Barack Obama's Healthcare Plan Does NOT Include Me. How is it Universal?

[Mezzo]

I am asking a series question with no attempt to flame. I can only hope it is met with some reverence, as I am trying to understand y'all a little bit better.

Thanks.

[DJ13]

1. In what way are you excluded?

Without that info this sounds more like flamebait than a serious post.

[Mezzo]

3. It's not a flamebait post at all. I am an adult, and I am not covered under his plan.

How is it universal?

[democrattotheend]

You are not "covered" under Clinton's plan either

You are merely forced to buy for-profit health insurance whether you can afford it or not. I support single-payer, and am disappointed that neither candidate has gone that route. But Clinton's plan does not "cover" you any more than Obama's plan, it merely imposes a mandate on you. There are valid arguments for and against mandates, but to say that one plan covers you and the other one leaves you out is misleading.

[Texas Hill Country]

14. Clinton's plan is more in depth than that... and its not all for profit...

you should sit down and actually read her plan. it is very detailed and very good.

[democrattotheend]

19. I never said it was not a good plan

I just think the debate about mandates has been somewhat misleading. I can see arguments for and against mandates, but I take exception to the charge that Obama "leaves people out" and Hillary doesn't. Mandating coverage is not the same thing as providing it. To equate the two would be like saying that you have a plan to cover everyone against hunger by mandating that everyone buy food.

[joshcryer]

47. Single payer is mandated.

People seem to have a problem understanding this.

[democrattotheend]

55. Single payer is a mandate on the government

To provide healthcare for everyone. Clinton's plan is a mandate on individuals to purchase private health insurance plans. Big difference.

[joshcryer]

61. No, it's not. Medicare and Social Security are "social insurance," you have to pay into it.

Just like single payer.

What Hillary does is, unfortunately, what Bush was trying to do with Social Security. Give people the option to "opt out" and have their own private insurer. This keeps it from being single payer, but the reality is that *most people* would chose the national Medicare-based insurance.

And the *only* way you can make it work is to mandate it so that people are forced to pay the insurance.

Like they're forced to pay into Social Security, or Medicare.

I don't see how people can't understand this!

[democrattotheend]

75. If it were government-run insurance, that would be different

But she's not forcing people to pay taxes for government run insurance. She is mandating that people pay premiums to private insurers. And unlike taxes, premiums are a flat amount (or vary based on medical history and how comprehensive the plan is), not a percentage of your income. The premium you pay for health insurance may vary based on the plan and your medical history, but it is not tied to your income.

[BzaDem]

87. Ahhhh... this is wrong.

Clinton has repeatedly said that she would limit healthcare premiums to a fixed percentage of one's income through tax credits. So the only difference is who the money is going to -- the amount is the same. If we had single payer, we would be paying x percent to the government. If we have her plan, we pay x percent to a private company.

[cbayer]

90. That is such a clear and concise explanation.

I also cannot figure out how people do not understand this. They somehow think that "universal health care" means it is free. They have not read her plan and do not understand the options that would be available.

You are so right. The ONLY way this could work is for everyone to be mandated to participate.

[pnwmom]

91. You're right that HRC's plan is a combination of private and public health

plans and I agree this isn't optimal for the long run. But I think it's a good first step -- and better than waiting any longer for universal health insurance. People with preexisting health conditions need serious relief right now.

Eventually, I think private insurers will get tired of trying to compete with a government plan that doesn't have to factor in profit -- that this really will be a first step toward single payer. But if private insurers can miraculously keep their costs down AND accept all people AND make their profit AND still compete with the government plans . . . well then, so be it.

[pnwmom]

89. Wrong. Clinton mandates no one to buy private insurance.

Clinton will offer everyone the option to buy into a government run program like Medicare, skipping the insurance companies completely. And she has said that the government run plans might well offer the best deals.

The only mandate for Clinton is to sign up for either a private or a public health plan, with 250 options to choose from. But Clinton will force no one to choose a private insurance plan.

[Warren DeMontague]

82. Look, bub: YOU ARE THE ONE who doesn't understand what "Single Payer" means.

Single Payer does not just mean "everyone has some kind of insurance". Single Payer means NO MORE FOR-PROFIT PRIVATE INSURANCE INDUSTRY.

Neither Obama OR Hillary's plan come close to being a Single Payer System. Unfortunately Only Kucinich, to my knowledge, was advocating one.

[pnwmom]

92. Hillary's plan allows anyone who wants to choose a government run plan

like Medicare, and she has said that she thinks this kind of plan might well offer the best value to the consumers. If most people choose the government run plans, then the private insurers who can't compete can leave the business.

[Warren DeMontague]

93. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about people running around going "Hillary's plan IS

a single payer plan!"

It's not.

[pnwmom]

97. No it isn't. But it's a good first step, an incremental move in the correct

direction.

And hopefully will lead to that down the road.

And it's better than standing here with our feet encased in cement.

[Warren DeMontague]

103. Oh, absolutely, doing something is better than doing nothing.

I think either Obama or Hillary will improve the situation over what it is currently.

[quakerboy]

110. A is B. Is B A?

Mandated is not by default single payer. If you have a car and a liscence, Auto Insurance is mandated. Is it single payer?

[Hepburn]

27. I really cannot see where giving the health insurance industry...

...more fucking money is a great idea. Nor is MANDATING that people buy insurance a great way to go either. IMO, the only one with a decent plan was Edwards.

[joshcryer]

49. Hillary's plan is almost Edwards' plan in totality!

WTF!

[mrreowwr_kittty]

79. Yes it is all for-profit

Do not be fooled by the b.s. about a "competing government plan". That plan is also private insurance. That's what Congress has. The FEHBP is a cafeteria-style deal where you get to pick from the major insurance carriers. Granted, it's an excellent plan as private plans go, but please don't tell people it's non-profit or that it will "evolve" into single payer. It won't. If anything, it's a step away from that direction, locking this country into the private insurance industry for generations. Also, have you considered what a problem these mandates will be when the Republicans get back into power and cut any subsidies people are getting to help pay their premiums? What you will have then is an unfunded mandate on people. Just one of the reasons they are a bad idea. And I include Obama in this too. Obama mandates for children and has said he would consider mandates for all in the future.

No one should be forced to subsidize a private industry. If we're going to force people to pay for health care, it should be for a single payer, truly non-profit system. Get the parasitic health insurance industry OUT of basic health care.

[cali]

102. Do you know who Jacob Hacker is?

[pnwmom]

88. Wrong. Hillary's plan forces NO ONE to buy for-profit insurance.

Hillary's plan allows anyone to buy into a government run plan like Medicare -- and she has said that she expects that the government run plans may well offer a better deal for most people, and cause private insurers to get out of the business.

Clinton's plan will require all people to be covered by some plan, either private or public, which Obama's does not.

[rox63]

22. And you still won't comment about why you are "excluded"

The only way to be excluded is to choose not to have insurance.

[stray cat]

56. You will not go to jail or have your wages garnered if you choose to not be in the plan

For adults if you decide you don't want to pay to be in the health plan you can take your chances but kids must be covered. However, I agree with Hillary on this one that the government should be able to force you to buy the plan guaranteeing that you will be in it because you can't choose not to be.

[cliffordu]

96. Barak doesn't like you, that's why. He said so last night.

[mimitabby]

2. talk about general

you have to give more details if you expect a reasonable or reasoned answer.

[Mezzo]

6. ok..what details do you need to explain my exclusion to a so called universal plan?

I am not trying to start a fight, on the serious.

[snooper2]

45. how much do you make a year..

are you self employed..

does your employer provide insurance and you choose to opt out..

do you make too much to qualify for medicaid..

Are you married, does your spouse have insurance..

[Mezzo]

100. Why?

I mean, if my employer provided insurance, I wouldn't need a universal health care plan.

What a silly round of questions.

[debatepro]

4. The only reason you would be excluded from

Obama's plan would be if you choose not to be included.

[Mezzo]

9. Really? do you have a link?

I'll check it out more if you do.

Happy to.

[stray cat]

57. Its been in most of the debates and most all discussion anywhere on the plans

where are you getting your information?

[mckeown1128]

70. You made the claim that you weren't covered...

the burden of proof is on you.

[joshcryer]

50. And possibly because it costs twice as much as Hillary's plan?

And possibly because the public non-profit insurer will have to continually compete with the profit insurers?

[mohc]

5. Is this a trick question?

How many guesses do we get?

Here's my first: You are not a US citizen.

[mohc]

17. OK, I guess my first guess was not correct since you did not reply

Second guess: You are already on Medicare, Medicaid, or an employer-sponsored plan and would therefore not need to take use of Obama's plan.

[Mezzo]

30. No...I was responding to you. nt

[Mezzo]

23. Not a trick question at all. A former Edwards girl turned Hillary because I hated how she was being

treated (you can agree or disagree, we all have our reasons). They have a ninety five per cent shared voting record, so I wanted to be sure my decision was just. I mean, I can't let a silly thing like Obamamaniacs or the corporate media stand in my way, for real, for real so I have two issues (pretty big ones to me) that are my reasons for supporting Hillary over Barack. They are these:

1. His health care plan lacks actually being universal and hers doesn't and

B. (yes I didn't that on fucking purpose, a girl's gotta have a sense of humor, you know) his practice on gay rights is a FAR CRY from what he preaches. Say what you want about it, it's probably another thread altogether as opposed to the diversion saying it here, but sharing the stage with McClurkin and refusing to get your picture taken with Gavin Newsome are very, very telling actions that speaks louder than his words. I am straight, but not narrow. I also digress.

I am indeed a US citizen...born and raised in the good old US of A.



:hi:

[mohc]

33. Well then

Let me assume you are a US citizen that is not covered by Medicaid, Medicare, an employer-sponsored plan, or some other such coverage that I may be leaving out. This leaves you as either self-employed, employed by a company without coverage, or a child. The latter case is moot as both Clinton's plan and Obama's plan are basically the same with regard to children. So as someone who is either self-employed or employed by a company without coverage you claim to be excluded. Those two groups are precisely who gets covered in Obama's plan. The fact that there is no mandate does not mean it fails to cover someone, just that it is not forcing you to get coverage.

[LisaM]

7. Well the fact is that it does not cover everybody

If Mezzo is a young generally healthy adult, who does not have an employer who provides those benefits, it will not cover him.

[frazzled]

34. Of course she is covered under Obama's plan

Like Hillary's plan, NO ONE may be excluded from coverage because of a pre-existing condition (and it also contains provisions that would prevent astronomic fees for people with such pre-existing conditions).

Like Hillary's plan, if your employer doesn't offer a plan, you can buy into a government plan.

Like Hillary's plan, if you cannot afford the plan, economic assistance will be provided. (I think hers is tax rebates, his is up front?)

The only major difference here is that Hillary's plan will require you to purchase a plan (or suffer some kind of as-yet-unnamed penalty); his assumes that costs and access will be so dramatically reduced that a mandate on individuals will not be required. Studies of the mandated Massachusetts plan in effect for several years shows that even with mandates, about 20% of the state's citizens have been excluded--because even with assistance they can't afford it.

[LSK]

8. THERES A HUGE DETAIL THAT NOBODY GETS IN THIS DEBATE

The way ANY legislation works is the President submits a bill or plan to CONGRESS who then considers the bill and they submit these things called AMENDMENTS and after numerous AMENDMENTS an ALTERED plan is the one that may or may not pass CONGRESS and eventually works its way back to the President in SOME OTHER FORM.

So all this arguing about the healthcare plans is IDIOTIC because they are 90% the same and most likely will be 75% changed at the very least once the plan works its way through Congress.

[XemaSab]

12. Yeah, bring FACTS into the debate. Asshole.

:eyes:

[LSK]

13. OOPS!!! I thought I was in another forum!!

:D

[XemaSab]

15. "Kittens are SOOOOOOOOOOO cute" is not a FACT. It's a goddamn opinion. Asshole.

:eyes:

[LSK]

20. No, it is a FACT! Deal with it!!!

:popcorn:

[XemaSab]

62. Deal with the fact that Randi will NEVER be yours!

She's probably home fellating her husband as we speak.

So go cry on that.

:poopcorn:

[Mezzo]

43. Those facts have no bearing on what their PLAN is. If Congress is going to amend, shouldn't he

have a plan that is even further to the left, so that it gets amended back to the middle?

[superkia]

104. IF the starting point has anything to do with it, like Clinton and...

yourself have stated, why not begin with Kucinich's plan to make health care a right like it is in other countries and then work down from there? If health care for Americans is the goal, why not start with the best plan and work from there instead of starting with plans that still feed the Health industry and working down from there? Unless of course, you are concerned with helping the health industries pockets?

I myself would rather have Obama's plan and for one reason only: If Clinton has a mandate that fines anyone that doesn't get coverage, what happens to the people that fall between the cracks? If her plan says that they will cover you if you make less than $25K a year and you make $26k a year, you are then going to pay a fine when you are already struggling to survive. Any type of mandate that fines people is always going to have problems unless the person putting together the plan makes the salary requirement high enough so that everyone WILL get covered.

I know growing up, my mother was a single parent, worked two jobs, barely had a roof over our head and some food on the table, sometimes that food was a ketchup sandwich but it was food and the governments requirements said she made too much money to get any assistance to raise four children. If they would have had some mandate that fined her, we wouldn't even have had a condiment to put on the bread.

I think most people run around arguing over this shit back and forth because they have never been one who lived in the cracks and since it didn't happen to them, it doesn't exist.

Neither plan will give everyone insurance but Obama's has the best chance if he can lower costs enough and keep away from fining people that live in the cracks. I believe Clinton's mandate has more to do with feeding the health care industry more money than it does getting people insurance.

[knixphan]

24. Right on!

[Mezzo]

25. I'm sorry. Does that make his plan universal somehow? On the serious. nt

[LSK]

37. neither plan is universal unless they include medicare for all

Its that simple.

[joshcryer]

53. That's *exactly* what Hillary's health care plan does.

With the "option" to chose a private for profit health insurer.

Which do you think most people would chose?

It's that simple.

[LSK]

58. no choosing, true universal would just cover everyone under medicare

No signing up required.

From what you describe, sounds like she copied Edwards plan.

Either way, neither plan stands to make it through Congress untouched.

[joshcryer]

63. We don't have details but it would probably default to the extended-Medicare.

Since it's mandatated that'd be the way to go. Similarily as to how Bush's Social Security Plan would have defaulted to Social Security, giving people the *option* to chose an investment plan.

She copied Edwards' plan. Or rather, they both listened to smart guys like Jonathan Gruber and looked at how the EU does it and decided that's the way to go.

It's all about the sell.

[LSK]

81. like I originally said, Congress will have a large say in how it will work

and I have no doubt that both Dem Candidates will sign whatever comes out of Congress. I am sorry you have to predict Obama is some sort of stubborn zealot to promote your candidate but I think you are wrong about that.

[bowens43]

39. actually that isn't how it works.

[LSK]

41. educate me then

I guess I was watching the wrong Congress on CSPAN all these years.

[joshcryer]

51. Obama would *veto* any plan that is fixed.

[LSK]

59. no, he would not

That is totally idiotic to say that he would. Get real please.

[joshcryer]

64. If it had mandates he would veto it.

If it had subsidies he would veto it.

If it had limits he would veto it.

[LSK]

65. HIS PLAN INCLUDES SUBSIDIES

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare

He is not a thickheaded idiot like Bush, he has an OPEN MIND. Something I suggest you try and get.

[joshcryer]

69. By subsidies I mean she subsidizes everyone, he does not.

And she does this by reversing Bush's fucking tax cuts.

[LSK]

72. they all reverse Bush's tax cuts

Stop displaying your woefull ignorance for your own benefit.

[joshcryer]

74. But he doesn't use the money for Health Care.

[LSK]

76. I didnt know taxes were specifially earmarked for specific programs

I will check the box next time so none of my taxes go to defense contractors.

:eyes:

[Mezzo]

101. No, but how they say they'll ask for earmarks has a big effect on WHO WE LET HAVE THAT POWER. nt

[XemaSab]

68. Put down the crack pipe and listen to yourself for 5 goddamn minutes

You're not making sense.

[joshcryer]

71. What's not making sense?

He would go against the will of the people who voted for him?

[bhikkhu]

66. Good point - Whatever the POTUS's plan, what we get is congress's plan

I like Obama's plan better, in that there is no mandatory coverage and cost. Nothing loses elections like talking about garnishing everyone's paychecks.

But realistically, whoever wins, if we do have a national health care system it will largely be crafted by congress.

[IndependentDem]

78. THANK YOU!!

I'm glad that people are actually discussing policies here instead of bickering over bullshit. But, the fact is that what they say right now is best case scenario--- NOT what is actually going to happen. Why don't people get that?

[bunnies]

10. Being forced to buy insurance makes you feel included in a plan?

You know... you *could* make the decision yourself. This is silly.

[woolldog]

18. lol

So true...

[bunnies]

31. It scares me that people are begging to be forced to buy for-profit insurance.

And actually think its "universal health care". What gives?

HR676 is the only true universal plan out there. And if I cant have that... I at LEAST want a choice.

[Mezzo]

28. I'm forced to pay for things I disagree with all the time. Like weapons and the like...

what's the diff if I pay another tax for something actually UNIVERSAL?

it is not silly. It is an honest question and it doesn't deserve a bullshit response like that.

[bunnies]

35. Hillarys plan is NOT universal.

And it sure as hell isnt health care. Its forced health insurance. Not quite the same. And have you checked out how well Romneys "universal" plan is working out for MA? If not, you really should, since Hillarys plan is much the same.

And while you're at it... tell me how Hillarys plan covers people that don't take a paycheck. Will homeless people be covered under Hillarys "universal" plan???

You want universal health care? Support HR676.

[Mezzo]

40. I support HR676, why doesn't Obama? PS. Hillary's plan costs less.

so you're saying if it isn't HR676, we have to run further to the right to appease people who want to profit off of our sickness?

[bunnies]

44. Answer my question. How does Hillarys plan cover those who dont take a paycheck?

Such as the homeless.

[Mezzo]

98. it's a silly question as we already have a program for the super poor: Medicare.

It's also a way to try and change the subject. How does Obama cover those people?

[MadBadger]

11. Tell us how it does not include you.

[sandnsea]

16. If you don't sign up for Hillary's plan, guess what

You won't be included either.

Nobody is offering health care where you just show up and see a doctor.

[knixphan]

21. Neither Obama nor Hillary

is the answer for single-payer health care.

YOU ARE.

We have to bug the hell out of our senators and reps, especially when Barack is in the white house.

We have to tell them that Conyers was right.

We have to tell them that we would gladly pay more taxes for National healthcare.

We have to watch SICKO again.

and again.

We have to get H.R. 676 out of cryo-storage http://www.house.gov/conyers/news_health_care.htm

Pay no attention to what the candidates are debating. The real healthcare plan will come from the legislative branch.

[AZBlue]

26. Who said Obama's was Universal?

Unfortunately, none of the candidates have a universal health plan.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

29. Not one of the candidate's plans are Universal. Wake up.

[Mezzo]

99. But one is closer than the other, yes? Go back to sleep. nt

[Barack_America]

32. How much is Hillary going to MANDATE that you pay...

...for your health insurance?

Are you sure you're going to be able to afford what she has said she will dock from your paycheck? Hillary's plan is modeled after Romney's plan in Massachusetts. There, 15% of people would rather pay the fine for NOT buying health insurance than pay the expensive fees to join. Think they're better off under MA's supposed "universal" care?

Neither candidate is offering universal healthcare. They are both offering health insurance that will help many Americans to get coverage. Why? Because our country's economy is so poor and universal healthcare so expensive that our nation simply cannot afford it.

[jobycom]

36. It includes you, but it is not mandatory, so it is not universal.

People can opt out, which means that we still have the same situation as now, where people who don't want to be insured aren't, and taxpayers foot the bill for their emergencies.

Clinton's is a better plan. To be fair, though, the nuances of each are not that important, since once the proper bills hit Congress, dozens of compromises will change it beyond all recognition, anyway. Both plans are just starting points for the process.

[mckeown1128]

73. uhh.. people still foot the bill when they have emergencies and

they go into the emergency room with no health insurance.

[cbayer]

95. Actually, many do not.

This is one of the most critical problems in healthcare at this time. People are able to *choose* whether to have insurance or not. Many hard working low income people can not afford to purchase insurance and are not poor enough for Medicaid. Those people use the emergency room as their primary care source. The rates of actual payment in these cases is very, very low. So, everyone ends up paying. Hospitals and doctors raise rates. Insurance companies raise rates. Everyone pays.

The Clinton plan, by making some kind of coverage mandatory, would prevent people from opting out while at the same time providing affordable options. That's good for them and good the healthcare system as a whole.

[mckeown1128]

107. I am sorry but I disagree with your assesment...

you say... people *choose* not to afford health care because they "can not afford to purchase insurance"... i agree...

But making it mandatory and thusly taking money out of their paychecks (money you just said they obviously don't have) will then prevent them from buying food, paying the rent, clothing their children... If people don't have the money... then they don't have the money... taking it out of their paychecks doesn't magically make them have more money.

You also say that she will make coverage mandatory AND affordable... (and that this is superior to people using the emergency room as their primary care source) but if the insurance companies cover people who aren't paying that much (ie affordable enough for the type of person discussed in the first paragraph) What keeps the insurance companies from just raising the rates for everyone else... and what keeps them from stiffing the Hospitals and doctors(thus causing them to increase rates)

You say that high rates are the reason we need mandatory health insurance.. then you say the only way we can get mandatory health insurance is by doing things that will cause rates to go up.

Now I am not being partisan toward Obama here... I don't really see how he solves a problem... my concern is what happens to that low income family who are having their wages garnished in the event that the insurance is mandatory AND the rates aren't affordable???

Since you seem to know this issue... I would like to know what where I am going wrong here???

[jobycom]

106. Maybe sometimes.

Hospitals can't turn away people from emergency rooms, so people without insurance go to the emergency room for minor ailments. Many give false names so they never pay. Many can't pay, so the bill winds up written off. Others get government assistance of some form or another, if they are qualified. I'm sure some pay. But a lot don't.

[IndependentDem]

80. i agree that Clinton's plan is better...

its more detailed and thought out, after all she has been pushing health-care reform for the last 10 years. The potential problem i see with Hillary is her unwillingness to compromise. I think that Obama will be open-minded and work with congress to get something passed-- i have a feeling that Hillary will stick to her guns fighting for her way and not be willing to make the necessary compromises.

just my opinion.

[jobycom]

105. That's exactly the opposite of her reputation.

The problem most Dems kept saying they had with Clinton was that she compromises too much. Many in the Senate labeled her as easy to work with.

As for Obama, I just flat don't think he can get it passed. The insurance companies will pretend to go along, fool him into believing they are on his side. They will lay landmines in the legislation, pretending they'll go along with the plan if he includes something, then use that something to blow the legislation apart. They will find the swing votes in Congress and flood their districts with commercials challenging the plan, turning the electorate against it. They will threaten to fund opponents of the Congresscritters if they vote for the plan.

For some legislators, it will be a question of voting against the plan or writing off all future political ambition. Clinton got people to do that in the 90s with his spending programs. It's not easy--it takes a combination or bribing, threatening, manipulating, and even appealing to the higher good. Most of all, it takes experience.

Obama knows all this is coming, but it's like hearing how fast Pedro Martinez pitches, and then standing over the plate with a bat trying to hit what he's just thrown. The difference between knowing and experience is immense. He just doesn't have it.

I could be wrong on him, but I have to vote how I believe. I'm 43, and I'm tired of the cycle. We vote for some hotshot new liberal for change, and the hotshot doesn't get it done, and the Republicans get in and screw things up worse. I want change, and the only way I see to get it is to vote for someone whose been there enough to know how to get it.

Needless to say, I'm expecting November to be very frustrating for me. :(

[IndependentDem]

109. yeah i have some of the same concerns you have regarding Obama...

and i understand that what i said may go against her reputation... but i just have a feeling that when it comes to her Universal Healthcare she will not be willing to compromise. I may be wrong and it isn't like i have links to back this up or anything-- its just a feeling. Honestly though, healthcare is not the most important issue for me and i feel that they both essentially want the same thing in the long run, its more of a debate of HOW it should be done, not IF.
anyways, thanks for your opinion. :toast:

[bowens43]

38. Well, he purposely excluded you because he doesn't like you.

[Zachstar]

42. There is no big plan any candidate can really expect will go to action.

Health care reform happens in Congress. Which is one of the reasons this race needs to end so that we can get a Filibuster proof majority in congress.

Congress is getting some smart people if their campaigns work. They will debate and come up with a good plan in my view.

Both Obama's and Clinton's so called plans are little more than words for Votes. Because they have little to do without outside of signing the bill into law.

[Mezzo]

46. so I shouldn't consider it when choosing? What else should I exclude? the deficit? the war? nt

[Zachstar]

52. Yes it has little to do with the president.

Think about this. If Congress goes with Clinton's plan and Obama vetoes it there will be chaos. Obama is not going to veto a good heathcare plan.

He may not be happy about it but he aint going to risk himself by vetoing it.

So that means nothing when it comes to presidential stuff. You need to take that issue to the people running for congress.

[anigbrowl]

48. What makes you ineligible for coverage or subsidies?

Please define why you feel you will be unable to participate in it.

[BlueIdaho]

54. This is now the sixth time

the OP has been asked to further clarify their remarks - one can only assume that thy really don't want to at this point.

[mohc]

60. Here's the question you actually should be asking

"Why doesn't Obama's healthcare plan include everyone?"

The healthcare plans of both Obama and Clinton cover everyone in the sense that no one will be denied coverage. So to ask why you are not included really does not make sense, as the only way you would not be included in Obama's plan would be if you did not want to. And if you did not want to be included then I doubt you would be complaining about not being included. I was originally an Edwards supporter as well, and I do overall prefer his plan. But many seem to be missing what the effect is of the lack of a mandate in Obama's plan. The mandate is not there in anyway to help cover people that would otherwise not be covered, its is only there to bring down the costs of coverage. There will be some group of people that regardless of affordability will refuse coverage because they feel they do not need it. By not participating in the pool the costs per person for coverage will be more because there are fewer people to spread the risk over. If this were a debate over whether or not everyone should access to coverage, it would be more clearcut. If without the mandate there would be fewer with access to coverage than with a mandate, one could better argue the universality of the plans, but that is not the issue. The issue of mandates is about creating as large a risk poll as possible so that those with access pay less on average, but obviously this means those who would otherwise not get coverage and therefore pay nothing would end up paying more. As a personal supporter of a single payer plan, I am willing to support the mandate, but its not a make or break issue for me.

[Vinca]

67. I remember the good old days on DU, when virtually everyone

was in favor of universal, single payer, health CARE. Now we're arguing over which candidate provides the best health INSURANCE. Here's the answer: neither. Coverage needs to be automatic and begin at birth and end at death. Any universal health insurance scheme will inevitably cost a fortune because the 75% profit margin hasn't been taken out and it will never, ever cover everything. The insurance companies will not have some sort of philanthropic epiphany. They will continue making money hand over fist and we will still see bake sales and car washes for chemo. (Yeah, yeah, yeah. I support Barack - only because Kucinich isn't in it anymore.)

[damntexdem]

77. HRC's plan is better. Neither is very good. It doesn't matter.

Unlike the Clinton attempt of 1993-94, any president should know that it will be Congress that writes a health plan. A president can use the bully pulpit to support health reform and to spur Congress on, but Congress will write it. A Dem president needs to be supportive, helpful, and sign whatever Congress eventually develops. Congress is unlikely to go far enough to develop a really good plan; but it certainly improve on what we have.

[Stop Cornyn]

83. It's not universal, but it's a damn sight better than McCain's plan.

[OzarkDem]

86. No, its as bad or worse

Obama's plan is fatally flawed, designed to collapse from high costs in a few years.

Experience tells us when politicians who oppose health care see a flim flam plan like Obama's fail, it gives them plenty of excuses for years to come to shoot down any other attempts to fix the system.

[Stop Cornyn]

111. Either you have never read McCain's plan or you were dropped on your head as a wee infant

Obama's plan is flawed, but the "high cost" isn't part of the problem. Obama's half-baked plan costs less than Kucinich's, Edwards', or Hillary's.

[BootinUp]

84. Its not. nt

[OzarkDem]

85. Its not universal and it will be an expensive failure

Which is probably why the insurance funded "experts" who helped him write it designed it that way. Its the most basic tenet of health care reform - that only covering some of the people makes health care cost even more.

There's nothing they would like more than to create a "bomb" of a health care reform plan, set to go off within a couple of years after enactment so they can stand back and say "See. We told you so. Only the market-based health care can work in the US".

[theboss]

94. Since neither plan has a chance of passing, I don't really get caught up in the details

"Policies" in Neverneverland administrations are always the worst way to determine who to vote for.

[JoFerret]

108. Face it - Obama's plan still

...leaves people out. what is the point of that?

Some people matter more than others?

[cooolandrew]

112. Both plans are pretty poor.really. All a mandate does is ensure insurers a steady income.

The best plan is not for profit by DK. THAT was universal healthcare it takes out the money making to make it cheaper. What you have here is a plan that give insuracne comapnies sure fire profits. Barack's is different as it doesn't force you to take it and lowers costs. Both should have the DK plan though.

[DerekJ]

113. Remember 1994.

None of the plans will pass as is, especially Hillary's.

The house and the senate still remember 1994.