Facebook Pixel

Clinton Details Premium Cap in Health Plan

By March 28, 2008 - 10:03am
Rate This

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said in an interview on Wednesday that if elected president she would push for a universal health care plan that would limit what Americans pay for health insurance to no more than 10 percent of their income, a significant reduction for some families.

In an extensive interview on health policy, Mrs. Clinton said she would like to cap health insurance premiums at 5 percent to 10 percent of income.

Read more here and share your thoughts.

What are your opinions on universal health care? Do you support Clinton's cap plan?

Add a Comment4 Comments

To Be Determined - not all the details seem to be out or clear, just yet, as far as I can tell.

There are a few things of note:

1) the NHIA proposes an entirely new national carrier to Medicare;
2) there are two separate tracks: a) for small business, self-employed and uninsured; and b) that restructures the insurance market (how, we don't yet know);
3) the currently "usual" promises of access to your own medical records, among other rights;
4) it is yet unclear whether the NHIA will be a mandate or voluntary and at what level;
5) it is unclear how standards will be set (who qualifies, who doesn't, whatever).

Bottom line: Sen. Obama appears to be exercising caution in releasing great detail about his national health care proposal. This is either brilliant politics, forcing other candidates to stumble over each other, or he's still trying to work it out rationally and realistically.

Sen. McCain's proposal does not include a mandate, but it also doesn't guarantee coverage. He looks at coverage as a matter of choice.

Let's get real: a national health care insurance initiative will be difficult to construct and probably a nightmare to administer, even if we did get one in place. Big "if," in my humble opinion.

April 10, 2008 - 7:02pm

I've loved this thread, as I try to stay informed on this issue, but honestly, have a hard time understanding the "little things" (as alysia stated) when it comes to political gobbly-gook. Can anyone recap the other candidate's health plans, as well as alysia did on Clinton's little known facts?


April 10, 2008 - 2:18pm

That's always the case though, isn't it? The strong help the weak; the rich help the poor.

At the risk of sounding like a socialist (and I couldn't be further from it!) that is the nature of things. A society is judged by how they treat their weakest members.

And people are denied procedures they require all the time - in universal health care systems, private systems and places that have no real systems at all. There is no perfect system but a system that gives free health care to children is a good start in my book!

April 7, 2008 - 12:30pm

Sen. Clinton's proposed "American Health Choices Plan" would require you to have health insurance. She also proposes a tax credit, federal subsidies and corporate coverage (not required of small businesses). Additionally, insurance carriers would be required to provide coverage and cap premiums.

She tried this once before in 1993, while First Lady, with what was called "Hillarycare," a similar proposed mandate presented to five congressional committees and that was shot down as being unrealistic and coercive.

There are a few "little details" that the general public may not realize about Sen. Clinton's "plan:"

1) it would be more of a subsidization of the ill by the healthy;
2) it would actually raise premiums on the healthy;
3) it would require health insurance as a pre-condition of employment;
4) it would force health insurance on those who do not want it, perhaps because they have (and prefer) other, private coverage (at a better cost);
5) it does not really control costs; with health care accounting for over 15% of our economy, mandating coverage would increase that share;
6) the proposal seeks to end tax breaks for the wealthy (household income of $250K or more, which means middle class 2-income families pay the bill, as usual), but will cost an estimated $110Bil that could conceivably be raised in raising the tax on cigarettes, for example (since we're supposedly trying to get the public to quit smoking and curtail the billions of dollars in lawsuits versus tobacco producers);
7) people may be denied procedures they may require.

We Americans have long held that we have a right to affordable, quality health care and insurance. However, the cost of care continues to rise faster than our capacity to pay for it, for any number of reasons, law suits and malpractice insurance costs somewhere at the top of the list. We're not Canada, we're a country of states that operate autonomously to some extent, and all states would have to agree on a national health care insurance plan for it to work across the board. Good luck!

Sorry; in my humble opinion, it's the same old story all over again, repackaged with campaign ribbons, and just as unrealistic, costly and misguided as before. The story didn't fly before. Why should it now?

March 28, 2008 - 8:14pm
Enter the characters shown in the image.
By submitting this form, you agree to EmpowHER's terms of service and privacy policy
Add a Comment

All user-generated information on this site is the opinion of its author only and is not a substitute for medical advice or treatment for any medical conditions. Members and guests are responsible for their own posts and the potential consequences of those posts detailed in our Terms of Service.

Political Issues

Get Email Updates

Health Newsletter

Receive the latest and greatest in women's health and wellness from EmpowHER - for free!