Can someone explain to me if I'm wrong on Clinton's Healthcare Plan?

[Meldread]

This seems to be one of her most highly touted issues, but I am not seeing all the glamour. I'm guessing most people here on DU are middle to upper class people, so might not really understand the plight of those who have financial difficulties (read: poor). The Clinton Welfare Reform did a lot to hurt a lot of people, and I can tell you from personal experience with members of my own family that there are people out there who need welfare and can't get it. There is an arbitrary "poverty line" drawn in the sand. Because people worked their entire lives to pay off their home, or were lucky enough to be given land by a relative they are considered ineligible for many welfare programs. These are people without health insurance. These are people who NEED health insurance.

Hillary's Healthcare plan demands that all American's be covered. They have to pay for it. There is a claim that if you have trouble making payments that the government will help you out. Yet, as I look at many extended members of my family who have tried to get government assistance but could not, for various reasons, all of whom who do not have health care, I wonder if a similar system exists in Hillary's Healthcare Plan. I wonder if they will be penalized for crossing an arbitrary line drawn up by some asshole in Washington, and will be penalized and have to pay a fine for not being able to afford the healthcare she promised them.

In effect, what I see Hillary's plan doing in reality is forcing people to buy something they can't afford and then punishing them for not being able to afford it.

I think we can all agree that the poverty line in this country is way too high, there are lots of people, who are not homeless or even jobless, who simply cannot qualify for various reasons. Hell, there are some people who are homeless and jobless but still can't qualify.

Am I wrong in how I view Hillary's plan and if I am can someone explain it to me? It is one of the reasons I prefer Obama's plan. Even if everyone is not covered, for whatever reason, at least they are not being punished. From what I understand the main difference between the plans is one being mandatory and the other being optional. Obama's plan also seems to be focused on lowering premiums, which is supposed to be good for everyone.

Also, I believe both plans still heavily rely on private insurance companies, am I correct? By making it mandatory isn't that effectively selling out to the insurance companies by punishing those who can't afford it and telling them that, by law, they now must purchase something they can't afford?

I might have it all wrong, of course - I'm not a policy wonk. That's why I'm asking for someone to break it down for me. The primaries are coming up in my state on the 12th and I have people asking me questions about Hillary's plan.

[sandnsea]

1. That's how I see it, with one addition

His plan has subsidies which help to pay the premium every month. Her subsidy is a tax credit at the end of the year. HUGE difference.

There are differences within the plans on how they would regulate insurance and the quality of services, and some other structural items. But the biggest difference is that mandate and I have never seen Washington understand what it's really like for low income working people.

[joshcryer]

3. Clintons subsidies are based on income, basically it's a sliding window.

Just like single payer. You don't make any money, you pay nothing into the system. You make a small wage, you pay a little. You make a lot, you pay a bunch. Simple.

She offers way more in the line of subsidies: http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/76225/

At this point I don't know what the argument is, Obama's plan is pro-corporation and not as progressive.

[joshcryer]

2. Not at all, it would subsidize those who can't afford it. And the government insurer would be the...

...cheapest way to go. The mandate basically says that most people would pick the government insurer, which is essentially single payer for all intents and purposes.

Because Obama doesn't have that mandate, people can chose to opt in and out at whim, screwing up premiums for not only the government insurer (which would, if mandated, become flat rate and very low cost, like single payer), but the private insurers.

This actually has the opposite effect of allowing private insurers to continue raising premiums to offset costs (because the government insurer would be doing it too), which is why the projections are so much higher.

Universial health care means you have to be responsible and pay into the system when you're healthy. All Obama promises are "penalties" for people who don't do as such (which is damn near a mandate itself, depending on whether or not those "penalties" are implemented correctly; there is no information about these penalties at all anywhere, it's just something they invented to rebutt Krugman on mandates).

[Meldread]

4. Ah, that is intersting.

Is there a more in depth link to her plan - something that is explained in non-Washington speak? (I would also like a link to the exact proposal of her plan - the legislation she intends to push onto Congress.)

[joshcryer]

5. Don't have legislation, it probably wouldn't look exactly like that.

Neither would Obama's really, but here's a link to her plan in full: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/americanhealthchoicesplan.pdf

[sandnsea]

6. kick for common sense n/t

[CK_John]

7. Plans are only proposals to Congress. It's starting point, just like that check you may get or not.