My main reservation with Obama:

his health care plan.

My first choice would have been a simple universal payer plan, such as proposed by Kucinich. My second choice was that offered by John Edwards, which Clinton subsequently adopted -- a choice of either government or private plans.

Obama's plan, by not requiring everyone to sign up (including the youngest and healthiest), will mean that the costs per person for those people who do sign up must be higher -- the costs will be spread across a smaller, sicker, pool.

And there is another problem with his plan -- the anti-government philosophy behind it will make it hard for him to contrast his plan with McCain's in the general election. Krugman talks about this below, but the rest of his article (snipped) is well worth reading for its analysis of McCain's "voodoo economics."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/04/opinion/04krugman.html?em&ex=1207454400&en=af86cd2cf2a089b4&ei=5087%0A

SNIP

Last weekend, Mrs. Edwards bluntly pointed out that neither of them would be able to get insurance under Mr. McCain’s health care plan.


It’s about time someone said that and, more generally, made the case that Mr. McCain’s approach to health care is based on voodoo economics — not the supply-side voodoo that claims that cutting taxes increases revenues (though Mr. McCain says that, too), but the equally foolish claim, refuted by all available evidence, that the magic of the marketplace can produce cheap health care for everyone.

SNIP

This is nonsense on multiple levels.

Mr. McCain, then, is offering a completely wrongheaded approach to health care. But the way the campaign for the Democratic nomination has unfolded raises questions about how effective his eventual opponent will be in making that point.

Indeed, while Mrs. Edwards focused her criticism on Mr. McCain, she also made it clear that she prefers Hillary Clinton’s approach — “Sen. Clinton’s plan is a great plan” — to Barack Obama’s. The Clinton plan closely resembles the plan for universal coverage that John Edwards laid out more than a year ago. By contrast, Mr. Obama offers a watered-down plan that falls short of universality, and it would have higher costs per person covered.

Worse yet, Mr. Obama attacked his Democratic rivals’ health plans using conservative talking points about choice and the evil of having the government tell you what to do. That’s going to make it hard — if he is the nominee — to refute Mr. McCain when he makes similar arguments on behalf of such things as privatizing veterans’ care.

SNIP

the young, who are poor relative to the middle-aged, will be heavily subsidized. Are you so certain that a plan including mandated and subsidized young adults will be more equitable for the "older and sicker" than a plan including only young adults who opt in?

The results of these experiments in policy will, in any case, differ greatly from the plans laid out in the campaigns.

He's a professor of economics at Princeton, a Democrat, and a progressive. Having read a decade's worth of his NY Times columns, I trust his motivations, too. I think he's one of the good guys.

especially in situations where there is little or no precedent as to how the consumers will behave.

as it is mine to predict that if Hillary becomes president her healthcare plan will turn out to be an enormous boondoggle.

Hillary does not get to wave a magic wand on Day 1 and make it so

The other part is that introducing mandates is like feeding the trolls--Congress will turn it into something punitive and downright awful.

....supported Kucinich.

His was the only universal plan proposed by any of our candidates.

Obama's plan and Hillary's plan are so close to being the same thing your handwringing over the difference isnt worth your time.

Obama's and McCain's. Also, she has said that her plan could well be the first step toward universal payer, and she would have no problem with that.

I agree with Krugman that Obama will have a harder time proving why his plan is better than McCain's.

I have remained basically neutral during the primaries, though at various times I've leaned slightly toward Obama. I don't think any of the candidates is perfect, including Kucinich. The fact that I preferred his health care plan wasn't enough for me. I never thought he had the fund raising ability to compete with the Rethugs in an election and, at the time, we were looking at Mitt Romney and his zillions.

Obama's would not because he'd *still* have to convince people to deal with a mandate, and his plans would not lower costs significantly.

Which I don't think it would. Then what happens?

The idea of socialized health care dies for those generations that many here spouted about.

didn't want to spend the money on preventative care, refused to participate? How would his plan lower costs?

Obama's plan doesn't have subsidies!

Actually, some commentators have classified Obama's criticism of her health care plan as attacking her from the left, arguing that people might not be able to afford to buy health insurance. I actually view mandates as a more conservative or at least middle of the road approach (keep in mind that Mitt Romney was one of the first to propose them).

I think there are some valid arguments for mandates, but here is my concern: let's say Clinton wins the presidency and we get enough Democratic senators to pass her healthcare plan as is. Under her current plan, there might be enough subsidies to make it affordable for most people to comply with the mandate. But the subsidies would be subject to whatever Congress chooses to appropriate. Let's just say that in 2010, Republicans take over Congress. They could reduce the funding for subsidies but the mandate would still remain, making it less affordable to comply with the mandate. That's what we have seen happen with No Child Left Behind.

The type of mandates that are being discussed are mandates on INDIVIDUALS ... not mandates on government (like Social Security and Medicare).

Some economists from the left believe that progressives ought not to support such mandates on individuals ... because it will take us farther away, not closer, to a government mandate for universal (single-payer) health care in the future.

I believe I read Robert Kuttner make this argument. Obama has spoken several times in the debates about this being a mandate on individuals, not government.

There are "mandates" for the government -- a public plan similar to Medicare, tax credits and caps on premiums, etc.

Medicare Part A (which covers hospitalization only) mandates government to collect payroll taxes. It administers the program. Funds are pooled. You get it when you start getting social security, and it came under the SS Act. It is a social insurance program.

Medicare Part B (which covers medical costs other than hospitalization) is optional, and involves a premium. Because that premium is so reasonable, almost everyone who needs it signs up for it (cf. Obama--who believes, by cutting the costs up front, that people will purchase it). It is NOT mandated.

A mandated plan like Hillary's simply requires you to purchase some insurance, private, or a plan through the government; she has not said that payroll taxes would be collected or that all the funds would be pooled into one source and run by the government.

payroll deduction, like Social Security, or a monthly payment that you are required to make in some other way?

A mandate is a mandate.

...defaulting to an extended Medicare plan which people would have unless their employeer changed it.

You pay 2.9% of your earnings in payroll taxes, across your entire career, to be eligible for Medicare at age 65. It's not paying a set fee for your private medical insurance but into a pool that is used for today's retiree/Medicare recipients. When you get ready to retire, current worker's payroll taxes will be funding the money that will pay for your hospitalization. (Let's forget Part B for now, which you have to pay a premium for, and which allows you to go to a doctor; if you're buying a Medicare "Advantage" plan, you are simply sending money to the private health-insurance industry, so forget it.) This is everybody contributing into the system for everyone else. It's social insurance.

If you pay a monthly premium, you are buying your own personal insurance for yourself, and this is capped according to the proposed plan(s) at 10% of income. You'd still also be paying that 2.9%, in addition, into Medicare. It's not clear that there could be a plan "like" Medicare for under-65s unless everybody participated in it--that would be universal single-payer, and that is not what Clinton is proposing--since people would either keep their employer assisted private insurance plans, or buy one of the Senate plans--and then there is that third thing. I do not yet know what sorts of benefits such a plan would offer. But I assume it would be like Medicare Part B, with a premium attached. If it is a Medicare Advantage-type plan, woe be unto us.

I can't say I understand everything, but I have read what some economists say, and I do believe they understand it better than you or I.

Since it is mandated and highly subsidized making it like part B I think is a complete error in judgement.

The tax deductible portion of the plan seems to imply that the tax deductions happen if you have private insurance, not the national extended Medicare insurer.

So to me it seems counterintuitive.

Because they are a form of taxation, you have representation and accountability. If you are dissatisfied with the way they are being managed, you can complain to your government officials or even "vote the bums out". With mandates to private companies, you essentially have a situation where you are forced into a one-way contract, where the insurance company dictates the terms. Unless you are a major stockholder in Humana or whomever, you don't get to vote the Board of Directors out.

New Health Choices Menu would be offered to all Americans through the FEHBP, offering the same private plan options available to members of Congress along with a public plan option similar to Medicare.

is subject to payroll deductions.

Obama's distinction makes no sense.

Not a mandate to pay premiums to private companies. And it's based on your income, while health insurance premiums cost the same no matter how much you make.

plan. No one will be required to pay premiums to private insurers. And she has said that it is quite likely the government plans will be able to offer better deals to the consumers -- and if that means some private insurers drop out of the business, that's fine with her.

The government plan has to accept everyone, while private insurers still get to choose who to accept. Without substantial subsidies, the government plan will cost more, since everyone with chronic conditions will be forced to be on it. Just like NCLB, a mandate without a binding promise of funding will inevitably turn into a way to screw us.

No mandates unless it is for single-payer. Clinton's plan looks to me to be a sneaky way to sabotage any future prospect of single-payer.

And it will have limits placed on those companies in the pool.

In other words, it will be artifically cheap because the fucking corporations make health care artifically expensive!

If the Democrats don't do it first. Then everyone will be faced with the choice between ridiculously expensive government coverage or cheap private coverage that only the healthy qualify for. And then the supply-siders will use that as evidence that government-run programs cost more than corporate insurance. And that is the torpedo in the side of single-payer. No thanks -- no mandates.

Edit to add: The worst thing is that Senator Clinton must know this will be the result -- she has studied the issue for over a decade. It leads me to believe she is completely beholden to corporate interests at this point, and is one of the primary reasons I don't support her.

Seriously?

they could just as easily erase any mandates. I don't see that as a strong argument against the Edwards/Clinton plans.

Social Security is a "mandate." Saying we should privatize Social Security is an argument made from people on the right, not from the left. The same thing would apply here. Obama's position on health care is closer than Hillary's to the people who are on the right wing/ libertarian end of the spectrum. (I'm speaking of libertarian financial philosophy, rather than their positions on civil rights.)

It's a really weak position to take. And people say he's for Hope and Change. God. This is my single biggest issue here, too.

I've posted the link, find it yourself. That's being forced to pay for something that many people are not going to be able to afford, for insurance that may have outrageous deductibles and co-pays, and just be a gift to the insurance companies. It's a disaster of a plan.

have already been more than 10% of my income so far this year (dental surgery). I'm now out of benefits and anything else this year will be out of pocket (I've paid around $600 out of pocket, the rest was covered).

If I had to pay ten percent of my income, it would be money well spent. Moreover, since my employer wouldn't have to pay it, I might get a raise.

We're talking about people who don't have health insurance and they don't have health insurance, don't have it because they can't afford it. YOU CAN. If 10% of your income is nothing to you, then thank your damn lucky stars. Ten Percent would make many families HOMELESS.

We are also talking about people who simply don't want to pay in because they are healthy.

I have gone through times when I did not have health insurance. The bills I incurred for necessary medical expenses were a hardship, and I could not afford one of the prescriptions at all once. I paid it off a little bit at a time. But even making as little as I was, paying into a plan would have cost me ultimately less.

I'm pretty sure that Clinton's plan subsidizes truly poor people (in fact, I think both do).

and deductible costs, then you're income is plenty more than 95% of the people in this country.

Truly poor people already get health care through Medicaid. It's the working people who don't have health care, because people like you can't understand how 10%, or even 5%, of someone's income could be a hardship.

I feel sad for all the working people in the east who are being duped with Hillary's promise of health care when all it is going to be is a mandate for something they can't afford. Just like their worthless college plan back in the 90's.

I doubt that I am even in the top 50%.

My point was that when I did not have insurance, and made very little money, I had to pay for (again dental, a root canal) surgery that was more than ten percent of my income. Paying ten percent would have been cheaper for me.

So a low income person would have to pay both the ten percent - and the dental, eyeglasses, deductibles, co-pays, and possibly prescriptions. That's the point. This is insurance, not full health care. Ten Percent is an enormous amount of money to pay, in addition to the rest of the health care bills of a family. It's wrong to mandate this when we don't know how this is going to affect people in different parts of the country.

the standard for everyone at all income levels.

And all people at all income levels already do have health care costs, one way or another. Either that, or they severely neglect their health.

less than 20 hrs. a week, so she is basically poor, she cannot get medicaid because she does not have any kids or is not married or divorced or pregnant.She still lives at home because she cannot fine a job that pays enough for her to live on her own she doesn't have insurance and I'm positive she would gladly pay 10% for health care. Besides 10% of nothing is nothing!

on $500 a month, then no she will not be able to pay $50 a month and pay for housing and food and heat and soap and clothes and transportation. If she got seriously ill or injured, she would qualify for Medicaid. The poverty line is around $750 for one person, and help is available in Ohio up to $1500 for one person.

$500 a month would be a god-send and like I said she would gladly pay 10% for health care.The trouble is there are times when you are not seriously ill, but you still need a dr. She gets strep throat about 4-5 times a years, doc says she need her tonsils out, can't afford it, can't afford meds and dr visits either. I've paid out of pocket the last 3 times she's been sick, I can't afford that either, but what else do you do? She's one of the working poor.

and tell her she's on her own. Then tell me how much she can afford to pay for health care.

She is not one of the working poor. Puhleeze. That's an insult to people who are truly struggling and have no one to help them.

She's living at home because I have compassion and I see how she is struggling, how is it her fault that there are no decent paying jobs let alone any full time jobs where you MIGHT be able to get health insurance.The only reason she is not on the street is because she had to come back home because of the poor job prospects. Now you fucking tell me how fucking lucky she is.

There are plenty of people who are not, yes, lucky enough to have a home to go to. YOU are the one who got all pompous about how little 10% of somebody's income is, so don't YOU get all shitty with me because I threw your bogus bullshit back in your face. Living at home is not remotely the same thing as trying to pay 10% out of a low income when you actually are 100% responsible for yourself. And if you actually did ask her, and she actually did try to live on her own on minimum wage, she'd be the first to tell you what a stupid thing that was for you to say.

the fucking shit you spout? You want to talk about pompous you're the one trying to pretend you know about how everyone else is making due or what they want. I'm just stating a fact. I did Not say anything about how little 10% was, I said she would be glad to pay it and that 10% of nothing is nothing. How is what I'm saying "bogus bullshit" when you have no idea of the circumstances of which I speak. You are the pompous one here not I.

Or she'd know there would be no way someone with the income you describe could manage it. That is a fact.

And people like you and the rest of the Hillary supporters are why nothing ever changes for the working people in this country. You're clueless. And it's everybody else's fault for telling you.

See ya.

about someone being clueless lets start with you. I said repeatedly she had to move back home because she couldn't manage. You claim to know how hard it is for everybody who isn't rich, who made you their spokesman? You know absolutely nothing about the situations of people you don't know. You're spiel makes republicans look good you're a fucking idiot and I sure hope Obama knows how bad some of his supporters are making him look, it's the classic case of "with friends like you, who need enemies" Why don't you come back again when you can't stay as long.


"it's all Clinton's fault" used to be a right wing mantra!

when she couldn't even manage when she wasn't having an extra 10% taken out of her check.

If she couldn't manage with that 10%, how in the world do you think she'd manage without it.

You can call me any kind of name you want. But the bottom line, it's just MATH.

We're spineless. We aren't progressive, we are just wastes of bodies, we allow fearmongering about shit like this to get to us.

10% is at the higher end. It will be much lower than that as time goes on and more people, out of self-interest, switch to the extended Medicare. Eventually everyone and their mother will be paying into one system and insurance companies will be begging for bailouts.

Hopefully they'll have a *spine* and tell the insurance companies to fuck off.

living at home. Right now he just started a new job (about his tenth job in the past year and a half) and is starting at 12 bucks a hour to go to 16 in a month. He lives at home and pays for nothing. Hubby and I laid down the law that as soon as he goes to the raise he's out of here and he looked shocked! Apparently he believes because he is our "son" we owe him a roof over his head.

He had to move back home when he was injured on the job. He moved out again about 3 years ago and has managed to stay out. Your son might want to know there are people raising families on $12 hr, and not with a whole lot of govt assistance either. That's what annoys me when people flippantly say 10% is no big deal. Well hell yes it is.

it. He is unfortunately going to have to learn the hard way. When he is working, he spends about thirty dollars a day - buys cigs by the expensive pack, eats out twice a day, you get the picture. When I was first married and we had two kids we couldn't spend thirty bucks a day or anywhere near that!!

We've tried to ease him out before but he never stays gone. I think the longest he has stayed employed is under six months.

He'll figure it out sooner or later. I feel bad for young men these days. If they hate the educational environment, they're in for a world of hurt. The good news is, with all the boomers retiring, there's supposed to be a lot of openings in the trades, plumbing, electrical, windows, stuff like that. My youngest is 22, and we still laugh about the birdhouse he built in middle school. He warned me not to put in any bird seed in it, it would just be mean to the birds. It was more like a death trap, with all the nails poking everywhere inside. He is not handy. He and his girlfriend both work retail. They have a tough road ahead, but they'll have to figure it out for themselves too. So far, they're happy... and not in my house!! lol.

Good Luck!

wearing thin. I do have to love him but I don't have to support him.

for people at higher income levels.

She hasn't clarified. She only recently mentioned the 5-10% figures in an interview. Before that she just promised everybody there would be a cap. Now we know she is considering a 10% cap, but we have no other information to base any conclusions on. 10% is a lot of money, I don't think any other country pays 10% of their income for real health care, let alone her hodge podge of insurance.

be deciding this with her. But I heard her speak here about it being a graduated payment, based on income. Again, the 10% is the cap, not the average. So why compare that to what other countries spend overall on health care? We don't know what the cap is that wealthier individuals in those countries pay in order to have their health care, do we?

But for people where 10% would actually hurt they would be subsidized.

you there are going to be a LOT of shocked people out there when they have to mandatory buy insurance, and when they find out that eighty percent isn't eighty percent when you get the bill. Most of the people I know who don't have insurance don't go to the doctor because they don't want to pay anything and some of them can.

Once the astronomical cost of it becomes apparent, the government is going to ration that care and it will make HMO's look generous. Medicare does a lot of that now. I recently went on a very expensive chemo drug and they didn't want to pay. Neither of my insurance's did, medicare or my secondary it took six weeks of yelling and appealing to get it, in the meantime I've still got cancer. Nice, eh? Oh and if I don't show "improvement" fast enough to suit their "guidelines" it'll be jerked away.

What until we have millions on a government plan.

progressive tax based on income.

It will not be a gift to insurance companies, because they will be REQUIRED to accept patients with preexisting conditions, something none of them wish to do. Also, they will have to compete with government run plans that aren't required to turn a profit, as they are. Under these circumstances, many of the health insurance companies may decide to leave the business. And they should. Eliminating the middle man is the only way in the long run to really get a control of health care costs. And HRC's plan takes us one large (though incremental) step in that direction.

I have insurance for people with preexistings - and deductibles and co-pays. If I had to pay 10% of my income too, well the whole thing would be a big fat waste of money because I still wouldn't go to the doctor until I was on my deathbed. You just do not get it.

If you're income is low, what you would need to pay under Edwards or Clinton's plan is probably LESS than what you're already paying now for the insurance that you already have -- you'd have 250 options to choose from, including government run plans that eliminated the middle man. You wouldn't be paying 10% unless you're at the top income levels, and the payment wouldn't be on top of what you already have.

It doesn't call for a mandate until AFTER everything else has been implemented. It's a final step, not a first step. His plan was not reliant on mandates to create affordability, the way Hillary says hers is. And you do not know what she said about who will pay the 10%, you're just saying whatever pops into your head instead of honestly analyzing what her plan will mean for everybody, not just you.

250 options. I can hear you now. You'll be saying, what are you complaining about, you've got 250 options. Find something that works for you.

And it'll take another 20 years for people like you to understand what it's really like for the people who keep food on the grocery shelves and ring up your clothes and type and file and organize.

Give me a break.

What's is clear to me is that you aren't thinking clearly. You said yourself that you couldn't afford to pay for the insurance you have now PLUS another 10%. No one is asking you to pay for two separate insurance plans (the one you have now AND another one), and no one is saying that people at low income levels will be required to pay 10%. That's just fear mongering.

I said the 250 health options will have all kinds of different benefits, and many people will end up paying 10% of their income, and still not be able to see a doctor because of ALL THE HEALTH COSTS it still won't pay for. There will be 10% PLUS all of these other health costs - not two different insurances, yeesh, pay attention.

Low income people already qualify for medicaid. We do not know who will be required to pay 10%, who will get subsidies, when they will get them, or anything else - because Hillary hasn't told us.

It isn't fear mongering - it's reality. Some of us have seen all the wonderful programs that were supposed to help the "low income" or the "middle income". Two groups of people always get help, the really poor and the upper 10% who can afford to spend money and take tax credits. Everybody else gets left out in the cold. Sorry if I don't trust the Clintons to do now, what they didn't do in the 90's.

"I have insurance for people with preexistings - and deductibles and co-pays. If I had to pay 10% of my income too, well the whole thing would be a big fat waste of money because I still wouldn't go to the doctor until I was on my deathbed."

Again, no one is asking you to pay for your current insurance PLUS another 10% of your income for one of HRC's plans.

(It also doesn't make any sense that you would avoid going to the doctor if you had been forced to pay 10% of your income for insurance. If you had to pay for insurance anyway, why avoid going till you were on your "deathbed"?)

Just because you get insurance for pre-existings, it doesn't mean you're not going to have deductibles and co-pays in addition, too. So you're paying 10% of your income and still having to take money out of your pocket to go to the doctor. That's what I said.

And if you don't have the extra money to pay to go to the doctor, because losing 10% of your income means you already have to choose between heat and food, then you're sure as hell not going to have an extra $100 to go to the doctor.

Why do you not understand this? It's simple math.

If there are any deductibles or copays, I'm sure that will reduce the percent of income paid for the plan.

All we know is she is going to mandate money come out of our check, and give us a choice of 250 some policies according to you, but we don't KNOW anything else about it.

Sorry. No thank you. I can't take the risk.

for some reason you don't seem to be interested in reading it.

http://media.www.independentcollegian.com/media/storage/paper678/news/2008/02/28/News/Adviser.Pushes.Clinton.Plan-3241493.shtml

Andrea Palm, senior health policy adviser to Senator Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), came to the UT Health Science Campus on Monday to speak on behalf of Clinton and her universal health care platform.

" is a student not only of life, but specifically health care," Palm said. "Her appetite for anything health care never ends."

Clinton's platform, known as the American Health Choices Plan, covers all Americans and improves health care by lowering costs and improving quality, Palm said. The platform will offer between 200 and 250 plans nationally and locally, providing choices for anyone who doesn't like their plan or isn't insured.

"If you like your health care, insurance, doctors and hospitals, you can stay," she said.

The proposed plan will cover anyone who applies with automatic renewal and protection on premium inflation, Palm said. Families will have the security of knowing that if they become ill or lose or change their jobs, they won't lose their coverage.

You think someone who makes $1500 a month, and has the choice between a $1500 deductible plan, that pays 50%, for $75 a month - verses a plan with a $500 deductible and 80% for $150 a month - is going to choose the more expensive plan? And you think that's a solution??

$75 pays half the power bill, $150 pays all of it. But you're just going to say, too bad, go buy one of these policies that requires you to still find the money to see a doctor because you'll never meet the deductible.

This isn't a solution for working people. You have to start solving the problem first. Regulating the plans insurance companies offer. Make sure the benefits are adequate and straight-forward. Making sure policies pay, and states shut down the ones that don't, very quickly. Get catastrophics out of the insurance pool. Implement the federal plan. Put in MONTHLY subsidies. After all of that is done, and we know exactly how much this is going to cost and what it's going to cover, THEN we can talk about mandates.

It's the logical way to proceed. It's what people will accept.

We won't be able to bring down the costs sufficiently unless there is universal coverage.

medicare knows, I cannot afford not to have a secondary policy. People who only have Medicare are usually in debt for the copays and what medicare doesn't pay and drugs. It usually goes: the bill is two hundred. Medicare says 120 is what should've been charged, and you get eighty percent of that, or 96, leaving you owing the doctor 104. And that is if your deductible is met.

These are people that aren't paying anything for healthcare now because they can't afford it. Now they will be forced to buy it mandatory and have the above co pays if they use it. I think that is what he is trying to say.

If the bill is 200, and Medicare says that 120 is what is allowable, then 120 is ALL that the doctor is owed (by you and Medicare combined) -- not 200. Doctors can't charge the patient beyond what is allowed.

Using your example, you would owe the difference between 96 (80% of the allowed cost) and 120 -- that is, 24 (not 104).

http://www.mvhealth.com/Columnists/brandwin/archive73.htm

"Medicare covers 80% of the allowed charges. The patient is responsible for the remaining 20% of the allowed charges. A healthcare provider can charge whatever amount they choose, but Medicare has a set fee schedule that they pay for every procedure. This is referred to as the allowed amount. Anything over the allowed amount is, naturally, considered disallowed. The disallowed amount is a write-off and you can not be charged for it."

charge what Medicare says so IF THEY TAKE ASSIGNMENT. Very few do, unfortunately. Believe me, I understand how it works because I paid claims for 15 years. Fewer and fewer doctors accept medicare assignment nowdays. Some doctors will only charge 15% above assignment but some will charge the entire amount. I always have to sign a waiver that says (especially labs) if medicare doesn't pay I will pay the amount in full. Besides that, there is a $900 hospital deductible for admission to the hospital and then everything else is part B and comes under the above rules. Not to mentiont he fact that Medicare part D is woefully inadequate. Only one of my drugs would cost almost $1,000 a month with secondary insurance.

We'd be in deep trouble if we only had medicare.

As I said it is tough to even find a doctor who will accept what medicare pays. They simply refuse to take any more medicare patients or do not accept assignment. My secondary policy costs me six hundred a month for both husband and I and thank god we can afford it. It is worth it for medicine alone.

Why give the GOP a reason to fight us on health care insurance mandates and give them the propaganda like excuse to beat us with? Mandating payments to insurance companies will only alienate the Independents and even moderate Republicans and Dem centrists.

That's the problem with the Hillary Mandate clause.....it's been sold to us as being better, but how can something that would cause failure for enactement be better?

This is a perfect example of the wisdom of Obama's pragmatism based on the realities of the GE, and Hillary's short sightness strategy of pandering for Dem Primaries without thought to the general election (kind of like the lack of planning witnessed of her campaign thus far).

This one canard is just that.....and can only apply as extremely important to only the narrowest thinking voters imaginable.

it will be a problem. We should instead be emphasizing that, like Social Security, it will provide universal coverage.

And it IS NOT like social security, it isn't a defined benefit that you are guaranteed to get. It's a selection from a bunch of unknown plans with unknown benefits and unknown percentages of income that will be pulled out of your check. Just buy one of those cheap-o plans and quit complaining that you still can't see a doctor because the deductibles are so high and it doesn't cover prescriptions anyway.

It is very much like SS on the Medicare side.

Anybody who does not have enough quarters is not covered.

Given their control of the M$M we would not be able to avoid the word mandate, and if we tried, we would be branded as liars. I agree that Obama's plan is not as good as Edwards, but that Obama's is more likely to gain voter approval because it will not get attacked as a mandate nor will it have "Hillarycare" attached to it. Look at the way the press reacted when Edwards and Hillary released essentially the same plan.

But it's here.

I've been told dozens and dozens of times that Hillary couldn't get her plan passed, that she'd be screwed in the GE, the corporate interests would own her.

What a joke.

And coming from people who want "Hope and Change."

parents must buy insurance for their minor children.

That is, if you are uninsured, get fucked up in an accident, and then have to go to the hospital, you get a huge ass deductible on top of everything.

It's completely assinine. Punishing people who can't afford insurance! It's complete right wing bollocks.

That's why it's important to note that BOTH of them are talking mandates. However, Clinton and Krugman have made mandates the crux of the attack on Obama. So they get to own the issue, and the onus is on them to defend them.

His Harry and Louise ads were the worst of it. Arguably the most important issue outside of Iraq and he attacks the other candidate with RW smears, much like people in this thread using scare tactics to get their convoluted point across.

The closest thing to a "mandate" he has are penalties (which to a person who can't afford health insurance is a fine).

Unlike Hillary, who refuses to clarify how she will enforce the mandates she feels are so crucial. What's the point of a mandate if there's no penalty for non-compliance?

She enforces it by the extended Medicare tax, the tax credit to companies that use it (remember it comes out of payroll), and tax credits to those who buy insurance from insurers who cover the caps.

It is in your best interest to chose those methods to get the insurance. If you fail to chose the other two you default to the extended Medicare tax.

Do they take the premium and/or extended Medicare tax out of your paltry unemployment benefits? Or do you automatically go into Medicaid?

How does the Medicare tax and/or tax credit dealio work if you are self-employed? Since there's no employer picking up part of the tab, does the government pick up the rest?

all the answers right, now but we have to start some where.

that means negotiations on health care plans...

We don't know what the "final" plan will look like, and it's too early to speculate...

I think we can all say regardless who beats McWobble, millions of Americans who do not have health care will.

We have to have a Democratic Congress and push them for health care.

by the time congress gets done with them.

I was for Kucinich... he pushes SINGLE PAYER care.

I also struggle with both Obama and Clinton not being aggressive enough at firmly committing to get the hell out of Iraq -- completely out.

although compared to McCain, either would be a vast improvement.

I do not put much weight into their differences of their plans for 2 reasons:

1. Neither plan is really Universal Healthcare but instead they are STEPS to Universal Healthcare.

2. Congress is bound to change either plan before it is finalized so these disagreements are moot. I ahve no doubt that both candidates will sign whatever comes out of Congress.

That is NOT what this forum is for! :spank:

;-) :patriot:

Compromise.

Unless he gets lucky and can bring a 60 Dem Senate in on his coat-tails, he'll have to convince a certain number of (R)etards to come along for the ride. It's like sugar to help the medicine go down easier.

Could it possibly be that Obie supporters don't Rec. anything the is positive about the Clintons? :shrug:

I'm an Obama supporter; I recommended. Fair is fair and posts that are actually focused on policy discussions are rare enough around here these days.

Kucinich's plan was far better, but still, Socialized medicine is the only real solution, and the insurance companies don't want that to happen.
Therefore, both Clinton's and Obama's plans are COMPROMISES with the fat pigs of insurance, and as such, is simultaneously failed to pass due to the insurance lobby, and not enough to help the people that need it most.

IMHO

plan much better than UHI. UHC would put MILLIONS of people in the health insurance industry out of work. We almost can't pass UHC because of the effects on the unemployment numbers and GN Product. IMHO

It's designed to spout rhetoric to get highly progressive stuff passed.

It would completely fuck the insurance companies.

They are very likely a poison pill for any healthcare reform. They are going to scare off wussy Dems and energize opposing Rethugs.

I also think the mandates are wrong-headed. Yes, universal healthcare requires universal participation, but Obama's plan puts the impetus on the federal government to make the plan as attractive as possible. Hillary puts the direct burden on individuals to sign up for health care. How does that motivate the implementors to improve the plan?

:)

They want change, yet they have no hope.

Read the thread. I responded directly to several instances of outright cowardice on this issue.

In Obama's plan people wouldn't pay into the system because it wasn't affordable. He believes he can bring costs down but as the scientific analysis' have shown, his plan costs twice as much per person and only covers half of us.

It's epicly bad.

lol, see post #93, fucking hilarious. Grow a spine. Single payer would have the same fucking hurdles.

The 45 million uninsured number includes at least 9 million undocumented residents, which her plan does not cover.

That Congress will provide large enough subsidies to make the government plan cheaper than private plans. If, or more accurately when, this fails to happen, Senator Clinton's plan will actually raise health care costs for many people.

Any plan that mandates for people to choose between a government plan and private plans while allowing the private plans to select who they will cover is designed to benefit the insurance companies. All they have to do is provide coverage that is slightly cheaper than the government plan and then kick anyone who develops chronic illnesses off their plans. Everyone who is healthy will be on the (slightly) cheaper private plans until they develop illnesses and then the government will end up paying for substantially all medical care without collecting the corresponding premiums.

If you can't add anything substantial to the conversation, go light up a blunt and let the adults talk. Thanks.

healthcare

Anything other than a universal, single-payer system will not work. Period.

With Hillary's plan you will be forced to buy insurance from an insurance company. The insurance companies will offer a dazzling array of incomprehensible plans (see: Medicare Part D boondoggle). This will be the same type of boondoggle.

Obama's plan, by not requiring everyone to sign up (including the youngest and healthiest), will mean that the costs per person for those people who do sign up must be higher -- the costs will be spread across a smaller, sicker, pool.

Unfortunately, Hillary's plan will do the same thing by different means. Insurance companies will find ways to cherry pick the youngest healthiest participants.

I don't like Obama's plan, but I don't like Hillary's either.

McCain's will just be an absolute disaster.

The only answer is a government-run, single-payer universal health care system like sane countries have. Of course, any candidate who suggests that will suffer the same fate as Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards.

But please don't insult our intelligence by claiming that Hillary is offering a workable plan. With the money she has taken from Bug Insurance and Big Pharma, there is no way she's going to come up with a plan that benefits the working people.

It specifically outlines a Medicare based plan that would come out of your payroll.

And we can pretend that it's helping insurance companies.

Too bad Hillary is just so fucking bad at lying.

If you start with a half-assed plan (Obama's) then you will never make any progress.

spoilt and entitled.

I only like politicians dedicated to hair shirts and vows of chastity.

He makes some excellent points on why the differences between the two plans aren't really that big a deal:

Then there is the larger issue. I no longer think that Krugman understands how our system works. So he likes Hillary's plan better than Obama's (as do I). So what? Neither President Obama nor President Clinton is going to develop America's national health insurance plan alone.

All he or she will do is submit a proposal to Congress which the Democratic Congressional majority (working with the GOP minority) will, after countless hearings and mark-ups (followed by conference committees), convert into a conference report that can pass both Houses. The President's role will be to weigh in and push for this or that provision and ultimately either accept the Congressional bill or veto it (the latter is inconceivable. No Democrat will veto any comprehensive bill passed by Congress).

In other words, the differences between the Clinton and Obama bills do not matter because, in the end, a Democratic President will happily take whatever the Democratic Congress sends him.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/04/04/losing_paul_krugman/

He is READY to discuss. He has many times said that he thinks his is the best plan BUT is equally willing to sit across the table and discuss alternatives. It is this open-mindedness that I admire. We all know what happened last time HRC tried to BULLDOZE her health care plan through.

Even the best idea needs a leader to implement them.

Note--insurance is not care. However, either could be pushed toward it from the bottom. And of the two candidates, Obama is organizing more people to do the pushing. It's up to us wonky types to get the newbies energized about it.

Until she does this, she puts the voter in a position where it is difficult to tell whose plan they think would be most beneficial.

toward single-payer healthcare, small steps must be taken. I think that not having mandates is a good way to start, so that the
folks who freak out about "socialism" and/or HAVING to buy insurance from companies they don't trust, will be appeased.
Then, we can keep moving in the direction of universal coverage, and finally single-payer.

Whatever plan the next president put forth, it has to be passed through Congress. Nothing will change if that can't be accomplished.
We need someone with a sense of reality to push what's possible first, then to build on it. I think Obama can do it.

They both have to work with the systems in place now which are fraught with problems.
Until that is worked out I definitely don't want to be forced to pay for health insurance. Can't we start out opting for the plan and change it if it proves successful?

You can't compare SS with health insurance. SS you pay in until retirement age and get back a regular monthly amount.

Medical care costs and needs has no such predictabilities or age discriminations. The costs are astronomical now. Lower cost and affordable sounds good but what exactly does it represent. Companies pay $700 per person per month for healthcare. $500 would be a much lower cost but not more affordable.

Once they start taxing me they won't stop because the plan doesn't work.