Hillary has no answers for this woman whose health insurance went up $500/month

[Cheese Sandwich]

Surprisingly she didn't bring up 9-11

Also notice how she claims in here to be for a "public option", but then she gets sneaky with words and changes the meaning of the public option to mean she might look into the idea of lowering the age for Medicare to 55. While that's good, she's not even committing to it, only that she will look into it. Anyway that's not what most of us mean by a public option. It means a public insurance plan that anyone can buy into regardless of age.

[yourpaljoey]

1. monstrous

[CentralCoaster]

55. Hillary will do nothing toward creating a single payer program

[Baobab]

57. Prohibited by international agreement signed by Bill Clinton in 1994

Unless the market segment is completely free, meaning all healthcare or other service in a country is free and noncommercial, Public anything, including health care is framed as a "nonconforming monopoly service" that acts as a trade barrier.

Its framed as a potential theft from foreign corporations of their rightful profits.

Also, those jobs are useful bargaining chips in international trade.

Didn't everybody know that?

[yourpaljoey]

85. True. In fact, she states single payer will never come to pass.

Monster.

[CentralCoaster]

87. No Hope Hillary. Slayer of Dreams.

Why Bother Trying?

grrrrrr.

[lostnfound]

104. Chelsea wedding flowers equals FORTY YEARS worth

12months x $500 per month x 40 years = $240,000

Flower bill for the wedding = either $250,000 or $500,000 depending on which report you believe.

[djean111]

2. She has no intention of doing anything about health care, unless it is to increase profits.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is very gullible or very foolish.
Her words, as usual, mean nothing.

[Demsrule86]

4. Unless we get the house

Nothing can be done. The house is gerrymandered. figure it out.

[notadmblnd]

13. But but but I thought Hillary could work with them and compromise by taking incremental steps?

She was best to vote for cause Bernie was so grouchy and mean and no Republicans like him. Now it won't be her fault cause Dems don't have the house?

[Baobab]

66. Hillary has no control over health insurance prices. They are pulled out of their ass by

insurance companies. The fewer healthy people with money buy the more expensive the rates will have to be driving the healthy people away and leaving the sick and making it still more expensive.

If you don't want that, vote for Bernie.

[aikoaiko]

28. That's not what Hillary said. She's pragmatic, after all.

[AgingAmerican]

35. Pragmatism brought us sequestration

[Baobab]

67. If the insurance-friendly folks are all sockpuppets, they cant all work for that one firm

That would cost way more than a million dollars.

[Demsrule86]

70. You have to say something

She certainly has not over-promised like some have.

[aikoaiko]

73. LOL. HRC overpromised when she said she'd make small, incremental change

She is the no-we-can't candidate.

[Demsrule86]

90. She is an honest candidate

If we get some positive changes and not 2 to 4 years (depending on mid-terms) where the GOP does not shut the government down and cut food stamps so they can indulge in their favorite past-time starving babies, I would be pleased. You have to face reality. The GOP has made themselves a nice cozy little pocket of gerrymander so they don't have to listen to any voters.

[aikoaiko]

97. Well she's honest about how little she is willing to do and capable of doing.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

7. Gullible, foolish or criminally partisan.

[Doctor_J]

34. She wants to make it more expensive. Now that the insurance industry has been made part of the

government, they can do whatever they want. And this woman is not alone. My premiums for me and spouse went from $100 to $300/month, deductibles and co pays tripled, and annual max from $2000 to $11,000/year. My cost for my required annual cbc used to be $40, is now $320. But hey, Obamacare must be retained!

[Baobab]

71. The insurance industry CANT be part of the government ever.

Read up on the WTO General Agreement on Trade in Services and its collision with affordable health care.

[CorporatistNation]

89. Hillary's NON Answer Was Such A Collossal Pile Of BS, Worse Though She Clearly Demonstrated That...

SHE HAS NO IDEA WHAT SHE WAS TALKING ABOUT!

She DEMONSTRATED that she has a warped concept of WHAT the "Public Option" IS... Saying that lowering the age of entry into Medicare when people start to get sick would be better absorbed by Medicare... but they would have to pay to get in... The benefit of that... Would remove more costly enrollees from the private insurance pool thus increasing private insurance industry profits while at the same time worsening the performance of Medicare by adding people who are greater users of health care services to the Medicare rolls.

Hillary's "Plan" as she describes it to this woman here would DECREASE COSTS FOR THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY WHILE INCREASING COSTS FOR MEDICARE! Hillary cannot be TRUSTED on Health Care Policy for a variety of reasons including her very strong ties to the insurance industry, but also because she has NO UNDERSTANDING OF HOW INSURANCE WORKS! She demonstrated that in her answer to the questioner while also divulging a warped concept on what her "understanding" is of the very well known concept of "The Public Option!"

The whole concept of the "Public Option" Hillary is to enable ALL Americans to have access to quality affordable health care while in turn strengthening the financial viability of Medicare by enrolling people who use LESS health care NOT MORE!

[Demsrule86]

3. I would have to see that.

People lie about their premiums. My daughter is on Obamacare and it is great. Premiums are reasonable. She has better insurnace than we do. Our work related policy went up and so did our out of pocket...now at 8000. So cry me a river. As if Sanders could actually get single payer.

[kaleckim]

11. "As if Sanders could actually get single payer."

No one has claimed HE can get single payer. What he has done is something that every single historical figure of note, and every single movement of note has done, create a long term vision to fight for and to organize around. The Civil Rights movement had a long term vision, challenged a centuries old system, didn't have goals that were "realistic" in the short term and didn't confine their activism to what the corrupt politicians in power would allow. They had a long term vision that they knew would take awhile and they fought the power structure and forced it to change. Same goes with the labor movement, the women's suffrage movement, the environmental movement, etc. The Democratic Party, especially led by DWS and Clinton, doesn't have an alternative vision in mind, they have all but argued that even thinking of a long term vision is off the table if it radically departs from the present inequitable and corrupt system. What do you think King would think of that pathetic mindset?

You also say "cry me a river" to people that complain about the horrible system we have. Health care costs are still outpacing wage growth for a good percentage of the country (just less than before). The system is still much more inefficient than single payer or socialized systems in regards to waste (just less than before). There are still tens of millions that lack coverage, just less than before. I would ask Clinton what she would do about any of that but she has no answers, just vague nothing comments and she is no more likely to get a damn thing done as Sanders is.

I have yet to hear anyone even try to put forward logic as to why the Republicans would work more with her, of all people in the entire universe, or that she would be better at negotiating. She as a "centrist" (center of what?), starts off from an already compromised position and is negotiating with the right. In any negotiation, you get a compromise between the negotiating parties. If that is the case, what is the middle position between her and the right wing Republicans? Come on, flesh the logic out.

[Rilgin]

32. Its all cognitive dissonance and intentional blindness

They can say in the same sentence, Bernie can not do anything because the Republicans will block anything that costs money and then say Hillary has an energy and climate change plan even though it involves $50 Billion of federal money. Realists know that the theory of incrementalism wont work with this congress so what we need to do right now is fight for the soul of our country.

I mentioned Hillary's energy plan because it involves money which the Hillary supporters gloss over in their support of Hillary and try to bash Bernie with. However, the second part of that plan's problems is the substance. Hillary is in favor of increasing natural gas and nuclear power rather than make a full emergency commitment to renewable energy like solar and wind to try to address climate change. Besides the lies and hypocrisies of her politics, it is the substance or lack of liberal substance in her policies that is the big problem.

[kaleckim]

38. Well said

I agree.

[Demsrule86]

68. I have never said Hillary could do anything

What I have said is the courts, the courts and the courts...neither Bernie nor Hillary will do jack unless we break the gerrymander. There is a lawsuit winding its way to SCOTUS with a mathematical method of determining if a district is gerrymandered. Kennedy may be on board. I think Clinton has the best chance of winning and the push by the GOP to make him the nominee has made me more certain. Hillary knows where the bodies are buried...she may be able to do something but I am not counting on it. Unless we stop the gerrymander, there will be no revolution and you can be damn sure if the GOP get fives court picks liberal progress is over for a generation. I don't believe these stories about the health care. People lie and don't know how to work the plan. My future daughter in law was complaining about her premiums ...she does not make a great deal of money. I looked into it and found an unscrupulous insurance agent who had always handled her family's insurance was putting her in an expensive plan that was no better than some of the cheaper plans.

[Rilgin]

82. You give an argument based on faith not evidence

You state that your support of Hillary is not based on believing that she can enact her policies but is based on preventing republicans from selecting supreme court nominees. That is an argument with logic.

However, you then assert your belief that Hillary has the best chance of winning and assert the GOP is working to nominate Bernie. Neither of these claims has a shred of evidence and both claims are against actual evidence. Hillary is the second most disliked candidate in history since they started polling on favorability ratings. You do understand that dont you? Relative net favorable/unfavorable ratings has been absolutely determinate of who wins a presidential race since they started polling on favorables except one case where they were within 1 point. Hillary is lucky that if she is the nominee she will run against trump who has higher net unfavorables. However, Bernie polls better and has better net favorables so the evidence that she has the best chance of winning (as you assert) is against your claim. Further, her unfavorables are pretty locked in now by her history (true attacks and false attacks over the last years and her actual flip flopping and lies). Trump has a chance to actually change his net favorables. He is already doing this.

The only thing that would make Hillary more electable than Bernie would be if negative attacks on Bernie would be able to drive Bernie to historic lows in favorable ratings... a place Hillary already occupies. How about you run a mile race and start your opponent on the finish line and say you have a better chance of getting there. That is what you are in essence arguing. All evidence currently shows Bernie has a better chance than Hillary of beating Trump or another GOP candidate which you assert is your goal.

[Demsrule86]

86. Have you not seen Scarborough and Trump both

plugging Bernie? The swiftboating of Bernie would end his chances. The GOP must have good stuff or they would rather take Clinton with her baggage? Why? In any case, your choice is between Trump and Hillary. I choose Hillary and consider those who don't very foolish and short sighted. Hillary won the primary. The supers will not give it to Bernie based on polls , nor should they.

[Rilgin]

96. Again claims with no evidence

You take Scarborough to be the GOP. He is a morning show host. He had Trump on a lot like most of the media. Like most people who are actually not emotional, he likes and respects Bernie like every single democrat did just 6 months ago because of his honesty and integrity over time. Scarborough certainly does not support Bernie nor did he boost him. While Hillary still had early advantage and built the lead you are trumpeting, Bernie was dismissed as a fringe candidate by all media including Scarborough. It was all Hillary as the Democratic candidate. It is only when Bernie started getting some media coverage that the election shifted but to think that Republicans want a candidate that has high favorables and polls great within independants and against their candidate to be the Democratic candidate is crazy stuff.

You have no none zilch, nada, zero evidence that Hillary is more electable other than your belief which is against all current polling and against the most important evidence ... her unfavorables.

You now claim Bernie will be swift boated. Understand the way attack ads work. They attack your opponents favorable ratings try to make them unfavorable. In their wildest dreams republican attack ads would only hope to drive Bernie's unfavorables to the place Hillary is already at. You seem not to realize you are favoring a candidate with unfavorables at a point unprecedented in history. She is unelectable totally without question except for the fact that Trump may be her opponent. However, your claims are still invalid because Bernie is still a better candidate against him because even if his favorables fall and Trumps rise, Bernie still has a chance to end with higher net favorables. She has no chance and you are giving the GOP their dream opponent ... a candidate with the high unfavorables against a GOP candidate they have been trying to derail because evidently the GOP politicians actually know something about elections and favorable unfavorable ratings.

[Demsrule86]

64. They won't work with any Democrat.

The only thing we can do is keep the lights on and appoint judges if we get the Senate back. However, if they win, they will keep the Senate and do lots of truly wicked things. So it is not about health care. Thank God Obama got us something. I have a cousin who died after a boating accident three months before Obamacare kicked in...he had no insurance and delayed life-saving surgery in order to force his Mom to agree to pay...waited to long. So spare me the...it is not good enough. You have to start somewhere.

[kaleckim]

98. If they won't work with either

Then her "electability" (which was never based in reality, look at the polls) and her ability to "get things done" are not reasons to vote for her then? Have to vote based on other factors.

[kaleckim]

105. "So spare me the...it is not good enough. You have to start somewhere."

So, the millions of people that still don't have health care, that still can't afford to keep up, or to pay for needed medicines, should they "spare you?" Should the data on how health care costs are still outpacing wage growth for most people, should people impacted by that "spare you?" Or, should people like yourself be on board when Sanders calls (a LONG TERM GOAL) for single payer? Or, do you provide cover for Clinton, that says that system will never come about? If you back her, I'll be "sparing you" in 30 years too.

[seekthetruth]

103. Thanks for posting that....

If anyone has ever worked in the provider or insurance side of theindustry, at least from my experience, can say that there is SEVERE abuses going on in these companies.

Constant travel for meetings that could be easily facilitated through video teleconference, expensive training seminars, exuberant CEO pay... It's just really sad how these companies operate and it's not brought to light.

Sometimes this country irritates me so much because we cannot see our own faults.

[notadmblnd]

18. That's the attitude! Hooray for you!

If you gotta pay, every other m-f'er around should have to pay too. -

[bvar22]

44. "It is not necessary to see the whole staircase, just take the first step."

---Dr. Martin Luther King

[JI7]

5. i thought she gave a good answer

[kaleckim]

20. Really?

It seems that some Clinton supporters care a lot about specificity (LOL!). They really demand tons of it regarding Sanders, at least, next to nothing of their candidate of choice. What did she say but a bunch of vague nothingness?

[merrily]

6. I remember when Candidate Obama said a strong public option was the only way to keep costs down.

Gee, I wish he had made it to the Oval Office!

Yeah, yeah, I know. Lieberman. Sorry, I'm just not that gullible or naive and I could not be sorrier that some of you are (or pretend to be).

[Baobab]

74. "Public Option" was a fiction from Day One

It was made up by the insurance industry to act as the bait in a bait and switch.

[Fairgo]

106. Very likely

[Hoyt]

8. I think she has every intention to improve ACA, and the Public Option is part of that. Now is not

the time to be arguing that. The General Election is the right time, when Trump supports a voucher system or some such.

If this lady is paying $900/mo for family coverage, she's doing pretty well compared to most people.

[Cheese Sandwich]

10. She re-defined "public option" to limit it to people over 55

[Hoyt]

15. No, she said 55 or 50 -- that on up is where the vast majority of healthcare expenses occur.

That is true. And she said she's looking at all options, so Public Option for everyone is possible. But, if she got a Public Option -- Medicare -- for 50 or 55 year olds, that would be game changer HUGE and the fastest way to single payer for everyone but the staunches of holdouts.

[Cheese Sandwich]

19. So she's looking at all options. That's comforting to know. Thank you.

[Baobab]

60. Public cant be optional, then it is guaranteed to fail because it cannot save money

or be free. If you have to have insurance companies then the healthy wealthy will go to them and the sick poor will be left spending $3000 a month for minimal high deductible coverage from a Third World insurance firm that only covers hospitalization if you go to some other country for it.

That's called maximizing (or optimizing) "the value in the supply chains".

Once it becomes world trade its not reversible, ever.

Same thing with infrastructure construction. If you think HRC is going to create jobs for Americans, you're naive. She plans to throw our doctors and nurses and teachers and postmen and women under her globalization bus.

Their jobs and all the other jobs of "professional protectionist" Americans are becoming bargaining chips in a huge global game.

[RufusTFirefly]

78. Totally agree

If instituted, it would've been used to "prove" that government programs are inferior to private ones.

That's why conservatives and Third Way Democrats loathe Medicare and Social Security. They prove that government programs not only work, but on a cost basis are far more efficient and effective than anything profit based.

[Rilgin]

45. There is nothing in her history that should lead you to believe that is her intention.

She was "put in charge of health care" in the Clinton Administration and the plan adapted was the same type of insurance friendly market plan that the ACA represented without a public option. She ran in 2008 against Obama who ran on a public option. Hillary's health care plan did not.

That is the problem with Hillary people they just want unicorns when they look at Hillary. They want Hillary to be the person they want her to be rather than the person she is or they want her to to be something she never was and will never be. On economic issues she is not progressive she is a center right corporatist. Her solution to problems are billion dollar corporations and billion dollar foundations controlled by a very small number of very rich people. I am sure she does not actually wish harm to anyone else but she clearly does not actually feel the inequality issue.

Then addressing your general arguments about what Hillary would do. What makes you think that Hillary could pass a single bill or amendment to the ACA that would improve it for people without costing money to the Federal Government including a public option (whenever according to you it actually is the right time to discuss that) since your argument is that Bernie could not get any substantial change through congress. You want those unicorns again in thinking that Hillary has some magic wand that will get things through a congress that no one else could get progressive legislation through.

What I think is that we need to fight for the issues now. Now is exactly the time to discuss the long term future of our country. This election is about that battle for the soul of our country. This really should be obvious given that the electorate collectively is rejecting the status quo of politics as usual.

[Hoyt]

47. Were you around in 1994? And you just heard her, and it's been on her website for some time.

All Sanders is doing is promising stuff, without any path to get there. Yeah, I would like for the world to be Cancer Free Bernie, but exactly how are you going to get us there. That's what it sounds like.

[Rilgin]

53. It was your claim that Hillary could change the ADA -- you first

Hillary makes lots of promises too.

She promises immigration reform (I think I heard within the first 100 days)

She promises a $50 Billion dollar federal fund to local governements who reduce carbon emissions as her climate plan. Of course she also supports increased nuclear energy (ugh) and pushes any real change to 2025 (lets see 2016 plus 8 years, I wonder why 2025).

She promises free community college tuition (rather than university). How is she going to pay for that if Congress wont pass anything.

She is just full of the same promises you accuse Bernie of just weaker conservative versions of those solutions. Even then there are doubts she even believes in her solutions she is just spouting rhetoric she hopes voters or her audience will like. Kind of like your belief that she intends a public option despite nothing in her history to support that belief.

FYI, I am much older than 1994 and have a lot of experience in the health care area. I know a lot about the Clinton plan since it was modeled after the Aspen plan and had already been defeated in a California Initiative because its weak reform permanently giving insurance companies the power over health care but with government help. Therefor neither left nor right likes it which is why it was defeated in California and defeated nationally. I know a lot about the Clinton effort. For example, I know that this plan was selected before Clinton was elected. Hillary was then sent on a "listening tour" to solicit ideas and low and behold the same plan he ran on turned out to be the one the Clinton Administration adopted as their plan. It did not include a public option, it was an insurance marketplace for group insurance where one group was composed of all the people not insured elsewhere. The insurance was purchased from private insurance.

It was not a government public option. It may have been motivated by a belief of the Clintons that health care was broken or it might have been in response to polls that showed it was an electoral issue at the time. However, the plan was corporate and center right. And Hillary was involved in childrens health care after that but that is a long way from a public option. Its kind of like pretending that insuring 50 or 55 year olds is universal health care.

If you want to learn more I am happy to clear up any other misconceptions you have about the Clinton health care plan and her history.

[Hoyt]

54. She will improve the ACA, she's committed to it. Bet she improves ADA too.

[Rilgin]

77. Totally Circular

You are again putting forth a statement that she is committed to a policy that has no relation to her history. That is how we started. You stated that without any qualifications that she would change the ACA to include a public option. You assert a new committment only on the basis of what she says now, not what she has said when she was not campaigning but was actually in charge of designing policy intended to result in legislation.

You just believe in unicorns when you look at Hillary to steal a phrase.

[Baobab]

62. It was a diversion to hide a trade deal, just like it is today.

The trade deal is quietly ans systematically making every element needed for affordable health care FTA-illegal forever.

[Baobab]

59. WTO will roll back ACA as soon as it gets jurisdiction because it violates the 1998 "standstill"

Was the ACA created after 1998 YES.
Is the ACA more liberalisation (privatization) NO.


Case over. Roll everything back to 1998.

[Hoyt]

61. When are they going to get jurisdiction to run our health care system. Your GATS posts are totally

off the wall.

[Baobab]

65. It may have already happened if a foreign firm is selling insurance in the US today.

Do you know about the US Gambling case when Antigua brought a case in the WTO over the supply of online gambling services?

Similar issues exist with staffing and we know that staffing is already quite popular, although nothing like it will be in a few years.

Hillary's real position is that Americans make way too much.

Not that pay for foreign as well as many US workers is too low. (Bernie Sanders position)

Look, the 800 lb gorilla in the room is the rising skills bar to employment. In 20 years people will need what today would be a PhD just to get an entry level job. We have to face that reality. The fact is, most people wont ever be able to afford that education unless something changes fast.

We will have a hellish society for almost everybody - a false, phony manufactured scarcity that leads to genocide.

[Juicy_Bellows]

9. The easy answer HRC is get rid of the insurance companies when it comes to healthcare.

[Hoyt]

25. And who is going to approve the upfront investment in systems to do that, not our current Congress?

You do get that insurance companies administer Medicare and most Medicaid plans, right now -- pay claims on their computer systems, enroll providers, perform audits, answer beneficiary inquiries, etc. And one-third of Medicare beneficiaries have opted out of that traditional system to join Medicare Advantage Plans that are run by for-profit insurance companies. There are some not-for-profit like Kaiser that are still in the game, but are not very popular in many areas of the country for some reason.

Long-term, you have a point. Short-term, we are in a position of weening ourselves off insurance companies.

[Juicy_Bellows]

29. Thank you for the answer and a good one at that.

We have the capitol to buck the system (pun intended). It will hurt a lot of big money in this country but Sanders is right when he proclaims that we are among the very few first world countries with for profit healthcare.

[Hoyt]

37. I agree with that and if we had started when Truman first proposed single payer, we'd be doing as

well as those other countries. I remember when Medicare first started -- it really sucked. Heck, it was not until 2005 that seniors got some prescription drug coverage.

[scscholar]

81. You can't build the new without first tearing down the old

[CentralCoaster]

12. Hillary has said that "90% of America already has single payer". She is a big liar.

She let's people confuse ACA with single payer.

She supports ACA which is basically mandatory private for profit health care.

ACA is great, but it's not single payer.

Big liar.

[Juicy_Bellows]

16. It's a god damn lie. ACA is a joke.

Affordable is the first word and it couldn't be further from the truth for a lot of families. GET PROFIT OUT OF HEALTHCARE!

[Jitter65]

21. Lie? What do you call Medicare and Medicaid? nt

[CentralCoaster]

24. Are 90% of Americans on Medicare and Medicaid? No. Not even half that number.

So.

Hillary is a big liar.

[Hoyt]

22. The lie is that we can go to single payer directly in a country with GOPer Congress and over 40% of

voters firmly against single payer (no matter how ignorant they are). A Public Option -- if it is as good as we think -- would attract so many that within a few years, we would essentially have single payer for all but the ignorant.

Sanders offers no way to get there, nor explanation of how he will cut total healthcare expenditures from $3 Trillion annually to $1.37 Trillion.

[Armstead]

39. Democrats should sell the idea and fight for it aggressively

Stop the "nuancing" and overly complicated formulas and requirements and algebraic equations.

We not stupid compared to every other civilized nation who manage to do it.

Well....maybe I should revise that last statement.

[Hoyt]

40. Yeah, and like Hillarycare in 1994 we'll be sitting here 15 years from now with nothing BUT

a cruddy GOPer voucher system.

[Baobab]

63. No, you will be sitting in Nauru or someplace like that, with a shitty voucher.

Google it.

[Ferd Berfel]

42. only gonna happen after Democrats get control of teh party again

The DLC, Blue Dog Third Way corporate cabal will never let that happen

[TheKentuckian]

69. It will be only as good as it is designed to be. Anything labeled as a public option

is not created equal.

The devil or the angel is all in the details not the title.

[arcane1]

52. Hillary likes to intentionally pretend "coverage" is the same thing as "care"

It's a deliberate lie that she tells all the time.

[Ash_F]

14. "I have to keep my employees as independent contractors"

That is unlawful for multiple reasons. You can not even call employees independent contractors.

People on the lowest rung always get it worse. At least she can afford healthcare.

Who is this woman?

[Cheese Sandwich]

26. It's a way of life in America. That's part of the crisis and Hillary has no answer for that either.

The solution is simple. Medicare for all.

[AzDar]

17. ...

[Sparkly]

23. I heard a solid, thorough answer there.

She talked about regulating the insurance industry to justify increases (which I thought was already in the ACA -- anything above 10% or so had to be justified).

She also talked about the public option as she did in 2008. It is a good step toward single payer, by the way.

She is open to ideas for the best ways forward, but she does have a comprehensive plan.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/health-care/

[Armstead]

36. A universal public health coverage plan

That's the only way to solve this damn mess

Or at the very least a public option so we are not prisoners of health insurance crooks

It's not as complicated as she and other apologists for private health insurance make it.

[Sparkly]

41. I agree. She said public option, as she did in 2008.

And I agree with single-payer. This is a good step toward that.

[Armstead]

33. Someone you might agree with

[guillaumeb]

30. A very nuanced response. What one expects from a lawyer. eom

[Armstead]

31. Jesus Christ Hillary -- Just get Private extortionists OUT OF the goddamn system...

and replace it with a univeral Medicare system.

Or at least give people the option to buy into that.

Stop with the convoluted bullshit to protect your damn donors.

[Sparkly]

43. "Just do it"?

I think that's a Nike slogan...

She said exactly that -- people should be able to buy into the Medicare system as a public option, which was part of her universal healthcare idea in the early 1990s (for which she was attacked).

She's also talking about regulating the insurance industry.

Thorough, thoughtful, detailed plans at her website.

[Armstead]

91. Thoughtful detailed over-complicated and never to address the core problem solutions.

we can never figure out how to create public insurance. Medicare makes no sense. We should just jettison that. While we're at it, let's toss Medicaid too.

And, oh why not? That Social Security is so unwieldy. Out it goes.

[Corporate666]

72. Do you prefer fantasy or reality?

Sanders is selling fantasy.

Clinton is selling reality.

Do you want someone to tell you how it is, or do you want someone to tell you what you want to hear?

The CDC report (unbiased and methodical and based on lots of data) shows that the total cost of health insurance is about 12% of health care spending. Medicare is closer to 6%, but they outsource much of their work and thus the true cost of medicare is higher. But, let's just say we got rid of health insurance companies altogether. You are looking at a maximum savings of 6%.

I know a lot of people who are suffering with crushing medical costs, and the costs aren't 6% too high. They are double or triple what these people can afford.

Blaming the costs on insurance companies is a red herring. It's just a platitude designed to demonize "the evil rich" and then the person serving up that platitude then sells themselves as the solution to the problem

It's a tactic that has been used for as long as recorded history. It's just a shame that some people still buy the sizzle over the steak.

[Armstead]

88. I can think of a thousand responses but why bother?

You are correct. We can't do a fucking thing. just leave it to the private sector and they will solve everything. Welcome to the Demopublican party.

[dsc]

46. Your computer must have edited the video

since I know you wouldn't just lie about what was in the video. She did have an answer for her. One, the subsidies shouldn't turn totally off at a certain level but there should be a gradual removal. That would have helped her given what she said. Two, have 50 and above buy into Medicare which helps them and us (I am 48 so still not there yet). It helps them directly and helps us by getting rid of expensive people thus lowering our rates. Three, make insurance companies justify increases. Again, you apparently need to get a new computer since yours apparently edited that out.

[Cheese Sandwich]

48. She's very unclear on the public option.

She favors it? She wants to support it, but there's no evidence? For everyone, or just for people 50 and up? Or 55 and up? She doesn't see the data. I'm honestly confused about her statements on this issue. Honestly. And I'm trying to understand. Really. Not like it matters though since she likely won't keep any promises she makes.

um....I'm also in favor of what's called the public option, so that people can buy into, ya know, Medicare above a certain age, which will then take a lot of the pressure off the cost because the argument is that costs go up because real world experience means that people are getting sicker or the costs have to be spread. I want to get behind that because I don't yet see the data to support that but if you were able to move people 55 or 50 and up who are the biggest users of health care into the Medicare program they would have to buy in but they would be buying in to such a big program that the costs would be, ya know, more distributed, so there's a lot of things I'm looking at to try to deal with exactly the problem you're talking about.

[Armstead]

92. Deliberately unclear methinks sometimes

[dsc]

95. It was reasonably clear to me

she is unsure the extent to which it will cut costs but thinks it will. Fancy this, she actually wants to be sure of what things do, what a horror.

[tonyt53]

51. Thank you!

I liken her to the people that watch FoxNews all the time. Their dogs must have eaten their remotes.

[Octafish]

49. Getta tax credit.

Yeah. That's the ticket. A voucher.

[PDittie]

50. "Keep shopping"

[farleftlib]

56. Wow, she's gonna look into it

I hope it doesn't take her as long as it's taking for her to find the golden sacks transcripts.

[Agony]

58. she. is. fucking. clueless.

or just lying

[Autumn]

75. of course she has no answers. $500 is what? One word in a Hillary speech.

[Kilgore]

76. I wish my increase was just $500!!!

In at $750 increase in premiums and my deductible went up 10X since passage of the O-care!!

[840high]

80. Jesus H - that's some increase.

[Kilgore]

83. Tell me about it

Was paying ~$600, $1350 today
Had a $1000 deductible, $10,000 today

O-care sucks!!

[Cheese Sandwich]

93. There are a lot people with ACA horror stories

It's kind of strange how some people don't believe the ACA has serious problems.

[Kilgore]

94. I agree, something has to be done

Have no clue what the answer is, but what we have now is just plain silly from where I stand.

[840high]

79. Hillary and looking into it makes

me vomit.

[EndElectoral]

84. The Hillary Black Hole = "I'll look into it."

[George II]

99. What's your point? What is her opponent's "plan"?

[Cheese Sandwich]

100. Medicare for all

[George II]

101. The PLAN? "Medicare for all" is not a plan, it's a wish. PS - do you understand what "Medicare" is?

[Cheese Sandwich]

102. His plan is for a government run health insurance plan with no copays and no deductibles

that would cover everyone, paid for by a combination of taxes targeted at rich people, and some small income based premiums for the rest of us.