Elizabeth Edwards chooses Clinton's healthcare plan over Obama's and McCain's

[Evergreen Emerald]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23919149#23919149

[BeyondGeography]

1. Can she pony up $292K now so Hillary's employees will have coverage?

[depakid]

2. which is relevant how?

[BeyondGeography]

5. EE and Hillary favor across-the-board mandates and HRC fell behind on her own insurance payments

And if you think the Republicans wouldn't have field day with that one, I can't help you.

[C_U_L8R]

6. If Hillary can't manage her own campaign's healthcare plan,

how on earth is she going to manage the nation's healthcare plan???
Not paying the bills isn't an option.

[Texas Hill Country]

114. all those bills are paid... get over yourself.

[sandnsea]

3. Does she know it's going to cost up to 10%

of workers' incomes??

[splat]

9. Ooh, scare me, Uniter! (btw, we don't believe you)

[sandnsea]

22. Do you believe Hillary herself??

I don't make things up, ever. Just more delusion about what it's like for the bottom 50%. We can't afford 10% of our income for premiums, and have to pay deductibles and co-pays and prescriptions on top of that. And she wants to mandate it.

"In an extensive interview on health policy, Mrs. Clinton said she would like to cap health insurance premiums at 5 percent to 10 percent of income."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/28/us/politics/28clinton.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1&hp&oref=slogin

[OzarkDem]

19. Low income Americans are spending 33% of income on health care now

Interesting talking point, should have a source.

Health care spending today is about $6,697 per person and growing at the rate. Low income people, are now spending about 33% of their income on health care (2003).

http://www.kff.org/insurance/upload/7670.pdf

5-10% of income is a big cost savings for them....

[anamandujano]

35. In Hillary's plan, those who can't afford to pay anything, will not have to

pay anything. If your income is that low, there will be subsidies.

[OzarkDem]

37. Or you'll get Medicaid

Its a very comprehensive plan. There will be tax credits for both individuals and businesses.

[Justitia]

40. Do you realize you have to be destitute to qualify for Medicaid?

Mandated insurance purchases will simply make people criminals for not buying something beyond their monthly means. And then you'll short their paychecks.

Great, make poor people even worse off.

[anamandujano]

43. Not "beyond their monthly means" but very well within.

[Justitia]

46. Says you? Who are YOU to determine what a family can afford? -eom

[anamandujano]

50. Silly, Hillary and her number crunchers will determine it, not me.

My brother is doing my easy-as-pie tax return for me.

[Justitia]

54. That does not inspire any kind of confidence. I'm against criminalizing the poor

and almost poor. And middle class families w/kids who can't afford you shorting their paychecks for insurance companies that charge them $1200 /month, with 33% co-pays and $2000 deductibles.

That is a boon for insurance companies, it's not providing healthcare to anyone.

[anamandujano]

57. Your "concerns" for the poor have been answered numerous times.

Toodles.

[Justitia]

61. No, they haven't. You want to short the paychecks of the middle class for up to $900 / month

to make them purchase what amounts to unaffordable, insufficient coverage.

Then, you want to impose tax penalties on them too, if whatever insurance companies Hillary favors is beyond their reach.

That is criminalizing someone for not being able to afford a retail product.

[anamandujano]

69. Anyone reading this subthread knows you haven't made your case.

[Justitia]

74. Have you made a case for how Americans could afford MANDATORY INSURANCE? NO.

You are advocating a policy position without being able to explain how you would make it work.

You are all for MANDATES without explaining how they would work, be enforced and not penalize people who cannot afford to buy a retail product.

Finally, you have not made your case on how FORCING people to BUY A RETAIL PRODUCT is actually providing them with healthcare.

[CTyankee]

101. No, her plan would also expand Medicaid upward, so that the same limitations you mention

will be expanded to cover people who currently would not qualify. There is no other way, IMO. She does mention expansion of Medicaid, last time I read it. That is surely what she meant...

[flpoljunkie]

104. Elizabeth mentioned that both their plans would open door to coverage thru Medicare.

This is what would get us in the door to single payer--a start to the true universal coverage we all desire.

[CTyankee]

106. Yep, John Edwards said this back when he first dropped out.

He made the great argument that once private companies have to compete with public plans, they will lose market share and the people will choose the more inclusive, cheaper government program. Thus the "market", which Republicans love, will determine it. JE said he didn't see why the REpublicans didn't embrace such an outcome...

I love it!

[Justitia]

111. Medicaid eligibility is determined by each state, not the fed gov't. -eom

[CTyankee]

118. And that can't be addressed? Is such a measure inviolable as to

regulation? It seems to me that the key for the states would be sufficient federal funding. We have a different situation here in the U.S. as opposed to say, France or Germany, in the autonomy of our states over certain matters. But I don't see the states having a big problem with a plan covering anybody who meets the federal guidelines, as long as the federal share of the costs is generous enough. It's not like the states don't want their citizens to have decent health insurance, but they don't want "unfunded mandates" from the federal government.

Eternal vigilance is also key. The Republicans will do their best to starve public plans and then point to them and say "See, we told you socialized medicine doesn't work." However, many of them have been sobered by the utter defeat of their plan to privatize Social Security, in addition to some of the less crazy ones who realize that our health care system does not work for their own constituents. For instance, look at the SCHIP plans. The states mainly liked it, some improved on it within their states. The Bush Administration killed the additional funding the program needed, not the states.

[Justitia]

120. I wish! I would love to expand eligibility, but you see how that failed w/SChip. I'd like to keep

trying!

Expanding eligibility for both Medicaid (incl SCHIP, it is administered by them) is a bit tough because it is a state by state thing, but I'd love to change that (feels like moving mountains), or conversely, we could change the eligibility of the federal program (Medicare) - probably easier.

Let's just take what we already have (Medicare) and open up the system a little wider for those who want to participate. Exactly like we did in 1972. No need to reinvent the wheel, right?

[CTyankee]

129. And this may come to pass.

It takes political will at the federal level, which we haven't had since LBJ got Medicare/Medicaid through Congress and signed into law.

Things have gotten so much worse since Hillary presented her first plan that there is real desperation out there. Her plan back in 93 was unworkable because it couldn't overcome the (mostly manufactured) impression that it would ration people's health care. Some people still believe it. I had a coworker who said pointblank that if a government plan wouldn't cover her soccer playing son's MRI for his injured shoulder she wouldn't be in favor of it and she'd stick to her second husband's private health care plan. The reason for it was that she was desperately hoping that the son would get a soccer scholarship to a college, as that was the only way he could go to college. Now she's separated from her second husband and has no health insurance. The kids are on SCHIP which is fairly generous in CT.

If you knew this woman you would probably be very sympathetic to her argument even tho, like me, you would probably offer opposing views on public plans. But this was her dilemma and it was a real one. I don't think I changed her mind on her perception of government health care for her.

Similarly, my car mechanic, a nice hardworking guy, said to me he was "afraid" of what he would get if we went to "Medicare for everybody." And he has a disabled wife on SSI.

This is the reality. I feel bad for these people, but if they don't have the political will for change, what can we do?

[Justitia]

130. Hopefully more will become educated. We need everyone currently on Medicare to speak up.

Folks over 65 and others. Do you ever hear of anyone turning down their Medicare eligibility - noooo.

Of course, many have additional stuff to supplement it (I'm not talking Medicare Advantage plans, which are scams and more costly), and some have private plans as primary, but no one refuses their bedrock Medicare coverages. Hell, I'm hoping to squeak by until I'm eligible too.

It's all about education, education, education.

edit: ya know, my son has Medicare and has had countless MRIs - Medicare actually didn't get in the way of the practice of medicine by denying coverage of them - as a private plan might. Funny, huh?

[CTyankee]

132. I am on Medicare Part A. the only reason I am not on Part B is

because my husband's plan costs less and covers more, such as some dental and prescription drug coverage. But he works for the City of New Haven and belongs to AFSCME which negotiates hard for its members. When he retires I'll have to find a supplementary, probably AARP's. I am hopeful that once we get an administration that truly cares about the people, there will be some relief.

My little grandson in California is on SCHIP and other programs since my daughter and her husband can't afford private insurance. Anybody who argues against SCHIP better not talk to me. NEVER argue with a grandma when it comes to her grandkids!

[Justitia]

133. My son has Parts A & B, Medicaid pays his Part B premium & a supplemental thru State Farm

Of course, his is a catastrophic case (kidney failure), so it's a bit different from the norm.

When he first got sick, I was out of my mind with worry that he wouldn't get healthcare because he had no insurance. I was literally vomiting w/anxiety thinking he would be denied medical help because he had no health insurance. Every penny I could scrape went for medications. I have lots of sympathy for the medically desperate.

And yes, SCHIP is a no-brainer!

[CTyankee]

135. Oh god, Justicia, how horrible for you and him!

No wonder you were literally sick with worry.

My little grandson was just 3 yrs old when he was turned down for health insurance because he wore glasses. He has sensory processing problems that he gets therapy for under various government, state and local, including SCHIP. He'll be ok.

I hope your son will be ok. I am so sorry to hear of your ordeal; I would feel as you do!

I don't want to harbor hate in my heart for anybody, but I came as close as I will ever get to that when Bush vetoed SCHIP expansion. I felt helpless with rage. Fortunately, my little guy is getting what he needs from the state of California and the city of Los Angeles. I'm extraordinarily grateful.

Let's hope we can win this thing in November. Altho I voted for Hillary in our primary, I am a big fan of Obama's. I'm one of those strange birds that did my generational demographic thing in my primary (old fusty feminist, which I know probably enables Hillary)but will be glad if Obama is the candidate.

I wish you and your boy the best... :hug:

[Justitia]

139. Thank you for your kind words! We just need a Dem in November, no matter what.

My son is on the transplant list, so thank God Medicare covers his dialysis treatments & eventual transplant. No matter how much money somebody might have, it's true when they say we are all one catastrophic illness away from financial ruin. His ongoing care would be impossible without Medicare / Medicaid, etc. And we certainly never saw it coming, especially not for an otherwise healthy (or so we thought) 23 yr old.

Your grandson is probably very lucky to live in CA, I would think he has more services available to him and better SCHIP benefits being in a blue state. Here in red state TX, the politics of state programs are abysmal. I can't believe he was turned down for insurance because he wore glasses - that's nuts!

I also felt that same rage over SCHIP's recent veto, I was floored that anyone could subscribe to such heartless, hateful ideology as to deny healthcare access to CHILDREN (!). It sure feels like someone will rot in hell over those votes.

I know it's been contentious around here (DU) lately, and I've certainly been guilty of letting the heated primary season affect my usually better discretion, but yes, we all must keep our eye on the prize and that means getting a Dem into the presidency no matter what or who.
We are all really in this together.

All my best wishes to you (and your grandson) too.

:hug:

[anamandujano]

41. Americans paying big $$$ now will pay less and get better coverage.

She is offering the same plan that the pampered congress critters have. Who wouldn't want that. Even Donald Trump will switch over.

[Justitia]

44. If it's so great, why FORCE it by law? Making the poor criminal. -eom

[anamandujano]

52. Everyone is allowed to keep the plan they have now. They won't

want to because her plan will be better and cheaper. The poor will not pay at all.

Pssst, the poor already know how fuked they are with health care. With Obomba they will stayed fuked. They know their issues. They are not going to vote against this.

[Justitia]

56. So you have no problem garnishing the wages of the middle class for insurance companies?

What other retail products in this country does the government mandate you purchase?

This will KILL any future hope we have for single-payer coverage.

[anamandujano]

59. You sound like a broken record. You have been answered.

[Justitia]

62. No, because you don't have the answers, you are flag-waving for a candidate w/policy problems

and who has NEVER answered this question sufficiently on her own.

[anamandujano]

70. See post #69.

[OzarkDem]

82. I'm answering you

Hillary's plan allows people to choose between public and private insurance plans.

People get help paying for it

Premiums will be capped at 5% to 10% of income.

Current costs for health care in today's system ranges from 33% to 10% of income

Read the plan

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

[Justitia]

92. Just HOW will Hillary cap the rates of each citizens health insurance provided by a private company?

That mechanism is NOWHERE in her plan, she simply pulled it out of her ass.

Getting "tax credits" when you file an income tax return is NOT helping people pay for it.
A tax credit against your AGI once a year is not going to cough up any ACTUAL MONEY to pay a monthly premium.

Can you not see how little substance is in her "health insurance mandate"?

[CTyankee]

121. A refundable tax credit, such as EITC, is a subsidy to the working poor.

However, if the working poor person wants a public, government plan that is also an option. Currently Medicare is such a plan, everybody pays in, even those who are many decades away from using Medicare. It would seem to me that if a working poor person does not owe income tax, there could still be the subsidy. I'm sure it would look different from what we have today in our tax structure. Things can and do change in the tax structure...

[Justitia]

122. Yes, but as you know, tax credits are not actual money to pay monthly premiums.

Tax credits are a once a yr offset against your tax bill.
They will not provide any funds for you to pay healthcare premiums.
They are of ZERO benefit for someone who cannot afford a $900 /mo premium pymt, or deductible or co-pay.
Let's come up w/a way that their premiums could be paid for them (like Medicaid pays Medicare premiums).

I can mandate that you make your mortgage pymt, but unless I'm going to give you the money to do it every month, how will you actually do it?
Your mortgage interest deduction once a year is not going to make a difference in your monthly cash flow.

[CTyankee]

125. I have heard one scenario being advanced that would give the refundable tax credit

in advance, as it were. Getting a voucher WOULD be money that would be dedicated toward your health care. Matthew Miller talks about this in his book "The 2% Solution." These ideas are out there and have been out there for a while. What we're involved with here on this thread is a debate for which solutions have already been thought through, just waiting for a receptive federal Administration and a cooperative Congress. I certainly hear what you are saying, but understand that this whole argument may be obsolete once we get a progressive Democrat in the White House and maintain (and improve) our control of Congress.

As I said, I agree that single payer is best. I just believe that we can work our way toward that eventually WITHOUT slapping fines on whole economic groups of people. The only people who would pay the fines would be those who CAN afford it, but won't pay the money, much as there are those who can afford auto insurance but don't even bother to get minimal insurance.

[Justitia]

127. Exactly - if we give people something to pay for their coverage with, and then regulate the cost,

its do-able. But we have to give them something in advance, do away with an on-going monthly obligation (so their coverage doesn't lapse) and then regulate the product so that the costs and usable benefits are controlled.

If we don't provide a means and a way to do that, we can't simply force people under penalty to do something unattainable to them. All we do is compound their economic burden.

[OzarkDem]

142. Right, the credit applies as you earn

not just at the end of the year.

Your analysis is correct, thanks! Single payer, unfortunately, isn't going to happen overnight in this country.

[CTyankee]

126. I have heard of scenarios where you could get the tax credit

in advance, as it were. Getting a voucher WOULD be money that would be dedicated toward your health care. Matthew Miller talks about this in his book "The 2% Solution." These ideas are out there and have been out there for a while. What we're involved with here on this thread is a debate for which solutions have already been thought through, just waiting for a receptive federal Administration and a cooperative Congress. I certainly hear what you are saying, but understand that this whole argument may be obsolete once we get a progressive Democrat in the White House and maintain (and improve) our control of Congress.

As I said, I agree that single payer is best. I just believe that we can work our way toward that eventually WITHOUT slapping fines on whole economic groups of people. The only people who would pay the fines would be those who CAN afford it, but won't pay the money, much as there are those who can afford auto insurance but don't even bother to get minimal insurance.

[OzarkDem]

141. Tax credits and subsidies only apply to companies in the "pool"

If an insurance company isn't capping its premiums per the formula, it will not be allowed to participate in the private insurance pool that employers and individuals choose from. Ergo, the insurance company will not be eligible for the government subsidy.

Tax credits are not the same as tax deductions. Tax credits are subtracted directly from the taxes you owe that are deducted in each paycheck. With a tax credit, you can actually have your employer apply the credit at the time you're paid, allowing you to get more in your paycheck each month. It puts money in your pocket from the start.

[OzarkDem]

81. Wrong again

Individuals and employers have a choice between Hillary's public plan (like Medicare) or private insurance.

The public plan will naturally be lower cost for the same benefits since no profit motive is involved.

Here, take some time to read it, its pretty clear

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

[Justitia]

93. Where are the specifics of this "public plan"? They are non-existant.

"Yeah, next year, I'll come up with some kind of public health insurance bureaucracy."

THAT'S IT? THAT is the extent of her "public plan"!

[Justitia]

42. And what about the middle class in between? The subsidies in MA are not that generous.

They force families to pay anywhere from $100 - $900 /month. That is NOT affordable for a huge portion of America.

If you don't buy insurance, they short your paycheck and assess tax penalties per Hillary's plan.

[anamandujano]

47. Hillary is not Deval Patrick, she has affordability in sharp focus.

It is key to her plan.

[Justitia]

49. That is such bullshit. Who determines what is "affordable"? You? Hillary the millionaire? -eom

[anamandujano]

53. See post #50. (Please stop asking the same question over and over.)

[Justitia]

58. Because I'm not getting any concrete answers on this. You want to FORCE people to buy insurance

and ignore the fact that a HUGE chunk of people still will not be able to afford it or qualify for Medicaid.

Why don't you compare how well this is working to systems where this is already in place?

[anamandujano]

60. zzzzzzzzzzzz! zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz! zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

:boring:

[Justitia]

63. What a great policy debater you are. Ignore the flawed policy, punish the populace. -eom

[anamandujano]

71. See post #69.

[OzarkDem]

84. 5% - 10% of income for the non-poor

that's pretty good. You probably pay more than that for car insurance.

[Justitia]

94. 5 - 10% of income is NOT affordable for EVERYONE. Who determines affordability?

And how will Hillary FORCE PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANIES to constantly fluctuate their premiums for each individual citizen?

The mandate exists for individuals, but there is NO MANDATE for the private insurance companies - see the current situation in Massachusetts where the premiums for the state plans have risen 85 PERECENT IN THE FIRST YEAR.

[OzarkDem]

144. They won't be allowed to sell insurance in the "pool"

Capping premiums is pretty simple. Its not hard to index a premium to a set scale of incomes. Its done all the time in other areas.

And yes, there are plenty of mandates to private insurance companies in Clinton's plan - if they don't meet the mandates, they can't sell insurance to employers or individuals who are enrolled in the national plan.

[OzarkDem]

83. That's because Romney didn't put a good plan together

He didn't do anything to cap premium costs. Also states have less flexibility in funding these kind of programs since states can't borrow money, have less of a revenue pool to start up a good program.

[Justitia]

95. And just how, specifically, will Hillary FORCE PRIVATE COMPANIES to cap their premiums for each

citizen?

Read the fine print & between the lines - she is hinging this entire "cap" idea of trying to index your tax credit amount against a percentage of your own income and then hope that is somewhere in the neighborhood of what you are paying to the private insurance company in premiums.

There is absolutely no regulatory mandate on what these private companies will charge YOU.

And what if your income changes during the course of a year (it is based on your last years income)?

She has absolutely NO SPECIFICS for these grandiose ideas.

[OzarkDem]

143. By not allowing them to participate in the "pools"

that employers and individuals can buy from. If people choose to buy private insurance under her plan, they have to choose from insurers who are eligible in insurance pools. To be eligible they have to agree to cap premiums, not discriminate based on pre-existing conditions, cover everyone, etc.

People can still buy insurance from these companies but they won't be able to get tax credits or subsidies to do so.

[CTyankee]

103. Just by the way, you already have your paycheck shorted to pay Medicare taxes.

You can't tell your employer NOT to deduct them. It's the law.

Also, when you go on Social Security at age 65 you get Part A Medicare (hospitalization)w/o additional charge, but for Part B (drs visits) you have $$ taken out of your monthly SS check automatically (unless, like me, you have an alternate plan that covers more and costs less). If you decline Part B and have no alternate plan, when you DO sign up (as eventually most people will) you will be assessed a "fine" by paying a higher monthly payment taken out of your SS check.

So there is already plenty of precedents in current law to this notion. But again, I don't think your worries are well founded since Clinton's plan has other remedying factors.

I don't think John and Elizabeth Edwards would come out in favor of a plan that would hurt poor people the way you think it would. I just don't think they would do that...

[Justitia]

112. Yes, as a % of income. Mandated premiums are not a % of income.

You also do not pay FICA if you are unemployed, but mandatory insurance premiums & penalties do not cease if you are unemployed.

Also, Medicare does not force someone to buy a retail insurance product from a private company and MEDICARE PREMIUMS ARE REGULATED BY FEDERAL LAW.

[CTyankee]

117. I do understand your thinking about private insurers vs. public plans.

However, there are choices FOR two public plans, Medicare and the Federal employees plan, in the Clinton plan. It seems to me that coverage under one of these two plans would also be regulated by federal law. So if that is your concern, it is addressed in what is being offered. Personally, I agree that the public plans, regulated by federal law, are best. Ideally, I'd like to see single payer. Even John Edwards has said out right that his (and Clinton's)plan would eventually result in Americans wanting the public plans because they are less expensive.

But here's the thing. When Clinton presented her plan back last year, she mentioned that their research showed that many people in their focus groups said they liked the private insurance their employers offered them. I, too, have heard this and also I have heard people express fear that any sweeping reform could get them "less" coverage than they have now (you know, the dreaded "rationing" that Americans think socialized medicine will get them). Given the political reality, and in order to get to the desired goal of single payer, the private options were kept.

If you have the public plan option at a reasonable cost and you don't have to go to a private plan, what is your objection?

[Justitia]

119. Oh, I have no problem w/hybrid offerings of public/ private, etc. It's the MANDATE that bothers me.

I believe it unfairly penalizes the most vulnerable and least able to afford it by imposing financial penalties.

If people are uninsured, its because they cannot afford it, not because they don't want it.

Financially penalizing citizens because they can't afford to buy a product doesn't make much sense.
You simply force them into an even bigger hole from which they can't dig out.
Garnishing their wages is crazy!

It's akin to saying we will cure homelessness by MANDATING that everyone just buy a house.

I also don't like how the mandate steers the citizenry into supporting the private, for profit system which actually provides very little in the way of usable benefits.
Why don't we just MANDATE that everyone buy into MEDICARE??
Seriously - if we are going to MANDATE participation, let's MANDATE participation into the single-payer system, reducing the cost and providing much more comprehensive benefits.

But really, first steps first - my primary objection is criminalizing the financial hardships of the most vulnerable and middle class.

[CTyankee]

123. But if the people to whom you refer simply choose the least expensive, government plan

on the basis of their own economic situation, what is to stop them under Clinton/Edwards plan? There is no mandate to do the private over the public. Your argument assumes that people will not, for some reason, choose the affordable plan over the expensive one. Why would anyone do that?

[Justitia]

124. The mandate part is the financial obligation w/out providing funds or affordability.

The Clinton plan has no mandate that the premiums & coverages be regulated (like Medicare is) by the private companies. The burden of the mandate is on the individual to buy something. The mandate is going in the wrong direction.

If you read the fine print in her plan, the "cap" she references is nothing more than an income index that she hopes will make up in tax credits for whatever the private companies charge you. She does not require any regulation on the private insurers, against federal poverty levels, etc.

She also does not provide any form of subsidy beyond "tax credits", which doesn't provide any money to pay those premiums / deductibles / co-pays.

[roguevalley]

68. low income people are dying and doing without , living sick. Fuck

anyone who proposes prohibitive health care that will have penalties if you don't use it.

[OzarkDem]

86. I answered this question for you a few days ago

Why are you still bringing up the same bs points that were disproven then?

Are you saying you oppose health care reform? Because that's sure the message you're sending.

[Evergreen Emerald]

4. you guys are all just repeating the lies and distortions

I am amazed that you would choose a candidate when you are not even aware of the health care proposals of each.

Wow. Instead of truly finding out, you just repeat talking points (lies). Yikes, that is how we got Bush.

[Raffi Ella]

109. exactly

:eyes: Christ it gets so old!



Her HealthCare plan is the best, period.

[Stop Cornyn]

7. I'm an Obama delegate to the state convention, and I agree that her health care plan is better than

his, but his trade policy is better, his clean-government positions are better, his approaches to Iraq and Iran are better ...

[CTyankee]

11. I truly believe that this is not a big block issue for our next Democratic president.

Whoever is elected will be able to sort out differences and come to a consensus on what must be done.

I believe that Obama will come around on the "universal" part of the health care plan. It is just something that has to be hammered out. The American people want it.

[saracat]

16. "Not a big block issue" Really? If Barack isn't competent on health care

he can't be competent on anything! For many of us, health care is integral to the economy and the heath care plan is the most important issue.

[CTyankee]

97. I meant it as a huge divisive issue for Dems, not that the issue isn't critically important.

It is. That's why I think they'll sort it out. It's just my opinion that Obama is hewing a path that doesn't demand, "mandate," universality, that his advisors think that "mandates" turn voters off. And I agree. But I also think that once the Dems are in power, both in the WH and the Congress, they'll be able to hammer this thing out.

LBJ had a Dem congress when he got his Medicare/Medicaid programs through, but they didn't just coast through. There was opposition (by fellow Democrats) on some of the parts of the legislation. That fight is in a two part bio of LBJ that came out several years ago. I remember being surprised that he had such opposition in his own party.

What I think will happen is that Repubs will go along on a plan that gets universal coverage through tax credits, their party's only "legit" way of handling it. Of course, if people don't pay income taxes at all, the tax credits will have to be of the refundable kind, like the Earned Income Tax Credit or similar. Giving "tax breaks" will give cover to the Republicans. Read "The 2% Solution" by Matthew Miller, which came out a few years ago. He sat down with two House members, each a staunch member of their opposing parties, and there was surprising agreement on the need for universal health coverage and how they came to some agreements. Interesting read...

[anamandujano]

33. You are right, the American people want it but Obama is putting his

best foot forward now and he will not come around. You can take that to the bank.

He likes to keep saying that his plan and Hillary's are almost the same. He could easily make them the same but his money suppliers won't let him. Or, he could do a NAFTA style wink wink to get some votes.

[CTyankee]

100. Well, see my response to Saracat above.

I just don't think Obama wants to lose the election over the "mandate" issue. Better that he say "no mandates" now and then later (when/if he's elected) say he's seen the light and mandates will be the only way. If we have a landslide in the Congress in November, he will get something through and my bet is that it will be closer to Clinton's plan. It will be interesting to watch...

[sandnsea]

23. Mandates are not better

Obama is exactly right. This will be forcing people to buy insurance they can't afford, it will be a nightmare. I do not understand why people don't get this.

[Justitia]

27. Amen. Mandates are a disaster. -eom

[Evergreen Emerald]

29. No. Universal health care will not work without them

[Justitia]

30. So what will the penalties be for those who do not buy insurance? MA has been a disaster. -eom

[Evergreen Emerald]

31. Well, Clinton has it pretty well spelled out on her website

But I believe there is a difference between not wanting to and not able to.

I liken it to car insurance expect with the added feature of government help if we are unable to afford it--and government regulation of insurance companies and pharma.

[Justitia]

38. You do understand that it is not providing healthcare, it's forcing someone to buy insurance?

And based on what has been proposed, the premiums / deductibles / co-pays will be out of reach for those who make too much for Medicaid yet cannot afford insurance.

The penalties include tax penalties & garnishing their wages.

So, penalize poor people by shorting their checks and tax returns.

All to enrich insurance companies?

This will totally kill the idea of single-payer FOREVER.

You can make auto insurance a law by writing tickets, you don't take away people's paychecks.

[anamandujano]

55. Insurance which COVERS health care.

Stop pushing the same old crap. Everyone will be able to afford it, each according to their means. Prices will be negotiated down, down, down by the one who holds all the cards (all the potential payees), the government.

It is a step toward single payer, all that can be accomplished now.

Obomba has no intention of ever going there. He is living in the past.

Lieberman, one of his mentors, represents the Insurance state. No doubt Obomba is on the take from some of Lieberman's best friends.

[Justitia]

64. $900 / mo is not affordable for many,, $2000 deductible, 33% co-pays

It is MANDATORY PURCHASE OF A RETAIL PRODUCT, it is NOT PROVIDING HEALTHCARE TO ANYONE.

[anamandujano]

67. Where are you getting your numbers? It goes person by person, family

by family.

[Justitia]

77. I am VERY familiar w/her plan, are you? Those rates are currently in effect in MA.

Hillary, of course, uses no concrete numbers or costs.

Hillary does not propose ANY SUBSIDIES like MA does, only tax credits.

Newsflash: Tax credits do not equal cash to pay premiums, co-pays & deductibles.

[Stop Cornyn]

78. What's the penalty for those who don't contribute to Social Security?

[Justitia]

80. They don't get to collect on it later. They aren't criminalized & FORCED to buy a product. -eom

[Stop Cornyn]

88. BZZZZ. Care to guess again?

[Justitia]

91. Show me where a citizen is FORCED to buy a product from a private company.

And are you really trying to dispute the fact that some people never contribute to Social Security and therefore never claim benefits?

[CTLawGuy]

102. you only pay in if you make taxable wages

and its a single payer system. Hillary's Romney-care plan punishes anyone who doesn't have health insurance, whether you have taxable wages or not.

[Stop Cornyn]

110. Have you even looked into her plan? If you make no taxable wages, you get Medicade which she would

expand.

I'm a dedicated Obama supporter, but you are simply wrong in your criticism of Hillary's health care plan, which is a fine plan and the ONLY important issue where she has it better than Obama.

[Justitia]

115. Medicaid eligibility is determined by INDIVIDUAL STATES, not the federal gov't.

We can't even get S-CHIP expanded (administered by Medicaid)!

[CTLawGuy]

136. what's the purpose of having mandates?

do you think there are significant numbers of people who just plain refuse to buy health insurance even though they could completely afford it???

[CTLawGuy]

137. also what I said was correct

Hillary's plan PUNISHES you for not buying health insurance, "you lazy freeloader!!!"

See how that might not be very "Democratic"???

[Justitia]

116. Here is a link to one of many articles that describe the failure of mandated insurance in MA

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/january/doctors_give_massach.php

The big part of this disaster will be apparent soon as MA residents start filing their income taxes and get hit with these penalties, possibly having their wages garnished.

By the way, the program has only been in effect for 6 months and it has completely blown out its budget and the rates have increased 85%!

If the mandated private insurance scam ever went national, we could kiss our chances for single-payer goodbye for decades.

Forcing people to buy unaffordable private insurance does not provide them HEALTHCARE, it simply enriches insurance companies via law.

[CTLawGuy]

138. great article

thanks!

[OzarkDem]

89. MA had a poorly designed plan

It did nothing to control rises in premiums and didn't offer a real public insurance option to compete with private insurance. No surprise it didn't work. What did you expect from Romney?

[Stop Cornyn]

79. BINGO!

[OzarkDem]

87. We've answered this question already

You already know that you can't have universal health care without mandates. You don't mind having to buy car insurance. Why should I have to keep paying for your health care while you go scot free?

[Justitia]

96. No one is forcing you to drive a car, or buy a retail product from a private company. -eom

[CTLawGuy]

99. scot free?

SCOT FREE?! Go watch SiCKO!

Do you know anything about how health care works?

Yes, you get treated, even if you don't have health insurance. However, then you get a bill. If you don't pay the bill, you get collectors sent after you by the hospital. If that doesn't work you declare bankruptcy, your credit is ruined, and any assets you can't protect in bankruptcy get taken to pay for your "free" health care.

That's not what I would call FREE health care, but apparently Hillary would.

[MadBadger]

8. As I would expect

[ProSense]

10. This will help Obama in PA

National Union Hospital Healthcare Employees District 1199c Endorses Senator Obama

[joshcryer]

12. This is one reason Edwards' will endorse her.

[GarbagemanLB]

13. You don't endorse a flaming ship that also happens to be sinking and engulfed in the plague.

[Evergreen Emerald]

14. she is virtually tied with obama...but don't let the facts get in your way

I believe that the Edwards family said they are not in the business of endorsements, but are focusing on issues.

Health Care is an issue that is important to EE.

[Kittycat]

15. Not in delegates, not even close. There's no "clean" or "sane" way to catch him.

[Evergreen Emerald]

17. What you all always fail to mention: Obama can't win either

Neither can. She is nearly tied, a bit behind.

She can't win.

He can't win.


Without superdelegates.

[GarbagemanLB]

18. Except he has an immensely stronger argument. Nice attempt at trying to equate the two, though.

[Evergreen Emerald]

21. "Immensely stronger argument:" "I am less behind that she is?"

The math is the math...neither can win.

[anigbrowl]

26. Behind what?

If you want to talk math, then you ought to face up to the probabilities.

[anigbrowl]

24. Ah, but how many superdelegates?

Let's face it, she has to convince a lot more people than he does if the numbers stay in the same proportion that they've been in lately. And Obama keeps picking up SDs at a far higher rate than Clinton is doing.

[sandnsea]

28. Do the votes of the people matter? n/t

[hfojvt]

20. why wouldn't she - Hillary basically copied it from John

John released his plan in March. Six months later Hillary releases a remarkably similar plan. Granted, she has been working on health care for a long time, but apparently was not ready with a specific plan from Day One of her campaign.

[rodeodance]

25. REC

[Orangepeel]

32. She'd have to give in on mandates to get it passed, or we'd get nothing, like last time

which would then make it worse than Obamas.

:shrug:

[anamandujano]

36. Wrong. People now know they were sold a bill of goods by Repuke ads

last time around. It will get passed.

[merh]

34. How about focusing on how she trashes McCain's plan

and calls him out for the inequities?

How about realizing that the enemy is McCain - beating the repugs is what it is all about.

Sure Elizabeth is going to say Hillary's plan is better, it is more like John's plan than Obama's plan is.

Didn't the Edwards' campaign call Hillary out for all of her attacks on dems and her negative campaigning? Wasn't that back in Oct/Nov of '07, when John was being attacked by Hill and crew?

[anamandujano]

39. We still have a primary to win before we take on McCain.

[KAZ]

45. You lost the primary. Despite what your spamming...

.. compatriots post.

[anamandujano]

66. Not so fast! There's that pesky little thing called Democracy.

[merh]

48. How about focusing on how Elizabeth Edwards trashed McCain

and called him out.

That is what she did.

And did you miss out on how the Edwards campaign condemned Hillary's campaign over 6 months ago for going negative against dems?

Did you miss this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hUW27EJFL4

[anamandujano]

72. First things first. She is with Hillary on health care. Deal.

[merh]

75. No, wasn't it said that Hillary was taking from John's health care plan

Seems that Hillary was with John on health care - and Elizabeth is going after McCain. You deal with it.

[waiting for hope]

131. I think this thread was about Health Insurance.

:eyes:

[totodeinhere]

51. I respect Elizabeth Edwards a lot, but I will decide which health plan I like best.

I like Obama's plan better because it's more realistic and IMO it will get up to true universal health coverage just as fast as Hillary's plan will.

[OzarkDem]

90. Obama's plan is guaranteed to fail

and he knows it. Why would he put forth a plan that he knows will fail?

[Bigleaf]

65. Who cares? Both plans suck. Single-Payer is the only way. I know because I'm a dual citizen of

both Canada and the US.

[anamandujano]

73. Obomba's plan is status quo. Hillary's is bold.

[anonymous171]

85. Hey! Remember Hillary's last attempt to get bold HC legislation passed?

Didn't end well. She can't play the victim when she has all that power.

[rodeodance]

107. Its 13 years later--People are ready and talking now about this. You are living in the past.

[BlueIdaho]

76. NONE of these plans are worth a shit

Why? Take a look at how other civilized countries care for the health of their citizens.

[rodeodance]

108. The US has to start somewhere. 13 years ago it failed. Now at least

most are agreeing something has to be done.

I would love DK's plan--but our country just is not ready to go there yet.
maybe in a few years----i hope.

[Maribelle]

98. Obama's plan allows people to game the system. And ...

does absolutely nothing to unclog our Emergency Room services of the uninsured.

[SeaLyons]

105. K&R

[Texas Hill Country]

113. nice!

[greguganus]

128. ***Breaking***Obama's garbage man chooses Obama's healthcare plan! n/t

[AllyCat]

134. And yet all of the plans blow, including Edwards' plan

Universal, single-payer without insurance. It's the only fair way.

[CTyankee]

140. Edwards would be the first to agree with you!

He has said outright that his plan is a path towards single payer, universal health care. My guess is that he is willing to do something that will help the uninsured sooner rather than later. Also, he wants to show people that single payer is not the scary, rationed thing that so many Americans believe it to be.

Look, Medicare didn't cover everybody when it was signed into law in 1968. But it got people used to a government plan and now they won't give it up, try as the Republicans may to get them to do so.

Same thing with a new plan that includes private and public plans. I know people who are hesitant about an all inclusive government plan because they fear giving up what they have already. They are frightened by drastic change. I think Edwards and Clinton know that. They know that the public is scared and afraid to try a sweeping new thing, and the health insurance industry is only too willing to play on those fears. The result could very well be a big nothing in the way of change. So the Edwards and Clinton plans ease change along.

I agree withyou about the efficacy of an inclusive government plan. But a foot in the door now is better than having that door slammed in our face...