Obama vs. Clinton: Healthcare Debate
michaelcassio
Posts: 72
I wanted to start a thread that discussed the facts and the differences between the Obama healthcare plan and the Clinton healthcare plan. This isn't a thread about socialized medicine vs. privitized (you can find that elsewhere on this board). This is about their plans. To start, here is the tapescript from the recent MSNBC debate in which they discussed their plans.
SEN. CLINTON: ... You know, for example, it's been unfortunate that Senator Obama has consistently said that I would force people to have health care whether they could afford it or not. You know, health care reform and achieving universal health care is a passion of mine. It is something I believe in with all my heart. And every day that I'm campaigning, and certainly here throughout Ohio, I've met so many families -- happened again this morning in Lorain -- who are just devastated because they don't get the health care they deserve to have. And unfortunately it's a debate we should have that is accurate and is based in facts about my plan and Senator Obama's plan, because my plan will cover everyone and it will be affordable. And on many occasions, independent experts have concluded exactly that.
And Senator Obama's plan does not cover everyone. It would leave, give or take, 15 million people out. So we should have a good debate that uses accurate information, not false, misleading, and discredited information, especially on something as important as whether or not we will achieve quality, affordable health care for everyone. That's my goal. That's what I'm fighting for, and I'm going to stand up for that.
SEN. OBAMA: ... I do want to focus on the issue of health care because Senator Clinton has suggested that the flyer that we put out, the mailing that we put out, was inaccurate. Now, keep in mind that I have consistently said that Senator Clinton's got a good health care plan. I think I have a good health care plan. I think mine is better, but I have said that 95 percent of our health care plan is similar.
I have endured over the course of this campaign repeatedly negative mailing from Senator Clinton in Iowa, in Nevada and other places suggesting that I want to leave 15 million people out.
According to Senator Clinton, that is accurate. I dispute it, and I think it is inaccurate. On the other hand, I don't fault Senator Clinton for wanting to point out what she thinks is an advantage to her plan.
The reason she thinks that there are more people covered under her plan than mine is because of a mandate. That is not a mandate for the government to provide coverage to everybody; it is a mandate that every individual purchase health care.
And the mailing that we put out accurately indicates that the main difference between Senator Clinton's plan and mine is the fact that she would force in some fashion individuals to purchase health care.
If it was not affordable, she would still presumably force them to have it, unless there is a hardship exemption as they've done in Massachusetts, which leaves 20 percent of the uninsured out. And if that's the case, then, in fact, her claim that she covers everybody is not accurate.
Now, Senator Clinton has not indicated how she would enforce this mandate. She hasn't indicated what level of subsidy she would provide to assure that it was, in fact, affordable. And so it is entirely legitimate for us to point out these differences.
But I think it's very important to understand the context of this, and that is that Senator Clinton has -- her campaign, at least -- has constantly sent out negative attacks on us, e-mail, robocalls, flyers, television ads, radio calls.
And, you know, we haven't whined about it because I understand that's the nature of these campaigns, but to suggest somehow that our mailing is somehow different from the kinds of approaches that Senator Clinton has taken throughout this campaign I think is simply not accurate.
MR. WILLIAMS: And Senator Clinton, on this subject --
SEN. CLINTON: But I have to -- I have to respond to that because this is not just any issue, and certainly we've had a vigorous back and forth on both sides of our campaign. But this is an issue that goes to the heart of whether or not this country will finally do what is right, and that is to provide quality affordable health care to every single person.
Senator Obama has a mandate in his plan. It's a mandate on parents to provide health insurance for their children. That's about 150 million people who would be required to do that. The difference between Senator Obama and myself is that I know, from the work I've done on health care for many years, that if everyone's not in the system we will continue to let the insurance companies do what's called cherry picking -- pick those who get insurance and leave others out.
We will continue to have a hidden tax, so that when someone goes to the emergency room without insurance -- 15 million or however many -- that amount of money that will be used to take care of that person will be then spread among all the rest of us.
And most importantly, you know, the kind of attack on my health care plan, which the University of Pennsylvania and others have said is misleading -- that attack goes right to the heart of whether or not we will be able to achieve universal health care. That's a core Democratic Party value. It's something that ever since Harry Truman we have stood for.
And what I find regrettable is that in Senator Obama's mailing that he has sent out across Ohio, it is almost as though the health insurance companies and the Republicans wrote it, because in my plan there is enough money, according to the independent experts who've evaluated it, to provide the kind of subsidies so that everyone would be able to afford it. It is not the same as a single state trying to do this, because the federal government has many more resources at its disposal.
SEN. OBAMA (?): (Inaudible.)
SEN. CLINTON: So I think it's imperative that we stand as Democrats for universal health care. I've staked out a claim for that. Senator Edwards did. Others have. But Senator Obama has not.
MR. WILLIAMS: Senator Obama, a quick response.
SEN. OBAMA: Well, look, I believe in universal health care, as does Senator Clinton. And this is -- this is, I think, the point of the debate, is that Senator Clinton repeatedly claims that I don't stand for universal health care. And, you know, for Senator Clinton to say that, I think, is simply not accurate.
Every expert has said that anybody who wants health care under my plan will be able to obtain it. President Clinton's own secretary of Labor has said that my plan does more to reduce costs and as a consequence makes sure that the people who need health care right now all across Ohio, all across Texas, Rhode Island, Vermont, all across America, will be able to obtain it. And we do more to reduce costs than any other plan that's been out there.
Now, I have no objection to Senator Clinton thinking that her approach is superior, but the fact of the matter is, is that if, as we've heard tonight, we still don't know how Senator Clinton intends to enforce a mandate, and if we don't know the level of subsidies that she's going to provide, then you can have a situation, which we are seeing right now in the state of Massachusetts, where people are being fined for not having purchased health care but choose to accept the fine because they still can't afford it, even with the subsidies.
And they are then worse off. They then have no health care and are paying a fine above and beyond that.
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you.
SEN. OBAMA: That is a genuine difference between myself and Senator Clinton.
And the last point I would make is, the insurance companies actually are happy to have a mandate. The insurance companies don't mind making sure that everybody has to purchase their product. That's not something they're objecting to. The question is, are we going to make sure that it is affordable for everybody? And that's my goal when I'm president of the United States.
MR. WILLIAMS: Senator, as you two --
SEN. CLINTON: You know, Brian -- Brian, wait a minute. I've got -- this is too important.
You know, Senator Obama has a mandate. He would enforce the mandate by requiring parents to buy insurance for their children.
SEN. OBAMA: This is true.
SEN. CLINTON: That is the case.
If you have a mandate, it has to be enforceable. So there's no difference here.
SEN. OBAMA: No, there is a difference.
SEN. CLINTON: It's just that I know that parents who get sick have terrible consequences for their children. So you can insure the children, and then you've got the bread-winner who can't afford health insurance or doesn't have it for him or herself.
And in fact, it would be as though Franklin Roosevelt said let's make Social Security voluntary -- that's -- you know, that's -- let's let everybody get in it if they can afford it -- or if President Johnson said let's make Medicare voluntary.
SEN. OBAMA: Well, let me --
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.
SEN. OBAMA: Brian, I'm sorry.
SEN. CLINTON: So let's -- let's have a debate about the facts.
SEN. OBAMA: I'm going to get filibuttered -- I'm getting filibustered a little bit here.
MR. WILLIAMS: The last answer on this topic.
SEN. OBAMA: I mean, it is just not accurate to say that Senator Clinton does more to control costs than mine. That is not the case. There are many experts who have concluded that she does not.
I do provide a mandate for children, because, number one, we have created a number of programs in which we can have greater assurance that those children will be covered at an affordable price. On the -- on the point of many adults, we don't want to put in a situation in which, on the front end, we are mandating them, we are forcing them to purchase insurance, and if the subsidies are inadequate, the burden is on them, and they will be penalized. And that is what Senator Clinton's plan does.
Now, I am -- I am happy to have a discussion with Senator Clinton about how we can both achieve the goal of universal health care. What I do not accept -- and which is what Senator Clinton has consistently done and in fact the same experts she cites basically say there's no real difference between our plans, that are -- that they are not substantial.
But it has to do with how we are going to achieve universal health care. That is an area where I believe that if we make it affordable, people will purchase it. In fact, Medicare Part B is not mandated, it is voluntary. And yet people over 65 choose to purchase it, Hillary, and the reason they choose to purchase it is because it's a good deal. And if people in Cleveland or anywhere in Ohio end up seeing a plan that is affordable for them, I promise you they are snatching it up because they are desperate to get health care. And that's what I intend to provide as president of the United States.
Thoughts? Comments? Please, lets discuss the facts of these two plans.
SEN. CLINTON: ... You know, for example, it's been unfortunate that Senator Obama has consistently said that I would force people to have health care whether they could afford it or not. You know, health care reform and achieving universal health care is a passion of mine. It is something I believe in with all my heart. And every day that I'm campaigning, and certainly here throughout Ohio, I've met so many families -- happened again this morning in Lorain -- who are just devastated because they don't get the health care they deserve to have. And unfortunately it's a debate we should have that is accurate and is based in facts about my plan and Senator Obama's plan, because my plan will cover everyone and it will be affordable. And on many occasions, independent experts have concluded exactly that.
And Senator Obama's plan does not cover everyone. It would leave, give or take, 15 million people out. So we should have a good debate that uses accurate information, not false, misleading, and discredited information, especially on something as important as whether or not we will achieve quality, affordable health care for everyone. That's my goal. That's what I'm fighting for, and I'm going to stand up for that.
SEN. OBAMA: ... I do want to focus on the issue of health care because Senator Clinton has suggested that the flyer that we put out, the mailing that we put out, was inaccurate. Now, keep in mind that I have consistently said that Senator Clinton's got a good health care plan. I think I have a good health care plan. I think mine is better, but I have said that 95 percent of our health care plan is similar.
I have endured over the course of this campaign repeatedly negative mailing from Senator Clinton in Iowa, in Nevada and other places suggesting that I want to leave 15 million people out.
According to Senator Clinton, that is accurate. I dispute it, and I think it is inaccurate. On the other hand, I don't fault Senator Clinton for wanting to point out what she thinks is an advantage to her plan.
The reason she thinks that there are more people covered under her plan than mine is because of a mandate. That is not a mandate for the government to provide coverage to everybody; it is a mandate that every individual purchase health care.
And the mailing that we put out accurately indicates that the main difference between Senator Clinton's plan and mine is the fact that she would force in some fashion individuals to purchase health care.
If it was not affordable, she would still presumably force them to have it, unless there is a hardship exemption as they've done in Massachusetts, which leaves 20 percent of the uninsured out. And if that's the case, then, in fact, her claim that she covers everybody is not accurate.
Now, Senator Clinton has not indicated how she would enforce this mandate. She hasn't indicated what level of subsidy she would provide to assure that it was, in fact, affordable. And so it is entirely legitimate for us to point out these differences.
But I think it's very important to understand the context of this, and that is that Senator Clinton has -- her campaign, at least -- has constantly sent out negative attacks on us, e-mail, robocalls, flyers, television ads, radio calls.
And, you know, we haven't whined about it because I understand that's the nature of these campaigns, but to suggest somehow that our mailing is somehow different from the kinds of approaches that Senator Clinton has taken throughout this campaign I think is simply not accurate.
MR. WILLIAMS: And Senator Clinton, on this subject --
SEN. CLINTON: But I have to -- I have to respond to that because this is not just any issue, and certainly we've had a vigorous back and forth on both sides of our campaign. But this is an issue that goes to the heart of whether or not this country will finally do what is right, and that is to provide quality affordable health care to every single person.
Senator Obama has a mandate in his plan. It's a mandate on parents to provide health insurance for their children. That's about 150 million people who would be required to do that. The difference between Senator Obama and myself is that I know, from the work I've done on health care for many years, that if everyone's not in the system we will continue to let the insurance companies do what's called cherry picking -- pick those who get insurance and leave others out.
We will continue to have a hidden tax, so that when someone goes to the emergency room without insurance -- 15 million or however many -- that amount of money that will be used to take care of that person will be then spread among all the rest of us.
And most importantly, you know, the kind of attack on my health care plan, which the University of Pennsylvania and others have said is misleading -- that attack goes right to the heart of whether or not we will be able to achieve universal health care. That's a core Democratic Party value. It's something that ever since Harry Truman we have stood for.
And what I find regrettable is that in Senator Obama's mailing that he has sent out across Ohio, it is almost as though the health insurance companies and the Republicans wrote it, because in my plan there is enough money, according to the independent experts who've evaluated it, to provide the kind of subsidies so that everyone would be able to afford it. It is not the same as a single state trying to do this, because the federal government has many more resources at its disposal.
SEN. OBAMA (?): (Inaudible.)
SEN. CLINTON: So I think it's imperative that we stand as Democrats for universal health care. I've staked out a claim for that. Senator Edwards did. Others have. But Senator Obama has not.
MR. WILLIAMS: Senator Obama, a quick response.
SEN. OBAMA: Well, look, I believe in universal health care, as does Senator Clinton. And this is -- this is, I think, the point of the debate, is that Senator Clinton repeatedly claims that I don't stand for universal health care. And, you know, for Senator Clinton to say that, I think, is simply not accurate.
Every expert has said that anybody who wants health care under my plan will be able to obtain it. President Clinton's own secretary of Labor has said that my plan does more to reduce costs and as a consequence makes sure that the people who need health care right now all across Ohio, all across Texas, Rhode Island, Vermont, all across America, will be able to obtain it. And we do more to reduce costs than any other plan that's been out there.
Now, I have no objection to Senator Clinton thinking that her approach is superior, but the fact of the matter is, is that if, as we've heard tonight, we still don't know how Senator Clinton intends to enforce a mandate, and if we don't know the level of subsidies that she's going to provide, then you can have a situation, which we are seeing right now in the state of Massachusetts, where people are being fined for not having purchased health care but choose to accept the fine because they still can't afford it, even with the subsidies.
And they are then worse off. They then have no health care and are paying a fine above and beyond that.
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you.
SEN. OBAMA: That is a genuine difference between myself and Senator Clinton.
And the last point I would make is, the insurance companies actually are happy to have a mandate. The insurance companies don't mind making sure that everybody has to purchase their product. That's not something they're objecting to. The question is, are we going to make sure that it is affordable for everybody? And that's my goal when I'm president of the United States.
MR. WILLIAMS: Senator, as you two --
SEN. CLINTON: You know, Brian -- Brian, wait a minute. I've got -- this is too important.
You know, Senator Obama has a mandate. He would enforce the mandate by requiring parents to buy insurance for their children.
SEN. OBAMA: This is true.
SEN. CLINTON: That is the case.
If you have a mandate, it has to be enforceable. So there's no difference here.
SEN. OBAMA: No, there is a difference.
SEN. CLINTON: It's just that I know that parents who get sick have terrible consequences for their children. So you can insure the children, and then you've got the bread-winner who can't afford health insurance or doesn't have it for him or herself.
And in fact, it would be as though Franklin Roosevelt said let's make Social Security voluntary -- that's -- you know, that's -- let's let everybody get in it if they can afford it -- or if President Johnson said let's make Medicare voluntary.
SEN. OBAMA: Well, let me --
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.
SEN. OBAMA: Brian, I'm sorry.
SEN. CLINTON: So let's -- let's have a debate about the facts.
SEN. OBAMA: I'm going to get filibuttered -- I'm getting filibustered a little bit here.
MR. WILLIAMS: The last answer on this topic.
SEN. OBAMA: I mean, it is just not accurate to say that Senator Clinton does more to control costs than mine. That is not the case. There are many experts who have concluded that she does not.
I do provide a mandate for children, because, number one, we have created a number of programs in which we can have greater assurance that those children will be covered at an affordable price. On the -- on the point of many adults, we don't want to put in a situation in which, on the front end, we are mandating them, we are forcing them to purchase insurance, and if the subsidies are inadequate, the burden is on them, and they will be penalized. And that is what Senator Clinton's plan does.
Now, I am -- I am happy to have a discussion with Senator Clinton about how we can both achieve the goal of universal health care. What I do not accept -- and which is what Senator Clinton has consistently done and in fact the same experts she cites basically say there's no real difference between our plans, that are -- that they are not substantial.
But it has to do with how we are going to achieve universal health care. That is an area where I believe that if we make it affordable, people will purchase it. In fact, Medicare Part B is not mandated, it is voluntary. And yet people over 65 choose to purchase it, Hillary, and the reason they choose to purchase it is because it's a good deal. And if people in Cleveland or anywhere in Ohio end up seeing a plan that is affordable for them, I promise you they are snatching it up because they are desperate to get health care. And that's what I intend to provide as president of the United States.
Thoughts? Comments? Please, lets discuss the facts of these two plans.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
The plans are pretty much the same but I think Hillary's is a little better. I see no problem with taking a small percentage of money out of people's paychecks if they do not purchase insurance on their own. That's how we pay for our health insurance now. I know lots of people who don't have health insurance not because they don't want it but because their employers do not offer it.
Her plan mandates all people to get health insurance and his plan only mandates all parents to get health insurance, which has the potential for many Americans to opt out from getting health insurance under his plan. Again I think she is right because it's the unsure people that are driving up costs at hospitals and doctors' offices. We'll end up paying for them just like we do now.
The only reason it really didn't pass is because the Republicans controlled the House and Senate at that time. As of right now the Democrats control the House and Senate so both plans have a good chance.
The key words you used are "opt out". There is no reason people who want healthcare could not get it under Obama's plan. Mandating coverage for children is one thing. Children have no choice in the matter and parents should be held accountable for protecting their children even if as adults they choose not to protect themselves. Adults, however do have a choice. If someone can't afford healthcare, and are, in turn, fined for not having it, they are double fucked, still no healthcare and a fine on top of it. Mandating government to provide healthcare is one thing. Mandating people to purchase is it, and fining them if they do not, is something altogeter different. As someone else pointed out, Obama's plan will also be much easier to pass which ultimately means, regardless of how you look at the subtle differences, more healthcare for more people, which, in and of itself, makes Obama's the better plan. Hillary has been pushing her plan for about 15 years now to no avail. 15 more will be just as fruitless. Where does that leave us?
I didn't say Obama has a bad plan but I feel her's is a little bit better. I believe everyone should have healthcare! I believe it's more affordable to have healthcare than not unless it's someone who never pays their bills which means we will pay their bills for them. Uninsured people drive up the costs just like with car insurance. I'm sure FDR went through something like this with Social Security as well. Bush wanted to let people opt out by letting them using some of their money going into Social Security to invest in other areas but that didn't go over very well. As I said in another thread Hillary's healthcare plan busted in the 90's because the very partisan Republicans controlled both the House and Senate. Now the Democrats are in control of both houses and if it stays this way both of their plans will get through but I'm sure they'll be tweaked.
Democratic congress or not, her plan with its mandates, fines, and wage garnishings will never pass. In te 90's she met opposition even with democrats and she shut them out of negotiations. Regardless of whose plan you side with on paper (personally i think his is better), ultimately the plan that passes is the better plan.
Furtermore, auto insurance is mandatory. By law you must purchase it. You are fined if you are caught driving without it. Do you have any idea how many times i've been rear ended by folks with no insurance and gotten fucked? More than i care to elaborate on. Not only would she never pass her plan, it wouldn't work anyway.
i should also add that congress has a lower approval rating than even the president right now. Not an easy task. i wouldn't put to many eggs in the "democratic congress" basket. If clinton wins the nomination and hell freezes over at the same time pigs start flying and she actually wins the general election, the democratic congress will soon be gone.
Yup and that's why our car insurance goes up as well.
His mandates all parents and her's mandates everyone. They both have mandates! I believe she'll get it passed this time. I believe everyone should have healthcare. Other countries have universal healthcare by using tax money so I see mandating people to purchase affordable health insurance or garnishing wages to pay the same is no different than a tax. It's just a sin here to use the word tax lol.
It's just a difference in opinion.
i've already addressed the "Obama mandates healthcare for childre" line of hillary clinton crap. it is a difference in opinion and that's cool. You are entitled to yours and i respect it. i respectfully disagree with it, but i respect it.
I respect yours as well. Besides we'll both be voting for Obama in November
Sounds good to me
I don't much about how the health industry in the US works. How do uninsured people at hospitals and doctor's offices drive up the costs?
If someone can't pay their bill, the hospital or doctor increases its fees overall for service to offset that loss of income. Multiply that by thousands (millions? I don't know the number.
There may be more to it than that, but that is the first thing that comes to my mind.
What Hillary's plan fails to take into account is that under the current health care PLANS available, people who do have health insurance - still have to pay out-of-pocket expenses because health care insurers/providers/carriers DO NOT COVER all expenses, treatments or prescriptions. This is how a person can get overwhelmed with medical costs to the point of losing their jobs, homes or just living without insurance.
What Hillary's plan fails to take into account is that many health insurance plans do not cover pre-conditions even in newborns.
What Hillary's plan fails to take into account is that many small to medium companies "make available" health care plans so employees can join but do not contribute to those plans. Making it the responsibility of the employee to pay full premium costs.
What Hillary's plan fails to take into account is that many people lose their health insurance in divorce cases because the owner of the health care plan is no longer eligible for family coverage.
What Hillary's plan fails to take into account is what the State and federal governments determine as acceptable income earning that makes many people, even children getting child support ineligible for State or federal social aid programs.
Those are just some of things that affect the working person who will be subjected to a mandatory pay-in universal health care system.
The biggest failure of Hillary's plan is that even if a mandatory pay-in was instituted and ALL people had some form of health insurance, there is still no plan for cost control so premuins would continue to rise. Eventually, cost control would become based on income and again the middle class working person would bear the burden.
Obama's plan rides the lines of Hillary's but he rejects to notion of a "mandatory "pay in" concept. Yet, he offers no clear thoughts on how his plan would be achieved, so one can not judge his take on the goal of this issue. Obama does seems to realize that nothing is going be accomplished without the health insurer community.
Both Clinton and Obama are sincere in their pursuit for a universal health care system. I just think they could have been more affective by chipping away at the system instead of trying to accomplish a complete overhaul.
obama will fine you if you show up to the hospital and do not have insurance
and obama's plan is still dominated and controlled by corporate insterests...the same health care companies we bitch about now will still over it!! what obama is offering is 'affordable' health insurance thru these same companies...so he's gonna set what he thinks we can afford to pay...how much is that you ask? well, i'm just as eager as you to know but, i guess we'll have to wait
read this part of the cnn debate in texas and note the bolded part about kids, far from universal as they all claim his plan is
it's maybe 2/3 of the way down the page:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/21/debate.transcript/
CLINTON: He's also said that if people show up at a hospital sick, without health insurance, well, maybe at that point you can fine them.
We would not have a social compact with Social Security and Medicare if everyone did not have to participate. I want a universal health care plan.
(APPLAUSE)
OBAMA: Now, that's -- that mother -- that mother who is desperate to get health care for her child, will be able to get that health care under my plan. Point number one.
Point number two, the reason a mandate for children can be effective is we've got an ability to make affordable health care available to that child, right now.
OBAMA: There are no excuses. If a parent is not providing health care for that child, it's because the parent's not being responsible, under my plan. And those children don't have a choice. But I think that adults are going to be able to see that they can afford it, under my plan; they will get it, under my plan.
And it is true that, if it turns out that some are gaming the system, then we can impose, potentially, some penalties on them for gaming the system.
But the notion that, somehow, I am interested in leaving out 15 million people, without health insurance, is simply not true.
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
regardless of which plan, let's say that health insurance is made affordable for every person in the US and yet, someone shows up to the hospital without insurance. instead of messing with this issue of fines, should the person simply be refused care? i know the question sounds inconsiderate/uncompassionate, but this is under the pre-tense that this person had every opportunity and the ability to purchase insurance and decided to "game-it" and not buy that insurance.
That's what we have now. What amazing progress!
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
the other foot in the gutter
sweet smell that they adore
I think I'd rather smother
-The Replacements-
time to get a contract labor job.......
PEARL JAM~San Antonio, TX. 4~5~03
INCUBUS~Houston, TX. 1~19~07
INCUBUS~Denver, CO. 2~8~07
Lollapalooza~Chicago, IL. 8~5~07
INCUBUS~Austin, TX. 9~3~07
Bonnaroo~Manchester, TN 6~14~08
at this point, can we really determine which plan is better, which plan has a chance at passing and which is more cost efficient?
Neither Clinton's nor Obama's plan will do anything to address the existing and coming shortages of available health care workers. Both plans, over time, are likely to exacerbate these problems.
Neither Clinton's nor Obama's plan will do much to lower the cost of healthcare. They'll simply shift those costs to the wealthy and businesses.
Neither Clinton's nor Obama's plan will address the fundamental problem with insurance -- the fact that you can't take out more than you put in even though you can pretend to.
Neither Clinton's nor Obama's plan will help diversify the healthcare offerings in this country, something the market desperately needs. Their plans will simply further concentrate the special interests and government influence over how medicine is delivered.
Neither Clinton's nor Obama's plan will stem the influence of the state over private health choices. They will put the state in a position where it must further regulate choice in order to control costs.
In short, both plans are a continuation of what has been happening in the healthcare market in this country over the last 60 years -- more concentration of influence, less emphasis on care and value, and less competition and innovation. Go ahead and keep looting this market and see where you end up.
It doesn't matter though. Neither plan will be the actual plan, once either of these people get into office.
Any plan is going to reflect the interests of "special interests". That's the whole point of having a political plan. I find it funny that when a drug company gets some shitty legislation passed you hear the words "special interest" but when the poor get some shitty legislation passed you only hear the word "people".
Hehe...then pay for all the healthcare you'd like! No one is telling you not to pay for someone else's healthcare.
Very much so. The irony of these plans is that they make the statement "insurance companies have been harming health care" and then their solution is to either create 1 giant insurance company or to ensure that the existing insurance companies have to become even more corrupt.
Absolutely. Get rid of the FDA. Get rid of all the specific government mandates that define "doctor" or "healthcare provider" or "insurance company". Allow individuals and companies to compete to fit the varying demands of the market.
Yet as government has gotten more and more involved in healthcare over the last two generations, the hegemony has accelerated and the entire thesis of both these plans is to establish a new level of hegemony and monopoly. Your logic does not hold up.
Absolutely! Then start a government plan that you and anyone who thinks like you may contribute to.
That's odd. Isn't the entire thesis behind universal healthcare that this is already happening???? The healthcare market in this country is already more public than it is private. So how is it possible that things are worse then ever?
O.k. You're first mistake is asking contributors to this forum for facts.
Maybe you enjoy pissing in the wind.
then could you give me a link to a site or message board where facts are presented? thanks.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Ralph_Nader.htm#Health_Care
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ralph_Nader_Health_Care.htm
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
http://www.raptureready.com
High Traffic ART EZI FTJ JSR KPA PCD SYN ULX VLB YHF
Low Traffic CIO MIW
Non Traffic ABC BAY FDU GBZ HNC NDP OEM ROV TMS ZWL