julia

Edwards healthc plan had two parts:

-Have private insurance plans
and

-Expand govt programs such as medicare/medicaid for those who could not afford private insurance

The logic was that since the govt program would have lower costs it would attract more people and by market correction it would be the more popular program.

__________________
The candidate does not speak for the campaign.

julia

As for Hillary's program, making it law (mandates) for everyone to have health insurance will not lower costs.

Obama's plan would be better because his plan of action is to lower healthc costs, which would lower costs for everyone.

__________________
The candidate does not speak for the campaign.

neptune

Zackley right...and it provided a way to get to single payer universal care -- if everyone opted into the govt. plan. Brilliant, really...

__________________

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

neptune

Clinton's plan is the more expensive, because it requires larger subsidies up front to cover everybody, before the cost reduction measures come into play.

__________________

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

julia

Thanks for the help and precisions, Tune!

__________________
The candidate does not speak for the campaign.

RK77

Obama and Edwards focused on driving down the cost of the insurance -- Hillary focuses a lot on tax credits.

All of them are huge bandaids designed to keep the insurance industry in the game!

RK77

In MA the fine is $295 for not being insured in the intial phase but the plan calls for an increase in fine to $150 PER MONTH for every month after a set date that you don't have insurance.

neptune

This woman, Susan Blumenthal, MD, has written a series of articles on candidates health care plans that I think have provided the most credible detail that I've seen anywhere.

Check it out:

Susan Blumenthal, M.D.: U.S. Presidential Candidates' Health Care Plans Update: A Side-by-Side Comparison - Politics on The Huffington Post

__________________

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

RK77

And this was one of my GREATEST problems with Edwards---it is totally disengenuous!!

Edwards MUST know that medicare is NOT free to it's benificiaries!!

Part A of Medicare which covers ONLY hospitalization (NOT the physician fees in the hospital--the hospitals charges) is given to recipients.

Part B cover only 80% of the rest of healthcare charges AND IT IS PURCHASED! Last year I believe the cost was $97.00 per month.

BUT NOTICE-----THERE is still an UNCOVERED 20%--

For that portion seniors with an income of over $800.00 a month must BUY another coverage--they are called medigap policies. These policies range anywhere from another $80-$300.00 per month.

That is how doctors visits, out patient studies, doctors inpatient fees, home health assistance, disability equipment etc are paid for. So----it is not exactly OPTIONAL!

Moreover---If Edwards looked at medicare and medicaid carefully he would have come to apprecitate the death trap they have become.

Anyway, add another $30-100 a month for the medicare D part---Drug coverage--and seniors right now are paying about $3000.00 or more a year for their coverage!

If they qualify for medicaid-- their Part B premiums are waived and their medigap through medicaid is free AND they can, in michigan, get MORE services--but those services are so unmonitored that the programs rarely translate into actual benefits to the patient!

RK77

Lethal, really....

Until you understand the SEVERE limitations of the care provided under medicare it SEEMS like a good idea.