Hillary knocked it out of the park on the health care issue.

[nonconformist]

She just owned it.

I think Obama blew it when he said that if parents don't provide insurance for their children under his plan, they're not being responsible. The R word is loaded.

[reality based]

1. She took control and didn't let the moderator take over.

[Jane Austin]

2. Are you serious?

I think she was scrambly.

[nonconformist]

5. 100% serious. If you want universal, it has to be mandated. nt

[Jane Austin]

9. I meant serious about knocking it out of the park.

I thought she was scrambly.

[nonconformist]

15. It's very obvious that she's well versed and very informed on the issue.

I thought Obama came off as unsure and grasping with that. He's not a good debater.

[shadowknows69]

10. The GOP would get soooo much mileage out of that.

[nonconformist]

54. We shouldn't do the right thing because the GOP might oppose it?

Well, we'll never get anything done with that outlook.

[shadowknows69]

55. Mandated health insurance is not the right thins IMO.

[JeanGrey]

66. People don't like that. They don't want to "pay" for Healthcare,

they want the government to.

[stray cat]

3. Responsibility as a negative thing to demand?

[nonconformist]

8. He worded it in a clumsy way.

And yes, some people do take offense to people telling them they're being irresponsible, because they've heard Republicans telling them that for years.

[OzarkDem]

77. I think we're all a little tired of the GOP "values" condescension

Criticizing people instead of finding a way to help them. Its a shame Obama stoops to that kind of thing. If I hear him talk about values one more time, I'm going to be sick.

[high density]

4. Yeah because Americans want a nanny state

And they LOVE getting taxed to create a nanny state.

[nonconformist]

6. Americans sure do love Social Security and Medicare. nt

[high density]

12. You're talking about programs with orgins in the 1930s and 1950s.

Times were a bit different back then. Today people are not so eager to have a tax increase to fund more government programs.

[nonconformist]

24. Oh please. nt

[rodeodance]

25. hey sweetie--people are hurting out there --get real.

[high density]

27. Where are the votes to get Hillary's mandate through congress?

Get real yourselves!

[rodeodance]

32. the time is right--people are demanding it. simple as that.

[high density]

35. Yeah there are people out there demanding that their taxes be raised

Well, Warren Buffett is, but I think he's about the only one.

[rodeodance]

39. do you know the concept of the "common good"--it has a long history in the usa.

[high density]

50. There's a stark reality that we can only afford so much common good

I hate to say it, but that's just where we are right now. The costs of the war are not going to disappear overnight, nor is the tax structure going to get fixed overnight.

People will have to be eased slowly into the idea of universal healthcare, and Hillary's plan is just too much all at once. Let's see how it does with people opting-in, then if that works, maybe we can try something to cover everybody. Small steps.

[nonconformist]

40. So we should give up before the fight, because some people MIGHT not like it? nt

[high density]

53. Right now it seems smart to fight the fights we can win

And soften the ones that are obvious losers (MANDATES). Bush may be at 19% approval rating but Democrats aren't exactly in the position to declare a lock on any agenda, either.

[rinsd]

78. Wow you must hate Obama's plans then since he calls for massive tax increases as well.

[proud2BlibKansan]

47. People are demanding that they be forced to buy health insurance?

Yeah, sure. :sarcasm:

[nonconformist]

51. The majority of Americans want universal healthcare. nt

[JeanGrey]

67. Well actually we love SS. Some of us hate Medicare, and the

thought that those of us that have decent insurance might end up with a program like Medicare so everyone can be covered is downright scary to many. I personally pay eight hundred a month extra to cover what "medicare" doesn't cover (which is just about half of everything, not counting what they refuse to cover at all).

I think once the reality sets in of NHC and people begin to see that these programs will STILL be managed care with many things not covered and possible rationing, they are going to be shocked.

I hope it doesn't end up that way.

[Captain Hilts]

26. 50% of bankruptcies are related to health issues and healthcare costs. nt

[high density]

30. And this fact changes the debate... how?

[rodeodance]

34. guess you have idea what it means to be in poor health!!

[rodeodance]

36. If people has coverage less likely to go bankrupt

[blonndee]

7. Not AT ALL. This mandate shit, as I've already said, is a LOSER.

It plays on all the negative stereotypes about her and brings to mind her earlier failures on healthcare. Sorry, but that's how I see it.

[nonconformist]

11. I'm going to take a wild guess that you have health insurance.

Because I don't. We need mandates, and nobody can convince me otherwise.

[high density]

18. You won't opt-in to a plan like Obama's??

He would have to FORCE you to get it? That's a steaming load of something.

[nonconformist]

33. No, it's what will WORK.

I want to be covered, but I want everyone to be covered. And I'm also thinking about it on more broad terms.

Mr. Gruber finds that a plan without mandates, broadly resembling the Obama plan, would cover 23 million of those currently uninsured, at a taxpayer cost of $102 billion per year. An otherwise identical plan with mandates would cover 45 million of the uninsured — essentially everyone — at a taxpayer cost of $124 billion. Over all, the Obama-type plan would cost $4,400 per newly insured person, the Clinton-type plan only $2,700.

[blonndee]

I do now (for 6 mos), but spent more than 10 years with nothing but lingering hospital bills

to show for it. I know all about not being covered and being afraid of going to the doctor. In fact, I still don't go to the doctor unless I absolutely have to because I'm afraid the insurance company will find another way to screw me over. I filed bankruptcy in 2000 because of medical bills I couldn't pay. So please don't assume too much. My point it, this "mandate" is not going to go OVER well the way she presents it. It comes across as very paternalistic and punishing to regular people.

[nonconformist]

59. I'm sorry to hear that.

We filed bankruptcy in 2002, due to a long-term layoff and some well timed medical bills, so I can relate. It sucks.

I'm more optimistic on how it will fly. Now, I don't doubt for a moment that the GOP won't try to tar and feather it, they sure did try with things like Social Security and Medicare. But what I do know is that the majority of Americans want universal healthcare, and times have changed since the '90s. People really see the need for it now, unlike before. I respect the hell out of Hillary for trying to do the right thing then, and trying to do it again. It's not a perfect plan, but it's better than Obama's and I think she knows a great deal about the industry and what it will take to make this work.

[blonndee]

71. Well, we really mostly agree then. I would get behind both plans

as both would make a substantial difference in what we have now. I just know from my own experience with family members and others in this area how the "mandate" is going to go. It's not playing well. It needs to be stricter on insurance companies--not citizens, we've had enough of that! Or better yet (seems radical but would have phenomenal support among the citizenry, I think) getting rid of "health insurance" as we know it altogether. Obviously, this would have to be carefully explained to avoid the RWer spin of "socialized" medicine, but that's dying, I think. Even for the most conservative (e.g. my family) that will almost certainly work, much more so than something that seems vindictive and nanny-state-ish. Hillary needs to be much more aware of the thinking of ALL Americans. She's coming off preachy and paternalistic, and that is, as I suggested, NEVER going to play well with many Americans.

[sandnsea]

19. Yes, she would lose the GE with her mandate

The children's mandate, he needs to get clearer on though, and tell people they need to go apply for assistance if they can't afford insurance for their kids.

[rodeodance]

42. ha ha get real.

[JeanGrey]

68. There is something in that. I have friends that are perfectly

capable of buying insurance, they simply wish to put their money elsewhere. They will not vote for a health insurance "mandate".

[Enrique]

20. her point about Social Security and Medicare is convincing

neither is voluntary, and they both work.

But anyway, no one aspect is going to be a loser. People who are concerned about health care probably don't know enough about the details to judge the plans on the details, I think they will judge the candidate's ability to get it done.

[Captain Hilts]

28. Yes, it is. nt

[rodeodance]

31. yes, they are working and you are right about the details-most not interested in the

little details------they want and need h coverage.

[JeanGrey]

69. Medicare isn't working. It is better than nothing but leaves

the average person still broke. The hospital deductible is what now, nine hundred? And after Part B takes that 200 bill and decides the doc should've charged 98 and pays you eighty percent of that (if you've met the deductible) an average hospital stay will still break you. It'll just bleed you a little slower. You can't find docs who will accept medicare assignment anymore. My doctor told me he couldn't function being paid 15 or 20 bucks per patient.

Medicare has to be improved. Add to that the drug coverage!! I have to take a drug that costs almost a thousand dollars a month. Therefore I have to pay eight hundred for a secondary policy because Medicare Part D sucks.

Once we get NHC and the government really sees what this excursion is going to cost, well, it'll make HMO's look loose.

Taxes will have to be rasied by a huge amount to cover it.

We need it, but I don't want a system like England's or Canada's because they aren't all that great.

[nonconformist]

73. You're talking about single payer universal healthcare, which is not what this is

Single payer would be far better, actually. But both Hillary's and Obama's plans involve the insurance companies. Under Hillary's plan, you could buy into private health insurance or government offered insurance (like the plans that Congress and whatnot have). The costs would be capped based on your income, and the costs offset by subsidies and tax credits. Requiring everyone to get it brings down the costs for everyone.

This is a good article on the differences between their health care plans:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04krugman.html?

[JeanGrey]

74. I'll believe that when I see it. Unless the profits of insurance

companies are taken out of the equation we will never have truly good affordable care.

[sandnsea]

13. Uh no, because every state has assistance

So there is no reason for parents not to provide insurance.

[proud2BlibKansan]

21. But not all kids qualify

I know plenty of kids who don't have insurance because their parents don't qualify for SCHIP or Medicaid.

[sandnsea]

38. And he will increase the caps

and provide the money so that all those parents will qualify. Further, a lot of parents do qualify and just don't know it, or don't know how cheap it is. I'm not really a fan of mandating parents either, but at least it gets those people who are "too proud" to take govt assistance off their butts. They will be the last ones to get into the system and their children deserve better.

[nonconformist]

45. And the same argument can be applied to ALL people.

There are a lot of people that qualify for Medicaid or other assistance, but they don't take advantage of it for whatever reason. That's why we NEED mandates. It's the only way this will work. Saying "if it's affordable, people will get it" sounds nice, but it has no basis in reality.

[sandnsea]

52. AFTER we have a plan that works

Otherwise we end up with what they have in Massachusetts, people who pay the fine because it's cheaper than the insurance, and they still don't have health coverage.

[rodeodance]

43. that is why many Dems wanted more $$ for SHIP--repugs/bush said no.

[Thrill]

14. Her healthcare plan is a winner for a Democratic Primary. But a loser for the GE

[proud2BlibKansan]

16. I disagree; her plan is bad too

I was also stunned that she said people who show up at the ER should be fined if they don't have health insurance. I guess it hasn't gone through that mind of hers that maybe they don't have insurance because they CAN'T AFFORD IT?? So yeah, a fine is really going to force them to go out and buy something they can't afford. :eyes:

[nonconformist]

22. OBAMA said that they should be fined if they show up at the ER.

When Obama was talking about Hillary's plan maybe imposing fines for not enrolling, she pointed out that he said himself that under his plan, if people show up for care with no insurance, they should be fined.

And, there will be tax breaks and subsidies to pay for the insurance if you can't afford it. It will never be more than a certain percentage of your income, and free for the poorest people.

[JeanGrey]

70. Tax breaks are a joke. People will NOT finance health

insurance with tax breaks. And I am sorely afraid that those that think they don't make enough and will get it paid for by the government will find out the government thinks they make more than they do.

[DemGa]

17. She is walking all over the young orator

[Captain Hilts]

23. Yes, she did. nt

[zulchzulu]

29. Yeah. Healthcare enforced by the G-Man who fines you is a great solution...

...if you are either in the healthcare industry or you like fining people for stuff they can least afford...

[nonconformist]

37. Obama will fine them if they show up at the ER without health insurance.

And for those who can't afford it, there will be subsidies and tax credits to pay for it. The amount will be capped based on your income.

[Johnny__Motown]

41. People have decided about this already, I don't think either one changed any minds

[elixir]

44. Great job Hillary.

[rodeodance]

48. i will take your word for it-i am not able to watch.

[Horse with no Name]

46. The serious truth is...that UNLESS it is mandated

not everyone will take responsibility for their healthcare which ends up costing EVERYONE else if they have a traumatic injury or devastating illness that they show up at the Emergency Room for and cannot be turned away.
When I worked in Neuro Trauma that dealt pretty exclusively with head injuries, strokes, spinal cord injuries...the majority of these patients were NOT insured because the majority of the spinal cord injuries and head injuries happen to young, otherwise healthy people who think they are invincible and didn't have insurance, even when it was offered.
Each of the these injuries cost in the $100's of thousands of dollars from the onset of the event and that is ALL money that the hospitals lose.
That is precisely why Parkland was so willing to turn over being the #1 Trauma Center in Dallas to Baylor and precisely why Baylor had to start being more stringent on collecting fees from patients up front a few years back.
That is precisely why John Peter Smith in Fort Worth is struggling financially.
When EVERYONE is covered...these catastrophic events are absorbed easier when borne by the entire population instead of individual hospitals...who in turn, pass on the losses to the insured patients.

[Captain Hilts]

56. A system without mandates encourages large swaths of the population to be free riders. nt

[Horse with no Name]

57. Especially the young adult males

who like to spend their time racing cars, riding motorcycles, hang gliding, skiing, cliff diving, tree climbing, horseback riding, etc (these were the accidents of the quadriplegics that I took care of--all except one--uninsured male--ages 19-22. He was 25 and his logging truck rolled--workmans comp on that one.)

[Captain Hilts]

58. Yep. EVERYONE up to 25 and men under 35. nt

[rinsd]

79. Bingo! Preventative care is one of the cornerstones to cost savings in both plans.

[sniffa]

49. I agree

She let the 15 million Americans not having their wages garnished for health care know that they're P3WN3D.

[AGirl]

60. K and R

[Seabiscuit]

61. It seems that Hillary understand the details and nuances of the healthcare issue

and what is required to get to the real "universal healthcare". Barack, to me almost seemed like his answers were memorized and the last part that has a hidden mandate & penalty in it was never talked about until tonight.

[Tom Rinaldo]

62. That was her strongest issue. It is important and she acted like it is important

by insisting that the real differences in their proposals are real and fundemental, and that those differences be spelled out.

[HeraldSquare212]

63. Nope - by her repeated reference to FICA, she made people think she's going to charge them 8.25%

on their payroll. That was a real misstep in my mind, and just made plain, in a bad way, the difference between her and Obama.

[Whisp]

64. when Obama said: She already tried and failed

because it happened behind closed doors without Congress or the people involved in the dialogue.
(paraphrasing).

That was the zinger on health care she can never recover from.

[JeanGrey]

65. Actually she should've not kept talking about how much

money it is going to cost people and that it is mandatory. I was with some elderly and older people tonight and that upset them.

[HeraldSquare212]

72. she can't push a mandate without saying how much it will cost

otherwise she's asking people to write a blank check by voting for her.

[JeanGrey]

75. But that IS essentially what she is doing. All of these "what it will

cost" figures are simply wild conjecture. It will end up costing a lot more than estimated and people will be forced to get it, people that feel they can't afford it now and won't afford it in the future unless the "government" pays for it.

[Kolesar]

76. What did Hillary say?

I was watching "Futurama".