ACA Agonistes
Clinton Sending Subtle Signals on Obamacare
show comments
  • Andrew Allison

    Or, more likely, HRC is simply trimming her sails in the face of a gathering storm.

    • ljgude

      That strikes me as true. I find it hard to believe that HRC doesn’t have a well above average understanding of the downsides of the ACA and its potential for political disaster. She certainly researched the area in ’92 and must understand that what the President and the Congressional Democrats came up with was flawed in a multilayered way. First, as I always point out it is doomed by the problem that US Healthcare costs twice as much as it should. I remember hearing Clinton era bureaucrats on NPR say that 50 cents of every healthcare dollar is spent before it reaches anyone with medical training. They understood the 2 x problem, and so does HRC. Then it was so poorly drafted that it has disrupted the private insurance industry in a way that in the worst case could create the need to bail out the insurance companies. Then, if I understand correctly, it disrupts the healthcare providers themselves by forcing people to use doctors and hospitals other than the ones they did with their old insurance. Will this damage the business of the top level of medical provision like say – the Mayo Clinic? The ACA is a top down disruption that is shaping to be a far bigger disaster than people realize. Repeal is problematic because the insurance and and healthcare industry that existed before the disruption may be broken.

      All that said there is a simple way to ease toward universal healthcare without breaking things, including the bank. We already have socialized medicine in the US for the medically most expensive age bracket – over 65. Simply lower the Medicare age as the country can afford it and let the private insurance industry do what it does best – provide tailored coverage beyond what Medicare can provide. That’s about what we have in Australia and the way it is structured the two systems keep each other honest. Waiting lists and the other problems of socialized medicine that many countries have been dealing with for over half a century motivate those that can afford it to buy private insurance. But if the private insurers and the private hospitals raise their prices too much people drop the insurance and rely on the public system. Our conservative party has learned not to cut Medicare too much or they get turfed out. And our labor party has learned not to put the squeeze on the private system because it takes the pressure off the public system. I don’t know if moderates in both parties are capable of coming up with such a compromise, but if they can’t come up with something then the ACA seems to me destined for collapse.

      • Corlyss

        “2 x problem”?
        Elucidation, please.

  • Boritz

    “But nevertheless the left’s new willingness to cop to the law’s flaws is definitely a shift the critics can appreciate.”

    Appreciate the hell out of it.
    And don’t forget she also suggested she was shot at in Bosnia.

    • Jim__L

      Well, eye-rolling exasperation and scorn are other possible response.

  • Corlyss

    “Hilary Clinton is open to changing certain parts of the ACA.”
    Hear me now and believe me now: that particular pose wouldn’t last beyond 4PM 20 Jan 17 if she wins. It’s simply more “middle” posturing to make her sound moderate.
    “Could centrist space for compromise be opening up?”
    I don’t want to disillusion you, but the centrists in either party are down to carrier pigeon population size. People of both parties mouth those platitudes to make themselves sound like pragmatists. Vaporware.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.