Obama Supporters: Why do you think his health care reform plan is better?

[OzarkDem]

I've asked this before and didn't get an answer.

Health care reform is one of the most important issues facing our country. Tell us why you think Obama's plan is better than the others.

[toadzilla]

1. kick!

I would like to know aswell.

[OzarkDem]

2. Thanks, lets keep this kicked

Its too important an issue to ignore.

[OzarkDem]

3. Kick

[pdxmom]

4. One reason is that he has really focused on driving down costs for everyone,

not just mandating that everyone have it. That is what I see as the major difference between any of the candidates. The focus on the mandate that everyone must have insurance, as opposed to the assumption of Obama's (which I believe) that most people do want health insurance, but need it to be affordable.

[TeamJordan23]

6. Agree, I am against a mandate. Just imagine if a Repub ever took office after a Dem term

and healthcare costs then "increase" and you will be stuck with a mandate where people have to pay more.

Also, I think it won't be feasible to have a successful method to enforce a mandate and often people will end up just paying the penalty rather than buy healtcare insurance they cannot afford (what you see happening in Mass.)

[Barack_America]

7. This is exactly my take. I have never heard Clinton or Edwards say...

...how much the average person will have to pay for healthcare under their plans, just that whatever the cost is, they will have to pay it.

That concerns me.

[OzarkDem]

11. Without competition between insurance plans

you will most definitely see prices rise.

[OzarkDem]

9. Competition will drive the price down

Edwards plan forces private insurance to compete with government insurance (Medicare) - that is what brings the cost of insurance down.

Without competition, insurance premiums will continue to rise making it as unaffordable in the future as it is now.

[OzarkDem]

8. C and E plans also include cost reduction plans

Obama followed Edwards lead in including those provisions.

The big problem is that universal coverage (or mandates as the GOP calls them) are one of the key factors in reducing costs. Without universal coverage, people wait until they need costly health care before buying into the system.

Without universal coverage the cost will never come down.

[pdxmom]

21. He offers the coverage, through expanded availability, subsidies, etc. I think

my reason for supporting his plan has to do with what is being termed "mandates" or the requirement that all people must have health insurance. But, quite frankly, there isn't that much of a difference between each of the plans, except the requirement for coverage.

[OzarkDem]

27. Private health insurance + no competition + government subsidies = corporate welfare

We've already seen the same scenario with big pharma in Medicare Part D.

[Peregrine Took]

5. Lets's hear about it! I hear its the least generous of all the Dem candidates

health plan and its such a vital issue. I wish he'd get past the misty verbiage and sloganeering plus that "preacher" cadence of his is really getting on my nerves.

[OzarkDem]

No competiton and no coverage

isn't much of a plan. O's plan is much more likely to cause health insurance and health care costs to rise.

[Telly Savalas]

18. Speeches at rallys aren't supposed to be policy white papers.

If you're truly curious about the details of his health care plan, go to his website and read about it.

You're unaware of the details of his policy positions, but are dismissing him because of his rhetorical style?

[ClintonTyree]

10. His health care plan has........

H-O-P-E! Plenty of hope, but not much else. And THAT'S why the Obamaniacs L-O-V-E it so much :evilgrin:

[mckeown1128]

12. His is better because.

Imposing a fine on someone who can't afford health care will only hinder the person from getting the health care that they need.

[OzarkDem]

14. But letting insurance costs rise is better?

How is it better when insurance costs rise so fewer people can afford it?

[cali]

13. I don't

but realistically, the plans of all three, as I read them, have much more in common than that which separates them. JE's is the best, but important as health care is, it's not the only issue. Furthermore, I think Obama stands a much better chance of actually enacting something that eventually leads to single payer, which he prefers.

[OzarkDem]

16. So Edwards has the better plan

and yes, health care reform is a very big issue. Without changes the health care system is in grave danger. Even doctors acknowledge that without reform, the system will be strained to the breaking point.

[cali]

20. Yes, Edwards has the better plan. yes, it's an important issue

no, I don't think it's the only issue, and no I don't think Edwards would be nearly as effective a President.

[MethuenProgressive]

15. He funds "Curing The Gays" in his plan, doesn't he?

That part will get him lots of support.

[flpoljunkie]

17. Because not only is it more politically feasible to get passed, the R's will not be able to use it

against him in the campaign, likely to great effect--"Senator Obama is going to force you to buy health insurance!"

[OzarkDem]

22. How will it be easier to pass?

Because insurance companies will back it? Of the three plans, its the one they like the best.

But its also a "poison pill" plan - one that is destined to cause skyrocketing premiums due to lack of competition between private and government insurance plans and higher numbers of uninsured.

Its inevitable failure will allow opponents of real reform to kill any real health care reform efforts for years.

Passing a poor plan that only makes the problem worse isn't a solution.

[ProSense]

19. Here is a

detailed analysis of Obama's plan: Barack Obama and Health Care.

Plan for a Healthy America

Full plan (PDF)

[OzarkDem]

24. I've already read it

that's why I think his plan is the worst one of all three.

In addition to not encouraging competition to drive down insurance costs, its very scant on details.

[dkf]

23. The mandatory thing bothers me.

I don't see why we can't make it affordable first and then address the two types of people that are left...the people who truly can't pay and the ones who are freeloaders.

After hearing about people who can't pay their heating bills and people who can't eat I am reluctant to make people pay this sort of thing.

Besides, auto insurance is supposed to be mandatory in my state and that is a complete joke.

Better to use a carrot than a stick imo.

[OzarkDem]

25. Can't make it affordable if only sick people buy insurance

If people wait until they're sick to buy insurance, the insurance system will be swamped with the high costs of covering only sick people. That drives up the cost of premiums.

Health insurance is only affordable if:

1. There's competition between insurance plans and the profit margins are reduced or eliminated

2. Everyone participates in the insurance pool

The mandatory argument is a GOP/insurance industry talking point.

[dkf]

32. Why is the mandatory argument a GOP point? I hate anything mandatory

because I don't like government forcing us to do anything.

I just think that making things mandatory creates resistance and makes it harder to pass.

[OzarkDem]

33. For that very reason

Changing the terminology from universal to mandatory casts a bad light on it.

Unless we institute a single payer system, we can't have universal health coverage unless everyone buys into it voluntarily.

We can't have health care reform that is affordable, and sustainable for the long term unless its universal, ie everyone pays for it.

Do you plan to go uninsured until you get sick, then buy into the program?

[dkf]

34. I am totally cool with single payer.

and I realize that that is the only way to make it affordable...get the profit out of health insurance.

[OzarkDem]

36. So you realize you'll have to pay for single payer, right?

and you'll also be required to participate in it, right?

If we don't have single payer, wouldn't you prefer that you or your employer could buy into Medicare or would you rather have no insurance at all?

[dkf]

37. I've always had health insurance...my whole life!

And so has everyone in my family. Even when my brother went on contractor status he got it.

I'm just saying that legislatively, it is harder to pass something that makes it mandatory to pay for something that is freaking expensive.

I'm trying to be realistic here.

[Bread and Circus]

26. I'm a physician, I support SINGLE PAYER national health care

Conyers and Kucinich are on the right track.

Edwards, Clinton, and Obama have effectively the same plans with minor differences. None of them meet a "true solution" standard. However, they are all decent workarounds in today's current political environment.

The honest truth is that none of the final 3 candidates policies are better. That's why you probably can't get a convincing response. But, you would be extremely hard pressed to make a substantial argument that Edward's plan is better.

The real and bigger question you should be asking is who can create the sort of coalition that it would take to actually get any of their plans enacted.

Hillary and Bill had a huge opportunity in 1992 and they did a horrible job of it and it backfired on them.

While I can see Edwards message is "preaching to the choir" of the left and the disaffected working class, his message has the pointed tone of "sticking it to the man". Maybe there's enough anti-corporate sentiment out there for him to capitalize on and make something happen.

Obama's message all along has been one of reaching out and "working together" in order to get things done. I think he could maintain the same message in the GE and win as well as use the same message after the GE is done and he is in office. It's my belief that when you are playing tug of war, you can't just pull harder because equal and opposite force will resist you. What you need to do is convince more people to join your team. I know that is herisy on DU, but most people aren't nearly as partisan as DU fwiw.

Also, who will help down ticket Dems the most? That's another debate we should be having.

But again for the record, I've read all 3 plans and Obama's is not better than Edwards and Edwards is not better than Obama's for all REAL and PRACTICAL purposes.

"Universal Health Care" and "Universal Health Coverage" are political misnomers and sloganeering being used by ALL 3 (thank's Lee Mercer ;) ) candidates. What we really need is primarily a single payer plan (akin to medicare for everyone).

[OzarkDem]

29. Edwards forces competition between govt and private plans

Programs like Medicare are inherently cheaper than private insurance, about 30% less by most estimates.

If all consumers are given a choice between a less expensive government plan and a more expensive private plan, they'll choose the one that costs less.

It will eventually lead to a single payer system for most people, possibly all.

It will also provide everyone with health insurance.

[Bread and Circus]

35. I can respect your point and here's a few things I'd like to point out:

The centerpiece of Obama's plan is offering a purchaseable governmental plan and to use collective bargaining to reign in costs and provide the most affordable insurance available for employers and patients. This is similar to Edwards although it is a little more explicitly stated in Obama's plan but they both have this feature. They also have several mechanisms for collective purchasing power and cost control.

Also, Obama puts into his plan the mandate that insurers can't deny you on a pre-existing condition. Which is excellent, because it put all the insurances on an even playing field AND put the privates on an even playing field w/ the government plan. I didn't see this in the Edwards plan and it may very well be there, there's a lot of fine print.

Here is a good "side by side" bulleted comparison (see links below) that is non-biased and goes into detail. From my experience as a physician I would welcome both plans and though a lot of the program names and fine details seem different, the core of each plan is the same and nearly every feature of one is covered in a similar way by the other.

I deal with medicare, medicaid, and all of the private insurers in my area everyday. I know first hand how broken the system is how Edwards and Obama's plan would affect me and my patients.

It would be a big boon to me because the more people are covered the more they are going to come into my family practice office.

But the REAL benefit will be for the patients and ALL Americans.

Let's get either one of these plans passed!!

I'd go for Obama/Edwards in '08 can you go for Edwards/Obama ? :)

here are 3 resources and starting points for you to really compare plans:

http://www.health08.org/sidebyside_results.cfm?c=13&c=16
http://www.health08.org/sidebyside.cfm
http://www.aafp.org/online/en/home/policy/federal/presidentialrace.html

I am very pround of my Academy, the Academy of American Family Physicians and I am board certified as well in family medicine.

The only real difference that I can see is that Obama's lacks a "mandate" for coverage while Edwards and Clinton's have. Personally, I am fairly libertarian so I tend to agree with Obama. I also think it would be easier to pass for this reason. However, if you like the idea of a "mandate" then Edwards and Clinton's have that. It's a matter of preference in my opinion but the big picture issues are the same.

You have to remember these guys often consult the very same experts (health policy wonks) when crafting their plans. That's why it's so hard to tell them apart.

[tishaLA]

28. I don't

[GoldieAZ49]

30. Affordable and NOT MANDATORY

i am all for health care affordable for everyone, that every child is covered.

I am not for MANDATES

I would think Democrats would be against the Big Brother (Mother with Hillary) telling them what they MUST BUY.

It could very well end up like social security, the young healthy workers pay for it throughout their working life and when they need it the money isn't there.

[OzarkDem]

31. Not affordable unless its mandatory

Health insurance that only covers sick people gets very expensive to purchase.