Both of their healthcare plans are bad

[Araxen]

They don't address the main issue and that healthcare in this country is FOR PROFIT. Healthcare should be NON-PROFIT and for the betterment of the country and it's citizens! Till that is addressed healthcare will for the most part be what is always has and nothing will change!

[joshcryer]

1. Wrong. Hillary's health care plan has a mandate *and* fixed limits.

And because it uses a national health insurer (as does Obama's), most people would pick the national health insurer.

Krugman showed how Hillary's health plan is cheaper than Obama's, mainly because it puts significant limits on the ability of insurance companies to game the system and profit off of health care.

[Araxen]

2. Uh...it's still a "for profit" system

and any plan based around that is flawed.

Edit: Oh and we all know how much of a trainwreck mandates are too.

[joshcryer]

9. Social Security is a mandate, Medicare is a mandate.

Hillary's plan *extends Medicare* for the non-profit government insurer. That's what social insurance is. Everyone pays into it so that those who need it can get taken care of. Since most people aren't old, very poor, or sick, this sort of mandate will work.

Hillary "sells" her plan by doing the smart thing and telling people they have the "option" not to use the extended medicare.

Do you really think people would chose not to use the extended medicare? Really?

[woolldog]

3. do you have a link to that article?

[joshcryer]

13. Here you go:

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

I can't find Jonathan Gruber's paper, but I have read his other stuff and the guy is right.

Fucking EU can't be wrong on this, their costs are much lower and standard and length of life is much higher.

[woolldog]

18. thanks n/t

[Barack_America]

7. That still doesn't address the COSTS of healthcare in this country...

And that, as the costs currently stand, our government simply cannot afford to insure everyone...even with people kicking in a bit for their premiums.

[joshcryer]

10. The costs are unnaturally high because insurance companies fuck people over.

People who get sick are dropped from plans, they then have to get *billed* or otherwise *die* for things that they need (the Patients Bill of Rights, which is posted in every ER, mandates that people be treated regardless of ability to pay; you can thank Bill Clinton for that one, btw).

[Barack_America]

4. It even goes deeper than that.

It starts with doctors spending time actually interviewing and examining their patients, rather than immediately ordering expensive and unnecessary diagnostic tests.

Part of the blame for this is fear of litigation, part is detachment and, yes, a big part of this is profit.

[Araxen]

8. Well I think you need to choose your doctor better

If he's ordering expensive tests for no reason you should find a new doctor. My doctor only orders tests and such only if it's absolutely necessary. Always ask me questions too.

Some people need to learn to use a better doctor also which is a problem that needs to be addressed. Don't be afraid to change doctors or get a second opinion! Easier said than done on both accounts I know.

[Barack_America]

21. ..

I was actually speaking more towards inpatient (hospital) care. Also, I'm actually a medical student, so this was a bit of criticism of my own field.

[Gormy Cuss]

5. As long as the plan is about private health care insurance, it's inferior

to the national health programs in most other countries and will NOT be as cost effective because of administrative costs alone.

It will be better than what we have now, but nowhere near good enough.

[joshcryer]

11. It's not.

[Gormy Cuss]

20. The "choice" is preserving private health insurance.

Clinton's plan has three choices 1)continue with your employer's insurance plan, 2)buy a plan with the same level of coverage as MOCs get, with the same choice for private insurance or 3)buy a Medicare-type plan. That's a lot of private health insurance left in the mix.

As I noted earlier, it represents an improvement but it's not as good as a true single payer national health plan.

[joshcryer]

22. But which will people chose? Extended-Medicare will be the cheapest, and easiest solution.

[Gormy Cuss]

24. Most people will choose employer-based plans or FEHBP private insurance models.

It will take years for the balance to shift to extended-Medicare plans.

[joshcryer]

27. What's your justification for that? The Medicare plans are directly subsidized.

The private insurers only get a tax rebate.

You will be *pressured* to chose the extended Medicare plan.

[OhioBlue]

6. I agree that neither plan is THE solution

Neither plan is single payer. Arguing about which of their plans is better is silly to me. I think the mandates suck, but I can see her reasoning.

I guess both are better than what the Republicans would propose. But, I'm not really happy with either plan.

[Araxen]

12. Well I'm sick of settling for second or the fifth best option

American's deserve nothing better than the BEST option and that's what we need to fight for and neither candidate are offering it!

[dflprincess]

17. Agreed

It isn't reform if the idea is to keep us writing checks to the very companies that are screwing us now. The only ones really protected by either candidates' plan are the insurance company executives.

[joshcryer]

19. Well you're going to get the second best.

Should just live with it or campaign for Hillary.

[OhioBlue]

25. I agree. n/t

[joshcryer]

15. Hillary's plan paves the way for single payer.

Obama's does not, it doesn't subsidize, it doesn't mandate, and it puts money into the pockets of corporate interests.

Here's how you pass single payer after Hillary's plan has been in practice for 10 years, "Look, we can lower costs even further if everyone adopted the single payer system."

[OhioBlue]

26. I disagree

The reason (IMHO) that both candidates are going with the plans that they have are b/c they feel they are the "safe" plans. The country is now in a health care crisis. Everyone around me sees it, Dems and Republicans alike. They both know the country is ready for something. They also know that these plans can't be attacked from the right as much as single payer b/c they use the Republican frames of not increasing taxes and expanding Gov't and offering "choice". Once either plan is in place, if it puts a band aid on for a while, there won't be a public mandate for change like there is now.

The only way Hillary's plan paves a way is if the mandates completely suck (like I expect them to) and everyone is so pissed off that there is another demand from the public for change. Her plan only paves the way by failing to address the current crisis.

Arguing that either of their plans is better than the other is moot. They are essentially the same - she has mandates which as I said, I don't like, but understand her logic that if everyone is covered, all costs will go down. But it could also further strap people and families that don't have an extra dollar at the end of the month. It could also be a trojan horse that fills the coffers of the Insurance industry.

[joshcryer]

28. They are not the same. Her plan is miles above Obama's.

I suggest you actually read their plans.

[Metric System]

14. Elizabeth Edwards seems to think Hillary's plan is quite good and better than Obama's.

[joshcryer]

16. It's her husbands plan, she dang well better! :)

[Vinca]

23. I'm with you, Araxen. Neither candidate has mentioned how they're

going to get big insurance to suddenly become so benevolent. Actually, the insurance companies would violate their fiduciary responsibility to their greedy investors if they actually provided affordable, decent health coverage. Health CARE not health INSURANCE.

[joshcryer]

29. Obama "Hopes" they will. Hillary will Change the law to Make Them.

[OzarkDem]

31. Clinton does it by offering consumers and employers a choice

of a public plan or private plan, then provides tax credits to help pay for it.

If a private insurer wants to be considered for the "pool" of insurers whose customers get tax credits, they have to follow the rules:

Cover everyone regardless of pre-existing conditions

Agree not to end coverage because of a health condition

Agree to cap premiums at no greater than 5-10% of individual's income

Insurers who don't follow these guidelines can't enroll clients who get the tax credits.


Its not hard to imagine how this mechanism won't work if people aren't required to purchase health insurance or employers aren't given incentives to provide it.

[OzarkDem]

30. Clinton's plan forces private insurance to compete w/ a public plan like Medicare

Individuals and employers will have a choice between public and private insurance plans. A public plan will be inherently less expensive because of the profit factor.

Its simple economics, as Krugman explains in his column today about McCain's Voodoo health care economics

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

[cooolandrew]

32. Yep healthcare wise no candidate has anything to boast about. Although DK did.