A Critical analysis of Obama's Health Care 'Plan' - Terrifying

I've been looking at Obama's platform on health care issues and I am quite bluntly, extremely dissapointed that others have not too.

Here are some things I think that we all should be considering.

This is from http://politics.nytimes.com/election-gui de/2008/issues/index.html

"Require that all children have health insurance; pay for it by rolling back President Bush's tax cuts for households earning over $250,000; aims for universal coverage." (note, he 'aims' for universal coverage - by 2012 - when he is leaving office.)

In the meantime, this is what he says he will do.. not much..

Require employers to provide insurance or contribute to the cost. Exempt smallest businesses. Reimburse employers for catastrophic health costs. Provide subsidies for low-income people. Create purchasing pool with choice of competing private plans and one public plan like Medicare. Expand Medicaid, State Children's Health Insurance Program.

"The main disagreement with John [Edwards] and I is John believes that we have to have mandatory insurance for everyone in order to have universal health care. My belief is that most families want health care but they can't afford it. And so my emphasis is on driving down the costs, taking on the insurance companies, making sure that they are limited in the ability to extract profits and deny coverage -- that we make sure the drug companies have to do what's right by their patients instead of simply hoarding their profits. If we do those things then I believe that we can drive down the costs for families. In fact, we've got very conservative, credible estimates that say we can save families that do have health insurance about a thousand dollars a year, and we can also make sure that we provide coverage for everybody else." (But, they make no promises HOW MUCH IT WILL COST, many states have high risk pools, but coverage in them is often thousands of dollars a month. And often these plans do not provide drug coverage. Drugs can cost some people huge amounts of money.)

According to a number of recent studies, MEDICAL COSTS are the highest, and FASTEST RISING cause of bankruptcy in the US. Obama makes a number of good suggestions on how he might help address some of those costs, for example, he proposes to make purchasing prescription drugs from overseas legal.

"And we do provide mandatory health care for children."

But that is not enough. People are dying FROM THE STRESS..

Suicides in the 40-60 age group are way up, and I would say that the fear of medical costs and becoming a burden on ones family is one of the reasons.

You can read more about Obama's healthcare inadequacies in this paper

"Quality Affordable Health Care for All by the End of Barack Obama's First Term in Office"

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/health care/

NO NO NO... This won't do...

Tags: 2012, Healthcare, healthcare affordability, obama (all tags)



Sad, isn't it?

Shouldn't Obama's health care plan actually HELP people? It probably does, but I just don't know if it's enough. It'd help if it actually were to COVER EVERYONE.

by atdleft 2008-02-22 02:44PM | 0 recs
No, it isn't...

And we still have time to get out and tell the truth so we can nominate someone who will win for us AND deliver on REAL universal health care: Hillary can, and she WILL! :-)

by atdleft 2008-02-22 02:46PM | 0 recs

I think that Clinton can't run ads on everything because she has a limited amount of money.

by Scotch 2008-02-22 03:13PM | 0 recs
She did and everyone screamed Dirty Dirty Dirty...

by Shazone 2008-02-22 04:06PM | 0 recs
So true.

by Shazone 2008-02-22 05:07PM | 0 recs

Maybe because she knows that only her most delusioned supporters fall for blatant lies and that she is not going to convince anybody else?

by marcotom 2008-02-23 03:39AM | 0 recs
Obama's Health care plan is better

On this issue there are some differences between Obama and Clinton although I believe Senator Clinton is genuinely sincere about universal health care coverage and she wants what is best for us on health care.

The flaw in Hillary's plan is that it gives too much clout to insurance companies.  What happens when those premiums go up or they start denying care and you want out?  

It's similar to Romney's disaster in Masachusetts.

I want insurance company bureaucrats and hMO bureaucrats out of health care.

by bigdavefromqueens 2008-02-22 02:55PM | 0 recs
Clinton's Health care plan is better

Obama's plan doesn't give any less clout to insurance companies. In fact, they'll have more clout because they'll be forced to accept the previously uninsured who decide they want insurance once they discover they have an expensive medical problem. And the insurers will use this as an excuse to increase rates for everyone even more.

His plan is incomplete, at best.

by LakersFan 2008-02-22 03:03PM | 0 recs
Wow. BigDave, you sure have that wrong.

Hillary's plan bears no resemblance to Romney's.

She only offers subsidies to poor and near-poor people who enroll in one of the Fed Employees plans.  Those plans are already well-managed and quite reasonable.  Romney, in contrast, like Obama, gives subsidies to any old insurance company the poor decide to enroll in.  That splits up the risk pool amongst 1500 companies and 17,000 different plans.  It's no wonder it's failing in Massachusetts.  It's a sell-out to the insurance companies.  For more, see:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/1462 1

by Clarkin08 2008-02-22 05:42PM | 0 recs
Re...You've misrepresented Clinton's plan

You clearly don't know what is in Clinton's health care proposal, because she is quite strong on one particular point--insurance companies would not be able to reject anyone based on pre-existing conditions.

People have the option of choosing the FEBHP--government coverage plan--or of choosing another insurance plan they like. But the insurance companies will have to cover people without being able to reject everyone except the youngest, healthiest consumers, as they do now.

by Tennessean 2008-02-23 04:23AM | 0 recs
Who is going to pay

for the uncovered when they get a major illness?  And how is that going to be less costly for the country when the taxpayers having to pay for them, the same as they do now?  I say, if a person chooses not to be covered, then they be required to sign a waiver saying that they will be responsible for their own bills, that payment amounts will be attached to their wages, and in no way shape or form will they be allowed to walk away from the cost no matter what the amount is.  

I also swear I heard Obama say in his speech in Wisconson, the one he xeroxed, that he would have "universal health care by the end of his first term".  He is apparantly waffling.  How is a person who has no experience at leadership on a national level, who hasn't even observed how things are done from behind the scenes in the whitehouse, who has never attempted anything like national health care in his life, and has to start at the beginning to feel out what works and what doesn't, going to have it in place and all worked out in four years.  Hope doesn't run the government.  Hope doesn't work out agreements, or resolve financial debt out the yazoo.  Hope doesn't mow the lawn......

by Scotch 2008-02-22 03:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Who is going to pay
Sounds like Republican "personal responsibility" rhetoric which really means, I don't like poor people(or I simply want to be rich and want my children not to have competition threatening there prospects of being rich), so I'll set up a system that exploits them, keeps them from being able to afford health care and insurance and then when they do get sick, tell them "fuck you its your own fault for being poor", oh and then let them die.
We all are responsible for our choices and have to live with the consequences.  But having to chose bettween food and health insurance is not choosing to be a free loader.  Its like blaming an infant for being lazy cause he has chosen not to learned to talk yet.  You need the resources to have the capacity to chose.
by goodleh 2008-02-22 06:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Who is going to pay

What you are worried about is exactly the way it is now. If health care is reformed then that is supposed to be different, and everyone should be covered.  Under mandates like in  Clintons health care policy, those who can't pay are provided with health insurance, but everyone is still required to be IN A PLAN because as part of a plan costs are cheaper still even if the govt (we) are having to pay for it,than just having the government pay for them outright at cost.  Anyone who has to choose between health care or food would be one of those covered under Clintons plan with little or no cost.  If a person has the ability to contribute to a plan financially and chooses not to just to not contribute what they could afford to and save their money because they think they are invincible, then they should be required to pay for it entirely on their own if they choose that route.  If you knew that someone would cover you, even if you could afford to join a plan, why would you pay for your own at all?

by Scotch 2008-02-23 07:44AM | 0 recs
Re: A Critical analysis of Obama's

What makes you think that Hillary will ever get her healthcare plan through Congress?  If Hillary manages to pull this out, she is likely to lose us House seats and pick us up very few Senate seats, leaving herself a hostile Congress that will pass nothing that she wants.

Obama on the other hand is working to elect more Democratic Congresspeople all over the country to give us a working majority for change.  

by Toddwell 2008-02-22 03:13PM | 0 recs
Re: A Critical analysis of Obama's

There is no factual basis to the idea that she would lose us seats in congress.  That is speculation that has gone along with the other unprovable points used to try to turn back her run.

by Scotch 2008-02-22 03:15PM | 0 recs
Re: A Critical analysis of Obama's

She would cost us seats.  Just look at the polls in places like Kansas, where there is a key seat for us to defend.  Obama holds McCain to a 50%-44% margin there because he has actually put some focus on the state, while Hillary ignores the state and gets blown away 59%-35%.  Hillary would also write off all of the Mountain West with the exception of New Mexico, which would kill our chances of picking up CO-04, NV-02, and NV-03.  She is also losing in Oregon which would likely cost us to lose the open OR-05.  

We need a candidate who is focused on building a large governing majority, not on one who just works from the top down.  

by Toddwell 2008-02-22 03:21PM | 0 recs
Oh please...

All you're offering is speculation. And sorry, but just because Obama won the Kansas Caucus doesn't mean he'll win that state in November. And in regards to other state polling, Survey USA released new polling... And judging from this and other state polls, Hillary's just as competitive as Obama in swing states like Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Arkansas, Florida, and Virginia. The difference here is that Hillary's already prepared to fight back when the right starts attacking, while Obama's never faced a competitive race against a Republican. He probably doesn't know what's coming after him.

So please, don't give the "Hillary can't win and will cost us seats" BS... It's not true and it's silly to even toss around.

by atdleft 2008-02-22 04:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh please...

Survey USA showed Obama holding McCain to a 50%-44% margin in Kansas while McCain beat Hillary 59%-35%.  Hillary has never faced a tough race against a Republican either.  Don't even try to say her running eight points behind Al Gore in one of the most liberal states in the country was tough in 2000 because you are kidding yourself.  

by Toddwell 2008-02-22 04:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Yeah, yeah. Surveys said Obama won NH and NV

No survey ever showed Obama leading in New Hampshire.  

by Toddwell 2008-02-22 06:46PM | 0 recs
Re: So the media was embarassed for nothing

Im sorry, I mean Nevada.  

by Toddwell 2008-02-22 07:24PM | 0 recs
Re: So the media was embarassed for nothing

Actually Research 2000 had him slightly ahead in Nevada.

by Mystylplx 2008-02-23 07:30AM | 0 recs
I hear this all of the time here

Hillary is a fighter.

When? Where?

Not in this cycle.

by fladem 2008-02-22 11:16PM | 0 recs
Congress will lose its own seats and neither...

Clinton or Obama will help.  Congress has a terrible record and people are going to pay them back.

by Shazone 2008-02-22 04:08PM | 0 recs
Re: A Critical analysis of Obama's

If Obama is elected, UHC is dead.

People who voted for him deserve it.

by Sensible 2008-02-22 03:44PM | 0 recs
Re: A Critical analysis of Obama's

Universal healthcare died under Bill and Hillary in the 1990's.  

by Toddwell 2008-02-22 03:49PM | 0 recs
Re: A Critical analysis of Obama's

died? it's never been born. hillary tried back then, and knows how to get it done as a result of watching the last round. obama has no intention of even trying - his plan is just a charade so he can say he made the effort.

by campskunk 2008-02-22 03:57PM | 0 recs
Re: A Critical analysis of Obama's

The Clinton's could not get it passed because they didn't try to build a working majority for it.  Obama is doing that.  

by Toddwell 2008-02-22 05:00PM | 0 recs
Then please tell me why one of his advisors

Is the guy that KILLED universal health care back in the 90's?

Yeah, the guy that was responsible for the Harry and Louise ads is an adviser to Obama. His agenda for years has been to keep universal health care from happening.

by splashy 2008-02-22 10:13PM | 0 recs
Re: A Critical analysis of Obama's

In the 90's, you could still go to the doctor without having to sell your first-born child. A lot has changed since then. The drug companies didn't have the system rigged quite so well then, and still had to try to be somewhat competitive. Insurance companies still competed for customers, and had to try to offer better benefits than their competitors to win them over. Most companies in the 90's were satisfied with making a reasonable profit for their shareholders. Now they are competing to see who can be the most greedy, and people are starting to understand that the only thing that they care about is their bottom line, even if people have to suffer and die to pay the outrageous salaries of the CEO's.

by georgiapeach 2008-02-23 03:07AM | 0 recs
When will Sen. Clinton pass universal healthcare?

You are criticizing Senator Obama for pledging to pass health care reform by the end of his first term, and you are saying that is not soon enough. Does anyone know when Senator Clinton has pledged to pass health care reform by?  

by JimmyM 2008-02-22 04:44PM | 0 recs
Hillary has said...

That health care is one of her top issues on which she will begin working AS SOON AS SHE'S INAUGURATED. And unlike Obama, Hillary already has a comprehensive plan that COVERS EVERYONE. She's ready to take this battle on. Is he?

by atdleft 2008-02-22 04:48PM | 0 recs
By the end of her second term
Hillary Clinton: "You know, President Kennedy said in his inauguration that he wanted to have a man on the moon by the end of the decade. Well, I want to have universal health care coverage by the end of my second term." Link here. Sorry, I would have posted this in my original comment because I remembered reading it, but I couldn't find the link so I decided to ask if anyone else had it. Found it now though. Anyway, by the logic in this diary, this is not soon enough, right? She said this in February 2007, so has she moved up her timetable since then?
by JimmyM 2008-02-22 04:52PM | 0 recs
Health care "reform" is NOT universal

Health care. It's just a BS code word for more of the same or worse, just like when the Repubs say it.

One of his advisers is the guy that was behind the Harry and Louise ads, just like the one that was put out recently by Obama. It's to KILL the idea of universal health care.

He's not about universal health care, no matter WHAT he says. He's about keeping the status quo, or making it even worse.

by splashy 2008-02-22 10:19PM | 0 recs
Re: A Critical analysis of Obama's Health Care 'Pl

I can't decide whether it's endearing, in an overly-earnest and slightly pathetic way, or just plain sad, that people on here seriously think this non-debate over a non-distinction matters a whit to voters...this has been hammered for months now gang, and it's not resonating...do you seriously not see that? What is someone to make of the fact that the diarist here thinks Obama's plan is "terrifying"? You do understand that people are laughing at you now, right?  

by PositiveFreedom 2008-02-22 05:11PM | 0 recs
Re: A Critical analysis of Obama's Health Care 'Pl

Funny. We're laughing at YOU because you obviously don't understand the complex world of health care coverage enough to comprehend the differences in their plans. So yes, it's pathetic that you don't understand this, but not in an endearing way. And it is also just plain sad because people like you will be the reason millions of our fellow Americans will continue to suffer without health care.

by LakersFan 2008-02-22 05:19PM | 0 recs
Re: A Critical analysis of Obama's Health Care 'Pl

Clinton fetishist condescension - I love it.  I actually do understand health care policy debates, pokey.  I just don't think policy seminar minutiae is relevant now. We need to win this election.  We do that be drawing broad, sweeping distinctions between McCain and company and progressives.  You guys can admire your footnoted policy papers all you want - this things over for HRC.  We're moving on...

by PositiveFreedom 2008-02-22 05:26PM | 0 recs
Re: A Critical analysis of Obama's Health Care 'Pl

The condescension was started by you, I simply turned your words around on you. Perhaps you should have thought about that before you made your silly comments.

My fetish is not for Clinton, it's for universal health care. See this isn't about a cult of personality, it's about real issues. And actually, it's much more than a fetish, it's an obsession. Having a spouse with chronic disease and piles of bills that go with it, you get kind of hung up on this stuff, and you realize how crucial this issue is for all Americans and for our nation's economic future.

by LakersFan 2008-02-22 06:03PM | 0 recs
Re: A Critical analysis of Obama's Health Care 'Pl

Again, man, and with all due respect to your wife's situation, that tone is condescending. Dems understand that healthcare is issue one. We know that. Denigrating Obama as being somehow wrong on this issue in light of the huge challenges before all progressives - not just in healthcare policy, but in winning this election - is just fundamentally unfair. It's actually Rovian splitting of people with common interests...and it's not pretty. Don't go there.

by PositiveFreedom 2008-02-22 06:09PM | 0 recs
Re: A Critical analysis of Obama's Health Care 'Pl

This is the most important issue to me, I've studied it for years, and there are important differences between the plans. Don't try to tell me what should or shouldn't be important when electing my President.

by LakersFan 2008-02-22 07:23PM | 0 recs
"You started it"

Where have all the grown ups gone?

by Jumbo 2008-02-22 11:26PM | 0 recs
Re: A Critical analysis of Obama's Health Care 'Pl

This is nonsense.  About the only difference between the two plans is the mandate.  Mandates are one, but not the only way to get to universal coverage.

Another strategy is to enroll people automatically when they come in for care.  About 70% of the uninsured see a doctor or visit an emergency room in any one year.  With automatic enrollment, when they come in for care, you sign them up.  

Automatic enrollment is likely to get to universal coverage than a mandate.  With a mandate the IRS won't find out you don't have insurance for a year, and then you will pay a fine, and still not be covered.

I don't know why everyone has bought into the idea that mandates are the only way to universal coverage.  They are not.

by Helenann 2008-02-22 05:23PM | 0 recs
Re: A Critical analysis of Obama's Health Care 'Pl

On the contrary.  There is quite a difference in which insurance providers will be subsidized by the two plans.  Obama throws money at all of them while Hillary subsidizes only those that qualify as part of the Federal employees Health program.  That's a very tightly controlled group with very reasonable charges, and all 47 million enrollees would need to buy there if they wanted to be subsidized.  Hillary's plan could roll out early in her first year.  Obama wants to mess around on CSPAN until the end of his first term, and then give all those insurance companies a pat on the back and some more dollars in their bank accounts.  See my comment to BigDave, above for more info.

by Clarkin08 2008-02-22 05:50PM | 0 recs
Re: A Critical analysis of Obama's Health Care 'Pl

That's the whole point of mandates.

Somebody comes in for care. You say, okay, here you go, but we'll sign you up for insurance. You're required to have it by law.

Without a mandate, you can't sign them up--because they don't have to have it.

by OrangeFur 2008-02-22 07:14PM | 0 recs
Re: A Critical analysis of Obama's Health Care 'Pl

No - A mandate, like in MA, gets monitored and enforced by the IRS.  I don't know about you, but I don't want the IRS anywhere near my health insurance decisions.  Talk about the least compassionate agency in Federal government.  

People who think they support mandates have not thought it through.  It is wrong headed.  The uninsured want insurance.  Make it affordable and they will buy it.  When they come in for care offer it to them.  If they need help paying Obama's plan provides DIRECT subsidies, meaning that you can actually afford the premium, unlike HIllary who will give people refundable tax credits.  

A mandate will never pass the Congress because it is not necessary and send the wrong message.  Health insurance policy should be designed to help people, not threaten and punish them.

by Helenann 2008-02-23 12:50PM | 0 recs
Re: A Critical analysis of Obama's Health Care 'Pl

Both candidates' plans fail to provide universal health care. Clinton simply promises to fine people who do not purchase insurance. That threat may substantially decrease the number of the uninsured, or it may not. Experts differ.

A better way to get to universal coverage is to enact single-payer -- essentially, to extend Medicare to everyone.

Another good way would be to create a national health service.

The goal of existing reforms is to get everyone health insurance. This is the wrong goal. The goal should be to get everyone the health care that they need. And if everyone, rich or poor, has the healthcare that they need, insurance is irrelevant.

by EMTP democrat 2008-02-22 05:47PM | 0 recs
Re: A Critical analysis of Obama's Health Care 'Pl

Every expert I've seen says that mandates will cover a lot more people. Who says the opposite?

by OrangeFur 2008-02-22 07:15PM | 0 recs
Re: A Critical analysis of Obama's Health Care 'Pl

Neither Edwards nor Clinton nor Obama offered a true single-payer health plan.  As Michael Moore said today:

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/mich ael-moore-says-insurance-industry-would- love-clintons-healthcare-plan-2008-02-22 .html

Michael Moore says insurance industry would love Clinton's healthcare plan
By Jeffrey Young
Posted: 02/22/08 04:04 PM [ET]

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-N.Y.) proposal to mandate that all people purchase health insurance would be a boon to the industry, filmmaker Michael Moore said Friday.

"Can you imagine, every time Sen. Clinton says that, the licking of the lips that goes on with these health insurance executives?" Moore said during a conference call with reporters. [...]

This is one of the reasons I have been left so cold and unimpressed by all the health care debating between the three candidate camps.  It's nice that all three of them are offering something better than what we have now (which is nothing), but it's still nothing like real universal health care as it is practiced in the normal world, places like Canada.

As Michael Moore explained very patiently in Sicko, the problem isn't the lack of insurance in this country.  It's that the insurance companies just don't insure.

If you really want to compare and contrast Hillary and Obama, do it on an issue that matters, like Iraq.  There is no excuse for more Americans to die there.

by Dumbo 2008-02-22 06:04PM | 0 recs
Re: A Critical analysis of Obama's Health Care 'Pl

One step at a time.

A country that experiences the benefits of what should be a right of every citizen, understands it is a pillar to a strong democracy. The health and well being of a nation's citizenry is a noble value. There are many Western examples (British, French, Canadian, Sweedish, Japanese, German, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_h ealth_care )

This is why its critically important that everybody is covered. Its the first step to achieving this. You would think BO would know this, wouldn't you? Or is this one of those things that one has to have experience with?

by devoted1 2008-02-22 11:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Michael Moore....

I don't think Moore--who I love--is thinking clearly on this one. After all, Michael Moore wants universal health care from all indications, right? How does he think it happens without a mandate? Does he think France doesn't have a mandate? It certainly does. Does he think Britain doesn't have a mandate? It certainly does.

The thing you are leaving out of this equation is that Moore supports single-payer, government sponsored health care, like they have in France and Britain. He wants to do away with insurance companies altogether.

Now, THAT's a plan doomed to failure! That's simply NOT GONNA HAPPEN HERE.

But, Hillary Clinton's plan, while it does mandate coverage by insurance companies, also offers every person the option of going with the government coverage program that Senators/Congressmen/women and Civil Service employees all have--which is a very good program.

And, Hillary Clinton's plan, while it does mandate coverage by insurance companies, ALSO PREVENTS them from rejecting ANYONE based on pre-existing conditions.

What that means, is insurance companies cannot enhance their bottom line by insuring only the youngest, healthiest, and least costly patients.
They may get more people paying to them; but they don't get to determine who chooses their insurance coverage plan.

Get it?

by Tennessean 2008-02-23 04:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Michael Moore....

Actually, France and Britain do not have mandates that individuals purchase insurance.  Individuals and businesses are taxed at a higher rate and then the government provides health care for all citizens.  

I am a huge believer in single payer health insurance. I believe it is the only long term solution to the health car crisis. I also oppose individual mandates for many reasons, though I believe Hillary's plan does attempt to address some of my concerns about mandates (cost control and quality assurances).  At this point, though my main concern is political viability.

Despite being a brain child of the right (switching responsibility for insurance onto individuals instead of government or business), the right will beat the mandate drum mercilessly and I believe that they will be effective in killing any health care reform that includes mandates. I have too many family members stuck working jobs that make them sick just to have health insurance.  They would happily pay for insurance if there was a quality and affordable option. I believe there are millions of Americans right now who would have their quality of life improved if either candidates plans were passed, but I think any plan with mandates is doomed to fail.  

Call me a brainless cult member closet Republican if you like, but I've worked on health care reform in California for the last 5 years, and every poll and voter focus group thats been done shows huge opposition to mandates.

by AllergicToBS 2008-02-23 09:39AM | 0 recs
Re: A Critical analysis of Obama's Health Care 'Pl

Health care changes will come from the House. Because of a Dem landslide there will be no Republican interference in the Senate. President Obama will sign the bill.
When Obama says he will not sign a bill more progressive than what he now proposes.I will worry.

When either candidate proposes a "plan", that is simply a foundation. Part of the restoration of our democracy will be acknowledging the role of the House and Senate.

by nogo war 2008-02-22 06:24PM | 0 recs
Re: A Critical analysis of Obama's Health Care 'Pl

Right. After President Obama has spent his whole campaign running against mandates, the first thing the House is going to do is try to pass a version with mandates. And the Senate will immediately follow suit. Because if we've learned anything at all from the last year, it's that Democrats in Congress like nothing more than taking huge political risks, and that Republicans would never dare try to stop Democratic legislation from passing.

by OrangeFur 2008-02-22 07:18PM | 0 recs
Re: A Critical analysis of Obama's Health Care 'Pl

nogo, I apologize. This comment was needlessly sarcastic, and I went overboard.

by OrangeFur 2008-02-22 07:48PM | 0 recs
Re: A Critical analysis of Obama's Health Care 'Pl

Give nogo war a cigar. A wise person on MYDD afterall..

by PositiveFreedom 2008-02-22 06:28PM | 0 recs
Re: A Critical analysis of Obama's Health Care 'Pl

I don't know which words in the title are less accurate, "terrifying" or "critical analysis". I'd probably have to go with the former.

I suppose it's theoretically possible that the diarist is "terrified" of Obama's health care plan (pretty much Clinton's minus the Insurance Cops coming to check to see if your premiums are paid,) in much the same way that phobics are terrified of heights or lemurs or whatever.

But there's no definition of "critical analysis" under which this diary qualifies.

by nathanp 2008-02-22 11:22PM | 0 recs
One significant difference

There will be nothing to prevent you from buying insurance under Obama's plan and the insurance company can't you reject for pre-existing conditions.

Here's are the relevant points from Obama's plan:

Guaranteed eligibility. No American will be turned away from any insurance plan because of illness or pre-existing conditions.

Comprehensive benefits. The benefit package will be similar to that offered through Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), the plan members of Congress have. The plan will cover all essential medical services, including preventive, maternity and mental health care.

Subsidies. Individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need financial assistance will receive an income-related federal subsidy to buy into the new public plan or purchase a private health care plan.

Portability and choice. Participants in the new public plan and the National Health Insurance Exchange will be able to move from job to job without changing or jeopardizing their health care coverage.

The only major difference between the plans is that Obama makes it health insurance AVAILABLE to all and Clinton MANDATES it for all. And it's a significant difference in that there will be people under Obama's plan that will choose not to get insurance, either because they don't think they'll need it or because the subsidies aren't sufficient for them to afford it. And let's be clear here, there WILL be people for which the subsidies under either plan won't be enough. Under Obama's plan, they won't get insurance. Under Clinton's plan, they'll be fined or have their wages garnished.

The other differences will disappear once Congress actually starts working on the legislation. That is unless Clinton repeats their earlier mistake and trys to send Congress a bill that didn't include them in the development process. At that point, it's DOA.

by kjblair2 2008-02-23 07:09AM | 0 recs
Re: If you had gone through what I have gone throu

And why didn't you have health insurance?

Was it because you were turned down for coverage? Clinton's plan addresses that, but so does Obama's.

Was it because health insurance was too expensive? Clinton's plan addresses that somewhat, but so does Obama's.

Was it because someone wasn't standing over your shoulder forcing you to buy health insurance? Well you got me there, that's one thing Obama's plan doesn't address...

by nathanp 2008-02-23 10:03AM | 0 recs
Re: A Critical analysis of Obama's Health Care 'Pl

Why is there an assumption that a quality program not arise from say Dennis Kucinich in the House.
That such a program is modified in a 61 Dem
Senate and sent to President Obama?
Does any one think Obama would veto it because it is More progressive?

The delegate writing is on the wall. Obama will be our nominee.  So now, Search out Dem Candidates that support single-payer and get them elected.

by nogo war 2008-02-23 07:28AM | 0 recs
Re: A Critical analysis of Obama's Health Care

NYT - differences in Hillary's and Obama's health care plans.


by annefrank 2008-02-23 08:35AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads