Which Healthplan idea is better - Obama or Clinton?????????

Sen. Hillary Clinton (NY): At the core of Clinton's "American Health Choices Plan" is that those who are happy with their current coverage can keep it and those who are unhappy or uninsured may choose from an array of new coverage options, including a public plan similar to Medicare. The plan includes an "individual mandate" that everyone should have insurance. It would require a combination of individual, government and employer financing -- with subsidies for those with low incomes.

Sen. Barack Obama (IL): Like Clinton, Obama would create a new plan for those who lack other access to coverage, as well as a National Health Insurance Exchange to help pool the purchasing power of small businesses and individuals. Obama would also offer a combination of subsidies and tax credits to help make coverage more affordable. He would mandate health insurance coverage for children but not adults. Like Clinton, Obama would create a federally sponsored health insurance plan, similar to Medicare, that would compete with private plans for those under 65.

Source:
http://www.npr.org/news/specials/election2008/issues/healthcare.html

I miss Edwards!

I'm just sure of it.

side by side comparison

http://www.health08.org/sidebyside_results.cfm?c=11&c=16

Thanks for the link, by the way.

Because Clinton's is an individual mandate, whereas the mandate would be on employers with Obama.

Other than that, they both suck because it isn't single payer universal health care.

better? If it's good enough for them, why not us also? Or how about we demand they give up their tax payer funded health care until we all get what Edwards offered us? They suck!

That's the strategy that would work.

:thumbsup:

because poor is poor, you can't very well fine people who can't afford to buy the darn insurance. They're both wrong in including the insurance companies in the mix, but apparently we've lost that option this time around.

Obama's plan isn't really a plan--just a loose-knit set of proposals that wouldn't have any transformative effect on the current system.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Obama's plan is a cogent, realistic plan that he intends to implement
when he is President.

Hillary's plan, and Edwards plan was just as ambitious as Obama's.
All of the plans are decent attempts at addressing this major
crisis in our country. Edwards, Hillary and Obama have brought
forth very detailed plans. There are differences in the details--and
how people are covered.

You should read their plans, study them and then come back and
add something substancial to the conversation--instead of one-line lies.

I am so sick to death of people saying anything they damn well please
when it has no basis in fact--just so they can slam a candidate.

You are an insult to people who actually research this stuff.

Because you just mouth that mandates are bad while ignoring that Obama mandates health insurance for children while at the same time ignoring the subsidies involved in Clinton & Edwards plans for those who cannot afford insurance.

I've read all the plans, from top to bottom, more than once. Clinton's and Edwards' plans are more cohesive and represent more ambitious reform than Obama's combination of tax rebates and "insurance marketplace" ideas. Mandates are necessary to make eliminate free-rider problems and maintain efficiencies that make the plans economically feasible.

When you can have a reasoned debate instead of pouncing like a hyena get back to me.

for the convention brings up that we have a bill in Congress, Conyer's Bill that would take care of everything.

The Clinton plan MANDATES that everyone carry health-insurance.

Does everyone realize the ramifications of this under Hillary's plan?

Those living in poverty, are REQUIRED to PURCHASE health insurance. So, Hillary Clinton is going to
MANDATE that people who can't afford to put food on the table---PURCHASE health insurance.

I don't care what you mandate. You can mandate that every home in America have formal landscaping, so the
neighborhood looks better. That doesn't mean that people who can't even afford to keep their heat on--will
have boxwoods shaped like squirrels on their front lawn.

I will say that Hillary does provide tax incentives to those people--to defray the premium cost. Let's
run through what that means. These people can't afford to pay, and Hillary's solution is to provide them
with tax credits. So when they fill out their tax forms, they can count their premium costs against any
taxes they owe. That's nice. However, this does nothing to address the fact that people don't have the
money NOW to pay for health insurance.

It's not a workable plan. It's ambitious. However, it's not realistic.

Lastly, and what troubles me most about this plan, is that since her plan is a MANDATE, if you don't
purchase health insurance....YOU ARE FINED. How are those fines collected? The IRS takes those fines
out of your tax refund (if you have one), or the IRS assesses a fee to you (if you have no refund).

Obama's plan is a really good start, and it addresses those who cannot afford health insurance premiums.

Obama's plan subsidizes premiums for those in poverty, fixed incomes and low-income earners. His plan
cuts those premiums in half, making insurance more attainable. Obama's plan is a solution that
attempts to get insurance within reach--to those who can't afford it. It is a good first step.

His plan covers everyone---in that everyone is addressed under his plan.

Realistically, will everyone be COVERED under Clinton's plan and Obama's plan? Absolutely not! Clinton
can't MANDATE that single moms who make $1,200 a month--spend 30 percent of their income on health care.
It's not going to happen. Conversely, with Obama's plan--not every poor person will be able to afford the
premiums, even if the costs are cut in half.

I believe that Obama's plan offers a better solution though. More people will end up "in the system"
under Obama's plan--because he cuts those premium costs in half. Hillary's plan does NOT A THING about
the up-front cost of skyrocketing premiums. Tax breaks, do NOT address the fact that people simply
don't have the money, up front, to pay for health insurance.

How happy are senior citizens, living off of only Social Security, going to be when they cannot afford Hillary's
mandate and they are fined by the IRS? What happens to these people, under a mandate--when they go to the doctor?
Are they turned away? Does the doctor refuse to treat them? Do they call the police? If they aren't turned
away--that means they are treated, but we're back to the same problems that we've always had---those who can pay
are paying exorbitant amounts--to offset the cost of those who can't.

Lastly, I will say this. Obama knew that Hillary had the soundbyte. He knew she could say, "You don't cover
everyone!". He could have presented a plan that was a mandate, but he wanted to put forth a realistic, workable
solution. And he didn't want the IRS fining people in poverty. I applaud Obama for crafting a plan that addresses
costs and isn't the easy soundbyte.

That's my 2 cents...

"I don't care what you mandate."

Both plans do heavy subsidizing for people who cannot afford it.

Obama lets healthy people who can pay opt out.

Thread with info for both plans here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4314312&mesg_id=4314312

Is that it's going to turn into a vicious cycle for people.

They can't afford healthcare, so a fine is deducted from their tax return...which makes them even LESS able to afford healthcare. And so on, and so on.

And what happens if the Republicans take over congress or the WH again, and scrap the tax cuts that help make the plans affordable...but leave the mandate?

Americans are even more screwed and the insurance companies even richer.

I'm not saying that her plan is awful, I'm saying she needs to add a lot more detail about how she's actually going to make it work.

Overallk view http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/americanhealthchoicesplan.pdf

And on the righthand frame you will find half a dozen links in more detail about specific sectors & goals

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

You also seem to be ignorant of the fact that Obama also has a mandate for healthcare for children.

And I have read her plan in full. I see the "plans" the "goals". What I still fail to see is how much $$ people are going to be forced to pay. Until I see that number, and that it is reasonable for poor Americans, I cannot support her plan.

Knowing he stills mandates coverage for children (there are about 9 million uninsured children right now) and having zero clue as to the cost those families will have to bear in addition to Obama saying he will fine them of they fail to do so?

And I choose the one that doesn't mandate that adults purchase healthcare.

It's that simple.

That people without children should be allowed to gamble with the system with us footing the bill when they do get sick.

..so I choose the plan with lesser mandates. That equals less Americans being screwed by a mandate.

You support more Americans being screwed by a mandate?

so they are no greater than a percentage of a family's income.

It also allows people to enroll in government funded health care plans similar to Medicare.

I realize Krugman is now an enemy of the Obama fan club for daring to tell the truth, but there you have it.

any non-single payer health care plan without them will fail because people will wait until they are sick or incur health care costs before enrolling in a plan.

Senior citizens get Medicare. The poor get Medicaid. They get covered.

The people who can least afford any of these plans are those who work jobs that do not have benefits, and those who have pre-existing conditions which keep them from qualifying for private coverage, much less affording it.

They need subsidies to help pay the premiums, not mandates and vague tax credits and undefined premium caps.

That and the lack of mandates makes his the superior plan.

and make a hideous problem worse, not better

in fairness, Edwards' plan was virtually indistinguishable from Clinton's

Either way they're all pretty much the same thing.

...for Hillary's plan, I have to go with Obama's.

Unless she's offering care for $1 a month, it's going to be more than some people can afford. And it needs to be up to them to decide whether they can afford it.

I think that we need to be honest with ourselves that getting everyone in this country covered is going to be a process. At the rate that healthcare costs us today, I don't think it can be done. We need to streamline our costs by reducing paperwork (IMO, all hospitals should adopt the VA's computerized system, it's wonderful). Our doctors also need to be forced to spend time with patients diagnosing them via proper history and physical exams rather than immediately resorting to high cost diagnostic tests.

Even the Canadian single-payer plan, doesn't offer free comprehensive coverage for everyone. And they've already scaled back on the items I've mentioned.

Obama's doesn't how is that better?

Kaiser Foundation's Side by Side Analysis of Clinton & Obama's Health Care Plans

http://www.health08.org/sidebyside_results.cfm?c=11&c=16


Edwards was the best plan. But Clinton's is very close to Edwards and head and shoulders above Obama's. I went back and re-read all of it today. Its very detailed, very comprehensive. Her campaign spent a lot of time on it and it shows.

It does have a provision similar to Edwards that will give everyone who is uninsured the choice between a government (single payer) plan similar to Medicare and private health insurance. If fully implemented it would place government funded health insurance in competition with private health insurance.

It also expands Medicaid, SCHIP and other government subsidized insurance programs to plug the holes in the safety, covering childless adults in addition to families and children. This takes care of a very large part of the uninsured population - low income adults who have no minor children.

Hillary's plan also has the usual provisions to require private insruance companies to cover everyone regardless of pre-existing conditions, etc. and also has a mechanism to limit increases in premiums to a percentage of a family's income.

Obama's plan is structured for inevitable failure. It doesn't cover everyone, leaves large numbers of people out of the sytem and doesn't provide for competition between public and private insurance plans. When coupled with government subsidies for premiums, it quickly becomes corporate welfare with skyrocketing insurance costs. Because it doesn't require everyone to get coverage, coverage costs will climb as people only pay into the system when they get sick.

1. There is an "across the board" mandate in there that opens up all kinds of possibilities for problems; Obama's is just for children.

2. I don't think that there is a chance in hell that it would get passed as currently structured. It is just too damn costly in our current economic climate. This is one of the reason she has not had any traction with this in years.

May 20, 2004

FRENCH HEALTHCARE....The Economist provides a capsule summary of healthcare in France:

Its hospitals gleam. Waiting-lists are non-existent. Doctors still make home visits. Life expectancy is two years longer than average for the western world.

....For the patient, the French health system is still a joy. Same-day appointments can be made easily; if one doctor's advice displeases, you can consult another, a habit known as nomadisme médical. Individual hospital rooms are the norm. Specialists can be consulted without referral. And while the patient pays up front, almost all the money is reimbursed, either through the public insurance system or a top-up private policy.

For family doctors too, liberty prevails. They are self-employed, can set up a practice where they like, prescribe what they like, and are paid per consultation. As the health ministry's own diagnosis put it recently: “The French system offers more freedom than any other in the world.”

And despite the Economist's scary headline, which proclaims that "crisis looms," the French system provides this service to everyone in the country and does it for less than half the cost per person of the U.S. Even if they decide to raise taxes to cover a growing deficit in their healthcare fund (the subject of the Economist's article) their costs will still be less than half ours per person.

Now, there are undoubtedly drawbacks to the French system. They probably have fewer high-tech machines than we do, and the comparative cost figures may be skewed by the American love of elective procedures. Still, there would have to be a lot of drawbacks to make their system less attractive than ours.

So why not adopt it? Well, that would be socialized medicine. Can't have that, can we? After all, everyone knows that when you socialize something it automatically declines slowly into anarchy and uselessness. Right?