Do you give a flying eff about the differences in the candidates' health-care programs?

[BuyingThyme]

[Maddy McCall]

1. Of course. It's a huge issue.

And one that we should pay attention to.

Can't imagine what kind of person wouldn't care about the differences in their plans.

[BuyingThyme]

2. Do you think one plan or the other might be faxed over to Congress

and voted on (more or less).

[anigbrowl]

3. I do care about the differences (and prefer the Obama programme), but...

I think the healthcare issue is only one among many where there are differences in the candidates' platforms that are worth talking about. I am sick of it being the cause celebre. One campaign is beating the issue to death while tap-dancing around a war that's costing us a billion dollars and a hundred lives every month.

[lligrd]

4. Yes, Hillary's Plan Will Lock Us In With Insurance Companies

for decades to come. Mandating that I support an insurance company doesn't sound like freedom to me.

[BuyingThyme]

7. But do you think they could get Congress to implement something like that?

Are the differences substantial enough that the Dem presidential candidates even matter?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

9. Good point. nt

[lligrd]

16. I Don't Want To Take A Chance But

I think your point is that it is not the basis of most peoples decision on whom to vote for. I am no exception. The IWR vote was the issue that determined it for me.

[BuyingThyme]

17. Mee to.

[grantcart]

5. Either one is going to be substantially changed once it goes through

the legislative policy. Actually the more detailed they are now the more they can be torn apart in the GE. I don't think that either way it will have an impact. All the democrat has to do is to ask Mccain which Americans he is ok with getting sick and possibly dying because they can't get care.

the financial arguments have been done away with because healthcare will be a fraction of the Iraqi war.

[Redstone]

8. Dang it, you beat me to it!

Redstone

[rucky]

33. And either one will be better than what we have now. n/t

[CarbonDate]

39. Yes. Thank you.

The goals are the same: to get coverage for people who aren't covered. The details will be worked out with Congress, not dictated to them.

[Redstone]

6. It would be pointless to care. For one very simple reason:

It's not like either of them, if elected, can just MAKE their plan happen.

And after going through Congress (if it does), the chances of it not being changed almost completely are nil.

Redstone

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

10. No, I don't. And that's because

whatever program the candidates are pitching right now will never be enacted in their current form. Any such proposal would be submitted to both houses of Congress and then dissected and amended beyond recognition. I think what the candidates have done is hired some experts to put proposals together that seem to do a more or less acceptable job of covering almost everybody so they can argue they support universal coverage. Neither candidate, however, has proposed *single payer* coverage (even though that would sell very well to most liberals and progressives) because they know very well that the Republicans would start screeching about "socialized medicine." So they have tossed out these lukewarm, middle-of-the-road programs that are something of an improvement over what we have now but don't really go far enough, but that also don't matter because after Congress gets through with them they won't look the same anyhow.

[BuyingThyme]

13. Mee to.

[kristopher]

21. I disagree completely

Yes they will change, however the primary difference, as noted in post 4, is related to a goal that can be maintained while congress debates the details.

What CANNOT get through Congress is an individual mandate that people must purchase insurance under threat of a penalty. There is no reason to think Obama's approach won't work since it will have strong support from all sectors of the business community except the insurance industry. The cost of med care is crippling US businesses at all levels and Obamas program starts to address that, Hillary's doesn't.

[NC_Nurse]

11. The one that's more likely to get passed by Congress is the better one.

You have to be able to make your case and pressure them; either directly or indirectly by going straight to the people.
I think Obama's plan and his skills will be the best chance of getting anything done.

[gateley]

12. No. I doubt what either of them is touting now is what the final offering will be. nt

[Mike03]

14. Yes, it was my biggest issue, and my candidate...

lost, as usual... He withdrew.

[BuyingThyme]

15. I was referring to the remaining Dems.

[totodeinhere]

18. The reason I voted "no" is because...

neither Obama's nor Clinton's plans will get us to universal health care. We need single payer and we need to do away with the health insurance companies. Both Obama and Clinton have got to realize that.

[kristopher]

23. Obama's plan is a form of single payer

I think it is actually better than having the entire nation's care entrusted to the government. By pulling in the large employers and mandating them to cover their employees, we get the benefits of efficiency that corporate greed delivers in most areas. By having the bulk of the population enrolled in a single government controlled program, the runaway costs can be addressed.

It is exactly the method that Japan uses and it works wonderfully.

[Warren Stupidity]

46. "the entire nation's care entrusted to the government"

You do not understand single payer health insurance. Health care continues to be provided by the same health care infrastructure that currently exists. Insurance is how your healthcare costs are payed, not how your healthcare is delivered. Under single payer the insurance industry is cut out and the government, as it does for medicare, pays the bill.

[bigtree]

19. sure, it likely doesn't matter to you. That's why Obama is a good match for you.

He doesn't seem to care about covering everyone either.

[BuyingThyme]

22. Ewwww.

[MrSlayer]

20. Neither of them are for single payer universal health.

So, no, I don't care much about the differences.

[IntravenousDemilo]

29. Swear to god, we in the Great White North sigh and shake our heads in utter disbelief...

...that you're STILL having this discussion about something we settled over 40 years ago. FORTY! What's the deal here? Just do it!

This really makes the US come off as a large, powerful, stubborn, somewhat backward child.

[MrSlayer]

30. I wish it were that easy.

We're talking about a lot of money here. The insurance and drug companies certainly do not want to give up their staggering profits and a lot of citizens are afraid they'll be taxed into oblivion by it. It's all about the cash, very few really care about people.

[IntravenousDemilo]

32. Can't it be done by presidential order-in-council or some such thing?

Perhaps it's time to relieve the insurance and drug companies of their staggering profits. After all, "staggering" profits are quite obviously ill-gotten. As for citizens being "taxed into oblivion", our citizens haven't been taxed into oblivion yet, and if the US government would just stop expensively meddling in the affairs of other nations, as well as rescind the tax cuts for the wealthy, there'd be lots of money to play with and your citizens wouldn't have to be taxed into oblivion. You could probably build the world's best comprehensive health care system (plus the world's best public educational system) with a tenth of the money being spent on the Iraq misadventure. All that's needed is the political will to restructure the budget towards priorities that are life-based rather than death-based.

And personally, I'd be thrilled to see Big Pharma humbled and the insurance industry annihilated.

[MrSlayer]

35. No. It cannot be done that way.

It must be made into law by Congress. And I agree on all your points. However, that "political will" is the big sticking point. Those companies with the staggering profits are the ones that put most of the people in Congress to begin with. It's a vicious circle of bullying, favoritism and selling out. Again, these people do not care about people, they care about money. Capitalism is not about the benefit of all, it's every man for himself. Many congresspeople go to Washington with idealism and either are made to play ball or forced out. Very few people there fight for what's right and it always ends up as the same old same old. The names change but the game doesn't nor will it ever until every last dime is sucked out of this country. The whole "will of the people" thing is nothing but lip service.

[Forkboy]

24. No faith in either of them.

I'll believe it when I see it. Until then it's all talk, which we've heard a frillion times before.

[bklyncowgirl]

25. Neither plan is the sort of single payer plan that I'd like to see.

There seem to be good arguments on either side as to whether it should be made mandatory. Clinton's talk of garnishing people's wages may be a big turn off when it comes time to try and get the thing through Congress.

[IntravenousDemilo]

26. No, because not only are they both wrong, they are both EQUALLY wrong.

Profit has no place in medicine.

[Kahuna]

27. No. They are both just proposals at this point. There will be a lot of

tweeking before a final plan is approved by congress.

[Enrique]

28. I care, but I don't have the knowledge to evaluate the programs

the way I think about it is not judging the programs themselves, but judging the candidates' committment to the issue, and their ability to get it done.

[marlakay]

31. I care but since neither are doing the type I want

like Canada, France, and the michael moore type it doesn't matter to me. My husband asked me today why I even care that all politicians are liars.

He has given up on the country...I told him the way I look at it you just pick the person who has the lowest amount of slime on them. Face it the more you are in politics the more no matter how people try to stay good and positive things get to them.

I am supporting Obama because I think right now between him and Hillary he has the least baggage. He has filled my kids who are voting age with hope. He stays calm under pressure and he is very smart.

Now Hillary, I know is smart also but she seems to have a streak of I will do anything to win no matter how dirty it gets. Obama does things to but not in the same way. Lately Hillary is reminding me of a republican boss I had that was always on my case for nit picky things that don't matter and always looking for the negative instead of the positive.

[sueragingroz]

34. It's a core issue /nt

[FrenchieCat]

36. Like HIllary's plan is not gonna go through Congress and get transformed...

and have the mandates ripped away from it like a tight bandaid!

Obama would have a super majority. He'd get passed what he offers.

[TexasObserver]

37. YES! Hillary wants to make everyone buy insurance, and garnish wages to pay it. Obama doesn't.

I don't want poor people eating dog food and sitting in cold houses because Hillary has garnished some of their wages to pay her insurance industry supporters.

[Kitty Herder]

38. Honestly, I think both of their plans are crap.

We need single-payer health care in this country and we needed it decades ago. If it were not for the political power of the insurance companies, we would have had it.

I wish we could have a moratorium on the use of the term "universal health-care" unless they're actually talking about a single-payer national health care plan for everyone. If they're talking about anything else, they're just blowing smoke up our asses.

Having said all that, I hate Hillary's plan slightly more than Obama's because it includes a mandate like the plan that's currently turning out to be a disaster in Massachusetts. So, yeah, I care about the differences between their plans, but only a little.

[OzarkDem]

40. Anyone who doesn't is a fool

[BuyingThyme]

44. Or they understand how things really work.

[Honeycombe8]

41. I clicked "no," but it's not that I don't care. It's (1) I'm no expert; (2) neither one will end up

passing the exact plan they are promising currently. No candidate ever does.

It's possible that if elected, Obama would end up pushing/passing a plan similar to Hillary's, and vice versa.

As for which plan is better, I just don't know, since this is a very complicated issue, and I'm no expert on the subject.

Hillary's plan sounds better on the surface in some respects, but then I think about how similar it is to Romney's plan, and how that plan is not really working. Obama is correct in saying that some people who cannot afford insurance now will still be unable to afford it under Hillary's plan, and then they'll up worse off than before...not only will they still not have insurance, but they will also owe a fine.

I support Obama's plan, but I admit that I could be wrong. It's a complicated subject even for the experts.

[Honeycombe8]

42. (Oops----Computer glitch----duplicate)

passing the exact plan they are promising currently. No candidate ever does.

It's possible that if elected, Obama would end up pushing/passing a plan similar to Hillary's, and vice versa.

As for which plan is better, I just don't know, since this is a very complicated issue, and I'm no expert on the subject.

Hillary's plan sounds better on the surface in some respects, but then I think about how similar it is to Romney's plan, and how that plan is not really working. Obama is correct in saying that some people who cannot afford insurance now will still be unable to afford it under Hillary's plan, and then they'll up worse off than before...not only will they still not have insurance, but they will also owe a fine.

I support Obama's plan, but I admit that I could be wrong. It's a complicated subject even for the experts.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

43. Both of their plans will leave us in the hands of the insurance companies and they are not

true Universal. Hillary's mandatory coverage is horrendous. It should be mandatory for the country to provide free healthcare for everyone. Period.

[Warren Stupidity]

45. I don't like either plan. Medicare for everyone!

But I will vote for our nominee and enthusiastically pretend to support the nominee during the fall campaign.

So my answer is 'no, don't care for either or the differences'.