Clinton, Health Care, and Democratic Values

by DemFromCT

Here is a story about the Clintons that actually has significance (unlike the recent NY Times tabloid excursion into their relationship):

No policy issue has bedeviled Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton more than health care. Ever since the collapse of her proposal for universal coverage in 1994, critics have used the issue as prime evidence in their case that she is, at heart, a big-government liberal with a zeal for social engineering.

But now, as Mrs. Clinton heads into her re-election campaign and a possible bid for the presidency, she is trying to recast the political disaster of 1994 as something else: as a badge of honor, as a symbol of lessons learned and, perhaps most significant, as invaluable preparation for dealing with the problems in the health care system today.

"A lot of people know that I was involved in health care back in '93 and '94, and I still have the scars to show for it," Mrs. Clinton says in a new biographical film that she is showing on the campaign trail. After raising the topic in a recent speech, she added, "But it's worth wading into again — and we're going to have to."

What is does for Hillary is less important to me than what it does for Democrats.

Today, her plans to expand coverage are tempered and incremental. Her first major goal appears to be universal health coverage for children, which she hopes to advance by expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or Schip, an existing federal program up for review in 2007.

"I have to do what the political reality permits me to do," Mrs. Clinton said in a recent interview. She said that covering everyone remained her ultimate goal, but that Democrats would be fighting "a lot of rear-guard actions" as long as Republicans controlled Congress.

Like it or not, with an R controlled Congress, that is reality. Change Congress if you want change. But more importantly, this is an issue that cuts through all the GOP advertising muscle. Harry and Louise can't explain away the poor health coverage, the lack of access and the health care financing issues exposed since Hillary's last try at reform. This a Democratic issue that people trust Democrats to solve far more than they trust Republicans. It might not be as big an issue for 2006 but it certainly will be for 2008. And it's about time Democrats stopped running away from their own issues, especially those that foster the 'greater good'.

Comments

[Sally]

I once read that former Senator Dole ruled that the Republicans would have to kill Hillary's health-care plan, that they could not let it happen. If this is true, and I suspect it is, why isn't this included now and then in the media coverage denigrating her health-care plan?

[Mimikatz]

It's time for a new series of harry and Louise commercials talking about how they are ok now, they have Medicare, but they are worried about their kids--Fred just lost his job and the family has no health care, and Franny's just been diagnosed with cancer, and the medication will be more than her health insurance covers. They could reminisce about how it would have been different for their kids and grandkids if some form of universal health care had been enacted in 1993--"We didn't understand then. We thought the private health plans would take care of us. We thought government-funded care meant rationing, but the private plans all do it too, and the ultimate rationing is no health insurance at all."

There has to be a phased in plan, and starting with kids and then allowing people over 55 to buy into Medicare would help.

But every time I hear someone say that we need "universal health INSURANCE" I know they don't get what the problem is--too much paperwork and rationing by armies of insurance workers, and misallocation of resources among specialties and geographical locations.

[Sara]

The real progress on this is likely to come from the states. The states regulate the insurance industry, and as some states move to Universal programs, they are going to find it in their self interest to use their ability to regulate insurance costs, and place other economies into the delivery systems. I suspect that once you reach about ten states engaged in a state program -- the feds will be put under pressure to accomodate. It is the same pattern we know historically regarding other matters -- old age pensions began in the states, as did regulation of child labor, and because both insurance and medical licenseing is done by the states -- I expect this matter -- Universal access -- to also bubble up through the states and not down from the fed level.

[DemFromCT]

that makes the MA experiment very interesting, indeed.