Hillary is going to cushion their impact on people by subsidizing their costs above 10% of income, meaning that people get a dramatically better healthcare deal under Hillary than under Obama. Sick people are actually protected.

Obama would not decrease costs under his old plan and INCREASE COSTS if he does actually try to create a new government plan that ends pricing insurance by risk without a mandate.

Here's why.. Now, this is the Economist speaking, not some wild eyed radical..

http://www.economist.com/research/Econom ics/alphabetic.cfm?LETTER=A

Adverse Selection

When you do business with people you would be better off avoiding. This is one of two main sorts of market failure often associated with insurance. The other is moral hazard. Adverse selection can be a problem when there is asymmetric information between the seller of insurance and the buyer; in particular, insurance will often not be profitable when buyers have better information about their risk of claiming than does the seller. Ideally, insurance premiums should be set according to the risk of a randomly selected person in the insured slice of the population (55-year-old male smokers, say). In practice, this means the average risk of that group. When there is adverse selection, people who know they have a higher risk of claiming than the average of the group will buy the insurance, whereas those who have a below-average risk may decide it is too expensive to be worth buying. In this case, premiums set according to the average risk will not be sufficient to cover the claims that eventually arise, because among the people who have bought the policy more will have above-average risk than below-average risk. Putting up the premium will not solve this problem, for as the premium rises the insurance policy will become unattractive to more of the people who know they have a lower risk of claiming. One way to reduce adverse selection is to make the purchase of insurance compulsory, so that those for whom insurance priced for average risk is unattractive are not able to opt out.

I'm glad we can agree on something anna shane.

Jimmy Carter is a purely evil, malevolent soul.

Gottcha.

Your mind is filled with the opposite of what you preach: that the Palestinians and the Arab countries surrounding Israel are at fault. Going beyond your biased notions, if the Zionists had not chosen to ethnically cleanse over 750 thousand Palestinians in 1948, a third of them prior to Independence, there would not have been any war even then. The 1967 war was started by Israel which preferred not to handle Egypt's bellicosity diplomatically. Much has been written about it. And Israel did not gain territory, it occupied militarily territory that did not belong to it.

Two states is now passe. Israel had numerous opportunities to create a Palestinian state in the territories, but chose instead to continue its colonial expansion. That would include the Camp David/Taba 2000 negotiations, the 2002 and 2006 offers from the Arab League, and even the 2003 offer from Iran. Bush just weighed in heavily on two states, but Israel is just not buying it. It never has. No major Israeli political party espouses a two state solution. Israel will just not give up the Greater Israel dream, and believes that by demonizing the Palestinians, like Hamas, it can still achieve it. At present, it is continuing to kill Palestinians, who continue to fight for freedom and self-determination in the West Bank and Gaza, left and right.

Israel has dragged the US into the abyss with it using our foreign aid and weapons to murder Palestinians.

Two states is now gone. Only the untutored are unable to see that, including Bush. Rice last estimate about two states: "improbable but not impossible."

Give us a break about just who the demon is in this fight. Nationalist/religious Zionism is not really different from Afrikaaner racism of the 80s with its apartheid system and colonialism of South AFrica. And you can ask the South Africans about it, as many of them have written on the topic.

Bye.