Let's be honest about both Clinton and Obama's health care plans.

[Liberal Veteran]

They both suck.

The hare's breath of difference in what they are each offering isn't worth making a choice in candidate on.

Any solution that doesn't involve reigning in the greed and excess of the insurance companies that are presumptive gatekeepers to health care, is really no solution at all.

"I'm gonna make you buy health insurance from a for-profit company" is a terrible solution and doesn't really address the problem.

On the flip side, given the fearmongering and gullibility of the right wing, both plans are an interim step toward a decent single payer system.

Looking at the two plans, such as they are, I like that Clinton tries to cover everyone. That's a big plus. The negative is that her plan will face more resistance (and I can't gauge how much at this point) than Obama's. The fact that Obama's mandate only goes as far as dependent children will probably seem a bit palatable among those who lean a bit more libertarian, but are not quite far right wing nutjobs who will fight tooth and nail no matter what believing in the myth that the "free market" will make it all better (despite empirical contemporary evidence to the contrary). That's a plus for Obama's plan that would probably face less resistance from the fence sitter type.

So in a nutshell, neither side really has an advantage on this issue.

[JeffR]

1. Thanks for a clear-eyed take on this

It would be nice to see partisans from both camps here admitting that these proposals are really just pissing in the wind. By the same token, they're better than anything the GOP will propose, if they propose anything at all. For whatever that's worth.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

8. zactly n/t

[Mojambo]

2. Well put. n/t

[Prefer]

3. Does the health insurance industry have a purpose other than making profit?

Do they provide something as a payer?

How much would it cost for free socialized medicine? because with that, there would be no need for them and their profit burden.

[The Anti-Bush]

4. All I got to say about that is sometimes 24-9 doesn't equal 15 n/t

[dflprincess]

I agree with most of what you said

but I do not agree that forcing us to buy insurance from the very people who are screwing us now is any kind of step forward. It's sort of a "thank you sir, may I have another?" mentality.

As I've said many times (and will say many more times), the biggest clue that these plans are both horrid is that the insurance companies haven't screaming about them.

[Liberal Veteran]

6. No argument at all and I made it clear neither are a real solution.

I disagree that neither are a step toward what is really needed. Rome was not built in a day and transitioning to a single payer system is going to be much much more difficult in the US than countries that don't freak out at the term "socialism" (which in part is do to being the polar opposite to the Soviet Union which basically indoctrinated most of us into the notion that government run things are bad and lead to communism and gulags).

I'd like to just switch over instantly, but even a deviation from the current system might get the ball rolling and there is truly no way either of the plans is feasible with some restrictions being placed on the insurance industry and tightening of regulations.

[sandnsea]

5. If you're the one being mandated

without any idea of what you're being mandated to pay, then there's a clear advantage on the issue.

[livingonearth]

7. In my opinion the only way to get affordable health care is

to build hospitals that are not run by the insurance companies. As it is now the insurance companies own the hospitals. There is no incentive for them to bring down costs. High medical prices are great for them. That way people need to buy their insurance. And, when they do provide any care they are just paying themselves at their purposely inflated rates. Where else can you get a Tylenol for $10.00 a pill? The sooner they wipe out your deductible, the sooner they have your cash in their pockets. I'm not sure, but I'd be willing to bet they are also the same insurance companies selling high priced mal-practice insurance to the doctors as well. The free market can't work properly when all the control is held by such corporations.

[DrFunkenstein]

9. Slavery Didn't End in a Day. Women Didn't Get The Vote in an Afternoon.

We need to get our foot in the door. We need to show people that universal care will split the universe in half. Then we can take it to the next level. I agree that we should never lose sight of our ultimate goals - world peace, good jobs with good pay, universal tolerance, reversing global warming, etc. - but realize that these things can be achieved in increments, rather than freezing the conversation by demanding it all at once.

[zulchzulu]

10. Single Payer is the way, but we need to realize that incremental legislation is the only way to...

...get there.

Obama's plan, which is essentially the same very affordable healthcare plan that Senators and Congresspersons get, is NOT mandated. That makes it a lot more possible to get in and then go toward single payer from there. Trying to use individual mandates with penalties will never pass.

I say we get rid of a dozen Stealth bombers and use the funds for Medicare For All.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

11. You win the prize.

I think what they are doing is reaching out to their "bases" with the mandates. Clinton, until recently, has gotten the more traditional family people vote, whereas Obama has attracted more singles and DINKs. I realize that's a gross generalization, but I think it's accurate. Insurance mandates are anathema to childless people like me. I know I will be shafted with the full premium rate and no subsidies, unless I'm earning well-below-poverty wages. OTOH, I have no problem paying higher taxes, if need be, for a true non-profit single payer system.

[penguin7]

12. How is giving even more money to the health insurance companies a step in the right direction?

[Liberal Veteran]

13. Getting the government more involved in being OUR advocate is a right step

It changes the status quo. We got about 75 years of fearmongering about government being involved making sure we all have access to health care to undo.

It is unrealistic to expect it to change overnight.

And as I pointed out....both plans suck.

We both want the same thing, but I just don't see it happening in one fell swoop.

[NeedleCast]

14. Maybe True, but you have to take a step in the right direction first

You're not going to go from the system we have now to universal, free health care in one step. Its just never the way things have worked, especially in the U.S. I personally hope there's a universal health care solution that does NOT involve letting the federal government run it, because as a contractor who works for the federal government, I wouldn't trust them to run a fucking lemondade stand on most days.

[milkyway]

15. Universal Mandatory Purchase of Healthcare Insurance vs. Universal Access to Purchase Healthcare

Insurance.

Shortening either one of these to Universal Healthcare allows repugs to demagogue the issue. I heard McCain say recently that the dem plans would have the government give you healthcare instead of your family doctor.