Can someone explain the word "Universal" to Obama?

[MagsDem]

He didn't seem to understand what the word means when he was discussing health care coverage. Let's review:

Universal: Including, relating to, or affecting all members of the class or group under consideration

The key word there would be ALL, as in NOT leaving out 15 million adults. Towards the end though he did have to give in and finally concede that he "differed on how to GET TO univeral health care coverage."

Let's see... you can GET THERE by starting out covering everyone, which would be "universal." Or you can get there by leaving out 15 million and just having hope and faith they will get coverage later - which would NOT be universal.

Obama gets an F in vocabulary (also flunking out on denounce and reject), for this debate, and an A- for misleading statements.

[dkf]

1. Universal Health Insurance does not equal Universal Health Care.

Hillary is full of it too.

[OzarkDem]

33. Under Clinton's plan it does

Under Obama's plan their is neither Universal Health Insurance or Universal Health Care

[ihelpu2see]

44. Wrong, Dennis Kucinich's plan was Universal, unfortunately, both plans put

forth by Clinton and Obama fall way short and will fail. They will fail because of how confusing it will be to the general public. Now Ralph Nader has picked up the torch for Dennis and I hope he gets some air time. Medicare Part B for all is the simplest way to give Universal health care.

[democrattotheend]

55. Exactly

I was never a big Dennis Kucinich fan, but I was wishing that he was there last night to point out how phony this debate over mandates is, and that a universal mandate is not the same as universal health care.

[harun]

108. Wrong, an insurer decides what coverage and payment you get

it doesn't guarantee anything but profits for them.

[Submariner]

2. Mandated Hillarycare is just like the Romneycare scam here in MA

Hillary can take her mandated health insurance and go try and run that scam in another country.

[MagsDem]

5. Romneycare?

That what the right wing nuts call it because they hate the idea of Universal healthcare. See, that's the problem with Obama... he has completely garbaged up our party with people that would be much more comfortable in the rethuglican party.

[OzarkDem]

34. Mass plan was private insurance only/ Clinton's has public choice

Clinton's plan makes private insurance compete w/ a government insurance plan (like Medicare). It keeps the cost down. Clinto's plan also has caps on insurance premiums as a percentage of individual income.

Federal government also has more leeway than states to help consumers buy health insurance. Clinton's plan also expands Medicaid to cover low income people.

Mass Plan only allowed people to purchase private insurance, had no real caps on premiums (or overruled them early on). No way to control costs effectively.

Obama's plan, since it doesn't cover everyone, costs insured folks $900 a year to pay for the cost of those who can afford insurance but refuse to get it.

[oasis]

56. Thank you.

:thumbsup:

[ContinentalOp]

79. Really? Who is eligible for Medicare though?

Only low income families right? Everyone else is required to buy private insurance under Clinton's plan. Where is the competition? All I see is a big handout to private insurance companies, unless I'm misunderstanding some key point of Clinton's plan (which is quite likely).

[Leopolds Ghost]

89. You can't have managed competition between a public and a private option

if the consumer is required by law to purchase a plan (no opt-out means no demand flexibility means no competition for price; the slightly larger per-company pool of patients would mostly come from yet more industry consolidation prompted by a vast increase in stock price as Wall Street re-rates these industries as mercantile monopolies with a captive consumer market mandated by law, further offsetting any efficiency gains with reduced competition) and the bulk of the offerings (the bulk of the slots, the bulk of the policies offered and the bulk of the pot) are private, controlled by an oligopoly of major for-profit and "pseudo-nonprofit" corporate insurance giants (who moreover control the lobbyists that dictate how the public alternative plan is structured and funded.)

Remember, these lobbyists actually RESUSCITATED the Dukakis Mandate Plan and PRESENTED it to Edwards as a finished document ready to go as policy. It is an Industry-Created plan, modeled after Bush's Social Security public-private "mandated savings accounts" plan. If one is acceptable than so is the other. I say neither.

Imagine if every American were mandated by law to purchase cable to
"reduce the cost of television" and "eliminate the problem of deadbeats
who recieve programming free over the air."

Or if, as Deval Patrick said (and the Urban DLC Party Machine seem to
have suggested with their HOPE VI plan) we eliminate the problem of
affordable housing by mandating that Every American own a house, thus
eliminating the problem of deadbeats who live under bridges, and drive
down property values for the rest of us. Eliminate the "problem"
of families "choosing to raise a child in substandard rental housing
when they should experience the dream of homeownership."

Or apply steep fees to poor families who purchase items with cash,
in order to encourage "responsible use of credit" by families who have
an insufficient debt load due to lack of disposable income, as the
national credit councils are always hectoring.

That's how anti-populist Edwards and Clinton's solution is.

[Hippo_Tron]

3. Mandated does not = universal

The only way to create universal health care is to have an entitlement program. Hillary's plan does not create an entitlement program.

[MagsDem]

6. How does mandated not equal universal?

[Hippo_Tron]

9. Car insurance is mandated for drivers, it's still not universal

Mandates mean that you have to force everybody to purchase something. That is nearly impossible.

[MagsDem]

10. Well, it pretty much is in state's that enforce it

For instance you can't get your license if you don't show proof, you can get new tags without showing proof, etc. And there are many more avenues of enforcement of mandates open when it comes to health care.... through employer mandates, to tax returns. Is your argument that it can't be enforced? It certainly can. States do it with car insurance every day.

[Girlieman]

13. Not a good comparison

Everybody needs health coverage, you only "need" auto insurance if you want to own a car. Millions of Americans (e.g., all kids below 18 years old) don't own cars, but they still need health coverage.

I don't like Hillary's plan because it forces people to buy something from insurance companies. If they could afford to, they already would. We should just get the insurance companies out of health care.

[MagsDem]

17. No, actually it doesn't force them to buy something from insurance companies

You CAN buy insurance from insurance companies if you want to. But you can also elect to use the govt FEHBP that govt workers use (including congress), or a Medicare type plan. Both of those have adminstrative costs much, much lower than commercial insurance because they are run more efficiently, AND they are not for profit, so they are cheaper for the same coverage or better.

In addition, even those costs are subsidized. In MA, for instance, the cost is something like $110 a month if you make $26K per year. And that program DOES make you buy commercial insurance. Clearly there would additional cost savings when applied over a scale of the US population as a whole versus one state.

Now what's your argument?

[ContinentalOp]

80. "But you can also elect to use the govt FEHBP that govt workers use (including congress),"

Which IS in fact a private plan, is it not? As far as I can tell it's some sort of group plan, negotiated by the government but purchased from a private insurer. Please correct me if I'm wrong because I've been trying to figure out the details of this for a while with no success.

[ContinentalOp]

85. Well, since Clinton supporters never answer this question I did some more reading.

And found this interesting nugget from the Heritage Foundation.

"The best approach, writes economist Walton Francis, would be to use the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program (FEHBP) as a model for reform. FEHBP is the program that covers 9 million federal employees, retirees and their dependents, by offering a variety of plans. Every one of them includes a prescription drug benefit. Medicare doesn’t. That’s just one reason that when he compared plans, Francis found the FEHBP is at least equal to -- and almost always superior to -- Medicare. (Section 241 of the recently enacted House Medicare bill would start the transition to an “FEHPB-style” competitive system in 2010.)"

So, if my income isn't low enough to be eligible for Medicare, at least I know that Clinton's plan will allow me to buy into a program that The Heritage Foundation approves of. :eyes:

And as far as I can tell this is, in fact, simply a program that sells private insurance to government employees. Of course government employees don't complain because, according to Wikipedia "the employer pays an amount equal to 72% of the average plan premium for self-only or family coverage." Which is nice if you're a member of Congress but does nothing for people like myself who are self-employed.

Why do I have a feeling that I'm still going to be paying Blue Shield $800 a month under these plans?

[MagsDem]

94. Why do you have the feeling you will be paying BS $800?

Because you don't understand the proposal, and based on my interactions with you in previous threads, you don't want to if it means you have to find out Obama is full of shit.

1. Your income level is irrelevant to which plan you want to join under Clinton's proposal. You want to join Medicare -- go ahead.

2. If you're dumb enough, as a dem to go to the Heritage Foundation to review dem proposals, I'm not sure anyone can help you, but as I have explained to you before FEHBPs are an excellent example of how wrong Obama is on the issue of mandates. FEHBP is coverage whose rates are negotiated by the govt. Yes, they are ADMINISTERED by private companies, but at govt rates. I will repeat this to you for the benefit of others readin this thread....

Commerical insurance profits are typically greater than 30%; FEHBP are typically 7%, the cost of Medicare admin fees are 5%.

The only way to reduce health care premium costs across the board is to widen the pool to insure everyone. You don't want to have the opportunity to buy into a program that charges only 7% over cost rather than over 30% over cost... then by all means, vote for Obama. But when you do, know that he is either full of shit, or lying to you.

[Hippo_Tron]

15. People drive without a license or get insurance then drop it

There are also people who are not employed and there are people who don't file tax returns. Universal = 100% coverage and you simply can't get that with mandates, period.

[MagsDem]

18. Yes, that's exactly why her plan includes mandates

And exactly why it's bullshit for him to say his plan is universal when it doesn't have them.

[Hippo_Tron]

22. You just ignored what I said...

YOU CANNOT GET 100% COVERAGE WITH MANDATES. There are people in this country that do not file tax returns and do not have employers. Whatever enforcement mechanism you use people will still get around it and therefore you will not have 100% coverage.

[MagsDem]

64. So we shouldn't do anything at all....

... because some people will not follow the rules? Geez, let's make murder legal then. Typical Obama supporter pretzel logic.

[Hippo_Tron]

72. No, I'm merely saying that you're being disingenuous

You started a thread entitled "someone needs to explain the word universal to Obama" when I have just showed you that in fact Hillary's health care plan is not universal either.

If you think Hillary's health care plan is better, then that's a perfectly legitimate position. But by the standards of universal = 100% coverage, you're accusing Obama of not living up to a standard that Hillary doesn't live up to either.

[MojoMojoMojo]

90. Those people have zero reported income

Those who cant afford insurance will be covered for free.

[CTLawGuy]

49. so if I mandate that

everyone buy enough food to live on, I will solve world hunger?

[Bluerthanblue]

57. Very GOOD analogy- eom

[CTLawGuy]

73. thank you

I try :)

[ContinentalOp]

81. I wish I could recommend a single post! -nt-

[EmilyAnne]

91. Thanks for this analogy. I'll be using it in the coming days. n/t

[democrattotheend]

111. Great analogy!

I've been trying to come up with a way to explain why mandating does not equal covering. That's perfect.

[Buzz Clik]

26. Exactly! Universal health care is not being offered by either candidate.

[OzarkDem]

36. Yes, Clinton does

Everyone has access to affordable health insurance and health care under her plan. People pay based on how much they can afford and private insurance is forced to compete w/ public.

Its the same as Edwards plan.

[anonymous171]

78. So she plagiarized Edwards' plan? nt

[ContinentalOp]

82. But everyone "has access" to affordable health insurance under Obama's plan as well.

Neither plan gives health care to all. They both make steps toward making it more affordable and available to all. Obama's plan just doesn't require anyone to buy it if they don't want it which makes his plan much easier to sell to the American people.

[MagsDem]

105. His plan has no hope of making it affordable

All his plan does is mandate that you buy very expensive insurance for your kids. You cannot, and I repeat CANNOT reduce the premiums for health care in this country unless you mandate that all participate in order to widen the risk pool.

Let's be clear -- Obama's plan forces you to buy insurance for your kids at basically the current rates. That is ALL it does. But you know what, I do not believe for a second a plan like that will pass, nor that he will fight for it. He simply put it out on the table because every other dem candidate did and he had to follow suit.

[DangerDave921]

31. entitlement

Even if there is an entitlement to medical treatment, there will always be bean-counters in either the insurance business or in government to decide how much treatment is legitimate or will be paid for. You can't just write an open-ended check to cover anything and everything that a person might ever want or need in medical treatment. there is no way to do that. Not and pay for the rest of government.

[OzarkDem]

35. Yes it does and yes hers provides coverage to low income

[Hippo_Tron]

42. Okay, let me explain this in very simple terms...

You can punish people for not having health insurance. A certain amount of those people will accept the punishment over purchasing health insurance and a certain amount of them will go for very long periods of time without getting caught.

[Leopolds Ghost]

92. Or, you can punish people for not buying a house or car.

Let's fine people for being poor and for buying insufficient food
for their kids while we're at it.

[MagsDem]

95. Is that like the certain amount of people that won't murder anyone....

because it is against the law? Really, you repeat this same ignorant argument in every thread about health care. Your point essentially seems to be that since you can't make sure NO ONE will skirt the system that we shouldn't have a system.

You can make a lot of arguments about mandates, but seriously, that's got to be the most ignorant, specious one out there.

[Leopolds Ghost]

99. So by that logic we should mandate employment despite the fact that a few people will still starve

Because the result of the mandate will be 0% on the unemployment rolls.
And we all know the purpose of Clinton policies is to get people off
entitlement and into the private consumer marketplace, and what better
way to enjoy the benefits of the "free market" by forcing people to
participate in a certain way? :eyes:

[MagsDem]

102. "we all know that"???

Are you on crack, or what? If Clinton's plan is to get everyone off entitlement than how do you explain that it opens up Medicare and FEHBP for all people? Admit it, you don't have clue fucking one of the details of her policy. You simply cannot, becuase that is the most bullshit statement to date I have seen regarding her plan. Sorry, go ahead and alert the mods, but this is the dumbest fucking statement I have yet seen regarding her plan. You truly are a "moran"

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

52. Mandated is Universal if it is mandated that the government cover everyone.

[nonconformist]

84. Single payer would be best.

But this is a step in the right direction, and would provide much needed care to millions who need it. If people are freaking out this much over mandates, do you really think that single payer would fly right now? What I do know is that turning Americans against any kind of a mandated plan doesn't exactly speak highly for his desire to really push for anything even resembling universal care in the future.

[Hippo_Tron]

86. Nonconformist, I'm simply pointing out to the OP that she's being a disingenuous jackass

And frankly a lot of Clinton supporters on this board are doing the same thing.

If you think that her health care plan is better than Obama's then that is a perfectly reasonable position. Frankly I think that once congress grinds them down there won't be a dime's worth of difference between them. But we can disagree on that point and frankly I am open minded and willing to be persuaded otherwise.

What I can't stand is all of these sermons from Clinton supporters about how her health care plan is universal and represents the "core values" of the Democratic Party because of that, and Obama is just a Republican-lite because you can "opt out".

Clinton's plan IS NOT UNIVERSAL. No matter what enforcement mechanisms you use you will not be able to get 100% compliance with your mandate. There will still be people that break the law and do not purchase insurance and frankly a lot of them will probably get away with it. Therefore according to the OP's definition there will not be 100% coverage.

I don't have a problem with people promoting Clinton's health care plan. I'm simply tired of this sanctimonious bullshit from her supporters that you can't be a genuine progressive and possibly disagree with mandates.

[MagsDem]

107. You don't understand basic economic principles

I'm sorry, but you just don't. There is no possible way to effectively reduce the cost of coverage without broadening the pool to the entire population. I don't understand why this is such a difficult concept for Obama supporters to understand. Stop drinking the Obama kool aid for one second and consider basic economics.

1. It's a completely specious argument to say that because some people will skirt the mandate we cannot have 100% coverage. But let's accept your specious argument and assume 95% of the population will not skirt the rules and will abide by them.

2. A risk pool broadened to include nearly all people will reduce costs across the board. If you don't understand that basic economic principle then really, you should not be engaged in this discussion. It's not a debatable concept. It's fact.

3. If Obama was serious he would accept these concepts. But he is not. He wants rethugs to vote for him, so he leaves off the mandate. He has a healthcare proposal because he has to or he'd never get dem votes. But without mandates he knows it will never be affordable enough to pass congress and be put in place because it WILL NOT be affordable without them.

4. You fucking fell for his bullshit. Just like you fell for his PACs are bad line (only he has raised and spent million donating to super delegate congressional reps with his), lobbyists are bad (except when they bundle donations for him), and homophobic bigots are part of his big tent.

Clear enough for you?

[Hippo_Tron]

109. I would be more willing to have this discussion if you wouldn't be so inflammatory

Post your argument again without off topic Kool-Aid and Donnie McClurkin references and I will engage in a discussion with you.

[nebula]

4. There's no meaningful difference

between Hillary and Obama on this issue. Both their plans are giveaways to the insurance companies. Perhaps Nader can point that out when he enters the debate. He might also explain to them the meaning of universal and single-payer. Since Kucinich has been out, no one else is going to do it.

[MagsDem]

7. 15 million people is a pretty meaningful difference

Please explain how the plans are giveaways to the insurance companies?

[bluerum]

20. Penalizing people (via increased taxes) for not buying from health ins. Corps.

The insurance companies are drooling and slavering like hungry dogs over this, just waiting to rake in the guaranteed income provided by the candidates they bought.

[nebula]

61. At the Ohio debate,

Obama himself stated plainly there is no significant
difference between his health plan and Hillary's.


edit to add: "95% of our plans are similar" - Obama

Watch the exchange here:

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x98121

[xchrom]

8. please read this thread regarding ''opting out''.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4779562

[MagsDem]

12. Good post, and very correct

Again, it's what I really abhor about Obama -- he is literally convincing the base of our party to become absolutely rethug in their thinking.

[xchrom]

16. i thought that was a beautifully thought out thread.

and i thought mrs clinton did a fine job of pointing that out with making the point re: Roosevelt and social security.

but you can all kinds of thinly disguised libertarianism in peoples points about healthcare now that these plans are out.

if we have government provided healthcare -- we will pay more in taxes{fine by me} -- so they will still get in your pocket.

under barack -- if you go to the emergency room or if you have a child -- they get in your pocket.

[CTLawGuy]

50. social security is different

it's a single payer system, with one pool. our current system is a market system with innumerable insurance pools.

[xchrom]

53. who said it wasn't --? -- not the point is it?

the point is we can not we will not get to B without going through A first.

and this market system still has lots of support throughout the country.

more -- there are european countries who use a similar system.
so we won't be reinventing the wheel.

but we do have to stand together.

[CTLawGuy]

76. the system itself

is such that mandated contributions are necessary, to take advantage of the market-risk shielding aspect of SS. (SS avoids market risk by having people "invest" in a system. Their "investments" are used to pay the returns on previous' "investors'" investments. Because money is not sitting in an account somewhere for 40 years, there is no risk it gets lost in an economic disaster, e.g. the stock market crash of 1929.) Without the mandate, no one would pay into the system, because they could not guarantee that people in the future would voluntarily pay into the system to pay off their "investment."

In a market system, which each pool is independently financed, just making people get some kind of insurance is not very helpful at all. If I run one particular market insurance pool, someone buying insurance in another pool doesn't reduce my cost or provide me with more cash to pay claims. Each pool is independently financed. So a general mandate makes no sense.

Only in a single payer system, where there is one pool, is a mandate necessary to insure that there are enough healthy people to keep that pool financially viable. A mandate to pay into the single pool is very beneficial as it provides enough cash to pay out the fraction of the pool that needs health care.

Also, there is plenty of incentive to buy private health insurance, fear of medical bills, fear of bankruptcy and having ruined credit. This idea that you get free health care for not having insurance CANNOT POSSIBLY BE RATIONAL. Otherwise NO ONE would get insurance. And if taxpayers paid for everything, we'd have a de facto single payer system.

[xchrom]

110. ...

there isn't plenty of incentive to buy health insurance -- or there would be fewer than fifty million uninsured -- and that doesn't count the under-insured.

it's use of emergency rooms as a doctors visit that drives up health care costs exponentially among other things -- notably lack of government oversight.
mandates brings that oversight directly. and that oversight can finally turn an eye to the industry's rising costs -- which isn't altogether due to the insured or costs in medical care -- but because they can.

both candidates use mandates -- but one plan opens up government systems for the poorest -- and the other doesn't.

we need everyone to be insured -- we need for everyone to have a doctor -- to get some of the basics under control -- from there we can move to a government run program.

but either way -- the costs are going to be mandated -- and they are going to come out of all of our pockets.

[cliffordu]

74. It would be nice if you could make your points without the insults.

You MIGHT be right about some of this but you lose me every time you use an insult to add a little sheen to your post.

[MagickMuffin]

11. Sorry but Hillary had her chance and she blew it so she truly deserves an F

She wouldn't let anyone help her with the plan. She excluded her own party in participating. Her ego stood in the way of any real effort during her Health care plan.

Why should I believe her now?.?.?

[MagsDem]

14. Another rethug talking point

I was an adult then and I remember it very clearly. The rethugs banded together with the greedy health insurance companies and killed the plan. She didn't kill the plan. Nice try at revisionist history. Obama is using nearly identical talking points to kill her plan now as the rethugs used back then too, by the way.

We have SCHIP because of Hillary and Bill Clinton - you do realize that, right? 27 million children insured. Obama's record on healthcare? Zero.

Hey, remember when we used to be democrats and we believed in Universal health care? You just have to shake your head and wonder what the fuck kind of creeps have invaded our party.

[MagickMuffin]

19. You are insulting with your Fucking Creeps invasion theory

In 1993, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, along with several other groups, filed a lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and Donna Shalala‎ over closed-door meetings related to the health care plan. The AAPS sued to gain access to the list of members of the task force. Judge Royce C. Lamberth found in favor of the plaintiffs and awarded $285,864 to the AAPS for legal costs; Lamberth also harshly criticized the Clinton administration and Clinton aide Ira Magaziner in his ruling.

The bill was a complex proposal running more than 1,000 pages, the core element of which was an enforced mandate for employers to provide health insurance coverage to all of their employees through competitive but closely-regulated health maintenance organizations (HMOs).

U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan qualified his agreement that "there is no health care crisis" by stating "there is an insurance crisis" but also indicated "anyone who thinks can work in the real world as presently written isn't living in it."

And by the way it was Senator Ted Kennedy along with Hillary that got SCHIP. Nice try at YOUR revisionist history.

[Lyric]

40. A liar AND a right-wing troll, apparently.

Firstly the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons is a right-wing conservative group of doctors who are dedicated to "preserving the practice of private medicine" and "supporting the principles of the free market" in healthcare, among other things. Ron Paul is a member. You post that this group sued Clinton and Shalala, like it's something they should be ashamed of. Hell--if a piece of legislation pisses off the right-wing that much, I'd say that's a point in its favor. But nice try at the uncredited quote from Wikipedia, where you tried to make it look like Hillary got sued by a respectable group of doctors.

Oh--and one more thing you conveniently left out. When you copy-pasted the entire last paragraph from the Wiki article, you forgot the last sentence of it. Here--let me fix that for you.

In 1993, the AAPS, along with several other groups, filed a lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and Donna Shalala‎ over closed-door meetings related to the 1993 Clinton health care plan. The AAPS sued to gain access to the list of members of President Clinton's health care taskforce. Judge Royce C. Lamberth found in favor of the plaintiffs and awarded $285,864 to the AAPS for legal costs; Lamberth also harshly criticized the Clinton administration and Clinton aide Ira Magaziner in his ruling.<41> Subsequently, a federal appeals court overturned the award and the initial findings on the basis that Magaziner and the administration had not acted in bad faith.

(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons)

So yeah, Hillary got sued by a conservative group of greedy doctors who viciously oppose universal healthcare, and when the federal appeals court got the case, they overturned the previous ruling and stated that the administration didn't do anything wrong.

Other than proving that you're willing to dishonestly cut out information from a Wiki article in order to try and make Hillary Clinton look like she did something wrong when she in fact did NOT, what exactly was the purpose in posting this slanderous piece of trash?

[MagickMuffin]

59. Who you calling a liar and right-wing TROLL?.?.?

The bill was a complex proposal running more than 1,000 pages, the core element of which was an enforced mandate for employers to provide health insurance coverage to all of their employees through competitive but closely-regulated health maintenance organizations (HMOs).

U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan qualified his agreement that "there is no health care crisis" by stating "there is an insurance crisis" but also indicated "anyone who thinks can work in the real world as presently written isn't living in it."

U.S. Senator Moynihan is the Senator that Hillary replaced. Just in case you don't know that.

Senator Moynihan: Despite his earlier writings on the negative effects of the welfare state, he surprised many people again by voting against welfare reform in 1996.

Which has hurt a lot of people in the process. He saw through that boondoggle also.

Are you calling Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan a TROLL or me?.?.?

I posted it to prove the point that Hillary did NOT include other people to work on this with her.


MORE that you left out since you want to nit pic:

Meanwhile, Democrats, instead of uniting behind the President's original proposal, offered a number of competing plans of their own. Some criticized the plan from the left, preferring a Canadian-style single payer system.

Defeat

In August of 1994, Democratic Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell introduced a compromise proposal that would have delayed requirements of employers until 2002, and exempted small businesses. However, "Even with Mitchell’s bill, there were not enough Democratic Senators behind a single proposal to pass a bill, let alone stop a filibuster."

A few weeks later, Mitchell announced that his compromise plan was dead, and that health care reform would have to wait at least until the next Congress. The defeat weakened Clinton politically, emboldened Republicans, and contributed to the notion that Hillary Clinton was a "big-government liberal" as decried by conservative opponents.

The 1994 mid-term election became a "referendum on big government — Hillary Clinton had launched a massive health-care reform plan that wound up strangled by its own red tape."

The Democratic Congress decided since they were left out, they would write their own health care policy.

I think her health care plan help us lose congress.

HMO's are nothing more than a boondoggle for the health care industry. No longer would patients receive adequate health care. Doctors no longer provided the professional one on one service when someone made their appointments. We are rushed in rushed out. Doctors no longer wanted to listen to everything the patient had to tell them.

RUSH THEM IN, RUSH THEM OUT. Because they make MORE money this way.

I've seen this so many times with my parents, in laws, and myself.

[Drunken Irishman]

77. Obviously Daniel Patrick Moynihan was a drunken Irishman.

;)

[MagsDem]

68. I can do you one better... I'm insulted that some of you folks call...

yourselves democrats.

[MagickMuffin]

70. Back at ya, Mags

I equally find it insulting that you cannot take criticism about your candidate. As a Democrat I'm allowed to express my opinions about our candidates.

Sorry you have a problem with that.

:hi:

[MagsDem]

103. I don't have a problem with that, actually

I support HRC only because she and Obama are the only ones left and he is a fucking idiot or liar in the extreme. But despite my lukewarm support of her, Obama supporters are just out to lunch on this issue. I have truly never seen such ignorance and ridiculous statements made about a policy proposal in all my life. Her plan is identical to Edward's plan. IDENTICAL. And Obama supporters characterizations of it show them to be utterly, and completely uninformed on this issue.

[cliffordu]

75. RE: You just have to shake your head and wonder what the fuck kind of creeps have invaded our party.

Yeah, I wonder that all the time. Please read my post about the insults.

[OzarkDem]

37. Her plan is great, it will pass

[MojoMojoMojo]

93. Hillary suggested Single Payer in the 90s

Shes the only one with balls enough to actually attempt implementing it.If you respect Kucinich and Nader for Single Payer ,you should respect Hillary as well.

[boppers]

21. Explain it to Hillary, too.

She leaves out transients, workers paid under the table, the self-employed, and immigrant workers.

12-30 million people.

She basically ignores them.

To slam Obama for this is pathetic.

[Hippo_Tron]

43. They don't count, just like Texas won't count in a week

[monomach]

23. It's NOT Universal Health Care. It's Universal Health INSURANCE.

There's an enormous difference you keep ignoring.

Their plans are very similar and both plans are garbage. Insurance will cost about the same with either of them. Obama simply gives adults the option of not buying it. The insurance companies hope and pray that we institute either of the plans. They're drooling over the possibility.

STOP calling it Universal Health Care, anyway. Universal Health Care is Socialized Medicine, and we'll never see it in the USA, unfortunately.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

24. Both of their plans are BS & Not True Universal. Both leave us in the hands of the same insurance co

that play God with peoples' lives.

The mandate should be on the government to cover everyone.

[MagickMuffin]

27. Playing with peoples' lives, I know how well that works

My beloved friend who was hospitalized for AIDS complications, was there for a month. The insurance company told his family they had two choices, make a decision for him to be euthanized at the hospital or they had to take him home to die.

And yes, the hospital was giving him large amounts of morphine to speed up his death.:cry: God I still miss him after all these years.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

28. MagickMuffin

:hug:

Not the same story but I know exactly how you feel. On Mar 12, it will be 8 years since the love of my life passed over. I can't believe he's been gone this long. :cry:

[MagickMuffin]

30. OmmmSweetOmmm, I understand your pain

Searte was one of my best friends. We shared so much together. Our home, cooking, creating music, art and love of life. He had moved out with his lover, after living with us for quite a few years. We let him move in with us after the same lover decided to leave him and return to his wife. Searte was devastated. And unfortunately he became careless and before you know it he contracted HIV.

So, so sad.

He would have turned 50 this year. He died just after he turned 35.

You certainly deserve a:hug: as well. Death is such a bitch.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

51. Thank you and another

:hug:

[OzarkDem]

38. Clinton's plan covers everyone and is affordable

and, like Edwards, is the quickest way to single payer.

[salbi]

45. Who defines affordable??

I watched the debate last night and keep hearing how her plan is affordable and people will only pay up to a certain percentage of their wages. But, what percent???? She never tells that or says what she defines affordable as? My definition and hers are probably very different. I know what it is like to struggle and have barely enough to survive. Let working people define affordable.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

46. And affordable is? Who is to determine what is affordable? Each individual has their own

unique expenses, so does that mean we give a whole financial statement to show what we afford? And what happens if those situations change? Please.

Personally speaking, I am self-employed, things are tight and if I could probably afford $50 per month, and that would be cutting it tight right now.

The fastest track to single payer is to go directly there. Period.

[cali]

25. Mandated insurance isn't Universal either.

You don't seem to know jack about what Universal Healthcare is.

[NDambi]

29. I have enough mandates in my pay check and my life...no thanks Hill

[Vinca]

32. Passing a law requiring everyone to buy insurance is not

universal health care. If Obama was suggesting this, the Clinton folks would be all over it as idiotic.

[OzarkDem]

39. Offering guaranteed affordable health coverage to everyone is

I don't feel like paying $900 a year for people who can afford insurance but refuse to buy it.

[Vinca]

41. Thank you for blaming all the expenses of health care on the uninsured.

I suppose the billions and billions and billions of dollars in health insurance company profits has nothing to do with it. The Kucinich plan is true universal health CARE. Both Hillary and Barack are offering universal health INSURANCE. Hillary's "you must buy insurance" law will not result in universal health CARE. It bothers me you feel you must support each and every item on your candidate's agenda as she lays it out - and they call Obama supporters a cult.

[Occam Bandage]

47. Mandated insurance is not universal health care either.

[CTLawGuy]

48. Only a single payer system

is truly universal health care, so neither of them are techinically "universal."

[mudesi]

54. NEITHER Clinton's nor Obama's plan are universal health care!

Forget about the health care debate for the next 8 years, because it's not going to happen under Obama or Clinton or McCain.

[From The Left]

58. Yes, Obama Is Very Dumb

He's only a Constitutional Law professor. What's your degree in?

[knixphan]

60. both plans are below the mark

Kucinich/Conyers are the ones with the right idea.

HR 676 needs to get back into play - onto president Obama's desk!

Single Payer! - THAT'S universal.

We're fighting for it here in CA, just in case the rest of the country can't get it done.

http://www.healthcareforall.org/

[Johnny__Motown]

62. The availability is universal. well global, National actually, not covering the entire universe

why can't Clinton supporters grasp that everyone who wants it can get it with his plan.


The problem is she wants to force people to buy something they may not be able to afford just for her own pried, Yes pride, she is still ashamed of losing this battle in the 90s and she is using this to vindicate herself.

[LSK]

63. Neither plan is Universal Healthcare, both are STEPS to it

[MagsDem]

65. A plan that offers affordable coverage to everyone is pretty damn

Universal. I guess even posting the definition of the word universal doesn't help our new found rethug thinkers at DU.

[LSK]

66. from my understanding

Most universal systems are payed for out of taxes and offers everyone healthcare for no charge or a minimal charge.

Watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2sFT7T0mCs

[MagsDem]

67. Well you can't possibly be for that

Barack Obama says it will never work. He says Hillary tried that and failed. So she shouldn't try that again.

[LSK]

69. why wouldnt I be for that???

:shrug:

[ContinentalOp]

87. Who said shouldn't?

The fact is that she isn't trying it.

[ContinentalOp]

83. Obama's plan must be universal then right?

Since it offers affordable coverage to everyone. The key word being "offers." Not "requires the purchase of."

[Leopolds Ghost]

96. "requires the purchase of" is antithetical to "is affordable", anyway

As anyone who's taken Economics 101 (especially the section
entitled "Mercantile Economies, Regulated and Un-regulated
Monopolies and Oligopolies") would know.

[MagsDem]

106. No, because when you remove the mandate you remove affordable

It's basic economics. I thought we were told Obama supporters were so much smarter than everyone else. You sure couldn't prove it by this healthcare discussion. BASIC ECONOMICS.

[cooolandrew]

71. It will be universal Ok, and iIf Repubs return to power they will take way subsidies and no way out.

Barack's plan is at least optional. If you have to take it by law and repubs return it will go up and you will have to still pay for it. Kucinich had the real plan take it away from insurance companies and take away profit then tax ultra rich for the rest. Bothplans left suck Barack's sucks less.

[better tomorrow]

88. Universal means...

that the insurance companies will NOT deny you coverage nor deny you a policy (if you choose to purchase one) Now, can you explain the term "Mandate" to Hillary? Or, is a better word, FORCE?

[Leopolds Ghost]

97. Does Hillary's plan force -- er, I mean MANDATE -- price controls or other industry regulations?

Oops I forgot, that would be regulation of corporations, which is big government, which is bad.

Limitations on individual liberty, commoditization of public goods,
and massive government spending on private contractors to fill a
host of functions such as surveillance, overseas weapons manufacture,
and monitoring the health of the for-profit insurance industry
checkbooks at non-union wages, however, is "small, reinvented government".

[MagsDem]

100. Do you know anything about this topic? Doesn't appear so

Some of the stuff you people come up with is almost beyond belief. You do not have to mandate price controls when a product is bid to the govt, such as the FEHBP that is included in Clinton's plan. The prices are de facto regulated because the govt negotiates them for you. Under Clinton's plan you can also join Medicare or opt for a commerical payer and still recieve the subsidies.

Medicare is 5% over cost, which go to the costs of administering the program. FEHBP is typically 7% over cost, versus commercial payers which rake in a > 30% profit.

[MagsDem]

98. Bullshit -- plain and simple

Clinton's plan says you can buy into Medicare (5% over cost for admin fees), FEHBP (avg 7% over cost) or commerical (> 30% profits) if you're one of those rethugs that thinks the govt can't do anything right.

The incredible ignorance on this issue by Obama supporters can mean only one thing -- he wants you to be ignorant. I'm sorry, but healthcare regulation and policy is what I do for a living, and listening to this incredible ignorance about health care coverage outrages me.

You back a candidate that is bullshitting you to an extreme on this. And I would bet you that if he does get elected he will never even attempt to bring his "plan" to reality. I say that because when I listen to him it is utterly unbelievable that he is so uninformed as to actually believe he is telling the truth.

YOU ARE BEING LIED TO. Get it through your heads.

[CyberPieHole]

101. Obama will do for National healthcare what he did for State healthcare in Illinois...

nothing.zip. nada.

Elect Obama and forget Health care coverage. Plain and simple. Just forget about it. Obama will work with the drug interests and they will come up empty handed. Say bye bye to health care under Barack Obama.

[MagsDem]

104. LOL - I opened this post anticipating saying just that

I was expecting some complete bullshit about how he had made a healthcare miracle happen in IL and was prepared to completely rebut it. Nice to see an honest post about his record. Thank you.