Hillary's Mandated Insurance plan Most Similar to Romney's

[K Gardner]

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN17331819

BOSTON, Oct 5 (Reuters) - When it comes to health care, Republican Mitt Romney loves to take swipes at Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton.

He calls Clinton's plan, which would require every American to have health insurance, "European-style socialized medicine" and derides it as inspired by "European bureaucracies."

Romney is quick to remind supporters of the U.S. senator from New York's dramatic 1993 failure to reform U.S. health care, which many Americans felt overstepped the role of first lady.

Despite all that, experts say Clinton's plan borrows heavily from one Romney signed into law when he was governor of Massachusetts, which made the liberal state the first in the United States with near-universal health insurance.

"Hillary's plan is just like the Massachusetts plan. There's not a whole lot of difference," said Jonathan Gruber, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology economics professor who was an adviser to Romney on the state's health care reform law.

Like Clinton's plan, the law Romney signed in April 2006 is underpinned by an "individual mandate" compelling people to buy health insurance. Both plans entail subsidies and government regulations. For those in Massachusetts earning less than the federal poverty level of $9,800, free coverage is provided.

[K Gardner]

1. Kicking for a reply from HRC Supporters

[TeamJordan23]

2. The Mass. health care system has been a failure. nm

[K Gardner]

3. Yes, and HRC refuses to say HOW she will impose her gigantic Insurance Industry Giveaway

i.e. Mandate

[bunnies]

6. Of course!

If she gave details that would draw attention to the fact that there IS a mandate. If more NH voters actually understood that, she'd have zero chance of winning here. A recent poll showed that only 35% of NH Democrats support a mandate. We see what a disaster its been for MA.

[snowbear]

10. Which is concerning..

Or at least, it should be..

[no name no slogan]

4. Minnesota has had this plan since 1990

It's a favored Republican feint toward "universal" health care. However, it still doesn't cover everybody. In fact, Minnesota bumped 30,000 from MinnesotaCare last year due to budget cuts.

Her plan is little more than Nixon warmed over. It has been tried several times and STILL does not provide universal coverage.

[LeftCoast]

5. Just a minor point. There are countries in the world where this plan has worked.

The problem is whether we have the political will to make any plan truly universal. And by universal I mean that everyone in the country has health care whether that's via an insurance company or 'the government'.

[IronLionZion]

8. Minnesota requires HMOs to be non-profit

and that is something that I want nationally.

I really want single-payer as much as anyone. But at least Minnesota (DFL legislators not the Republicans) is trying to help their people out.

[no name no slogan]

11. To be fair, MNCare was created by Arne Carlson

A Republican governor, in 1990, with the support of the DFL legislature.

A dirty little secret: MNCare actually MAKES money every year, but the current administration diverts the excess back to the general fund, to cover the deficits the state budget runs.

[frazzled]

7. Since HRCs and John Edwards's plans are almost identical, it's an issue for both

I've been saying this for months: (1) the mandated option is untested (I know, except in a small European country); the penalties have not yet kicked in. People don't particularly like the idea of forced mandates, and it's not clear how far penalties will go to impose enforcement. (2) whether or not he still likes it or not, this was the plan Romney signed into law; it can be called the "Romney" plan; it's like the plan Schwarzenegger is pushing, too. These are Republicans. This doesn't seem like smart politics (I leave the issue of whether it is smart policy aside) for a general election.

Obama's plan is in essence the same as Clinton's and Edwards's--sans the mandates. (Obamas has mandates on businesses, just not individuals.) So far, all the brouhaha about his plan leaving 15 million uninured was the work of The New Republic--that centrist, war-cheering, DLC organ we otherwise love to hate. Without, say, garnishment of wages or jail time, most economists agree that both a mandated or non-mandated plan will get about the same compliance.

In the end, for POLITICAL reasons only, I say the non-mandated plan is the smarter electoral choice. Whatever plan ends up getting proposed and debated and passed in Congress will look nothing like what has been proposed by the candidates anyway.

[K Gardner]

9. I agree. They're both going to have to explain how the mandates won't penalize

those who truly can't afford it. And you're right about what we end up with looking nothing like what is proposed, LOL