To All EDWARDS Supporters: Isn't Voting OBAMA NEGATING UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE????

[demo dutch]

Universal healthcare (Single payer): All User pays a fee.
Mandate Healthcare with subsidies: All users pay a fee

How do you think "Universal Healthcare" works, or would you rather have not healthcare if your employer doesn't offer it?

It's Mandate Muddle.... The fact is the Edwards and Clinton plans contain more money for such subsidies than the Obama plan.

and there is the "stimulating of the economy" which coincides with "universal healthcare"
see link
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/opinion/07krugman.html?_r=2&n=Top/Opinion/Editorials%20and%20Op-Ed/Op-Ed/Columnists/Paul%20Krugman&oref=slogin&oref=slogin


Please discuss!

[saltpoint]

1. Shh. Use your indoors voice.

[demo dutch]

15. I know but it just ets me, because that's why I liked Edwards!

[saltpoint]

17. Can't we prefer our first choice but not subtract from others' first choices?

I'm not going to get the world on my exact terms.

Any health care reform -- and much is needed -- is going to be cobbled together and has to be navigated through the 111th Congress.

IMO the real player in that process will be the man or woman who is our Vice Presidential nominee. If our ticket wins, that man or woman will preside over the Senate and likely set the tone for success for meaningful health care reform.

[AX10]

2. Vote Clinton!

[OHdem10]

3. Vote HRC if you really want something done about Health care.

[Thrill]

7. Yeah like having your wages garnished

[demo dutch]

11. Honey you'll pay eitherway!

[sandnsea]

16. Sounds like someone who's never been homeless n/t

[sallyseven]

47. Barack wants to fine you.

[blm]

4. ISN'T voting Hillary a vote AGAINST OPEN GOVERNMENT and ACCOUNTABILITY?

.

[demo dutch]

12. Is a healthcare question!

[blm]

39. Closed government is the REASON we have no solution to healthcare TODAY, sunshine.

Read this article and you'll understand how EVERY ISSUE relies heavily on truth and open government. And that EVERY issue LOSES to closed government that protects the secrecy and privileg of the powerful elite who carry more weight on these issues than YOU want to notice.

http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

Truth Matters. Just not to your wing of the party that sides most often with secrecy and privilege.

[demo dutch]

42. Truth matters indeed. See link:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/210/

[blm]

49. My, you're afraid of discussing WHY ALL ISSUES got the shaft BECAUSE of closed

government practices that protect the secrecy and privilege of the powerful.

YOU can't be serious trying to get those of us COMPLETELY KNOWLEDGEABLE about what is in the National Security Archives exercised over Obama's statements about healthcare knowing FULL WELL that it is the Clintons' protection of closed government that has contributed the MOST to the deep-sixing of MANY Dem issues, including healthcare.

Please say you're kidding because no one can be that obtuse about the consequences this nation has suffered because of the Clintons protecting BushInc's secrecy and privilege throughout the 90s.


http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

No honest Dem would side with secrecy and privilege of closed government.

[demo dutch]

52. These are the two options on the table at the moment, I rather make a choice

that no choice at all.

[blm]

55. The option is Open government or closed government. You choose closed government

but you haven't the nerve to acknowledge here at DU. So you distract with penny-ante cherry-picking when you know the bottom line of what you are doing.

[demo dutch]

56. You have no idea what "closed government" really is! until you step outside of this country!

[blm]

61. I know closed government led directly to Bush2 presidency, 9-11 and this Iraq war

and is leading us into war with Iran.

And that is something you choose to support.

But you haven't the nerve to acknowledge that basic truth in those stark terms here at DU, have you?

[demo dutch]

63. The country has moved on to the economy. They don't care they, just want to end it! 72% was

in favor at the onset and in 2004 they didn't care enough to change. Most see the obsession of who voted for the resolution not nearly as important as the decision to end the war now. Just because she voted for the resolution does not in any way shows that she support the closed government of the Bush presidency. In case you forgot the Dems in the senate voted 29 Ayes 21 Nayes for the resolution, that includes Presidential candidates Dodd, Biden, Edwards and Kerry (... oh yeah, he voted for it before he voted against it!!

Bottom line is, it seems that for many at DU it's always easier to throw around some personal insults rather than to intelligently defend their position. Is that stark enough for you?

[blm]

65. You support closed government - you don't support open government. Stark line.

You will damn MORE in this country to be dumbed down and not know the historic record or about what occurs in DC and is being done in THEIR name.

[demo dutch]

66. Letting yourself "getting dumbed-down" is a choice! but it's been interesting

conversing with you, I actually have to get back to preparing my political science curriculum. Good luck!

[Renew Deal]

5. Voting for Hillary negates Universal Health Care

Hillary's plan is a giveaway to the insurance industry. It doesn't solve any of the core problems, but it makes those that have been terrorizing us richer.

[demo dutch]

14. Can't see how Obama's plan is better,and those are the two choices!

[OzarkDem]

58. Her plan allows choice between govt and private insurance

That's a very big difference between her plan and Obama's.

In reality, Obama's plan is the one that will give more to the insurance industry.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. Let's keep one thing in mind:

All the candidates' health care proposals are simply that: proposals. None of them will ever see the light of day in their current forms once Congress gets ahold of them -- because Presidents don't pass health care legislation; Congress does. So if Hillary is elected don't expect her plan to go in effect; if Obama is elected his won't either. Some version of them will be submitted to Congress, which will take them apart, put in their own stuff, and the final package will be something completely different.

The details of such plans are meaningful at this point only to the extent they reflect what the candidates think might work AND what they think they can get through Congress. I'm not going to base my decision about which of these two candidates to vote for on the minutiae of these things.

[Jackpine Radical]

9. Well, the flavor of the sausage that eventually comes out of the machine

probably does have some tenuous connection to the characteristics of the ingredients you shoved into the hopper in the first place.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

10. That's true, probably. But sometimes we forget that what candidates say they want to do

on issues that involve congressional action is rarely what ever really happens.

[UALRBSofL]

22. This is true

Either way, it will be reworked and my hunch is it wont be near as good as it sounds. But it will be better then what we have now.

[demo dutch]

27. It, all depends on the composition of Congress. If the country will overwhelmingly

vote Dems into office at least we'll have a chance to move to universal healthcare.

[ugdude]

8. Her healthcare plan will bleed the middleclass. Shes garnishing wages

"Here's why Hillary's answer on garnishing wages for health care won't mattter in the campaign:
This morning on "This Week" on ABC, she was pressed about garnishing wages and dodged it a few times before saying, "George, there will be an enforcement mechanism, whether it is that or something else."

So she is open to the idea of garnishing wages. Her words.

However, because of the way Hillary operates, she will no doubt say something different in short order, and her supporters will point to THAT quote rather than her admission this morning, and they'll run with that one. The Clintons say different, and contradictory things to different audiences on different days, sometimes different hours, so NOTHING they say can be trusted. Not by rational people, anyway.

The Clintons' campaign will wiggle out of this wage garnishing issue very easily, aided by their enablers who just don't care about the issues and are obviously supporting her because of what she is, not who she is.
"

[demo dutch]

19. You need to read up on Obama's plan, I can't see how it's better , it's more of the same

& those are the two choices! so protesting isn't going to do much! Unless you like the current status quo which is bleeding the middle class!

[Occam Bandage]

25. The plans are identical except for the mandate.

[sandnsea]

13. A health care card in the mail is universal coverage

Anything else is mandated health insurance that we don't know how much will cost.

[demo dutch]

38. Honey it's going to cost you eitherway, it at least is a step into the direction of universal

healthcare

[sandnsea]

46. No it's a step into the direction of homelessness n/t

[demo dutch]

72. You lost me!

The fact is the Edwards and Clinton plans contain more money for such subsidies which helps the poor, than the Obama plan

[Milo_Bloom]

18. ALL the healthcare plans sucked, including Edwards'

They were and are ALL gifts to insurance companies.


Until a plan is offered that takes the middle man out of the equation, things will not improve.

[demo dutch]

20. We have to take baby steps. Radicalism won't work in this country

but I agree Kucinich would have been better.

[Occam Bandage]

23. The problem is that this is not a baby step in the right direction--or any direction.

Mandated purchasing of private healthcare is not a step towards single-payer.

[demo dutch]

41. Neither is Obama's solution, it just more of the same!

[Occam Bandage]

62. And that is demonstrably false, unless you seriously believe

that the biggest problem with the health-care industry is that the risk pool is not evenly fed.

[demo dutch]

74. Yes that is one of the big problems. My main concern right now is with Mr. Obama’s rhetoric

by echoing the talking points of those who oppose any form of universal health care, he’s making the task of any future president who tries to deliver universal care considerably more difficult. A further concern: the debate over mandates has reinforced the uncomfortable sense among some health reformers that Mr. Obama just isn’t that serious about achieving universal care — that he introduced a plan because he had to, but that every time there’s a hard choice to be made he comes down on the side of doing less.

[Milo_Bloom]

78. With some things yes, other things... no.

In the case of healthcare the problem with taking a baby step is the problem will get swept under the rug.

You bring everyone into a crappy system, with a middle man, you won't hear another word about health care because "everyone will be covered".

The baby step needs to be towards eliminating the middle man, not just giving everyone substandard health care.

[Occam Bandage]

21. The only difference is that Hillary Clinton forces you to buy corporate insurance.

[demo dutch]

24. Yes, and Obama let you do nothing. Which is what we have now!

[Occam Bandage]

26. Obama has the same subsidy expansions as Hillary. The only difference is the mandate.

I think the mandate is unenforceable, which is why I prefer Obama's.

[demo dutch]

29. Then you're voting for what we have now. The way I see it is if the country will overwhelmingly

vote Dems into office, and let's face it, it will depend on the composition of Congress whether we move forward on this issue, then at least we'll have a chance to move to universal healthcare.

[Occam Bandage]

31. If you believe that, you are horribly uninformed on this issue.

[demo dutch]

34. No I'am NOT See link. You need to read up on the facts!

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/210/

[Occam Bandage]

36. There are far more factors at play than the simple factor of "universality."

I'm going to slum for a bit and actually try to educate you.

Let's pretend there are two candidates, A and B. A provides a bunch of housing subsidies and tax breaks for purchasing low-cost housing. B provides similar subsidies makes it a law that all homeless people have to buy a house.

B then claims that B has provided universal housing, and that A is only the status quo. Is B misleading?

[demo dutch]

43. You can't compare the two, your point is nonsense

[Vinca]

28. Neither Clinton nor Obama is offering universal health CARE.

They are offering universal health INSURANCE. No matter how you spin it, the majority want the Kucinich plan and that's not what they're offering. As it pertains to these 2 candidates, the issue is a wash. (I know, I know, I know. Hillary mandates "universal." You MUST contribute to insurance company profits or I'm putting a hold on the grocery money. A very bad idea.) If you're an Edwards supporter trying to make up your mind, please judge the candidates on other issues.

[stillcool]

30. Cool site

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/subjects/health-care/

"I do provide universal health care."

Barack Obama on Thursday, November 15th, 2007 in Las Vegas, Nev. >>Details

Under attack at a recent debate from rival Hillary Clinton on health care, Barack Obama shot back:

“Well, let’s talk about health care right now because the fact of the matter is that I do provide universal health care. The only difference between Sen. Clinton’s health care plan and mine is that she thinks the problem for people without health care is that nobody has mandated — forced — them to get health care.”

Before jumping into this fray, it’s important to note that when it comes to health care, the two Democratic presidential candidates have a lot in common.

One of the few differences is that Clinton includes a universal mandate. That means that after everything else goes according to plan, individuals will be required by law to purchase insurance. Think of how people are required to buy auto insurance and you get an idea of what that might look like.

Obama’s plan includes a mandate to insure children, but it does not include a mandate for adults, as the Clinton and Edwards plans do. That likely means not as many people will be insured, said Kenneth Thorpe, professor of health policy and management at Emory University.

Obama’s decision not to include a mandate is a more cautious approach, one Obama says is designed not to penalize people with modest incomes. If premiums don’t drop enough after all the reforms are implemented, people will still be unable to afford insurance. If a law mandates they buy it anyway, they probably won’t. Obama’s argument is that if you then fine them, you’re essentially punishing the poor — and they will still be uninsured. Obama is betting that his plan will get costs low enough that many of the estimated 47-million uninsured will sign up without a mandate, and a mandate will come later.

So is it fair for Obama to call his plan “universal”? Well, not really. Even if you buy his argument that his plan will create the market conditions to make health care universally available, nothing in his plan guarantees it. We rate his claim Barely True.

----------------------------------------------------

Making more families eligible, expanded coverage
True

In a campaign ad, an announcer says Obama “won health care for 150,000 people.”

The statement is based on a 2003 law Obama sponsored when he was an Illinois state senator. His bill expanded income eligibility for KidsCare and FamilyCare, the state health insurance programs low-income families. Both programs saw sizable increases in enrollment after the law was passed.

The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation looked at the Illinois program and found that the children’s enrollment increased by 55,421 between 2003 and 2005, the year Illinois abolished an income requirement. Adult enrollment increased by 100,458 between 2003 and 2006. That comes to a total of 155,879.

Of course, it bears noting that expansion of health insurance was a big goal of the Democratic governor who signed the bill, and Obama's legislation had a co-sponsor, a Republican, in the Illinois House. But the simplicity of his claim is hard to dispute, and being able to work with others to achieve goals is a theme of the ad in which he makes the claim. It all ads up to true.

[demo dutch]

33. Thanks, it co-incides with the NY Times link I provided

[stillcool]

44. maybe not...

Optimistic math
Half-True

The health care plan proposed by Clinton doesn't offer lots of details, but in one spot the figure is in black and white: first-year cost, $110-billion. The proposal goes on to show how that cost would be paid for with savings from other changes to the health care system.

There's no way to verify the $110-billion figure, but those off-setting savings? They're pretty optimistic, which is why we rate this claim as half-true.

Much of the savings would come from "discontinuing" the 2001 tax cuts to households with incomes over $250,000 per year, which are scheduled to expire in 2010. Clinton, like most Democrats, has proposed letting those high-income tax cuts expire, which the Congressional Budget Office says would generate $52-billion in tax revenues.

Over half of the $110-billion would come from such things as saving $10-billion by phasing out excessive Medicare payments to HMOs and other managed care plans.

While it is true that the $10-billion in overpayments to Medicare HMOs exists in the system, so far the Senate has not agreed to such cuts. Whether Congress under a Clinton presidency would agree to slash reimbursements to a powerful private insurance lobby is yet to be seen.

The plan also estimates that $35-billion could be saved by "modernizing the health system" by encouraging health care providers to adopt cost-saving information technology programs and better management of chronic diseases such as diabetes.

Clinton's policy expert said the figure is a very conservative estimate and multiple studies suggest the actual figure will be much higher. The Clinton campaign cited a 2005 Rand Corp. study that put the potential savings at $77-billion per year.

But that study is not without critics.

Dr. David Himmelstein and Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, practicing physicians as well as professors at Harvard Medical School, criticized the Rand study, noting that it was funded by a technology company. At the time, the two physicians wrote in Health Affairs, "For decades, vendors have capitalized on this enthusiasm. But hospitals and clinics have ended up with little to show for their large outlays."

Himmelstein said Tuesday that promises of big savings through information technology is "pure vaporware."

"And though there's some evidence that disease management improves care, there's no evidence it saves money," he said. "People getting in to see their doctors means more cost, not less."

[Orangepeel]

32. I don't think so.

I think it is disingenuous to claim that Obama's plan "leaves x million uncovered" and therefore isn't universal. It's as universal as Clinton's and Edwards'. With any plan on the table (including Kucinich's bill), a person can't just walk into a doctor's office and get healthcare. People have to sign up and pay premiums (Medicare does have premiums), pay a copay (Medicare has copays) and the health care provider gets reimbursed.

There are differences among the plans in regard to how easy it is to sign up, what the premiums will be, what the copays will be and what the total costs of the system would be. There are also differences as to whether or not people will be forced to sign up and what the penalties will be if they don't.

All of those are legitimate questions and need to be hashed out. But which plan which Democratic candidate has put forward isn't a deal breaker for me one way or the other. I believe they all have the same goal in mind. I also know that thinking that the plan put forward will be the same plan that is adopted after it goes through the legislature is ridiculous, no matter who the candidate is.

[demo dutch]

35. You're wrong. You should read up on the facts. See link..

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/210/

Of course it will depend on congress, however if people vote overwhelmingly for Dems into office, at least we will have a chance to put the beginning universal healthcare for all forward.

[Orangepeel]

48. I'm not wrong

Is automobile insurance universal? No, it isn't. People don't have it automatically. They have to sign up for it an pay for it. Some people don't, even though it is required by law. So it isn't universal.

It is true that more people have it then would if it wasn't required by law. It is also a valid argument that insurance will probably cost less for everyone if I make everyone buy it (although how much less is debatable because it is unclear how many people won't buy it whether it is or is not mandated). But it won't be universal either way.

And either way, it will be better because it will let people buy into the plan that federal employees have, be portable, not refuse people based on "pre-existing" conditions, and help people who can't afford it.

[demo dutch]

51. But those are not the options that are on the table right now.

[Kitsune]

37. No, it's negating Hillary Clinton.

Which is pretty much the only reason Obama is even in the running for my vote to begin with.

[demo dutch]

40. Sure there's a brilliant brain for you! Voting against your own interests because you

hate Hillary! I thought only Repugs did that kind of thing!

[Kitsune]

45. Neither Obama nor Hillary are for my interests, quite frankly.

But Obama is marginally less horrible a candidate than Clinton, which is the only reason he is even in the running for my vote (and it is by no means a sure thing at this point).

[demo dutch]

50. Well those are the only two choices you'll have. Unless you're supporting McCain

I rather work toward healthcare for all

[Kitsune]

53. They are not, in fact, the only two choices I have.

That is the beauty of democracy. I can vote for Donald fucking Duck if I want. Is it helpful? No. Will it change anything? No. But I will at least be able to look at myself in the mirror when I wake up every morning.

And quite frankly, I don't think anything will change for the better regardless of which of the 'mainstream' candidates is elected, on either side. They are all bought and paid for by interests that are inimical to the interests of the American people. The entire system is screwed beyond measure and, IMHO, totally beyond reform. One wonders why we even participate in this farce...

As you can see, I am a terminal optimist. :P

[demo dutch]

54. Heh I like Kucinich, BUT, because of the political dynamics in this country

he wouldn't stand a chance. The country is somewhere in the middle, and we unfortunately we have to work with the ones we get at the moment. I refuse to go for no progress at all.

[sniffa]

57. Your CAPS LOCK FETISH is REALLY starting TO be a PROBLEM

[demo dutch]

59. Doing it just to piss you off Sniffa!

[debbierlus]

60. Shsssssssssh. He is the feel good corporate candidate...

New & improved. Out with the cowboy, in with the YES WE CAN....with a brand new face!

Don't ruin the marketing scam.

[nonconformist]

64. It's one of the reasons this Edwards supporter can't support Obama. nt

[Two Americas]

67. very encouraging

I an encouraged to see that so few Edwards supporters took the bait and were dragged into the mud wrestling match between supporters of the two candidates.

There is no comparing Edwards approach to this issue to those of either of the two leading candidates. Edwards wasn't "perfect," either, in terms of track record or positions on issues, but that was insignificant when compared to the context he was creating within which the issues were being approached. Everything else is a matter of tactics and strategy.

It is inspiring to se that most Edwards supporters are not allowing themselves to be led down the same blind allies and are still committed to the vital work of shifting the political context back to the traditional principles and ideals of the Democratic party, and not getting dragged into the same old empty debate about content.

[demo dutch]

68. Agreed but now, unfortunately, there are only two options left! and that's is what we have to work

with this time. Let's hope that his universal healthcare ideas can be pushed forward which is, in my view more likely, with the Clinton plan.

[Two Americas]

77. unlimited options

Voting is the effect of politics, not the cause. The options are unlimited. Voting is a small part of politics, held within the greater context of the national political discussion. When we take all of politics and try to shoehorn everything down to fit within a context of personal choice for various celebrities, we are very weak.

Politics is about power and economics - who has it and who doesn't, and why and how. It is not about personal preferences. In a representative democracy, the politicians are supposed to represent the people, the people are not supposed to represent the politicians. We are being asked to put our needs aside, and instead enlist all of our efforts in satisfying the needs of a candidate. We are being asked—and this cynical bullshit about “unity” and the emotional appeals and fear tactics are truly obscene—to be quiet “for the sake of the greater good.” Greater good for whom? For the powerful people controlling the party and their wealthy benefactors and masters.

Over half of the people in this country are shut out of the political process and have little if any voice. Giving them a voice is the task for all true Democrats who still adhere to and honor the traditional principles and ideals of the party, and the platforms and positions - today seen as "far left" - that have given the party its greatest electoral success in the past.

That task has absolutely nothing to so with arguing over which of the two candidates that have been forced on us we prefer.

Almost everyone here will "settle for" and vote for the "lesser of two evils" come November, and then cherish once again the illusion that somehow magically we will have better choices next time. The attacks on Edwards supporters, and the orchestrated dog and pony show we just witnessed, are all designed not to defeat the Republicans - it may well cause us to lose to the Republicans - but to once again suppress and silence the insurgency that was growing within the party and to have an excuse - "unity" and "belief" - to dismiss and marginalize the critics of the party leadership.

I think that most people here agree with what I am saying. But we have been told that saying these things is somehow destructive, and will somehow “help the Republicans” so we cringe and cower and get back in line.

[awaysidetraveler]

69. A vote for Obama focuses on the main issue, which is lowering the costs of health care.

Hillary care doesn't do that, it's a continuation of the 1993 failures and lies.

Just try to find one clear quote from Hillary on the subject of health care.

There's a reason she's so confusing: she's on the take, and she always was.

[demo dutch]

73. You should really read up on the two plans!

Other countries — notably Switzerland and the Netherlands — already have such mandates. And guess what? They work. According to the WHO the Netherlands has the healthiest people on the planet!!

[southern_dem]

70. One candidate won't commit to keeping

lobbyists out of the White House, the other will. Therefore, one candidate will get a healthcare bill through Congress w/o the help of the healthcare lobby. I'm supporting that candidate.

[demo dutch]

71. Yes but we don't have that choice anymore at the moment. Edwards suspended his campaign

besides, don't kid yourself Obama is gettin huge corporate campaign donations!

[Alexander]

75. At least Obama won't garnish wages.

[demo dutch]

76. In every country that has universal healthcare, one pays either thru tax or premiums. My main

concern right now is with Obama’s rhetoric: by echoing the talking points of those who oppose any form of universal health care, he’s making the task of any future president who tries to deliver universal care considerably more difficult. A further concern: the debate over mandates has reinforced the uncomfortable sense among some health reformers that Mr. Obama just isn’t that serious about achieving universal care — that he introduced a plan because he had to, but that every time there’s a hard choice to be made he comes down on the side of doing less.

Other countries — notably Switzerland and the Netherlands — already have such mandates. And guess what? They work. Netherlands has the healthiest people on the planet, accoding to the WHO!