I have a question on substance.......

[KLee]

This has been bothering me ever since the debate Tuesday night. I'm not sure if I'm reading into it too much or not, if I am I apologize.

What is bothering me is when they both were talking about their Health Care Plans. Senator Clinton and Senator Obamas plans are basically the same except they disagree as to how to get there, ie mandates

Senator Clinton has always said she will cover everyone, and that is what makes her plan different than Obama's take on making it more affordable.

Why did she say this then?

SEN. CLINTON: What we have said is that at the point of employment, at the point of contact with various government agencies, we would have people signed up. It's like when you get a 401(k), it's your employer. The employer automatically enrolls you. You would be enrolled.

And under my plan, it is affordable because, number one, we have enough money in our plan. A comparison of the plans like the ones we're proposing found that actually I would cover nearly everybody at a much lower cost than Senator Obama's plan because we would not only provide these health care tax credits, but I would limit the amount of money that anyone ever has to pay for a premium to a low percentage of your income. So it will be affordable.

Now, if you want to say that we shouldn't try to get everyone into health insurance, that's a big difference, because I believe if we don't have universal health care, we will never provide prevention.

I have the most aggressive measures to reduce costs and improve quality. And time and time again, people who have compared our two approaches have concluded that.

~~~~

So you could see the text of the debate, I went and found a link here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/us/politics/26text-debate.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin


Which is it, everyone or nearly everyone?

Please don't attack me, its a legit question, since healthcare is a big issue.

[Dogmudgeon]

1. Neither plan will be used

I think that no matter who becomes the President, a multi-partisan program will be implemented.

Then it will crash.

Then it will be replaced by single-payer universal ... at some point.

--p!

[lapfog_1]

2. Mandates are essentially a tax on the working poor. - n/t

[KLee]

3. But....

If she has been saying she would cover everyone, why did she turn around and say nearly everyone?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

9. I read it as saying

she'd cover nearly everyone at a much lower cost than other plans. So this could mean that in some cases, coverage would cost as much or more than other plans. That's how I interpret what she said.

[damntexdem]

6. There should be subsidies for the working poor, as for all the poor.

But allowing those with adequate income to avoid buying insurance would be to invite them to be free riders: if they suffer something that involves catastropic costs that they cannot pay themselves, they will still be treated, to the cost of the rest of us.

Of course, better still is a plan, especially a single-payer plan, that simply enrolls everyone.

[lapfog_1]

12. Yes, there would be subsidies...

but they are only SUBSIDIES!

And there would be a "cutoff" for subsidies.

Let's say (for example) that there is a working family of four (mom, dad, two kids), that makes, say, $55000 a year. They net (after SS and taxes) about $3100 a month. They rent, have a car payment, have the usual phone, electric, cable, internet, gas, auto insurance and gasoline charges per month. 1200+350+70+120+40+40+80+160+240 respectively... that's now $2300 in monthly bills. That leaves $800 a month for food, clothes, and health care (plus gifts and other items). Now let's say that mandates state you must make under %50,000 to get any subsidy. And the employer is out of the health care providing business. They will be mandated to pay something like $200 to $400 per month for health care.

And this is if they live in, say, Portland or Cleveland... if they live in California, the rent will be higher, if they live in Phoenix, the electric will be higher.

They are currently squeezed dry and have nothing left over for savings or fun things (other than watch TV and web surf)... and they do with the minimum health care right now (employer provided or do without).

So how is a mandate going to fix this?

There is only one solution, universal single payer... and get rid of useless parasites on our economy, that would be insurance companies and tax preparers (I'm sure that there are others).

[KLee]

4. Anyone else?n/t

[damntexdem]

5. It's irrelevant. If we're lucky enough to get any reform, Congress will write it.

HRC should have learned that from 1992-94, but apparently didn't.

Both should simply say that they want a plan with some basic outlines; and both should vow to sign any Congressional plan that makes any improvement whatever.

[Fredda Weinberg]

7. Read it carefully. HRC is comparing cost. While some subsidized individuals may cost

more, the mandate is universal to avoid cherry picking ... or even allowing those at low risk to opt out.

[kentuck]

8. They are both just "plans"..

There is nothing real about either of them at this point.

[KLee]

10. true...

Nothing will pass without congress.

It just bothered me is all. I just wondered who "nearly everyone" left out? Poor People? Rich People? Elderly? After she touted that "everyone" would be covered.

[kentuck]

11. Right.

Nobody is covered yet. It's a lot about discussion about something that does not yet exist.