September 17th, 2007
06:40 PM ET
13 years ago

Clinton's universal health care plan

Watch CNN's Candy Crowley report on Sen. Clinton's health care plan.

(CNN) - White House hopeful and former first lady Hillary Clinton announced her plan to provide health insurance coverage to every American in a speech on Monday. Clinton's rivals were quick to respond as Clinton attempts to complete a project she first began during her husband's presidency. CNN's Candy Crowley reports.

Filed under: Healthcare • Hillary Clinton • Iowa • Presidential Candidates
soundoff (17 Responses)
  1. Kathy Callan

    John Edwards was way ahead of the curve this campaign season in proposing universal health care. Unfortunately, it took Senators Obama and Clinton many more months to decide on their health care plans. Once again, John Edwards shows his leadership and courage in having the most progressive and detailed policies, and in sharing them with the public. He does not need to talk to his pollsters before deciding what's best for the American people.

    September 17, 2007 08:37 pm at 8:37 pm |
  2. Patrice, Fulton, IL

    Just want to appraise people of the fact that insurance is big business in Des Moines Iowa, for those who might have missed the significance of where she chose to deliver her speech.

    I personally don't want mandatory health care. Until provisions are made for those of us who practice preventive health care at our own expense, why should we be forced to carry healthcare.

    And it's not the same as only carrying liability on your vehicle which is what she is trying to infer.

    I like Senator Obama's plan the best, it's not perfect, but it's doable and it creates insurance now for those who want it.

    If Senator Edwards plan were to pass, it would be interesting to see how it can be paid for without a tax increase.

    Citizens of countries with socialized medicine give a significant amount of their earnings in taxes.

    And the idea that 200,000 or 250,000 has become the bench mark for creating more revenue by eliminating premiums is ludicrous. If I am earning 200,000 a year and you want me to give the Federal government 75,000 of it, that means that 42% of my earnings go to the Federal government, so if it were me I would just earn less.

    The serious Money is in the upper 1%, and few of them beyond Warren Buffett and Bill Gates seem inclined towards serious philanthropy, so that's where the hammer needs to fall.

    Conversely if I am earning 40,000.00 a year, I would pay 8,040 annually with not deductions or 28% of my income with Social Security. Leaving me with 32,000 and the ability to almost double my income before I am in the 35% tax bracket.

    They need to change the upper limit but they won't, those who are talking about the 200,000 bench mark, like it's evil and unjust to earn 200,000 a year. And anyone who is earning under 17,000 should not pay taxes period but should pay into social security.

    But you will never hear anything like that because it wouldn't be popular.

    But if you want to keep from having to continue to raise minimum wage which causes prices to go up, that would be one way to level the playing field.

    So back to my original point, Hilary's insurance plan is squeaky as in squeaking by at best.

    September 17, 2007 09:55 pm at 9:55 pm |
  3. Nate, Minneapolis, MN

    Does anyone get it? More government involvement in healthcare means it becomes another talking point to get politicians elected…kind of like the millions of dollars spent to build the multi, multi, multi-million dollar bridge in Alaska to serve 50 people. (I'm not going to quote an exact # here, like most posters or mass media would to prove my point) Bottom line is all US kids should be covered with healthcare (not sure most aren't between state and federal programs) How long are we going to let politicians decide who gets the "pork", "earmarks", etc before the US Public has had enough? On some level, as a free society, this comes back on us…At what point do we decide health insurance for the US public is more important than the pork dollars our given US congressman or senator delivers? As for the US not having great healthcare…must be why every sick world leader is beating down the door to get healthcare here…i.e. Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic, John Hopkins, et. al. The quality isn't goofed up like in most countries around the world, just the number covered…Can't we solve this problem of getting more covered without destroying quality and independece of healthcare? I'm not sure I want a politician figuring out how to shift that equation…THEY got us to this point.

    September 17, 2007 10:00 pm at 10:00 pm |
  4. bprossersme

    Communistic Government FORCE. You will be forced, mandated to obtain insurance. Now when the Government demands that you purchase with your own money any thing, that's scary. That's Hillary's overbearing character on steroids.

    September 17, 2007 10:14 pm at 10:14 pm |
  5. Mike, Orlando, Florida

    Do yourself a favor and go to youtube and type in 20/20 Sick in America: Whose Body is it Anyway? and watch the videos. It will show you everything you need to know about Universal healthcare and how bad it is.

    September 18, 2007 01:57 am at 1:57 am |
  6. Sam, IA

    As the koolaid drinkers mindlessly post on this blog i would ask them to review that hated healthplan offered in 93, Every american insured, no preexisting conditions. Insurance companies bidding on blocks of insured and the insuree able to switch between those 3 offers once a year, Man, That would be scary to an insurer. Competition, service, No cozy deals with the company CEO, Sounds real commy doesn't it?

    September 18, 2007 04:47 am at 4:47 am |
  7. Joe, Florida

    To all those who say this is socialism or communism, please, do like Ms. Clinton told one guy who said asked the same: "Drop the rhetoric, get educated".

    Socialized medicine is a medicine entirely run by government. What this plan proposes is far from being that. Doctors won't lose their private practice. Insurance companies won't go out of business, pharmaceuticals won't run out of business. Except Insurance companies, which will have to compete for customers, Doctors and Pharmaceuticals will actually benefit (most customers). Let them compete, and we will benefit from lower costs.

    This plans gives you choice. If you have health insurance right now and you are happy with it, then fine, keep it. If you are not, then you have another option. Do not forget one of basic concepts behind a capitalist society, competition; this plan creates competition, which leads to lower costs for us. My god, we will even be able to get tax credits for this. For any one there who doesn't know the tax system well, tax credits are better than deductions. Currently, you can deduct medical expenses from Adjusted Gross Income up to a certain extent. If we were allowed to that amount as a tax credit, our taxable income drops dramatically, and our tax liability drops even more. Again, please read, investigate, do research, don't follow emotional opinions.

    Please don't be fooled by "socialist plan" idea, it's ridiculous and baseless. Also, don't think the Bush tax cuts are that good. The tax cuts only helped big businesses. It didn't help individuals, we are still paying the same tax yearly; and it didn't help small business because they don't have the resources to pay for tax planning in order to take advantage of such tax breaks. Big businesses can pay as much 40 million yearly alone for tax planning, do small business have this money, I DON'T THINK SO. And people ask themselves, why is the middle class shrinking.

    September 18, 2007 07:54 am at 7:54 am |
  8. Ron, TX

    She already failed at pushing a health care plan. She let the lobbyists she accepts money from derail the plan. What makes her think she can do it this time?

    September 18, 2007 09:52 am at 9:52 am |
  9. Bill W, Coatesville, PA

    Joe in Florida, what insurance companies are going to compete for the blocks of 20+ million illegal immigrants? And how many more illegal immigrants is that going to draw? And what about all the Welfare recipients?

    Who do you suppose is going to pay for all that? "Get Educated"? Get real.

    September 18, 2007 10:25 am at 10:25 am |
  10. LoserLarry

    Don't worry. Hillary knows whats best for you..

    September 18, 2007 11:02 am at 11:02 am |
  11. Joe, Florida

    Bill W from Coatesville, PA.

    I was not referring to illegal immigrants my friend. Read better and yes, "Get Educated". Those who call this socialism (I don't if it includes you), should learn more about the different types of societal systems and their characteristics before saying such things.

    And of course WE are going to pay for that. Again, learn about the tax system, know the definition and use of tax. I can't give a dissertation here, so learn on your own. However, people seem to get to get the idea that cost of the health care plan will be additional tax. Even if that was the case, which is not, it will certainly not be more than what Americans are paying on Health Care today.

    Have you ever visited the IRS website and noticed what it's the tax revenue for this country? Have you ever visited the White House website and looked at the budget. Have you visited Congress websites and found out about appropiations. All these things tell you where the tax revenue is going. A good President and manager uses the funds well. Do some research and see the light, or dirt I should say.

    Also, realize the Bush tax cuts were mainly at advantage to big business, not us the indivuals or small business.

    September 18, 2007 11:13 am at 11:13 am |
  12. Cary- Lowell, IN

    I see the quality of health sericves declining and the number of patients waiting on line increasing if the federal government steps in to take over!

    September 18, 2007 12:15 pm at 12:15 pm |
  13. dawn -- Gaithersburg, MD.


    Sen. Clinton put out her plan far enough ahead of the election so you can meaningfully review it and decide among the alternatives. So what does it matter if Sen. Edwards put out his plan first? It's an election, not a foot-race. The point is, which plan is better?


    The reason everyone should contribute what they can to the cost of universal healthcare is the same reason why everyone pays for roads even if some of us are agoraphobic and why everyone pays for the police even if most of us are neither criminals nor crime victims. Denying people health care is an enormously economic unproductive thing to do. Sick people can't work, can't pay taxes, and eventually end up in expensive emergency rooms where common decency doesn't allow us to turn them away.
    Also, where are you getting the 42% figure? The top marginal rate under President Clinton was 39% if I remember right. Furthermore, if you earned $200,000, you'd probably have a mortgage of some kind plus other deductible expenses, which would mean a substantially smaller tax bill than $75,000. But even if you didn't and had to pay your full amount, that would still leave you with $125,000 less state and local tax but, again, plus appropriate deductions. (If I understand your math, a little less than $64,000 is still not as much as, worst case scenario, $100,000.) So you go ahead and work less because I know lots of people who would take the deal you reject.


    Sen. Clinton also succeeded at bringing many reforms at the state level when she was first lady of Arkansas. It's obviously a lot easier to effectuate any kind of reform in a single state than at the federal level. Plus, if failing at something the first time we tried it meant that we could never try again, we'd all still be crawling around on our hands and knees like babies.

    September 18, 2007 12:36 pm at 12:36 pm |
  14. Harvey Nelson,Chico, California

    Too bad her plan isn't modeled after the California senate bill 840. Universal simgle payor health is the only way to go but it won't work in a single state, it must be universal. Stop the excessive CEO payments to the Insurance industry and release the U.S. Employers from from this burden on their bottom line so America can compete fairly with the rest of the world.

    September 18, 2007 12:57 pm at 12:57 pm |
  15. Tom - Dedham, Mass

    Dawn, obviously you LOVE Hillary and she is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but she was not the Governor of Arkansas, just the first lady.

    She didn't pass anything or enact anything, she was the first lady, but if she wants to use that as part of her campaign, no problem, but all of the scandal comes with it.

    September 18, 2007 02:07 pm at 2:07 pm |
  16. Bill W, Coatesville, PA

    Hey Joe, all I know is I have a job, I work, and I pay for Healthcare for me and my wife through my company. We have a great plan. So I do not need National Healthcare. I do not need the Clintons or anybody else to tell me what kind of healthcare I can have so they can make their cronies rich. And I do not need to pay more in taxes for healthcare for the poor, welfare mothers, or especially illegal immigrants. Estimated at 30 million by the time Hillary would leave office.

    Clinton is only trying to say what she thinks people want to hear – and she will say anything that she thinks will help her get elected. And don't forget that she has taken sooooooo much money from insurance and other special interests that she could not POSSIBLY ever manage to put a plan like this in place. Special interests like insurance companies killed her plan the first time, and she will have to let them kill it again – because she took their money and she OWES them.

    If you believe Hillary, I have prime waterfront property for sale in New Orleans. She is a liar and a con artist who has made a career out of saying whatever the polls tell her people want to hear.

    And the past 20 years have been Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush. So electing Clinton is change? I think not.

    September 18, 2007 02:47 pm at 2:47 pm |
  17. Chris, Middletown, CT

    Can you point to any goverment run program as a "well run fiscal success story" – either...why not offer Hillarycare to the Canadians – they pay 60% tax rate....and come to the US for procedures – I have an idea – lets send Hillary and her "husband" up north for a couple years – and lets see if they can make their plan work up there (they are already used to paying 60%...) its laughable that you people believe her..why not start with tort reform....wait...a country run by lawyers would NEVER allow that

    September 19, 2007 05:08 pm at 5:08 pm |