs—properly, it’s which means wants no background.

Nevertheless it does elevate this query: Why has there been no examine by mainstream progressive economists in regards to the prices of those proposals of Clintons’, and a proof of why this is able to be higher than a plan that might, amongst different issues, considerably cut back what are actually the very excessive premiums that employers now pay to non-public insurers and that workers themselves pay in contributions to the premiums prices and likewise in copayments and deductibles?

Paul Krugman, possibly?  Nah.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.