Curator

We all know that passing any one of the health care plans, Obama's or Clinton's, is going to be an extremely tall order.

Clinton has been dodging the issue of just what she will do to enforce the health care mandate she proposes.

If she gets the nomination she will not be able to skate on this question in the general election. And once she does start talking about enforcement, all of the heavy shelling will start to rain down on her about Big Brother, the Heavy Hand of Washington bureaucracy, a return to the era of Big Government, etc.

Hundreds of interested parties with real motivations for trying to kill health care reform will find in her plan a very convenient wedge issue.

The fine for not buying (mandated) insurance in Massachusetts is $210 which is one month's premium. So what do you do with those who choose not to buy mandated insurance? Raise the fines until they are as much as the cost of premiums? Deny them emergency room care and let them bleed to death? And how do you enforce mandates and check on who is insured and who isn't?

Why should I buy into HillaryCare?

__________________
“I truly believe that at this point in America’s history we need a president who will not just continue ... basically the policies we have followed in recent years. We need a president with transformational qualities.”

"For that reason, I will be voting for Barack Obama.”
- Former Secretary of State Colin Powell

“You can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska.”
Gov Palin explaining her national security credentials.

neptune

That's what I'm struggling with, too. It seems that mandates are the way to ensure everyone is covered, though.

I thought Clinton won the health care section of the last debate, and her plan is the closest to the Edwards plan, which was generally regarded as the better of the three.

I uncovered this op-ed by Robert Reich, and old Clintonista, but someone I've liked over the years. It was posted at Robert Reich's Blog: December 2007 on 12/03/2007. Interesting stuff...

***************************

Monday, December 03, 2007
Why is HRC stooping So Low?

I’m becoming increasingly concerned about the stridency and inaccuracy of charges in Iowa -- especially coming from my old friend. While I’m as hard-boiled as they come about what’s said in campaigns, I just don’t think Dems should stoop to this. First, HRC attacked O's plan for keep Social Security solvent. Social Security doesn’t need a whole lot to keep it going – it’s in far better shape than Medicare – but everyone who’s looked at it agrees it will need bolstering (I was a trustee of the Social Security Trust Fund ten years ago, and I can vouch for this). Obama wants to do it by lifting the cap on the percent of income subject to Social Security payroll taxes, which strikes me as sensible. That cap is now close to $98,000 (it’s indexed), and the result is highly regressive. (Bill Gates satisfies his yearly Social Security obligations a few minutes past midnight on January 1 every year.) The cap doesn’t have to be lifted all that much to keep Social Security solvent – maybe to $115,00. That’s a progressive solution to the problem. HRC wants to refer Social Security to a commission. That's avoiding the issue, and it's irresponsible: A commission will likely call either for raising the retirement age (that’s what Greenspan’s Social Security commission came up with in the 1980s) or increasing the payroll tax on all Americans. So when HRC charges that Obama’s plan would “raise taxes” and her plan wouldn’t, she’s simply not telling the truth.

I’m equally concerned about her attack on his health care plan. She says his would insure fewer people than hers. I’ve compared the two plans in detail. Both of them are big advances over what we have now. But in my view Obama’s would insure more people, not fewer, than HRC’s. That’s because Obama’s puts more money up front and contains sufficient subsidies to insure everyone who’s likely to need help – including all children and young adults up to 25 years old. Hers requires that everyone insure themselves. Yet we know from experience with mandated auto insurance – and we’re learning from what’s happening in Massachusetts where health insurance is now being mandated – that mandates still leave out a lot of people at the lower end who can’t afford to insure themselves even when they’re required to do so. HRC doesn’t indicate how she’d enforce her mandate, and I can’t find enough money in HRC’s plan to help all those who won’t be able to afford to buy it. I’m also impressed by the up-front investments in information technology in O’s plan, and the reinsurance mechanism for coping with the costs of catastrophic illness. HRC is far less specific on both counts. In short: They’re both advances, but O’s is the better of the two. HRC has no grounds for alleging that O’s would leave out 15 million people.

Yesterday, HRC suggested O lacks courage. "There's a big difference between our courage and our convictions, what we believe and what we're willing to fight for," she told reporters in Iowa, saying Iowa voters will have a choice "between someone who talks the talk, and somebody who's walked the walk." Then asked whether she intended to raise questions about O’s character, she said: "It's beginning to look a lot like that."

I just don’t get it. If there’s anyone in the race whose history shows unique courage and character, it's Barack Obama. HRC’s campaign, by contrast, is singularly lacking in conviction about anything. Her pollster, Mark Penn, has advised her to take no bold positions and continuously seek the political center, which is exactly what she’s been doing.

All is fair in love, war, and politics. But this series of slurs doesn't serve HRC well. It will turn off voters in Iowa, as in the rest of the country. If she's worried her polls are dropping, this is not the way to build them back up.

__________________

Holy Mudhead, mackerel! Morse Science High!
It's....disappeared!
-- Firesign Theatre

Richterscale

The insurance companies in Mass. must be loving this. The poor and jobless are now being punished for not handing over money to these companies. MittCare is not the answer.

__________________
Google Sibel Edmonds

"How many people died from the Kama Sutra as opposed to the Bible? Who wins?" - Frank Zappa

aloysious

This is only an anecdote, but I knew an employer who would offer his employees the choice of health insurance or none with a substantial increase in pay. I think this is illegal, but that is not the point. As he told me, healthy employess virtually always took the increased pay without health insurance. I guess that's human nature.

__________________
self banned