Do you really think that Hillary Clinton's health care plan is better just because of mandates?

[TheWraith]

Think for a few minutes about what mandated health insurance really is. Hillary's plan obligates every American to pay out to the insurance companies, whether they can afford it or not, whether they need it or not. It's the ultimate merger of intrusively ineffectual government and corporate profit-hunger. And if you don't want to participate, too bad, because you're legally required to.

Not only would that be incredibly unpopular with the general public--for good reason--but it would get torn apart by the Republicans starting on the first minute of the campaign and not stopping. Assuming that she got elected, the very first fight would be about healthcare, and it would be 1993 all over again. Except this time there wouldn't be a rise from the ashes--the Clinton II presidency would be a lame duck four months or less after taking office.

Until and unless we can have true single-payer healthcare, which DOESN'T place the burdens of buying insurance onto the average person, voluntary coverage for adults is the only reasonable and practical way to go.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

1. Hillary's covers everyone & has built into it the infrastructure for transition into UHCsingle payer

at zero cost to tax payer

yes this makes it a SUPERIOR PLAN over Obama's

[Avalux]

6. Do you think she will have more success getting it implemented than she did in the 90s?

To be realistic, all of us need to understand the plans our candidates have right now will change as they go through Congress. I doubt seriously if Hillary would get any across the aisle support for hers; Republicans are waiting to shoot her down again.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

8. yes she is a smart women

[Mojambo]

2. It's a better plan, but much harder to win a general election with.

Which is why I lean ever so slightly in Obama's direction.

[dsc]

3. yes, no mandates no universal coverage

imagine SS with no mandates. It should be noted that the mandate would be to purchase government supplied insurance such as medicare not private.

[Bread and Circus]

4. You make a very good point, in some cases her plan is an "unfunded mandate".

let's say you don't want to carry health insurance but have a good income. You don't qualify for government subsidy for health insurance but you are forced to buy it. You are mandated by the government to purchase a product, but they don't fund it for you.

That's an unfunded mandate....

Now, who's been complaining about unfunded mandates lately?

[BootinUp]

5. Do we have to force you to get your facts straight or something? nt

[rinsd]

7. How about you stop lying about Hillary's health care plan first?

Neither Hillary nor Obama force people to buy healtcare they cannot afford.

Both use a combinations of tax credits, subsidies and expansion/creation of public health programs to make insurance as affordable as possible.

Hillary even connects premium payments income level (Obama may as well but I did not check while posting this)

"whether they need it or not."

This is my main beef with the Obama plan. Allowing financially able childless who prefer disposable income to health insurance under the mistaken perception that they will never need medical care.

It is all the more ironic given that a central plank of Obama & Hillary's healthcare (for both overall health and cost reduction) is preventative medicine which relies on regular checkups. Those checkups are far less likely to be made when one has to pay out of pocket for them.

[doc03]

9. Think about this, I have had employer sponsored

health insurance for 39 years and never needed it until I reached the age of 57. So see I never needed health insurance until I was diagnosed and treated for cancer three years ago. Since then I have been hospitalized 3 times for another problem. Now explain to me how Obama's plan can even work, my employer or I could have gone all those years without paying for health insurance because I didn't need or want to pay for it. Under his plan everyone can just take a free ride on the rest of us until they get sick then they dump the expense on us the taxpayer. That is exactly what we have now.

on edit: Where's the Change?

[doc03]

10. I don't see any Obamian responding to

my question.:kick:

[LordJFT]

12. And how will Hillary enforce her mandates?

mandates haven't worked out so well in Massachusetts where 15% are still uninsured.

[doc03]

15. That's not an answer it's another question n/t

[karynnj]

17. That was a question that was answered to some degree in the last debate

When someone who opted not to buy insurance ends up needing it, they will have to pay some fee or some number of back paymants. Setting that penalty to join correctly will be important. You need a high enough cost that many people looking at whether to buy insurance or not will find the penalty sufficient that they want to avoid it.

In a way, this is the question on this side. On the mandate side the question is how do you enforce it. What concerns me is that I have heard many people say that mandates will make it DOA. That is why the first plan may not have mandates - but there will be a drive towards them.

[doc03]

18. I heard his non answer in the debate. What penalty?

It's easy to rack up $1 mil or more in medical bills. Would it be fair to let someone opt out of Medical Insurance for 39 years like in my case and spend all their money on a fancy home and cars then pay a penalty to get coverage after they get sick? If they opt out they should lose everything they own just like my mother had to to qualify for Medicaid. That's like the f---ing SCAB that works in a Union shop and gets all the benifits then doesn't join the Union. That's what you have in a "right to work" state.

on edit: Where's the Change?

[karynnj]

19. His non answer balances HRC's non answer on how you would enforce mandates

I think the issue is very complicated. I agree with you that the penalty has to be substantial enough that people with assets to lose will realize that they are at risk. That was what I was trying to convey. By making insurance more affordable and making the cost for not having it sufficiently high, people will make the right decision. (Though the cost and risk is very different, consider that people who rent apartments do buy renter's insurance. There is no law requiring you do so, but people do to avoid losing more than they can reasonably replace.) I agree that Obama was not precise - and I would bet that there has been no final firm decision on this - just as HRC has not made clear how she would enforce mandates.

A political consideration is that it is possible that one version is more likely to able to get through Congress. The President will set the agenda, but the Senators and Congressmen will create their own version based on what can pass. The key is that either Democrat will sign the bill that comes out. This small difference, that would be sacrificed on either side if Congress demanded, is being highlighted because it was a difference.

What I see as a bigger difference is HOW each would likely work with Congress to get a program Although, HRC says she learned from 1994, but I have yet to see an example where she negotiated a major program or bill with others. Obama does have those examples. He worked to get everyone together to pass the children's health care program in Illinois. There is another example from Illinois where he was able to get a law passed to video tape all police interrogations. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html

In the US Senate, the ethics bill gives another example - this bill was described by Senator Kerry as the strongest ethics reform bill since he entered the Senate in 1985. Read this NYT article to see that he accomplished things that were considered not possible - and, if you look at Schumer's comments - not wanted by some in power in his own party. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/20/us/politics/20ethics.html?_r=2&sq=Senate%20ethics%20bill&st=nyt&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&scp=3&adxnnlx=1203432196-VEMepbNpH0X9e6S2D+fHug

For a broader look at their differences on ethic's reform read this:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/7/101110/2068

All of these show why Senators Kerry and Kennedy have both spoken of Obama's unusual ability to cut through and get agreement and create bills that can pass.

[PretzelWarrior]

11. It's worse. If there's something about the program I don't like

I want to opt out. I don't want "Big Brother" or "Big Sister" telling me what level of medical care I need.

[doc03]

14. Well if you get sick you should lose everything you

own before you go to the taxpayers for help. Why should I pay for insurance when someone else can opt out and spend their money on a new SUV?

[leftstreet]

13. It's not a health CARE plan, it's a health INSURANCE plan

Big Insurance and Big Pharma must be lovin it.

[doc03]

16. And Obama's is better?

Where's the Change?