03/04/2010 08:30:08 PM EST

Where Would We Be If Clinton's Proposal Passed In 1994?

posted by HistoryByDay

Clinton's Health Care Plan in 1993/94 was extremely similiar to what is be offered.  It mandated people purchase private insurance with subsidies for low income households.

That plan was defeated by the Health Care industry and from criticism from the left who wanted a public system and didn't unite behind their Party.

So, the question we should ask ourselves now is if we would've been better off now if this plan would've passed in 1994.  

If nothing else, one thing we would've been able to do is float the public option, expanded medicare, or even single-payer as single issue vote instead of it getting bogged down in a large-scale bill where it's easier to kill.

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook
Also, since I'm listening to the show now, someone needs to factually correct Cenk.  In the current bill, the changes to rescission (and many other aspects) go into effect 6 months after the bill is signed into law - not 2014.  Hopefully he issues an on air correction.  
< Democrat Alan Grayson Leading in Republican Primary | TYT appreciation >
 Display:
Where Would We Be If Clinton's Proposal Passed In 1994? | 7 comments (7 topical, 0 hidden)
*Source (none / 0)
Private Health Insurance Provisions of H.R. 3962 and H.R. 3590

Congressional Research Service 4

Reforms Prior to Full Implementation

Health insurance reform is a major issue in the 111th Congress, driven predominantly by longterm
and growing concerns around access, cost, and quality of care.7 The practices of some health
insurance companies have been cited as meriting immediate reform, such as unreasonable annual
or lifetime limits,8 rescissions,9 and discrimination against individuals with pre-existing conditions. The cost, reflected in rising health insurance premiums, and the quality of care have also been noted as significant concerns requiring immediate attention.10 These issues and other items are featured in the immediate reform sections of both bills.

http://www.hlc.org/CRS_insu rance_report.pdf

My website: History By Day
Follow my on twitter @historyday.

by HistoryByDay on 03/04/2010 09:00:03 PM EST

Excellent point. (none / 1)

If it means this bill or none, you can call killing the bill selfish, because not only would you actively deny a lot of people with preexisting conditions affordable, if crappy, health insurance soon, but you also you would potentially deny a future generation the chance to build on the -albeit meager- achievements of this bill.

You'd force them to start from scratch, at an uncertain point in time, when the dems once again have the presidency and both houses, if you really kill this thing.

As shitty as this bill is, to be blunt, it could save at least a few of those 40000 lives lost every year because people aren't covered.

To really VOTE no and implying that you'd rather have no bill than this, is just irrational, to say the least, I'm sorry. Maybe it doesn't do anything for you, and maybe it hurts the deficit, but it helps some folks, now and in the future. Pass it, fix it.

by tomjane7 on 03/04/2010 09:26:35 PM EST

That might be true, if... (none / 0)

...this bill didn't have the potential to kill MORE people than it saved, or ruin more lives. 

We are assuming that the government subsidies for the uninsured will always be there, helping people afford the extravagant hikes in premiums.  We as a country may be essentially out of money soon (for a variety of reasons).  Those subsidies will very possibly either be cut or run out of money.  What happens then?  More uninsured people than now (because no one can afford the coverage, and the government can no longer subsidize aid toward such), and all future efforts at "reform" will be squashed by popular opinion via the false argument that "this government takeover of Health Care just bankrupted us further--we have to let the private industry completely annex the terrain again."

Mandates with no cost controls simply allow the insurance companies to both take (by force) our money directly and through our taxes, while not covering many more people than they do now.  When the government subsidy money runs out (or the bill is rendered totally worthless other than the mandate), it doesn't matter if they can't deny pre-ex-cond patients--no one will be able to afford the coverage.  And this doesn't even take into account how many lives will be ruined by the new abortion ramifications.

On top of this, while your argument is about the policy, and I predict a different outcome than you do when the policy is implemented, the politics of "needing to pass _something_ just so we can make it better in the future" is disastrous.  The Democrats will look back at 2009-10 and they are not going to want to touch this issue until at least 2017 or 2021 when maybe a new Democratic president takes over and our problem is more dire.  The days when Democrats charged courageously forward in their long battles for the under-privileged are over (unless there is a dramatic change), so thinking about the successes of bills that passed in the 30's and then slowly were tweaked in the 50's and finally became real Progressive victories in 1965 or 1973 have nothing to do with today's political climate.  That might as well been 1765 and 1773.

So the Democrats are not IMO going to try to make this bill better, and the media will blame the Democrats for the bill's failures for the rest of time, and the voters will take out their anger on Liberalism, the influence of which is COMPLETELY foreign to this bill.  Even if most of the Democrats were not corporate shills who emphatically preferred Health Industry bribes to courting votes from their base, if they are so weak in their negotiating position that passing a truly horrible, unpopular bill is a "positive victory" for them, they will continue to get walked all over by everyone.  You have to have a point beyond which you just have to walk away.  What is that point with this bill?  How will the Democrats ever be taken seriously if they do nothing but concede point after point, get no compromise for their concessions, get full blame, get full incendiary rhetoric, and wind up with an expensive, intrusive, nonsensical piece of garbage as the ONLY thing they can produce as their legacy for the future?

How is any of this irrational?  When you have something that isn't popular, largely isn't helpful (and makes problems worse, for the most part), throws away all of your political capital and credibility for years to come, and perfectly epitomizes your weakness and failure and pathetic squander of monumental opportunity, the most rational thing in the world is to get rid of it and cut your losses.  And if/when the Republicans win for the next 3 cycles because you threw this albatross away, so be it--blame yourself for not ramming through a robust Public Option in a robust bill via reconciliation last September.  At least your name is not (as) besmirched by it for the next 15 cycles.

by Milltycoon on 03/05/2010 03:29:37 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Every single argument of yours is valid (none / 0)

But at some point you just have to put policy over politics. It is hard too argue that in the end LESS people will be covered, even if subsidies are cut again. You just can't assume this without any study to back this up. Some lives will be saved.

And you are making a lot of assumptions about the future behaviour of the democrats that I don't share. Think about this: Because democrats are weak push overs, they can be influenced. You take this, and then you work them, every single day, like Adam Green does. You force them to touch this issue sooner.

I admitt that chances of success soon are slim, but at some point, you have to take this chance, imo. Sometimes a change, for better and for worse, and this bill includes both, is a positive thing, only because it upsets a bad, established situation, and you can use this crisis for to influence the future course of events.

Premiums will go up in any case. If the republicans repeal this, there is no question that they are going to make things worse. But then you can run campaigns on this, as you did 2008. The electorat isn't that smart, if republicans fuck it up more, as they certainly will, once they are in power, I think you'd be surprised how much better dems will look on this issue. And when they are back in power, they need something to work with.

by tomjane7 on 03/05/2010 05:00:51 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Work them every day... (none / 0)

We worked the Democrats every day to get THIS piece of garbage done. Adam Green "pushed and pushed" and got a meaningless bunch of signatures from liars who will not support even a much-compromised Public Option, even with a need for only 50 votes. 

The Democrats have a mandate and have leverage and have both Houses and the President and have completely tone-deaf opposition.  And the Public Option would make good politics AND good policy AND satisfy their base and their Party platform.  And would lower costs. 

The next time, when Democrats have (probably) less votes in Congress, corporate money is even more an influence on the agenda, the problem is MORE expensive to fix, and the stupid American people and media are blaming "too much government" for this disaster,  how much harder do you think we are going to push?  The Democrats aren't listening to us, and our "pushing" has given Progressives basically no victories in this Health Care battle and 25 (and counting) losses to the Conservatives.  We might as well be pushing a stone wall.  This bill is not progress--it is a giant extortion scheme that we are mandated to fund, and lied to about by the people we elected to be leaders instead of pathetic doormats and co-conspirators.  Unless we get some leaders, it doesn't matter how bad the problem gets, or how much we have accomplished thus far (i.e. virtually nothing), or how hard we "push"--there will be no meaningful Health Insurance Reform for at least another generation.  Look at the trend--the Newt Gingrich Republican proposals for Health Care in the 90's were as strong or stronger than what the Democrats are proposing now.  You think that the government is going to lurch to the Left because of the Liberals' astounding sales pitches?

Saying that the electorate isn't "that smart" is an understatement (as I am sure you know).  As long as the narrative is ingrained into Independents that any tweaks to restore balance to the system are a "Marxist government takeover of America", then the people will be biased toward a Conservative mindset--EVEN IF THIS BILL PRODUCES SOME SUCCESSES.  The conventional wisdom narrative doesn't care about what the actual truth is.  "Obama is soft on terror", even though we killed more bad guys in 2009 than 2008, Obama increased the Defense budget, escalated the war, favors re-upping the Patriot Act, and will cave on every issue regarding detainees.  "Tax cuts create more jobs", despite that Clinton's era created 18 million more jobs than Bush did.  Stop thinking that the truth on the ground is going to shape our politics, when our leaders don't care what the public thinks, and the public is too lazy to research the truth anyway.  It IS a two-party system, so when Republicans continue to completely wreck what is left of the country again in a few years, Democrats will be voted back into office.  But why will they listen to us then?  Why will they put their careers on the line to go back to this albatross?

You make a point that they need to eventually get "something" done so that the foundation is set.  But the only lessons that will be taken from this are that if Democrats are desperate to pass the worst bill imaginable just to pass something, Republicans will negotiate EVERY bill down to the worst it can possibly be, because they know the Democrats can't say no.  That is the peril when one side puts upon itself the inexplicable burden of "governing", and the other side's only job is to shut down the government, which is only a million times easier. 

by Milltycoon on 03/05/2010 09:13:08 PM EST

[ Parent ]
re (none / 0)
The GOP long-term path forward is clear.  And that is to repeal what mandatory coverage at ER's there is and to slowly get away from other publicly funded coverage there is, be it current subsidies or Medicare & Medicaid.

This bill is better than the bill in 1993/94 (although not by a lot, but it is), and to kill it would kill any hope of getting the Public Option in the future - like it did then.  

If this would've passed 16 years ago, we could've ran on the Public Option as a singular issue.  Now, it gets lumped in with everything else from the massive 1994 bill.  It's not hard to see what will happen next time since we've been through this before.

I understand the frustration, especially among those who don't grasp the history of how to use politics to achieve policy, but people who are for the public option and for killing this bill are just cutting off their nose to spite their face at this point.

My website: History By Day
Follow my on twitter @historyday.

by HistoryByDay on 03/05/2010 09:34:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
American (none / 0)
Democracy, amazing how little teeth this republic has were the populace is contempt with the smallest crumbs in hopes of one day making a pie.

Truth is you’re not going to gain anything effective as long as the government is bought, you will get shit the corporations tolerate. You’re not going to build on anything, if Obama passes anything he's going to say "there eat it and STFU I did health care" and then it's the republicans turn who are going to remove it on day 1 with a signing statement if need be. Truth is corporations love the mandate with people getting subsidized, as for no pre existing conditions? Yeah they can’t deny you but they will just charge you more thanks to no cost containment. They will charge you so much you can’t afford it and eventually you will lose coverage, again weak sauce and full of loopholes.

by Alloy on 03/05/2010 03:22:46 AM EST

Where Would We Be If Clinton's Proposal Passed In 1994? | 7 comments (7 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: