I have to admit. Obama took a hit with my after the Krugman Health Care article

[Quixote1818]

As an Obama supporter I at first tried to pass it off and ignore what Krugman said, however I have to vote tomorrow and this is no longer BS arguing on DU for me but the real deal. The future or our country is at stake here and I want to do the right thing now and not just vote for the person I like more. I am rethinking my support for Obama right now. I have problems with Hillary too however. I worry she may be less electable than Obama and if she is elected will the country be behind her or will we get another Republican congress in two years because people just don't like her?

I talked to my 80 year old dad tonight and he has the same concerns about Obama and about Hillary. I asked who he was going to vote for and he said he was going to flip a coin. I may be doing the same thing.

So, here is my question to Obama supporters and Hillary Clinton voters. I have no ACL in my right knee and my insurance won't cover any such pre-existing problem. Who's health care program will help get my knee fixed and be the best all the way around? And even if I am covered by Obama's program will there be less fortunate folks who get fucked over? I want to take care of myself but I also deeply care about the less fortunate!

It seems to me that if everyone has to pay just a little bit for HC then we all get the best value. If that means it's mandatory then so be it. Tell me where I am wrong?

PS. My gut feeling tells me Wes Clark will be on Hillary's ticket and that is also a big plus for me.

[sandnsea]

1. You can't end homelessness

by mandating everybody to buy a house. If it did, vagrancy laws would have done the trick. It's that simple. You've got to create a plan that offers people enough benefits and subsidies that it's the only sensible thing to do and that's Obama's plan.

[Quixote1818]

6. The house analogy seems a little steep to me

They wouldn't be required to buy a $200,000 house but pay $50 or so each month. Or would it be more than that?

[sandnsea]

25. My insurance is $1,000 a month

Nobody has promised $50 a month health insurance. That's why pretending mandates is going to fix it all is such bullshit.

[Quixote1818]

35. But the more people who pay in the cheaper it is

If 50 Million more people are paying in then the prices are bound to go down, quit a bit I would think. My insurance is about $100 a month but it's just for catastrophic.

[sandnsea]

50. I have subsidies

I don't have a choice. That's what people with pre-existing conditions have to pay in my state. My insurance is also for everything, which is what you will be mandated to have whether you want it or not. Preventive care is the key to keeping costs down.

[BeyondGeography]

61. MA Gov. Deval Patrick said tonight that mandates are a great idea

but they're meaningless if you don't first bring costs down. Romney's original plan, which included subsidies, was still off by $400 million and 300,000 adults in Mass. still don't have insurance. The Mass. plan is living proof that across-the-board mandates do not equal universal care. Patrick supports not only Obama but also his approach to health care.

[RaleighNCDUer]

102. Not necessarily. After all, if everybody is insured that means that

nobody could be denied. That means the companies will be paying for all the really big ticket items that they previously saved money on by denying. That will hugely increase costs.

At best, it would be a wash. As long as the private insurance/profit motive is in the mix, there will be NO reduction in cost.

[snooper2]

134. The more people pay...

The more money the CEO's and Shareholders make...Don't think that Republican free market bullshit works with these conglomerates. We need somebody who is going to change how the FDA works, make generic prescriptions available to everyone. Import from Canada, make doctors who perform malpractice twice in 5 years lose their license. ( The reason doctor's insurance is so high is continual malpractice performed by 5% of all doctors ) Fix the patent office so Bayer can't just come out with the same pill in a different fucking color thus making it impossible for a generic brand to be produced.

Also, check out the health care industry donations to Hillary....Running for Senate and now....more of the same...


Vote OBAMA!

[BlackVelvet04]

37. You're paying too much.....

and under Hillary's plan it won't be even close to what you are paying now. I used the FEHBP and it was quite reasonable or I couldn't have afforded it.

By the way, you really should talk to an insurance agent. I found one that lowered my premiums from $747 a month to $360 a month with better coverage WITH THE SAME COMPANY.

[sandnsea]

45. I have subsidies

I couldn't afford $360 a month either. It's as I always figure. The people arguing for this mandated health insurance are the ones who don't have any clue how difficult it is going to be for people to come up with the money to pay for it. Is Hillary going to decide $360 a month is affordable too??

[BlackVelvet04]

60. No....

that's what I'm paying NOW. It's not what FEHBP would cost. And don't tell me I don't have a clue how difficult it is....I've been unemployed for 15 months. There are public plans that will be even less than FEHBP, Medicare will be expanded and tax rebates available.

It's one thing to be passionate for your candidate but to mislead people about something as important as healthcare isn't very responsible. I've tried to share information with everyone that will help them regardless of who they support....I had a thread about insurance tips and helped everyone I could when they asked a question. People are HURTING and they don't need a lot of sunshine blown up their asses.

And I think you are being disingenuous. If you are paying $1,000 now then $360 would be a damn blessing. You must be finding some way to pay for it. You could be pocketing the difference. Talk to an agent and do yourself a favor.

[sandnsea]

83. I have subsidies

My insurance would be $1,000 a month, that's what the plan for those with pre-existing conditions are in my state. It's that or nothing. Without subsidies, I would have nothing. I don't have a choice. There's no agent who can do anything for me. I am not misleading people. I know what it's like in the real world. And I know that low income people don't have the luxury of being unemployed for 15 months. If you can do that and still afford $360 a month for insurance, you are clearly in the upper 2% whether you're going to admit it or not. You're clueless as to how her mandates are going to affect the bottom 50%.

[BlackVelvet04]

96. I have some retirement, thank you....

and I haven't been able to find a job in an area that is depressed right now. Being unemployed is NOT a luxury, it's a damn hardship. I lay awake at night worrying about how to pay this shit, too. Your self-pitying, nobody knows what hard times are but me are childish and disgusting.

I know what the real world is like and I have pre-existing conditions.... 2 metal rods and six screws in my back. If you have subsidies now you would have them under the mandated plan.

You assume a lot and you know what they say about assumptions.

Have a good night.

[sandnsea]

100. If you can afford $360 after 15 months unemployment

You are living in a whole different realm than the people Hillary's plan is going to hurt. I think you know that.

I will say that DU has been really good for me because I am finally learning what the meaning of a tough skin is. I speak for those who don't have a voice and you say it's self-pity. Is that how you're going to treat the rest of the low income people when they tell you they're having to choose between housing and Hillary's mandated health insurance? Shut up and stop feeling sorry for yourself??

[CTyankee]

138. Medicare is mandated health care.

You have to pay taxes to support it, even if you are too young to use it. Once you get on Medicare, moreover, you are "mandated" to buy Part B (drs visits)with a fee taken out of your SS benefit check each month, UNLESS you have a private policy, which I have due to my husband's union. If you don't sign up for Part B and you don't have a private policy you will pay MORE per month (out of your SS check) when/if you do sign up. And it's the same with Part D, the prescription drug policy.. That is a penalty, a fine, any way you look at it.

Lots of people don't know about how Medicare works until they are on it, and I am one of those. You learn fast...

[Leopolds Ghost]

139. You have no clue what mandated commoditized purchases are

Or the difference between wage garnishment to pay for a private good
such as a private bank savings account or insurance policy
(for all US residents, not just those who file a 1040)
and percentage taxes to pay for a universal good.

[CTyankee]

145. I certainly do but that wasn't my point.

Your point discerns (correctly) the difference between, as you say, "commoditized" care and a tax supported government program "for the common good." I agree. However, I was addressing the notion some people on DU have that they shouldn't have to "pay" for health care. My point is that one way or another you do pay. I am absolutely for universal health care supported by taxes.

[FrenchieCat]

34. No Child Left Behind was a mandate....which is why it didn't work.....

it didn't get funded.

Also know that those "mandates" that Hillary called for will be trimmed for the final bill, because she will not have a working majority of Democrats to help her pass it.

On the other hand, with Barack, you'll get what he is calling for. You want Health Insurance? You will be able to get it.

That really is the only difference between the 2 plans; mandates.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/FrenchieCat/159

As for Wes Clark being Vice President; don't hold your breath on that; I'm not.

If Barack gets the nom, he has stated that he wants someone who knows the pentagon, Ex-military as his Veep. Do you think Wes would turn him down?
Listen to this interview; that's where he speaks on his choice of Veep. This was the interview that no one heard because they died when he mentioned the "Reagan" word! http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080115/VIDEO/80115026&oaso=news.rgj.com/breakingnews

[BlackVelvet04]

43. That's just silly.....

why is Obama mandating it for parents if mandates aren't necessary? Hmmmmmmmmmm? You have NO guarantee that Obama could get any more support than Hillary. Why are you lying to people?

[FrenchieCat]

82. Cause she won't have coattails.....she just won't.

[BlackVelvet04]

98. It's really sad.....

blinded by the light. Have a good night.

[Kat45]

63. I didn't hear Barack say that about what kind of VP he'd want

But I had been thinking that's the type of person he'd look for to balance out his ticket. I just wondered if the fact that Wes is backing Hillary would preclude Barack choosing him?

[FrenchieCat]

80. Why? You think that Wes is glued to Hillary's chest?

It's not like she supported his candidacy, now is it?

Wes will serve his country in whatever way he can. He has never been a partisan against a fellow Democrat.

[Kat45]

111. No, you misunderstood what I was saying.

I know Wes will serve his country however he can--I'm a fellow Clarkie. I just wondered if Barack would consider him because he's working for another candidate. Not meaning to offend any of the folks I'm mentioning, it's just that so much BS goes on in politics.... :shrug:

[Bodhi BloodWave]

126. Personally i think he would be more then willing to consider Wes

Obama has said time and time again that he wants the best around him, and not just yes men(i think Wes is amongst the very best and as such he is very likely to be concidered)

[rodeodance]

64. NCLB is failing not because it is mandated but because it punishes schools-it is

demeaning.

AND obama will FINE parents if they do not buy h. ins for their kids.
more punishing if you do not follow orders. that is NOT the way to set up a plan.

[Leopolds Ghost]

141. Health care mandates punish families who refuse or cannot afford PRIVATE FOR PROFIT insurance

owned by wealthy Democratic corporate donors.

[Auntie Bush]

154. Those that really can't afford it will get government help.

The more people in it the cheaper it will be. Hillary is far more experienced/knowledgeably than Obama on health care issues. Trust in Hillary! You won't be sorry and she's always been more liberal than Bill.
He'll also be around to guide/advise/help her with foreign policy.
Vote for Hillary! Help us get what's best for our country and health care.

[pnwmom]

119. Social Security is a mandate and it does work.

If only we would stop raiding its funds to balance the budget every few years.

[Fredda Weinberg]

11. But we do mandate auto insurance n/t

[Egnever]

19. How is that working out?

Sucks for me when I throw them that 300 bucks each month and yet havent been in an accident in over 25 years.

How is it working out for you?

[BlackVelvet04]

I'm sure you would rather we all just pay it for you but that's not how it works...n/t.

[pnwmom]

123. Better than before they mandated it, and I was hit by an uninsured driver. n/t

[sandnsea]

30. And 15-25% don't have it

That's why you've got that thing called uninsured motorists.

So much for Hillary's universal health care. It's a big phony pile, just like their college tax credits that were going to allow everyone to go to their community college for 2 years.

[RaleighNCDUer]

104. People can make a choice about driving or not.

I doubt that many people have a choice about ovarian cancer.

[Fredda Weinberg]

110. Of course I do ... nothing makes me seek medical attention. But if

I expect it, I don't mind paying a fair share. The point is fairness ... and a sliding scale sounds fine by me.

[RaleighNCDUer]

117. Can I gently suggest that you are spouting bullshit?

People in pain is NOT a choice. When my appendix was close to bursting I didn't stop to think "is this something I really want to pay for?"

I went to the hospital. And even with my quite good insurance, it cost me $4000 out of pocket. Damn near enough to put me into bankruptcy again - and if I wasn't employed and had the insurance it WOULD put me in bankruptcy.

The for-profit insurance industry has not interest in doing anything but maintaining itself and its profits. It's a health insurance industry, not a healthcare industry.

Comparing mandates for health insurance to mandates for driving is absolute nonsense.

[Fredda Weinberg]

125. Well, then ... eat shit and die, because I almost did.

My parents didn't have insurance when I was small, so I spent 8 hours in agony. By the time our regular doctor arrived, I was blissfully dying.

I'll spare you the rest.

So please, don't even think about talking to me about pain and running to emergency rooms. One of us has intestinal fortitude, so to speak.

[Leopolds Ghost]

142. Nothing about the DLC Mandate (crafted by insurance co. think tanks) will change what you suffered

People without insurance will not only suffer but be fined or carted off to jail, like vagrants who are brought in for mned attention and have "no place else to go" so the cops throw them in jail for the night.

[Fredda Weinberg]

146. That sounds so silly ... to agree on principle but reject a strawman

HRC has deliberately not specified how the mandates will be managed ... but you think you know?

[RaleighNCDUer]

153. She has not specified because it is the weak point of her 'plan'.

Logic dictates, however, that it will require an entire new bureaucracy to make sure that people are paying, and to which private insurer they are paying and how much they are paying and if they do or do not meet minimal standards for government subsidy; and once that bureaucracy is in place there will be no undoing it -- bureaucracies are self-sustaining parasitic life forms, and no matter how badly it might work it will be there for good.

It is not specified because anything other than a single-payer not-for-profit system will be so hideously complex that even a wonk like her can't get a grasp on it.

It is guaranteed to collapse under its own weight. We will either get a dysfunctional system, or no system at all, and that will be the end of healthcare reform for another generation.

[Fredda Weinberg]

155. That's what they said about social security and medicare. We already

have medicaid for the poor, so that covers workers, retirees and the needy. Nope, we can transform the systems we already have for less than you think

[RaleighNCDUer]

156. May I remind you that there is no profit motive in SS or Medicare?

Of course, we know the republicans want to change that, too, but the fact is it is the inclusion of for-profit insurance companies that kills this plan. You think these CEOs are going to willingly give up their $20,000,000 salaries?

http://www.everybodyinnobodyout.org/FAQ/datCEOs.htm

Check it out - THAT is what your insurance premiums are paying for.

[Leopolds Ghost]

143. Auto insurtance mandate is tied to purchase

And I still think it's an unethical approach.

As Mussolini said, the definion of fascism is the gov't working hand in
hand with business to control the economic decisions of the consumer --
and the commoditization of public good (the commoditization of insurance,
favored by the Democratic frontrunners who opposed universal health care
and LIE about what the meaning of the term universal health care --
permanent destruction of the New Deal. NO expectation of public housing,
single payer, any of it, amongst "mainbstream" "liberal" Democrats.)

[question everything]

21. From Clinton WSJ op-ed

And let's be clear: Unless we cover all Americans, we will never end the hidden tax that the uninsured pass on to the rest of us when they end up in the emergency room and we wind up footing the bill.

[BlackVelvet04]

33. Untrue...

he mandates if for parents. Why is that? If he truly believes people WILL buy it if it is affordable why the mandate for parents? Are they just naturally less responsible than the rest of the population? How insulting. Or is he just pandering to the younger set who are most likely not to buy insurance? He KNOWS that it won't work without mandates or he wouldn't mandate it for parents. Wake up and smell the coffee. You can't have it both ways....either it must be mandated for all to work or for none.

[sandnsea]

38. We have a very affordable plan for kids already

One of the arguments Republicans keep using against expanding health care is that we don't even have all poor kids in yet. If they're mandated, it'll be easier to find every child and then Republicans won't be able to use that argument anymore.

Vagrancy laws haven't ended homelessness and mandates won't end adults not having health care either.

Is there any truly legitimate reason you support Hillary because I can't see one. I'd rather people just said they want a woman president than to continue with the obvious distortions her campaign has sent out.

[BlackVelvet04]

73. How dare you?

I have not distorted a damn thing and I think you know it. You have used all kinds of ridiculous comparisons and are misleading people purposely. I have spent HOURS in the last two days showing comparisons of the two plans and typing up explanations based on the information available on those plans. You do nothing but spin in your bullshit.

You selfish, self-centered immature child.

[sandnsea]

88. Yes you have

You have no idea how much Hillary is going to require people pay and you have no idea what it's like for the bottom 50%. I have knocked down every single reason people give for supporting Hillary. There's nothing left. There's no reason. She doesn't offer any solution that will truly fix the problems the majority in this country are facing. Her foreign policy and war policy is horrifying. And you still can't offer me a reason and resort to what everybody at DU always resorts to, calling me names because you can't argue the facts.

[BlackVelvet04]

95. Only in your mind have you knocked it down....

I argued the facts, and you won't see anything but what you want to see. Don't tell me I don't know what it's like to be in the bottom 50%. You have no fucking idea where I've been or where I am now.

If it didn't take mandated insurance to work Obama wouldn't mandate it for anyone. Grow up.

[Armstead]

2. Mandated coverage screws many people

I live in Massachusetts, and there's a lot of scared and angry people here

The details of both Obama and Hillary's plans are going to be unrecognizable once they are tossed into the ring and subjected to the legislative process.

I favor Obama's approach because it does not force adults to get coverage, while providing them with options.

The ONLY form of mandated insurance that would make sense is if it were a single-payer government run plan, funded through a tax surcharge.

[madrchsod]

4. you mean dennis`s plan.....

[Armstead]

10. That's what all the Dem candidates should have gone for

[BlackVelvet04]

75. But it does force parents to purchase it....

it's that fair and equitable? How hypocritical and selfish are you people?

[Armstead]

85. I differ with Obama on that

That's why I believe in ACTUAL universal coverage, which is a publicly run system with none of this convoluted bullshit.

But if it going to be convoluted bullshit, I believe it should at least be optional convoluted bullshit.

In addition the Republicans are going to try and block any kind of mandated plan. So if we've gotta fight with them, we ought to fight on principle and for something meaningful.

[BlackVelvet04]

93. Anything less than mandated is worthless....

the uninsured will destroy the system if it is not mandated. Obama knows that which is why he mandates it for parents.

If enough people of this country support it Congress will have to go along. I think you know that.

[Armstead]

103. I think you should apply that to true universal care

"If enough people of this country support it Congress will have to go along. I think you know that."

That's why I would rather see the Democrats lead a real movement towards actual universal care, which makes more sense objectively. The band-aid approaches of Obama and Hillary both are a camel (an elephant designed by a committee).

If they and the bulk of the Democratic Party showed some real leadership -- and were less concerned with protecting the corporate insurers -- they could sell a real clear plan just as easily as these.

But if they don;t want to have the chutzpah to do that, then I believe that mandates present the worst of the two candidates' approaches.

I live in Massachusetts and I know the hardships mandated private-based insurance is causing for many people.

If we're going to try to do it, then I say we should do it right.

[RaleighNCDUer]

105. Any plan that includes private for-profit insurance is worthless

and will do nothing to bring down costs.

[dkf]

124. kids are cheap compared to adults.

[OzarkDem]

131. Poorly mandated coverage (like Mass plan) is a problem

There was a post on this yesterday, explaining how mandates can be good or bad depending on the overall plan.

I attended a conference a few years ago when someone from your state explained the new plan. I felt the same thing then as you all know now, mandates without any competition or means of cost control would kill it. I also sensed your state government would be willing to roll over under pressure and allow a lot of changes it shouldn't.

Sorry you had to go through that, but a lot of us knew then it was flawed, before it was even implemented.

That's why, if someone is proposing a universal health care reform plan that isn't single payer, it has to be well designed, fully integrated and tamper proof. Clinton's plan meets those requirements, Obama's still has a way to go.

But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater simply because your state chose to use mandates poorly in a way that hurt individuals.

[ingac70]

3. Neither program will help you...

because both candidates' proposals rely on PRIVATE companies to provide the coverage.

[Quixote1818]

9. Well that sucks!

So pre-existing problems will still not be covered? :hurts:

[ingac70]

16. Hell no.

That why it chaps my ass to hear anybody calling what Hillary is proposing "universal health care". (I am an Obama supporter)

The only way you are gonna get coverage for pre existing conditions is if we have single payer, universal health, with private insurance cut out of the picture.

We are not going to get that with Obama, and we certainly aren't going to get it with Hillary. Time to stop kidding ourselves over that pipe dream.

[Quixote1818]

22. Good and depressing points. nt

[nonconformist]

32. Not true. Hillary's plan covers pre-existing conditions. nt

[ingac70]

48. Bullshit...

It is up to the companies providing the coverage whether or not pre-existing conditions are covered. Perhaps she could push that with Medicaid and Medicare folks, but those of us who will be buying insurance from PRIVATE companies under her plan will be at the mercy of the insurance industry.

[RaleighNCDUer]

107. Before it goes up before congress, maybe.

Anything that cuts into the profits of the insurance companies will be trimmed out of the final legislation, then Victory will be declared and there will be NO meaningful healthcare reform for the next generation.

[nonconformist]

112. Obama's plan is better? nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

118. Why does criticism of Hillary automatically mean support of Obama?

THEY BOTH FUCKING SUCK ASS.

Single payer not-for-profit government run healthcare. THAT is universal healthcare. Anything else is a giveaway to the health insurance industry.

[nonconformist]

121. Well I don't dispute that. But unfortunately, we have to pick between the two.

So I thought we were discussing whose was better.

[RaleighNCDUer]

140. No, we don't.

What we can do is freeze the current disaster in place until the next election, when people are more knowledgable about it, and THEN elect someone who will do something about it.

I guarantee, if Hillary gets her way we will get a half-assed, compromised to oblivion plan that will be touted as a great reform, and NOTHING will get done for another generation. The only plus to Obama's plan has is it will not create several new bureaucracies through the mandates which will make further potential reform more possible.

Often as not, doing the wrong thing is worse than doing nothing at all.

[nonconformist]

150. Well I just want insurance

And I sure can't wait 4-8 more years for it. I've been uninsured far too long now as it is.

[johan helge]

152. Do you have a link?

I've read Krugman for a long time about this. He surely would've mentioned it, if Hillary's plan doesn't cover pre-existing conditions.

[nonconformist]

28. Under Hillary's plan they will be. She eliminates no coverage due to pre-existing conditions. nt

[Quixote1818]

42. Do you have a link on that?

Thanks:hi:

[nonconformist]

58. ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04krugman.html?_r=1&oref=login

[ingac70]

71. Hillary's plan only...

makes an insurance company provide coverage for you, it doesn't mean a particular pre-existing condition will be covered. That is up to the company. And goodness knows what the premium will be.

[ingac70]

68. Under Hillary's plan...

Insurance companies can't deny you coverage if you have a pre-existing condition.. they have to sell you a policy. But they don't have to cover that particular condition, and god knows what ones premium might be!

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/

[FrenchieCat]

90. Obama's plan also covers pre-existing conditions.....

like Hillary's plan. I tell you, the only difference is the mandates. And usually, if everyone has to get it the price goes up, cause there is no real options beyond having to have it.

OBAMA'S healthcare proposal clearly states, "No one will be turned away because of a preexisting condition or illness.”
http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare /

Obama's Plan to Cover Uninsured Americans: Obama will make available a new national health plan to all Americans, including the self-employed and small businesses, to buy affordable health coverage that is similar to the plan available to members of Congress.

1st bullet point of health plan, 1st section titled; Obama's Plan to Cover Uninsured Americans: -
Guaranteed eligibility. No American will be turned away from any insurance plan because of illness or pre-existing conditions.

ALSO STATES:
Insurers would have to issue every applicant a policy, and charge fair and stable premiums that will not depend upon health status. The Exchange will require that all the plans offered are at least as generous as the new public plan and have the same standards for quality and efficiency.

[OzarkDem]

132. Agree, they both do

the thing to consider is what kind of mechanism each candidate has in their plan to enforce those regulations. Weak enforcement provisions can render it meaningless, while strong enforcement (including the right to private action) will make insurance companies follow the rules.

[sandnsea]

54. So does Obama

He has a Health Insurance Exchange which will set regulations for basic benefits, monitor costs, and make sure every plan includes everybody regardless of their health.

[Schema Thing]

44. Both plans will cover pre-existing

Don't make your choice based on the health-care issue.

Neither is as good as Kucinich's, but both are quantum leaps forward and fix the lions share of the problems.

[Schema Thing]

49. ps. Vote Obama

;)

[ingac70]

78. No they don't...

Both plans only require that companies provide coverage for people with pre-existing conditions, ie, you can't be turned down for coverage.. It is up to the company whether or not they want to cover the pre-existing condition itself... but hey, you'll be paying big bucks for other coverage, so I guess it is cool then, right?

[Orangepeel]

94. yes, they will. under both plans

This is the blurb on Obama's (more on the site)
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/#coverage-for-all

Quality, Affordable and Portable Coverage for All
Obama's Plan to Cover Uninsured Americans: Obama will make available a new national health plan to all Americans, including the self-employed and small businesses, to buy affordable health coverage that is similar to the plan available to members of Congress. The Obama plan will have the following features:

Guaranteed eligibility. No American will be turned away from any insurance plan because of illness or pre-existing conditions.
Comprehensive benefits. The benefit package will be similar to that offered through Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), the plan members of Congress have. The plan will cover all essential medical services, including preventive, maternity and mental health care.
Affordable premiums, co-pays and deductibles.
Subsidies. Individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need financial assistance will receive an income-related federal subsidy to buy into the new public plan or purchase a private health care plan.
Simplified paperwork and reined in health costs.
Easy enrollment. The new public plan will be simple to enroll in and provide ready access to coverage.
Portability and choice. Participants in the new public plan and the National Health Insurance Exchange (see below) will be able to move from job to job without changing or jeopardizing their health care coverage.
Quality and efficiency. Participating insurance companies in the new public program will be required to report data to ensure that standards for quality, health information technology and administration are being met.

I haven't looked it up, but I'm sure Clinton's would make companies cover pre-existing conditions, too.

[ingac70]

97. Just because they won't be denied an insurance plan...

does not mean that any pre-existing condition will be covered itself.

Show me the link where it says "all pre-existing conditions will be covered".

[Bread and Circus]

81. actually, both plans offer a government offered product and they both

enforce elimination of "pre-existing" condition standards.

I'm absolutely sure Obama offers a government product (not commercial). I'm pretty sure Clinton does as well.

[Dr.Phool]

5. If he's still on the ballot in your state, vote for Edwards.

He's more interested in single payer than the 2 we're left with.

It might give him some leverage at the convention.

[bellasgrams]

36. Why throw your vote away. Vote for someone that's running.

To me there's none better than Hillary in the race at this time. But, that's just my opinion. She just comes across as such a nice person, she isn't arrogant, or full of herself. She's so bright and witty, I'm just excited for her. She is working so hard I hope she can rest a couple of days now. She far more qualified for the job.

As for BO, I think I like his wife better. I think she's much better at speaking and discussing details.

I agree with you about Wes Clark, in fact I got an E-Mail from him today supporting Hillary.

[xchrom]

7. i believe in both plans you can not be refused for pre-exisiting --

however hillary's plan will make help under medicare available to many, many more people.

my disclaimer -- i voted for edwards.

[Big Blue Marble]

47. That is just not true that many more people will be eligible under Hillary's plan.

Everyone is eligible under Obama's plan regardless of your pre-existing condition.

Everyone can have health care insurance.

The difference is you will not be forced into the plan.

[xchrom]

129. hey obama is going to punish people for not getting healthcare too -- but

hillary opens medicare to those in trouble.

obama does not.

disclaimer -- i voted absentee for edwards.

[Hutzpa]

8. Wes Clark 's been looking to

get on everybodys ticket.

[lvx35]

12. Listen to who's arguing truth here and who's arguing bullshit.

1) You've heard 1000 times about how Hillary's plan is just "mandates" that gives money to coporations, but if you've researched it you know that's just a lie, getting repeated over and over again. Her plan gives you the option for government care, opens the congressional plan to you, and provides subsidies for the poor to get care if they can't afford it. Furthermore, we understand HOW care will be provided for the poor, by requiring that the healthy pay for insurance, so they are paying into the system. If you require links to confirm any of this ask me.

2) Hillary has been fighting for this for YEARS, all on the record. Obama has no such record, has asking you to trust him

3) If you want the kind of complete care Europeans have, like single payer systems, Hillary takes you closest. Single payer systems mandate care AND that you pay for it, by taxes. Yet these are the two things Obama supporters are arguing AGAINST.

[Quixote1818]

15. Thanks for taking the time to share all that.

Believe me I am paying attention.

[RaleighNCDUer]

108. Subsidizing the for-profit insurance industry is NOT universal healthcare.

No matter how you twist and spin, there will be NO control over costs, rates WILL continue to spiral out of control with the additional onus of mandated insurance, with people who make a quarter million a year deciding what is affordable to people making 24K.

[paulk]

13. Edwards had the best healthcare plan

and Hillary's is closest to his.

Obama knows that the only way to get universal healthcare is through the use of mandates. Everyone has to pay for it to keep costs low. He just doesn't want to say it because he's afraid that the word "mandate" will hurt in the GE. He may even be right about that - but, to attack Hillary's healthcare plan, as Krugman points out - from the right - is a real mark against him, which may make it very difficult to even get a universal healthcare plan through Congress at all.

There is a real difference between the two on this issue - a substantive difference - and if healthcare is a primary issue with you then I would suggest going with Hillary on this one. At least she has shown the courage to tell the truth - that we need mandates -and I really do think America, on this subject at least, is ready to listen.


edited to add -

Hillary has been involved with this issue since 1992 - yes, she's fucked up on it - but I have to believe that she's learned some lessons and that her plan has been thought through and through and is very likely the best we can get at this time.

[Quixote1818]

18. I heard Edwards plan was the best many, many times

From what I have heard Hillary took a lot of elements from the Edwards plan.

[RaleighNCDUer]

109. True - and isn't it interesting that someone with 35 years experience

who has been working on healthcare since 1992 had to steal her ideas from North Carolina's former junior senator.

She has no ideas, no plans, no convictions.

[paulk]

130. the sky is falling, NCevilDUer

after a while statements like - "She has no ideas, no plans, no convictions" backfire. Any person honest with themselves, whether in agreement with HRC or not, knows that this simply isn't true and has to come to the conclusion that the speaker has an axe to grind.... and consequently should be disregarded in the future.

[ingac70]

24. Kucinich had the best plan...

Paying private insurance companies IS NOT UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE.

[paulk]

46. Kucinich is going to be lucky to keep his seat

we are a long way from single payer in this country

universal coverage is the first step on that path

[ingac70]

52. Private companies....

picking and choosing what gets covered is NOT universal coverage. Please stop.

[RaleighNCDUer]

113. It's a false step, and if we take that step it will end all healthcare

reform for the next generation at least.

Don't stick your toe in the water - just fucking dive in. It's the only way.

[sandnsea]

59. Edwards plan had mandates AFTER everything was implemented

It did not rely on mandates to work, that has been the biggest load of this whole campaign.

Vagrancy laws didn't end homelessness and mandates won't solve the health care problems.

[Egnever]

14. Neither of their programs is getting through congress unchanged

Think of them as more of a starting point.

Mandate will lose us the election. It isn't universal health care its universal insurance company support.

The goal for both of them is universal coverage. They both just put forward plans they think will fly.

Obama is more focused on open government. I personally think that is the real path to universal health care and a host of other changes this country needs. Once the politicians have to go on record creating that pork the pork will end or at least be worth while pork. Once they have to go on record supporting the insurance companies and big pharma their support will disappear and we will lurch to universal health care.

Hillary will continue the practice of backroom deals and corporate influence. We have a chance to break the cycle here. Please don't blow it on a health care plan you wont recognize once it gets through congress.

[Quixote1818]

26. Thats a good point too.

Who the hell knows what we may end up with regardless of who gets elected.

[Egnever]

41. Exactly

Lots of goals right now being thrown out that will have to go through the congressional grinder first.

Obama however can do a lot of the open government stuff through presidential decree.

[maximusveritas]

39. This is the biggest thing being missed in this argument

Many people talk about this as though plans will simply be enacted and put into effect. That's not how this works. Look back at all the plans and policies that have been proposed in Presidential campaigns. How many of them have been enacted? Almost none.

As you say, the biggest obstacle to universal health care are the special interests and lobbyists. So the question is who you trust to break through these obstacles.

[Egnever]

56. Right

Everything laid on the table right now is designed to get through the GE to the white house. The goal for both is Universal health care theres no denying it to either of them.

We have to change the way our government does business for us to get any of the things these guys are promising us right now. Obama has the record of fighting for open government and the plans to make it happen. We get that we win no matter what.

[in_cog_ni_to]

74. If we have a large Majority in the House and the Senate, there is an EXCELLENT chance that

this country will have Universal Health Care.

[Egnever]

87. Agreed

Unfortunately I think a nod for Hillary kills our chances of that hapening.

[kentuck]

17. If the Congress and Senate passed a universal health plan..?

Do you think Obama would not sign it? Of course he would! He has opened up the room for discussion. It is up to the Democrats in Congress to send him the bill that the people are asking for and deserve.

[rodeodance]

20. For me, HRC's plan is a plan for the 'common good" simple as that--and no

I do not see Obama'a in that light when people are omitted from his plan--millions right off the bat.

[Orangepeel]

99. there's a difference between being "omitted" and choosing not to participate

There is an argument that mandates are necessary from a practical perspective so that insurance companies won't fight the plan, and that mandates will force more young, healthy people to participate which will make the pool bigger, which means that rates might be lower for all.

But it is disingenuous to say that millions are "omitted" when the that number really refers to estimates of the number of people who would choose not to buy. Obama's plan is as "universal" in availability as Clinton's.

[RaleighNCDUer]

114. Except, of course, for the fact that those healthy young people

are all working at Burger Queen making minimum wage part time and don't get insurance from their jobs, which means with their income level they will be getting the subsidized government plan which is taxpayer paid, which means they WON'T be contributing to reduceing the costs, but will be INCREASING the costs.

SSHHH. Don't mention that part.

[Orangepeel]

116. as I said, there is an argument to be made for mandates

(there are also arguments to be made against mandates). But "universality" isn't a good one.

Both Clinton's and Obama's plans involve offering universal availability of health insurance coverage, with a public, non-profit option, portable plans, no pre-existing condition restrictions and some subsidies. With Obama's plan some people would choose not to participate and with Clinton's plan, some people would refuse to participate.

[RaleighNCDUer]

120. As long as the for-profit insurance industry is setting the rates

there is no such thing as a "public, non-profit option". The costs will remain high, and continue to rise out of control.

[Leopolds Ghost]

144. In other words, mandates are needed to force Americans to become customers as a payoff to Insurance

A political monetary payoff on a never before seen scale,

equivalent to forcing Americans to pay for TV, which is
what the digitization of broadcast TV was intended to do.

[woolldog]

23. re

Hillary isn't going to be able to get her health care plan through congress, even if she is elected president (which will never happen). The republicans are NEVER going to let her govern in peace. They will do what they did to WJC x 10.

[BlackVelvet04]

27. With Hillary's plan you can sign up

with one of 250 choices under the FEHBP....Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan. Pre-existing conditons are NOT excluded and the coverage is great. The government vets these companies and drops any that try to exclude pre-existing conditons, who don't pay their claims in a timely manner or who raise premiums too high. These are the plans that congress chooses from.

I had insurance under the FEHBP for 20 years and it was the most affordable and comprehensive plan I've ever had. They paid for 4 surgeries in 2 years, one of which I was hospitalized for 17 days, spent 7.5 hours in surgery, had two surgeons for, 1 year of physical therapy and took a medication that cost $1200 a month for 8 months. My out of pocket didn't amount to even a thousand dollars for all of those.

If you don't want to go that route there will be public plans as well. There will be tax credits for those who need financial aid.

By mandating it for all (Obama only mandates for parents which seems contradictory if he doesn't think mandates are necessary for everyone else) everyone gets the same options.

There are already 14 million people using the FEHBP so it is the system best in place to handle a large number of insured.

[in_cog_ni_to]

29. "Insurance and Drug Companies: insurance companies will end discrimination based on pre-existing

conditions."

Here's her plan and I highlighted the relevant part for you. There's more info on her site, if you need more information.


Hillary Clinton unveiled the third part of her plan to ensure that all Americans have affordable, quality health insurance. Building on her proposals to rein in costs and to insist on value and quality, her American Health Choices Plan will secure, simplify and ensure choice in health coverage for all Americans. This Plan covers every American - finally addressing the needs of the 47 million uninsured and the tens of millions of workers with coverage who fear they could be one pink slip away from losing their health coverage - with no overall increase in health spending or taxes. For those with health insurance, the plan builds on the current system to give businesses and their employees greater choice of health plans - including keeping the one they have - while lowering cost and improving quality. Specifically, the American Health Choices Plan will:

The American Health Choices Plan gives Americans the choice to preserve their existing coverage, while offering new choices to those with insurance, to the 47 million people in the United States without insurance, and the tens of millions more at risk of losing coverage.


* The Same Choice of Health Plan Options that Members of Congress Receive: Americans can keep their existing coverage or access the same menu of quality private insurance options that their Members of Congress receive through a new Health Choices Menu, established without any new bureaucracy as part of the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program (FEHBP). In addition to the broad array of private options that Americans can choose from, they will be offered the choice of a public plan option similar to Medicare.

* A Guarantee of Quality Coverage: The new array of choices offered in the Menu will provide benefits at least as good as the typical plan offered to Members of Congress, which includes mental health parity and usually dental coverage.

Americans who are satisfied with the coverage they have today can keep it, while benefiting from lower premiums and higher quality.


* Reducing Costs: By removing hidden taxes, stressing prevention and a focus on efficiency and modernization, the plan will improve quality and lower costs.

* Strengthening Security: The plan ensures that job loss or family illnesses will never lead to a loss of coverage or exorbitant costs.

* End to Unfair Health Insurance Discrimination: By creating a level-playing field of insurance rules across states and markets, the plan ensures that no American is denied coverage, refused renewal, unfairly priced out of the market, or forced to pay excessive insurance company premiums.

Relying on consumers or the government alone to fix the system has unintended consequences, like scaled-back coverage or limited choices. This plan ensures that all who benefit from the system share in the responsibility to fix its shortcomings.


* Insurance and Drug Companies: insurance companies will end discrimination based on pre-existing conditions or expectations of illness and ensure high value for every premium dollar; while drug companies will offer fair prices and accurate information.

* Individuals: will be required to get and keep insurance in a system where insurance is affordable and accessible.

* Providers: will work collaboratively with patients and businesses to deliver high-quality, affordable care.

* Employers: will help financing the system; large employers will be expected to provide health insurance or contribute to the cost of coverage: small businesses will receive a tax credit to continue or begin to offer coverage.

* Government: will ensure that health insurance is always affordable and never a crushing burden on any family and will implement reforms to improve quality and lower cost.

Senator Clinton’s plan will:


* Provide Tax Relief to Ensure Affordability: Working families will receive a refundable tax credit to help them afford high-quality health coverage.

* Limit Premium Payments to a Percentage of Income: The refundable tax credit will be designed to prevent premiums from exceeding a percentage of family income, while maintaining consumer price consciousness in choosing health plans.

* Create a New Small Business Tax Credit: To make it easier-not harder-for small businesses to create new jobs with health coverage, a new health care tax credit for small businesses will provide an incentive for job-based coverage.

* Strengthen Medicaid and CHIP: The Plan will fix the holes in the safety net to ensure that the most vulnerable populations receive affordable, quality care.

* Launch a Retiree Health Legacy Initiative: A new tax credit for qualifying private and public retiree health plans will offset a significant portion of catastrophic expenditures, so long as savings are dedicated to workers and competitiveness.



* Most Savings Come Through Lowering Spending Due to Quality and Modernization: Over half the savings come from the public savings generated from Senator Clinton’s broader agenda to modernize the heath systems and reduce wasteful health spending.

* A Net Tax Cut for American Taxpayers: The plan offers tens of millions of Americans a new tax credit to make premiums affordable-which more than offsets the increased revenues from the Plan’s provisions to limit the employer tax exclusion for health care and discontinue portions of the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000. Thus, the plan provides a net tax cut for American taxpayers.

* Making the Employer Tax Exclusion for Health Care Fairer: The plan protects the current exclusion from taxes of employer-provided health premiums, but limits the exclusion for the high-end portion of very generous plans for those making over $250,000.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/summary.aspx

[Bread and Circus]

31. Honestly if that's how you want to base your vote, then it tells

me you haven't really read enough about either of the candidates to know better.

Vote for who you want. Just do your own research and your own thinking.

Their websites and google aren't that hard to navigate.

And just an fyi, both Hillary and Obama's plan would have you covered because under their plans you can't be denied for a pre-existing condition. Assuming you'd buy insurance under either plan, then both plans would be the same to you. Go get your knee fixed.

But you see, if you had actually took the time for yourself to read the plans, or read a non-biased review of the plans:

http://www.health08.org/sidebyside_results.cfm?c=11&c=16 <<<<<< I've linked this a half dozen times on DU

You would have known that already.

There's only one real difference between the plans, one has a mandate for adults the other doesn't. If it's that important for you to be "forced" to buy health insurance, then vote for Hillary. If you want to be able to voluntarily buy insurance (or not), then vote Obama. However, that seems moot because it seems you predicate your question on the notion that you have insurance in any scenario.

You might better ask who could actually build the political coalition to get health reform passed, because that's where the rubber really meets the road.

No matter what, you need to think for yourself.

[Quixote1818]

51. "build the political coalition to get health reform passed"

My gut feeling tells me Obama would be more successful here. I do worry Hillary will hit a wall. I could be wrong though.

[tishaLA]

70. You know, this is what I was going to post

I am less interested in the particulars of their plans--they have to deal with the house and senate working on them, so they end up altered in a variety of ways--than I am in who will be able to mobilize people to pressure their representatives to get it done and who will be able to take the message most effectively to the American people. I think the answer to that is Sen Obama.

If I were JUST judging the plans, I would admit that Sen Clinton's is slightly better. But the question is whether she will be able to to the coalition building to get it done. History is not on her side in this regard, unfortunately.

[Bread and Circus]

77. well, the "go after wages" gaffe should give people a little clue...

of how it's going to play out.

[nonconformist]

127. You're against mandates and "going after people's wages"... but...

That's what Medicare and Medicaid are, that's what Social Security is... and that's what single payer universal healthcare would be too.

These sound like right wing arguments against those things.

[paulk]

136. what is your gut feeling based on?

I ask this in all seriousness.

One of the main reasons I decided to support HRC several months ago was because of her record of working across the aisle, and the success she had in winning over Red voters in upstate NY (where I have many relatives). When she was first elected there was speculation that she would be a divisive figure in the Senate - that she would grandstand and use her name - instead she put her nose to the grindstone, learned how the Senate operates from the inside, and most importantly, learned the issues of New York State inside and out. The voters rewarded her with one of the largest victories in state history - which included several upstate "red" counties, (including the one I grew up in), that haven't been won by a Democrat in my lifetime. It seems clear to me, based on her NY experience, that Hillary can gain the trust of the opposition and win them over.

I would also mention, as far as building coalitions goes, that she has seen government from all sides. At the state level as 1st Lady in Arkansas - in her work at the Rose Law Firm (and working with business is a big part government, even though many would like to deny that), and working with organizations like the Children's Defense Fund.

At the federal level as 1st lady - and having an inside view as one of the most involved first ladies in our history would have to be invaluable experience for understanding how the executive branch interacts with the rest of our government. Not to mention the connections to people and organizations across the country and world that the White House affords you.

And finally in the Senate, where she has seen how the Congress works with the Executive from the other side.

It's my belief that these are the kinds of experience and connections essential to building the coalitions necessary to get legislation passed.

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


Obama has had some success working across the aisle also - but I would argue that he has nowhere near the amount of experience in government that HRC brings to the table. He is asking voters to trust that his charisma and force of personality will be enough. I realize that is enough for some - but it's not enough for me.

Hillary has proven to me that she can get the job done.

[rodeodance]

53. well, hands down now this one goes to Clinton!!:

......You might better ask who could actually build the political coalition to get health reform passed, because that's where the rubber really meets the road......

[Bread and Circus]

79. one could say that...

of course, one could be wrong :)

[woolldog]

62. Seriously

It's scary how uneducated about the issues some people are, isn't it, B&C?

[Quixote1818]

84. These are not simple issues

If they were simple then all the brilliant people who figure all this stuff out would all agree. People are making good points on both sides.

[Bread and Circus]

91. No they are not simple issues at all... I don't blame you for

being confused.

Both campaigns have purposefully tried to confuse you. So has Krugman.

I only have a half a clue about dissecting what matters and what doesn't because I'm actually a physician who has first hand understanding of how the health insurance industry works and how doctors, nurses, hospitals, and pharmacies get paid.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

40. smart thinking Q...I have the same concerns and am voting for HC

[in_cog_ni_to]

55. That IS her plan. EVERYONE will be required to participate. IF you cannot afford to pay

for insurance, then the Gov. will help you. Her plan is based on a wage earner sliding scale. A Multi-Millionaire will pay more than someone earning $200,000 and someone earning $200,000 will pay more than someone who earns $60,000...and so on. Everyone contributes, EVERYONE is covered! If someone is unemployed, they get help and are still covered. You will NEVER be without coverage. It's a GREAT PLAN.

We pay $560.00 a MONTH for insurance for my son and myself and it's painful to do, but we have to have it. You can't tell me that Hillary's plan won't be cheaper than that! When you have MILLIONS of people paying into the system, it has to be cheaper.

[Quixote1818]

67. When you have MILLIONS of people paying into the system

This is a very simple argument but it's the most logical one. It's simple mathematics. Thanks

[RaleighNCDUer]

115. Don't count on it. Millions more might be covered, but also millions

who are currently DENIED coverage because they are catastrophically expensive will be covered. The payout to them will be uncounted millions of dollars for their treatment, which the for-profit insurance formerly did NOT pay. How many more people paying $300/mo will it take to cover those who are collecting (payments being made for) $35,000/mo? Quadruple bypass surgery, costs a cool quarter million - but previously, because of pre-existing conditions, that person would not be covered and would had the good grace to die without bothering the insurance company.

Don't expect costs to go down as long as private insurance is in the mix.

[still_one]

57. Let me ask you a different question, who do you think has the best chance of winning the GE

Yes, that is a cynical way to put it, but that is probably the way you should vote

because it won't matter if we don't win the general election, and we all will be in worse shape under another republican white house

[Quixote1818]

72. I lean towards thinking Obama would be stronger nt

[still_one]

101. We each have to determine that for ourselves, but all I am suggesting is

choosing a candidate YOU think will have the best chance of winning the general election, isn't a bad way to decide

Jumping into the General Discussion - Primary blog is a good way to really confuse yourself totally

There is so much nonsense being shoveled from both sides

The only truth is that ANY Democrat would be better on healthcare than any republican

So that is why I think determining who would stand the best chance in the General Election is not a bad way to go

Good luck

[Levgreee]

65. the cost of people rushing into ER rooms for care, who could afford healthcare, but don't

is very negligible compared to all the others things bogging down the system and keeping up prices.

In a theoretical economy, yes, a universal heath care system where everyone had to join would be ideal.

I consider mandates possibly something to be pursued in the future, but our current crisis is NOT because of a lack of mandates on those who could afford health care but don't get it.

Mandates by themselves do not really help get us out of our current situation(forcing people to get buy in into the broken health care system?), and mandates are hardly politically viable.

Take it in steps, we have dozens of steps to take(at least 4 years worth of work), then we could/should consider switching over to a mandate system, when we have the health care providers under control. For now, lets just reduce costs as quickly as possible, so the people hurting now can get help ASAP. Don't make them wait because you want your ideal mandated universal health care system.


Obama would COMPLETELY prefer mandated health care. I hope no one thinks otherwise. He is a pragmatic idealist, though.

[ruggerson]

66. Quixote

I watched both Obama and Clinton's speeches tonight. When Obama mentioned healthcare, the place was dead silent. When he mentioned affordable college tuition, the crowd roared thunderously. Now this may have been a college aged crowd that doesn't think much about healthcare. But right afterwards they had Clinton's speech from Mass. SHe spent about fifteen minutes solely on healthcare. It's quite obviously her passion. It's the very reason she's running. The crowd, also college aged, cheered and cheered when she was talking about universal coverage. Between the two, I have no doubt whatsoever that Clinton's presidency will pursue universal health care with a mission like we've never seen.

[caligirl]

69. remember the way legislation works, the House, Senate and all the committees

get to work on this and the outcome will always be different from what a candidate proposes, be it Hillary or Obama. Obama leaves the door open to changes. All parties at the table will work on this, including nurses who know a great deal about young people and attitudes toward healthcare and insurance. To a large extent Americans need to open their eyes to the European mind set and drop the current mindset.

[Quixote1818]

76. I am going to go to bed but will look at what people have written in the morning

Thanks to everyone on both sides for making good points. We all may fight a lot but in the end Obama folks and Clinton folks are both smart as hell! I feel confidant both candidates will be great presidents.

[gravity]

86. Both policies are basically the same

The policies are going to do the same thing for 99% of Americans. The debate is over the enforcement of a special case, which probably isn't going to be that significant. Ultimately, these nuances are going to get worked out in Congress anyways, and the bill would be different from what the president intiially proposes. If Obama's or Hillary's plans have a fatal flaw, they will be revised.

I don't think that this issue should be the deciding factor between hillary or obama. Krugman is just blowing this issue out of proportion.

[joshcryer]

133. No, Obama's is way more expensive, and gives the markets an edge.

Hillary's plan, because it has a mandate, is closer to single payer, since it would "coerce" people into buying into the government health insurer, and it would push the market competitors out.

[ursi]

89. what an ego ...wow

[Quixote1818]

149. Did you miss this part?

"And even if I am covered by Obama's program will there be less fortunate folks who get fucked over? I want to take care of myself but I also deeply care about the less fortunate!"

[rodeodance]

92. Obama's NON-cern with the health of people is one factor that turned me off

to him.--related to nuclear leaks.
Read up on it.

[dailykoff]

106. I wouldn't base a decision on ANYTHING you read in the NYT.

Just sayin'.

[pnwmom]

122. Here is Hillary's plan. It is very much like Edwards's.

It will cover everyone, with no exclusions for preexisting conditions and will be portable. It will include the same range of choices that members of Congress have, including BOTH government run plans and plans with private insurers. Insurers won't be allowed to cherry pick customers. If they can't compete with the government run plans, they can get out of the business.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/

[Vinca]

128. Neither candidate will have their health INSURANCE plan passed intact

if at all. It will be up to the Congress. The important thing is that both are committed to doing something. I wouldn't base my vote on this issue.

[Tom Rinaldo]

137. If that is true, we will get the closest to actual Universal coverage

by fighting for actual Universal coverage. If we start a negotiating process having already comporomised on that principle we will weaken the final product further.

We HAVE to reach universal coverage. Economy of scale requires it but simple human justice requires it. No one should fear not being able to afford an illness in our nation. When we have crossed that bridge and have universal coverage - no politician or interest group will ever be able to take that away, just like medicare and social security it will become a third rail of politics. From that point forward we will only argue about ways to make it work better, or fairer.

[Occam Bandage]

135. Neither person's program will help you with your knee. Neither person's program will

"fuck over" the less fortunate; health care would cost the same under both.

[RestoreGore]

147. Would we really need mandates if it were affordable?

How about a windfall profits tax on pharmaceutical companies that make billions every year off Americans or a mandate by the government to them that they must cut or cap prices? I think many see mandates as a form of punishing comsumers, especially when we don't see anything of consequence happening to the companies that rake in huge profits every year off essentially being drug dealers. So what's to stop these mandated amounts from getting bigger and bigger if prices are allowed to continue to be high? Don't you have to tackle it from both ends? And I would surmise that many people don't even go to the doctor because in many cases they can't afford the prescriptions given them even with a healthcare plan. Mine requires me to pay the entire cost of the prescription out of pocket, and then I get a check for half of it at the end of the month... sounds ok if you have the money to pay for it at the time the prescription is given. Many times however, that isn't the case because the prescription is too expensive to begin with. The bottomline for me to all of this is GREED. It has permeated every system in this country and unless it is dealt with we will never have a fair system that serves all of the people equitably.

[Jennicut]

148. I doubt Hillary's plan will even get passed if she were president

I don't think she learned her lesson in 1993. This is the United States and although the health care system needs to be totally oeverhauled one has to do it in small steps. Some people don't like that and our angry that we cannot fix it all overnight. I understand that. But we need to cut health care waste first. I understand the health care industry making a mess out of things. I am a type 2 diabetic. I HAVE to buy insulin every month or I would most likely die from blood sugars going to high. My insulin has gone up every few months little by little. I have health care but it pisses me off that my insulin is geting more expensive. Thank God I have my husband and he has health care as I would have a "preexsisting condition" and maybe have to pay through the nose to be covered. Never mind that I became a diabetic at age 29 with no real symtoms except gestational diabetes during my second pregnancy that never went away. I was not obese or even overweight. My doctors figured I have always been diabetic since my late teen years but no one ever caught it. Sucks for me. Still, I would rather start small, get everyone we can onboard, come to some agreements and do something rather than propose a hugh entitlement program that has little chance of passing and fails again. We would then be left with no chance for any kind of reform. And I really want something anything to happen.

[johan helge]

151. Mandates is the only realistic way of getting universal health care

- and universal health care is the key to winning the election
- and Hillary, not Obama, is for mandates.