convince me Obama has the best health plan w/o dissing Hillary

[jacksonian]

this is the #1 issue in this campaign for me, and I want to hear from people here how his plan is the best - not how someone else's is flawed.

Does Obama really have the fire in the belly to take on Reupgs and insurance companies on this issue and get us all covered and covered well?

And yes, I've done my own research, but I want to know how people here feel about it.

[Avalux]

1. I will answer your questions as long as your response is respectful.

There should be a differentiation between kids and adults, that's one of the reasons I believe Obama's plan is better.

Obama will start with expanding SCHIP at the state level, signing kids up when they're born and making it easy for parents to afford or receive for free via if necessary. This should have been done a long time ago; it's been proven what we have in place is successful. Requiring children are covered can be done the way we currently handle vaccinations; must have it to go to daycare and public schools. It's not perfect but it's a start.

Young adults up to the age of 25 will have the option of continued coverage under their parents.

And as for adults, the plan will be based on income. It will not be mandated; no garnishment of wages (as Hillary said was a possibility of her plan this morning) because after all, we're dealing with adults. Those who need it and can't afford will be covered. There will be a preventative component to this plan; as a healthcare worker I believe it is vitally necessary to teach children and adults about preventable conditions and the importance of "check-ups"; making sure the money is spent on that end instead of when they're in a crisis later in life. Medicare Part B will be deconstructed (as it should be).

Obama will need bipartisan help to get his plan implemented and I believe he can do it . I remember what happened when Hillary tried to reform healthcare in the 90s and how it was ripped apart by the Republican's smear campaign against it; I don't see it any different for her this time.

There's probably more I could say, but there you go.

[neutron]

4. Krugman wasn't wild about Obama's plan or his attack

basically, he says that Obama's isn't up to snuff
http://select.nytimes.com/2007/06/04/opinion/04krugman.html

This is on his attack against Clinton's Health Plan
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/obama-does-harry-and-louise-again/

[Avalux]

7. Yeah, I know. That's his opinion.

Remember - the best plan in the world can't get through without a clear majority of support.

Hillary stated this morning she would consider wage garnishment, which is a terrible idea.

[neutron]

15. why?

You already get your wages garnished if you work for a company and get healthcare
through them.
And if you don't you are paying through the nose for insurance. My son doesn't have
insurance, and he smokes and it scares the crap out of me.
You want free healthcare for nothing? Where is the money going to come from?
Maybe Jesus will give you free healthcare if you pray hard enough?

[Avalux]

17. It's optional. If I don't want my company's health insurance, I don't have to pay it.

This is a matter of choice. When we start talking mandates and garnishing wages without giving people a choice, people will completely freak out; as they should.

[neutron]

19. why would you choose not to have health insurance?

[demo dutch]

20. In every country that has a universal healthcare program,the user pays whether in tax or premium

[frazzled]

23. Yo, your company's healthcare plan is optional

As far as I know, you don't have to buy into it. Most everybody does, of course, because it is always a better deal than getting it on your own. But some don't because they are covered under their spouse's or partners' plans. Or because they become eligible for Medicare.

Which proves the point: if people are offered insurance at a more reasonable rate, they will take it--mandated or not. And even mandated, there will be people who do not get it. (Car insurance is mandated by the states, but at least 15% of drivers never get it.) Draconian penalties would have to be put into place to get 100% of the populace to buy in.

Of course, I prefer a single-payer, government sponsored plan to either or these. But, frankly, as they currently stand, I do not see a lot of differenes between them.

[BeyondGeography]

21. In addition to not getting bogged down in a pre-emptive war over mandates

with the Right, we can trust Obama to run a more open political process with his plan. He is committed to a full airing of the discussion in public and exposing drug and insurance industry arguments to the light of day. He believes a fundamental revamping of our system, which is centered around reducing and regulating industry profits, can only happen if the public is engaged. Why? because the attacks will come and you need popular pressure combined with the bully pulpit of the presidency to convince lawmakers not to roll over for the private sector.

[jacksonian]

29. but kids aren't the real issue

I'm all for health care for kids, of course.

>>>There will be a preventative component to this plan; as a healthcare worker I believe it is vitally necessary to teach children and adults about preventable conditions and the importance of "check-ups"; making sure the money is spent on that end instead of when they're in a crisis later in life<<<

This is good advice, not health care as a system. Sure some money can be saved by people taking better care of themselves, but in the end people, adults mostly, get sick - besides, you would need too many "culture police" to make sure people were living heathy to see real institutional resource-saving difference.

We have a voluntary/employement based system and we pay more for our health care than any comparable system in the world.

[golddigger]

2. Crickets?

:popcorn:

[Avalux]

3. I answered. n/t

[boston bean]

5. No he does not. All you have to know is that he leaves 15M people

out of the loop.

Secondly, if you look at how he is framing the issue against hillary clinton, he is using RW talking points to discredit her.

She is willing to fight the fight for you no matter who the person is on the other side (democrat or republican) trying to get the people to vote agains their own interests.

I have just made a post please read, it goes into her plan and how it will work.

[dkf]

10. Being against mandates is not a RW talking point.

Am I a right winger because I dislike the thought of garnishing wages and fining people who are having hard times?

If she confiscated from taxable stock accounts then yes, these people can afford it. But garnishing wages on an expensive item like healthcare could CRUSH a person.

Too many people are already stretched because they did stupid things like buy too big homes and that new car. You put this extra on them on and its over.

[demo dutch]

16. In every country that has a universal healthcare program,the user pays whether in tax or premium!

[dkf]

6. Obama's plan will be easier to pass because it doesn't have

a mandate.

Having a mandate will be a deal breaker for at least half the country I believe.

Obama's plan will be easier to rally around for a majority of Americans.

Hillary's plan may be the best plan if it can get passed, but if it can't then its completely useless.

[progdog]

9. Exactly right ! n/t

[NoodleyAppendage]

13. BING...BING...BING. n/t

J

[demo dutch]

22. In every country that has a universal healthcare program,the user pays whether in tax or premium

Obama is more of the same.

[rodeodance]

25. ye of not faith. Many are past ready to address this issue. I do not think that

RW--hit'em approach will work this time.

[LiberalFighter]

8. Not possible

[demo dutch]

11. I liked Edwards and Hillary's is the most similiar. See this link

It's this Mandate Muddle.... The fact is the Edwards and Clinton plans contain more money for such subsidies than the Obama plan. Obama's choice not to cover is more of the same
and there is the "stimulating of the economy" which coincides with "universal healthcare"

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

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

How do you think "Universal Healthcare" works, or would you rather have no healthcare if your employer doesn't offer it? The fact is in every country that has a universal healthcare proram, the user pays whether in either tax or premium. Overall coverage will force competition and bring prices down.

[frazzled]

12. Their plans are similar, save for mandates

Both "cover" everyone (in that no one can be excluded for prior conditions, both have ways to help those who cannot afford it pay for it, etc.). Both incorporate cost reductions, electronic medical records, etc.

Whether or not we have mandates will depend on Congress, the American people, etc. Neither of these plans will be enacted as currently written by the candidates' respective policy wonks. There will be public debate, Congressional debate, and much horse trading.

Therefore, I deem that the differences are immaterial. The question is what can be done.

[demo dutch]

18. In every country that has a universal healthcare program,the user pays whether in tax or premium!

[jacksonian]

27. no, I don't believe this depends on Congress

the next president will set the tone and direction we will take on health care for the forseeable future. Congress is a herd of cats that can't push through anything meaningful. It will take top-down direction.

How we pay and who we cover is not immaterial.

[rodeodance]

14. The American Nurses Assoc. has endorsed Clinton's plan.They have been

in the forefront for years as patient advocates.

I trust their judgement on this issue.

[rodeodance]

24. There will always be a vocal segment for whom mandates is the devil. I do

not know why. but i have a few guesses/speculations.

Many do not like to be told they need to do something even if it is for the "common good". So be it. Can this group ensure that they will provide for themselves and families should something terrible happen-cancer, accidents. long term nursing care?--Are they affluent enough to do this?--in the long term?

[Barack_America]

26. Obama's plan focuses strongly on reducing healthcare costs...

By streamlining paperwork (a bigger expense than you might think) and by emphasizing preventative care.

Did you know that our government, via Medicare and Medicaid, already spends nearly twice as much per capita on healthcare than countries that offer universal care? And that the government plans only cover about 25% of Americans right now? At these costs, how many more people can the government afford to bring in before we are taxed to death?

Here's what Obama says about this:

Q. Obama says his plan will save $2,500 annually for my family. How?

A. Through a combination of developing efficiencies in the system, expanding
coverage to all Americans, and picking up the cost of some high-cost cases.

Specifically:
Health IT investment, which will reduce unnecessary and wasteful spending in the health care system. Examples include extra hospital stays because of preventable medical errors and duplicative diagnostic tests; improving prevention and management of chronic conditions; increasing insurance industry competition and reining in the abusive practices of monopoly insurance and drug companies;
providing reinsurance for catastrophic cases, which will reduce insurance premiums; and ensuring every American has health coverage, which will reduce spending on the “uncompensated” care of uninsured people who end up in emergency rooms and whose care is picked up by institutions and then
passed through higher charges to insured individuals.

Q. I have insurance, but I spend so much money on deductibles, premiums and co-
pays that I can’t afford anything else. Will Obama’s plan help me?

A. Yes. The Obama plan is designed to help people exactly like you. His plan will help
the millions of families who currently have health insurance from their employer, but
nonetheless are feeling squeezed by fast-rising premiums, co-pays, and deductibles.
Nearly 11 million insured Americans spent more than a quarter of their salary on health
care last year. Obama’s plan will reduce a typical family’s premium by up to $2,500 by
reducing costs, improving technology, and reigning in the power of insurance companies.

Q. How will we pay for the Obama plan?

A. The Obama plan will realize tremendous savings within the health care system to help
finance the plan. The additional revenue needed to fund the up-front investments in
technology and to help people who cannot afford health insurance is more than covered
by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for people making more than $250,000 per year,
as they are scheduled to do.

This is from a pdf that you can find by googling "Obama Healthcare pdf". It's the first hit.

Hope this helps! I'd be happy to continue the discussion or answer any questions.

[RoadRage]

28. I don't know if it IS the best plan.. but what if it has the best chance of passing?

I think Obama might be pushing this option, because he knows to get it through the house & the senate, he needs republicans to push it through - and making it a totally mandatory system right away is going to be very very difficult to do.

I like Hillary's plan - but I don't know how she is logistically going to get her plan passed? Additionally, I believe her plan initially will cost more. I think it the long run with the balance of having everyone pay in, it may be cheaper - but our country tends to look at things in very short term timelines.

So, this isn't a pro or a con for either plan.. aside from thinking Obama's plan might gain more bi-partisian support from republicans in order to pass. Perhaps after having something like this in place for a few years, it can be further mandated to coverage for all?

Just my thoughts.