The Healthcare Plan of 1993 and The Fear Card Blizzard

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: 980
WMV
PLAYS: 473

0425_34e19.1993_Gay-Health-Rally_0.jpg

(Out of control then - out of control now)

Note: This is a repost from July - but this issue hasn't changed, nor has the argument, nor has the paranoia.

As I continue my trek back in the annals of time for the seeming eternal Health care debate, I thought I would add this one to the mix. President Clinton's address regarding his health care plan from September 22, 1993. It is also followed by a rebuttal from Gov. Carrol Campbell, Sen. Connie Mack III and Rep. Nancy Johnson, all staunch opponents of the proposal and all waving fear cards. Johnson, it should be noted, received major financial support from Pfizer and Bayer Pharmaceuticals for her 2000 re-election bid. They also happen to have corporate headquarters in her home state of Connecticut. Fancy that.

Excerpt from the address of September 22, 1993:

Under our plan, every American would receive a health care security card that will guarantee a comprehensive package of benefits over the course of an entire lifetime, roughly comparable to the benefit package offered by most Fortune 500 companies. This health care security card will offer this package of benefits in a way that can never be taken away. So let us agree on this: Whatever else we disagree on, before this Congress finishes its work next year, you will pass and I will sign legislation to guarantee this security to every citizen of this country.

With this card, if you lose your job or you switch jobs, you're covered. If you leave your job to start a small business, you're covered. If you're an early retiree, you're covered. If someone in your family has unfortunately had an illness that qualifies as a preexisting condition, you're still covered. If you get sick or a member of your family gets sick, even if it's a life-threatening illness, you're covered. And if an insurance company tries to drop you for any reason, you will still be covered, because that will be illegal. This card will give comprehensive coverage. It will cover people for hospital care, doctor visits, emergency and lab services, diagnostic services like Pap smears and mammograms and cholesterol tests, substance abuse, and mental health treatment.

And equally important, for both health care and economic reasons, this program for the first time would provide a broad range of preventive services including regular checkups and well baby visits. Now, it's just common sense. We know, any family doctor will tell you, that people will stay healthier and long-term costs of the health system will be lower if we have comprehensive preventive services. You know how all of our mothers told us that an ounce of prevention was worth a pound of cure? Our mothers were right. And it's a lesson, like so many lessons from our mothers, that we have waited too long to live by. It is time to start doing it.

Health care security must also apply to older Americans. This is something I imagine all of us in this room feel very deeply about. The first thing I want to say about that is that we must maintain the Medicare program. It works to provide that kind of security. But this time and for the first time, I believe Medicare should provide coverage for the cost of prescription drugs.

Yes, it will cost some more in the beginning. But again, any physician who deals with the elderly will tell you that there are thousands of elderly people in every State who are not poor enough to be on Medicaid but just above that line and on Medicare, who desperately need medicine, who make decisions every week between medicine and food. Any doctor who deals with the elderly will tell you that there are many elderly people who don't get medicine, who get sicker and sicker and eventually go to the doctor and wind up spending more money and draining more money from the health care system than they would if they had regular treatment in the way that only adequate medicine can provide.

I also believe that over time, we should phase in long-term care for the disabled and the elderly on a comprehensive basis. As we proceed with this health care reform, we cannot forget that the most rapidly growing percentage of Americans are those over 80. We cannot break faith with them. We have to do better by them.

The second principle is simplicity. Our heath care system must be simpler for the patients and simpler for those who actually deliver health care: our doctors, our nurses, our other medical professionals. Today we have more than 1,500 insurers, with hundreds and hundreds of different forms. No other nation has a system like this. These forms are time consuming for health care providers. They're expensive for health care consumers. They're exasperating for anyone who's ever tried to sit down around a table and wade through them and figure them out.

The medical care industry is literally drowning in paperwork. In recent years, the number of administrators in our hospitals has grown by 4 times the rate that the number of doctors has grown. A hospital ought to be a house of healing, not a monument to paperwork and bureaucracy.

It would seem there was a rush to kill this thing before it even got off the ground, and judging from the amount of insane dire consequences to even consider an alternative to the present day extortion, it feels pretty obvious the forces of Big Pharma and The AMA didn't waste time firing the first salvos.

After a long and arduous battle, the bill died - and nothing was accomplished.

Only finger pointing.



Login or Register to post comments.

26 comments

..it's gonna be deja vu all over again..

Has taken First Lady Hillary Clinton's place....

Only this time he'll win.

Oh, and the for-profit capitalist health insurance/big pharma "corporations" will win. The Supremes kinda sealed that deal in the past few days, right?

Here's proof that the health insurance corporations are partying hard in the city tonight, popping bottles of Dom while the rest of us suckers are cooling our heels:

http://uruknet.com/index.php?p=m57849&hd=&siz...

Then I read the article I was dreading today in the Berkshire Eagle: "Progressive Caucus Gives Obama "Wiggle Room" on the Public Option".....

Well, I called that one out a few weeks ago.

As Howard Cosell said after the last punch was thrown in various boxing matches, "It's over. It's over. It's all over."

This was NEVER about the "health or financial security" of the American People. It was about "insurance reform".

Pfffttt!!!!!

Abbybwood, R.N.

I agree completely Abby. It's never been about the Peoples welfare but about the all-mighty dollar. Or better yet, who gets it. I hope the "reform" will benefit us, but I seriously doubt it. More than likely the it will be the same thing that happened with the energy policy that Cheney crafted. Big Oil got it all. And we got...well you know.

is if any of the people that were protesting then have changed their minds now that they are 16 years older now. But most of them probably have Medicare now, so they are taken care of. It would be nice to hear from them now.

I remember these same arguments against health care. As well as the Harry and Louise ads. It's sad, really, that the money that the insurance industry and big Pharma are laying out now that prevents an honest debate. But it clearly illustrates what is going on right now before the Supreme Court as it is about to rule in favor of Corporations having free monetary "speech" during election campaigns. And how dangerous that influence is when it comes to doing what is right for the American people.

I am almost 60 years old and worked very hard in the trenches as a Registered Nurse since 1973. I went on a sabbatical about four years ago and "could" retire in two years and go onto Medicare. Or I could sweat it out for more money until I'm 67.

I'm figuring I'll go back to L.A. and find a job for maybe two days a week just to get health insurance benefits in order to avoid the mandated "penalty". I don't mind my employer paying for my premium as a "benefit" in order to avoid the "penalty".

But I will be DAMNED if I will be forced to EVER pay a bloody "DIME" (think Obama's speech the other night) to any rotten, for-profit health insurance conglomerate! EVER! I LOATHE THEM!

If I cannot find an employer to give me the "benefit" of health insurance...well, I guess I'll just have to start traveling to France, Italy, G.B. or to some other country where they will treat me in a civilized manner. To a country that does not worship the bloody dollar over human life.

Pffftt!!! Again.

(1.) If you're almost 60, how do you retire in 2 years and get Medicare? Unless you're disabled, I thought that's age 65, no if and or buts.

(2.) I'm guessing that the mandated coverage is going to be similar to Romney-care in Massachusetts. Since I couldn't find any numbers for the Feds, I did check Mass, and that coverage is subsidized, in tiers, until you reach 300% of the poverty level. Mass isn't looking at assets, I don't think, just income. So, if you're not working, then maybe Uncle Sam will pick up the coverage for you. Definitely pay a dime, if they're paying 50¢.

My view on the situation is that health costs are spiraling out of control. Too the extent that they weren't dealt with in this round of health reform, I think that all the sooner, this issue will return to dominate politics.

For a seriously decreased monthly payment and still begin their Medicare enrollment at the same time.

The government would rather I retire early for less money I guess.

There is so much confusion right now.

For instance, many I know are wondering, "If Obama signs the health reform legislation in the fall of 2009 and it's not slated to go into effect until 2013, does that still mean that everyone will be mandated to buy SOME federally approved insurance by Jan. 2010? Or will we have until 2013 to comply?

I figure three years should give me enough time to leave the country....or DIE!!!!

Pfffftttt!!!!!

As far as I know, early SS does NOT get you into Medicare. You better check that one out, as should I.

I see this one, that says “If you are under age 65 and disabled, and have been entitled to disability benefits under Social Security or the Railroad Retirement Board for 24 months, you will be automatically entitled to Medicare Part A and Part B beginning the 25th month of disability benefit entitlement. You do not need to do anything to enroll in Medicare.”

I see a problem here too. To get Social Security Disability, you must have worked in 5 of the last 10 years, so I think. Sounds like you've been out for 4 so far, so currently you are all set. But, I do not recommend for anyone over 50 to allow that coverage to lapse. I'd have to look a little harder to find out what the money is, used to be income per quarters, but I think an annualized amount works now, but it ain't a whole lot of income subject to Social Security tax to maintain that coverage.

Social Security payments at a reduced rate, but I'm pretty sure you must be 65 to qualify for Medicare.

FAQ

If I retire at age 62 will I be eligible for Medicare at that time?

No. Medicare benefits based on retirement do not begin until a person is age 65. If you retire at age 62, you may be able to continue to have medical insurance coverage through your employer or purchase it from a private insurance company until you turn age 65 and become eligible for Medicare.

How many credits are required to be eligible for disability?

The number of work credits you need to qualify for disability benefits depends on your age when you become disabled. Also, the credits must have been earned within a certain time period. Generally, you need 20 credits earned in the last 10 years, ending with the year you become disabled.

Younger workers may qualify with fewer credits.
(basically 50% of time after age 21).

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/pubs/10029.html

1. A “recent work” test based on your age at the time you became disabled; and
2. A “duration of work” test to show that you worked long enough under Social Security.

Recent work is 5 out of the last 10 years. I *think* it's annualized income now. About $4500 subject to Social Security tax will cover it. It used to be, by the quarter, meaning about $1125/per 3 months, but tying you up throughout the year, but I *think*, no longer. So, I *think* that if someone pulls in about $4500 in January, 2010, they have covered themselves for SS-Disability for that year. (Since I have 10 years of coverage, and only need 5, I haven't checked this thoroughly.)

My wife and I are 58 years old. Based on our age, and our non-smoker status, non-profit insurance that covers 80% of most medical expenses costs $1500 per month for the two of us. That's $18,000 a year. Add in the deductions and copays, and you are looking at over $20,000 a year for two almost old folks. How many people can afford that?

GoBama! Obama, he's our man, if he can't do it, nobody can! Yay, Obama!

2013? It needs to go into effect immediately and this would have many effects. First of all- it would continue to stimulate the economy.
Second, unless people start using the system soon, then they won't have a chance to calm down about it all.
The Repubs could get some seats back in Congress and insure unwanted changes in favor of For profits.
And lastly, what political benefits will Dems reap if it is not instituted until 2013?

traveling abroad on a regular basis for health care purposes. I've listened as ex-Pats have talked about their standard of care in other countries and wonder why that kind of care doesn't sound appealing to everyone. Wouldn't it raise the standard of living in this country to have that kind of care?

I remember 16 years ago when they yelled about not being able to choose my own doctor. And then the Insurance companies compiled lists of doctors that I could go to. I was talked out of procedures by the doctors in a Medical CO-OP whose insurance we carried in the 90's. My daughter was young when I took her to the doctor for an issue and then after changing insurance being told that the medicine that was prescribed under the old insurance wasn't covered under the new insurance.

You can't tell me that we are not rationing care now under the current system.

I know that the people that are so vocal are not the majority, but the corporate media keeps covering them as if they are.

On CSPAN.

Thousands of hateful Caucasian ditto-heads who would see a "potentially illegal" migrant farm worker in So. Cal pulling lettuce (for their racist asses), collapsed with a ruptured appendix and KICK HIM WHILE HE WAS DOWN RATHER THAN GET HIM TO A HOSPITAL FOR HELP.

These individuals, from what I could see are mentally ill Neanderthals and are a HUGE embarrassment to the United States.

And do you know what the truly sad part of all of this is to me? The vast majority of these people, like Sarah "Rev. Witch Hunter Muthee" Palin, profess to be CHRISTIANS!!!!!

And to think that J.C.'s last commandment at "The Last Supper" was to, "Love one another as I have loved you."

Sorry, but to me, all these individuals who worship at the alter of Dick Armey, Sean Hannity, Bill O' Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Rep. Joe Wilson, Ann Coulter and Co. are EVIL human beings.

but, just like all of the other 'tea baggings' there was nary a person of color to be found.

If Jesus decided to come back to Earth now and landed in the USofA, right in the middle of this crowd, none of these cretins would believe it was him - 'cause Jesus had some nice Brown skin, yew betcha'!

This is what some have become.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m30BB8Mecvs

The one thing I wish we had back in 1993 was the internet. Back then, the television networks controlled the dialog. While they may still have the upper hand, they don't completely control the dialog currently.

But the elderly people that the Repubs keep scaring are watching cable tv not getting info from the internets.

...at the retirement communities (old folks home).

A leaflet, adorned with GOP logo that says:

OPPOSE SOCIALIZED MEDICINE
END MEDICARE NOW

(Be sure not to use the mailbox to deposit the leaflet. That may violate USPS laws.)

When you look at this issue from an individual perspective, aside from all the misinformation and fear mongering from conservative sources, what citizen honestly has a problem with health care reform?

The concept itself is very straightforward, and benefits our entire society. What could be more basic than providing for the health care needs of every American citizen?

The question (if there is one?) is how to develop such a system, and what will it cost? But when you consider all the waste, fraud, and inefficiencies of our current system, coupled with the profit motive, it's not hard to imagine that there are huge savings to be realized over our current system.

At the very core of the issue, why would anyone be opposed to this? For conservatives, why all the anger; the nasty outbursts at town hall meetings; and downright stupid dumb ass comments we hear everyday?

The only valid concern I can see would be the long term cost of such a system. Beyond that we have what?

* a fear of socialized medicine (whatever that means?)?
* the overall quality of service declines? Doesn't seem logical; doctors and hospitals will still get paid the going rate for their services, and they will have tons more patients?
* there will be long waits for needed services? The increased demand for services will result in more doctors, hospitals, etc. It's not as if the need for doctors will decline. Also, the doctors we have will be able to concentrate on providing health care instead of administrative duties.
* insurance companies will be put out of business? Who really gives a shit......there never should have been a profit motive for health care to begin with?
* some government entity will be introduced into the equation, possibly questioning the need for specific services? How does that differ from what we have now with insurance companies?
* a general fear of changing the system we have grown accustomed to? The current system does not work very well, and isn't sustainable over the long haul.

I just don't understand how any rationale, reasonable person would be opposed to the idea? All American citizens will benefit from reform and should welcome it with open arms. Most should easily be able to sort through the insane, ignorant, illogical, dumb ass objections posed by Fox News and the health care industry. Instead, they are somehow led to believe that this is a bad idea, and will cling to that belief in the face of considerable evidence to the contrary? It just makes no sense.........

If you were born in 1946 you cannot get full retirement until you reach the age of 67. Then you receive Medicare. You have to be of retirement age to receive Medicare. You can go to the s.s. site and find any information you need to know about retirement age and Medicare.
If you do decided to take early retirement you are only allowed to make so much money and if you make over the alloted amount they will deduct a certain amount from your s.s. In other words you lose one month of your s.s.

I think you are eligible at 65 if you can commence Social Security, even if you don't actually commence at that time. Of course, they may push up the age later. Currently, my retirement health plan requires enrollment in Medicare at 65.

--- From the Q&A

Most people 65 or older are eligible for Medicare hospital insurance (Part A) based on their own—or their spouse's— employment. You are eligible at 65 if you:

* receive Social Security or railroad retirement benefits;
* are not getting Social Security or railroad retirement benefits, but you have worked long enough to be eligible for them;
* would be entitled to Social Security benefits based on your spouse's (or divorced spouse's) work record, and that spouse is at least 62 (your spouse does not have to apply for benefits in order for you to be eligible based on your spouse's work) ;or
* worked long enough in a federal, state, or local government job to be insured for Medicare.

The Rainmaker was on yesterday. Great movie. It just shows how greedy the insurance companies are. It was made in the 90s about the time Clinton was trying to get health care passed.
I cannot understand why the people who are denied the care they need by the insurance companies are not suing them. I understand it is hard to find a lawyer to take a case along with it costing a lot of money. How about a class action suit? And if their love one dies why they are not charging the people who denied them with murder. And why are the Christians not protesting people being denied their health care? They are out protesting abortion. It is the same things only they are killing adults not children. Or are they only concerned about the unborn?

26 comments

Login or Register to post comments.