I like Obama, I'm impressed with his campaign and I know he can win the GP: so TELL ME

[Hoof Hearted]

why I should follow him on healthcare? I don't like his healthcare plan as I understand it. If you do not mandate or otherwise make healthcare truly universal, it is not much of an improvement and DOOMED to fail. I have two nieces who work every day, but have no healthcare. Even if you gave these two the option of buying into an Obama insurance plan they would say no and keep the money, trusting as so many young people do that THEY could NEVER get cancer, trusting that they will not be in an accident, a fire, etc.

I just don't think we can continue as an advanced nation without healthcare.

P.S. Edwards es un persona non grata for me.

[fightindonkey]

1. He Came Out Against Universal Healthcare Back In December

[sandnsea]

2. He says he'll consider it down the road

He just thinks the way to start is putting together plans that everybody can buy, reforming insurance, providing real subsidies.

Bottom line, Hillary's health insurance mandates could very easily kill her candidacy.

[Hoof Hearted]

6. I can wrap my head around that, I just wish he would say it? Of course

I wish they would all me more honest.

Is it too late to hibernate?

[keep_it_real]

3. If we want universal health care in America

Kucinich is the way to go.

[The_Casual_Observer]

4. We pretty much have "single payer" now. He is somehow under

the false impression that the price is going to go down by itself by "market forces"
if more people magically sign up. If they can't sign up now, they aren't going to sign up later.

[Hoof Hearted]

7. I don't get any of that either. WHAT "market forces"??????

I looked, I did not see. This is a big (scratch that) HUGE issue for me.

[The_Casual_Observer]

9. Unless the real plan is to outsource heathcare to the 3rd world

where labor is cheaper, or they deregulate the practice of medicine I don't think free enterprise market forces apply in any possible way.

[sandnsea]

10. When it goes from $1,000 to $50

they'll sign up. That's what happened for me and my husband.

[The_Casual_Observer]

12. So it sounds like the problem is solved already.

[sandnsea]

13. In Oregon, we just need more money n/t

[The_Casual_Observer]

16. True, somebody somehow is making up that $950. It didn't go away.

[sandnsea]

18. Well duh,

Who do you think is going to make it up under single payer?

[The_Casual_Observer]

20. duh what? You indicted that they need more money. Why?

[sandnsea]

22. There isn't enough to help everybody

I had a waiting list to even apply. I don't know what the cap is, but it isn't high enough to bring in everybody who needs help either. $1,000 is outlandish for any couple to pay for health insurance.

[The_Casual_Observer]

23. This makes no sense. According to the rules of this game,

the more the merrier & the lower the cost. Unless the reality is it's a subsidized program with a limited budget & thus limited enrollment.

[sandnsea]

24. There isn't enough money to cover everyone

So everybody isn't in yet. There also aren't rules to make the insurance companies accept everybody so there is a pool for people who have been rejected for pre-existings. It's more expensive.

[killbotfactory]

19. Huh?

All it would mean is that somebody, somewhere, is making a slightly less obscene profit on the backs of sick people. The healthcare system in this country is virtual blackmail.

[The_Casual_Observer]

25. No, non-enrolled state taxpayers are picking up the difference.

Christmas is over & there is no Santa, you can't trade $50 for $1000 no matter how many times you click you heels, except in Las Vegas sometimes.

[sandnsea]

28. How do you think any plan will work???

Some people will pay more so lower and middle income people can be covered. That's the whole plan.

Unless you oppose universal health care and I'm missing your point.

[The_Casual_Observer]

33. My point is that for this to work, the fact that taxes are going to have

pay for it. That's a very hard sell no matter what.

[killbotfactory]

34. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that prices

are determined by supply and demand, like the price of milk for instance. It's not. They charge whatever they can get away with, and they can get away with a lot because most people will pay anything to stay healthy. These companies aren't hurting for money, they are just under a legal obligation to squeeze every cent they can out of people, and that means denying services and increasing premiums.

[Hoof Hearted]

14. How did that happen, and why?

dish. Tell us the details!

[sandnsea]

17. Subsidized insurance in Oregon

Oregon has health care waivers to implement their own plan. They started with just the Oregon Health Plan which changed the way they delivered Medicaid so they could bring more people in. They also created health delivery districts, to eliminate duplication and cut costs. After they passed SCHIP, they implemented the Family Health Insurance Assistance Program. It subsidized insurance. There are about 5 plans that people can choose from. Some of them allow you to add on dental/optical for like $20 a month. I have to have OMIP which is the health insurance pool because of pre-existings, it's really expensive. So it isn't perfect, there are still problems, and not enough money. BUT, I do know subsidized insurance will help alot of people get health care which is why it drives me crazy when people reject it. Until people know what it's like to live with the RELIEF of having health coverage, they won't know how much they're willing to pay for it. We've got to start getting people into the system.

[killbotfactory]

21. Where does he say "market forces" will drive down the costs of health care?

[The_Casual_Observer]

26. This is a fundamental assumption of all single payer schemes,

This is what it's viability is based on. It's the pyramid principle.

[Jane Austin]

5. I think any of them - Obama, Edwards or Clinton -

will get everything they can squeeze out of Congress.

It won't matter what their plan is, when it comes down to it, and I think each of them would do their best to get the most comprehensive coverage they can.

[Hoof Hearted]

36. That's a very good way of looking at it, and thank you for putting it across this way.

Looking at it from that perspective, I do believe you are right, and I do believe that any of our top three would make a good President.

[Justice Is Comin]

8. Obama rushed to put out a

"health care plan" because JE had one defined already, and highly acclaimed.

Obama's is the result of what he hurriedly threw together. Copying most of what John had.

[sandnsea]

11. He introduced 233 health care bills

in Illinois. I hardly think he had to copy from anybody.

[killbotfactory]

15. Mandates won't make healthcare universal

Just like there are uninsured drivers on the road despite it being mandatory in nearly every state.

Mandating health insurance, before things are reformed (making it affordable, offering a government run plan, getting rid of their ability to decline coverage based on pre-existing condition, etc) will hurt the working poor. It will force them into a broken system, into plans they can't possibly afford which will cover next to nothing, and make criminals out of them if they don't comply. So long as health care is being run for profit, or there is no non-profit alternative for anybody to buy into, I am extremely uncomfortable with forcing people to buy into the system, as these companies will always find a way to screw people out of coverage while taking their money. It's their job, after all.

I've been without healthcare because I couldn't afford it. It's one of the worst feelings in the world to get sick and not be able to afford a doctor visit. No one in their right mind will skip health insurance if it is affordable and a baseline standard of coverage is guaranteed by law. Maybe young stupid kids who don't cost the system any money to begin with, or maybe some weird recluses, but that's about it, and they wouldn't get coverage even if it was mandated. Mandates should be the last step in the process.

[regnaD kciN]

31. Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a WINNER...!

No one in their right mind will skip health insurance if it is affordable and a baseline standard of coverage is guaranteed by law.

Which is why affordability is key. If the cost of basic guaranteed health care would be $50/month per person (including any dependents in your family), not many people would complain. If the cost was $500/month per person (which it currently is in many parts of the country), lots of people would.

The problem I see with "individual mandate" plans is that, absent a genuine effort to lower the cost to the level I mentioned above, they do nothing to provide affordability, merely require by law that people pay what for them may be unaffordable amounts, or else.

[cloudythescribbler]

27. It's a question of which comes first -- subsidized insurance or mandate

This is not an original point, having been made already by columnists at TPM Cafe, but it's worth noting.

First, Obama's goal is to FIRST make health care AFFORDABLE, health care like Congresspeople have w/o denial based on pre-existing conditions etc etc, and THEN see how many people sign up.

He has said that he would be willing to consider mandates LATER, but it may be that the subsidies aren't sufficient. It is true that some people who CAN afford health care (for themselves as adults) may choose to opt out and that this may be unwise. But it's first crucial to make health care as universally AVAILABLE as possible BEFORE we mandate coverage (the latter is EXACTLY what the Repugs were advocating in THEIR debate -- mandate instead of adequate subsidy program)

[regnaD kciN]

32. Yes, you only have to look at Mitt's healthcare fiasco in Massachusetts...

...to see that "individual mandates," by themselves, do nothing to make health care affordable for the average American. It's a "solution" that, if anything, can make matters worse than the current situation.

[xchrom]

29. you should ask some of european duers -- edwards and clinton

take elements from some european countries health care -- like mandates and applied them here.

these points have at least already had trial runs -- and they pretty much work.

many people here don't get the idea of mandates when it comes to healthcare.

personally i'd like to see medicare for all -- the system is in place -- and needs only be expanded -- then let those who want additional healthcare pay for it.

[regnaD kciN]

30. "Mandate" is an easily-twisted term...

Those who are pushing "individual mandate" plans attack those who do not as being "against mandating coverage for all Americans" (in other words, accusing them of not wanting to cover everyone). But a "mandate" isn't the same as "universal coverage" -- it simply means a requirement that everyone buy their own health insurance or face unspecified penalties (under Mitt Romney's "individual mandate" plan in Massachusetts, that penalty is an extra tax of a certain percentage of what the person would have to pay in premiums, which can come to $800/month or more).

You say "if you do not mandate or otherwise make healthcare truly universal, it is not much of an improvement and DOOMED to fail." I'll tell you what's DOOMED to fail -- telling people who are uninsured by their employer (the very people who are usually barely getting by financially) that they are suddenly going to be forced by a new Democratic administration to pay several hundred -- in the case of some families, over a thousand -- dollars every month to an insurance company. In fact, that's going to be perfect ammunition for Republicans in the general election: "Vote for a Democrat, and find yourself having to pay hundreds of dollars a month more for mandatory health insurance!"

Putting it bluntly, I will no more vote for a candidate whose plans include an "individual mandate" scheme than I would for one who vowed to "overturn Roe v. Wade"...no matter what their party affiliation.

You're right about the need for universal health care -- but instituting a government-mandated shakedown of average Americans, with the benefits accruing to the insurance companies and the medical establishment, is not the way to accomplish it.

[Strawman]

35. OK

http://www.newsweek.com/id/80882/page/1