> JB>> My point is that this is political poison.
>
> By 'this' I mean the requirement that I pay a private corporation
> to insure my carcass, without requiring that said corporation
> actually do anything when I get sick.
This sounds like hyperbole to me, so ... sure, I agree: there's no reason you should pay a company to not do anything for you. But I don't think that's really what's being proposed here ...
> Clinton's plan says there will be the possibility of buying into a
> public 'Medicare like' plan. I don't see how this thing is funded,
> however. My guess is that it will be more expensive, and most people
> who are having trouble affording insurance will have to opt for
> high-deductible private plans.
All I know is what she publishes, so I'm getting my info from here:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/summary.aspx
It says that there will be tax credits to pay for it if you're poor. I also think that it will end Workers Compensation, because if it's manditory, there's no reason to have a separate -- often duplicated! -- coverage. So there's lots of net savings there. I'd be willing to bet that many employers would cover a real health plan if they didn't have to also pay WCI.
For many people WCI is more expensive than a traditional, comprehensive plan.
Now, is this something that makes me want to get up and vote for Hillary? No. But it is the first time I've heard someone who has an actual chance of doing something about this issue say something that would actually be better than what is currently the case. Does she have to be President to make it happen? Maybe.
Summary: I agree with Krugman that a) this is a substantial difference between HC and BO; b) HC's plan, should she be in a position to execute it and actually get it done would be better than what we have today; c) it could very well be a useful, positive first step to the ultimate goal.
/jordan