Some people have wondered why many working people, especially Catholics have stood by Hillary Clinton.

They accuse them of racism or simply of being 'out of touch' with their 'movement'

I think it is much less complicated. They are terrified of an increasingly terrifying aspect of our free market economy, incredibly high health care costs, costs which can destroy a family's hopes and dreams for a better future forever and leave them homeless and starving. The most common cause of bankruptcy and homelessness.

Obama is trying to work with the insurance companies. His healthcare guy, Jim Cooper, is a big benificiary of insurance company money. He helped kill universal healthcare in 1994. Its also come out in the past weeks that, embarassed, he is LYING to us on health care. Obama's healthcare plan would NOT SOLVE THE HUGE PROBLEMS THAT A GREAT MANY OF US WHO HAVE ANY KIND OF HEALTH ISSUE FACE WHEN IT COMES TO AFFORDABILITY. It does not even attempt to. Instead, he focuses on healthy people and getting them on paper as being insured BY CUTTING BENEFITS.

Many so called 'elites' may think they are immune from job loss. However, its NOT TRUE. Working people have no ILLUSIONS. They also realize how one health incident can ruin someone's life. A few weeks ago I wrote about that young woman who died because she could not pay off an older clinic bill.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, the cost of an average 'difficult' pregnancy, uninsured is
$287,000. A hospital faced with an indigent patient and a bill that large, may write, say half of it off. But a person will still have their wages garnished for the rest of their life. If they own a home with their family, or any other large convertible assets, it WILL be taken. And, with bad credit, they will not be able to rent.

This is why many people are voting for Hillary Clinton.

Working people, like many others, are disturbed by Obama's stance on healthcare relative to Ms. Clinton's. They realize that Obama isn't really solving the problems, just nibbling around the edges.

Ms. Clinton's healthcare plan would make a huge difference for that 20% of Americans who are currently
uninsurable outside of a group plan. Obama uses deceptive language like "nobody can be turned away" and "no pre-existing condition can be excluded" to pretend he is, but his own economic advisor has admitted that it would be 'too expensive' to SUBSIDIZE the sicker 20% of the American people. (That is MUCH more than the 15 million Hillary claims - much more) - It would be too expensive, is what Goolsbee claimed (for both candidates, but Clinto has showed that SHE can overcome it, with a mandate.). Clinton HAS done the numbers and says it can be done while still covering everybody AND
capping out of pocket expenses at 5-10% of a family's income. The way it can be done is by exercizing CLOUT. The clout that a government negotiation team would have IF THEY HAD A BUNDLE OF BOTH HEALTHY AND ILL TO BARGAIN WITH. If you just have ill, there is no bargaining power. You are at a disadvantage BECAUSE TREATING ILL PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES DOES COST A LOT OF MONEY. That is also why McCain's plan is doomed to fail. There is room for savings BUT NOT ENOUGH AS TO MAKE THESE DISEASES AFFORDABLE FOR MOST AMERICANS WHO HAVE THEM AT CURRENT WAGE LEVELS. Wages would have to go up dramatically, which is not going to happen in the current world economy. Wages will continue to go down, and we need to make it so people CAN STILL SURVIVE.

Hillary will give Americans the peace of mind that comes with having good healthcare coverage, a peace of mind that most other citizens of developed nations TAKE FOR GRANTED.

That is what is so new and LIFE CHANGING about Hillary Clinton's proposal. For many people, it would be the first time they had been able to get affordable health care. Our experience during World War II shows that when a large number of people gain health care, healthy lifespans and productivity increase. Dramatically. Studies have shown that some people are making important life decisions based on healthcare issues. Clinton's proposals would free millions. That would revitalize the economy. Perhaps that is what scares some. Wages might need to increase because people's insurance would no longer be so dependent on where they worked. People could start small businesses and business could stop laying off their older employees to lower their healthcare bills.

Under Obama, rationing would continue, even worsten. To get cheaper insurance, people assume more risk. Insurance companies pay less. They save the difference in their medical savings accounts so they are not broadsided. But many people don't have that money. Sick people often cant afford the cost. Insurance companies could ask 'a fair price' which for some people might be very high, as its based on the cost of their care, as well as the risk, Under Clinton, its based on income, the very poor and the unemployed would pay nothing or next to nothing. A major - actually, the largest - larger than simple unemployment - driver of the breakup of homes and families would be averted.

Thats much less than most poor families and individuals are paying now. The mandate makes it possible - its been explored in countless other countries and thats just the way it is. However, most low and medium income people would pay FAR LESS than they do now, and people without insurance - not just insurance, WORKING COVERAGE WITHOUT GAPS would not exist.

Obama
is clearly against real universal coverage.