Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In 1993, the health insurance industry spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to scare people into opposing universal health care. Here's a screen shot from the infamous Harry and Louise ad:
http://static.hillaryclinton.com/i/blog/photos/200802013229.jpg (broken link)
Now, Sen. Obama is sending mail to voters around the country, using the exact same tactics:
http://static.hillaryclinton.com/i/blog/photos/200802013252.jpg (broken link)
Here are the facts:
Sen. Obama fails to mention Hillary's plan cuts costs just as aggressively as Sen. Obama, if not more so. (broken link)
Hillary's plan contains more generous subsidies (broken link) than the Obama plan. Noted health expert Ken Thorpe of Emory University concluded that under the Hillary plan, everyone will be able to afford coverage. (broken link)
The Obama plan leaves 15 million people out (broken link), which drives up costs because everyone else ends up subsidizing their emergency care.
Fact Check: Health Care Subsidies
Sen. Obama said our subsidies are insufficient. Ken Thorpe, a noted health care expert, said our subsidies make health care affordable for everyone --
"That view may not be true. Ken Thorpe, a health-policy expert at Emory University who has advised all three major Democrats, said he ran cost estimates for the Clinton plan at the Clinton campaign's request, and found there should be enough money to make insurance affordable for all." [Wall Street Journal, 12/5/07]
In fact, Hillary's plan contains more subsidies than Sen. Obama's plan --
"Outside experts note that the Clinton and Obama plans propose spending about the same amount of money, while Mr. Obama uses some of his to pay for the reinsurance plan -- an initiative that could cost tens of billions of dollars. That should help lower premiums across the board, but it means there would be less available for direct subsidies." [Wall Street Journal, 12/5/07]
Also Hillary's plan cut costs, as much, or more than Sen. Obama's: http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=4343 (broken link)
But now Mr. Obama, who just two weeks ago was telling audiences that his plan was essentially identical to the Edwards and Clinton plans, is attacking his rivals and claiming that his plan is superior. It isn’t — and his attacks amount to cheap shots.
What will happen if we don't comply with hillary clinton health care mandate? Fines, jail or worse----a internship with Bill Clinton?
Quit slinging mud. America is tired of this type of divisive politics. Obama and his supporters are apparently not.
Hillary's plan allows for much higher subsidies to help folks who can't afford healthcare; Obama's plan DENIES healthcare to at least 15 million:
If you had bothered to read the above, or done a little independent research rather than display your obvious political bias you'd have seen that:
Sen. Obama fails to mention Hillary's plan cuts costs just as aggressively as Sen. Obama, if not more so. (broken link)
Hillary's plan contains more generous subsidies (broken link) than the Obama plan. Noted health expert Ken Thorpe of Emory University concluded that under the Hillary plan, everyone will be able to afford coverage. (broken link)
The Obama plan leaves 15 million people out (broken link), which drives up costs because everyone else ends up subsidizing their emergency care.
What will happen if we don't comply with hillary clinton health care mandate? Fines, jail or worse----a internship with Bill Clinton?
If you READ the Krugman article, you will see John Edwards has already addressed what happens under a mandated system when someone tries to use medical services but has no insurance. (Because, after all, when a person doesn't have health insurance, and they try to use the hospital, who ultimately PAYS? So nice of you to want to shift the burden to the hospital).
The problem is, you don't want to listen to answers already given about "enforcement" of mandates. The bigger problem is this is the one time in history we may have a chance to fundamentally change healthcare access in this country to provide both CHOICE (between government and private options), and affordability so that we have, essentially, a universal healthcare system.
... And Obama is indistinguishable from Republicans on the issue.
Paul Krugman continues his vendetta against Barack Obama’s health care plan due to its lack of mandates. The consequence of lacking mandates is unclear as nobody knows for sure how many people would still go without insurance if it was affordable but voluntary, and nobody really knows for sure how many people would remain uninsured despite mandates. It does seem reasonable to assume that achieving near one hundred percent compliance with a mandate would require yet another new bureaucracy and the expenditure of funds which might better be used for actual health care.
Last edited by TnHilltopper; 02-04-2008 at 09:34 AM..
Reason: copyright violation
Goverment run healthcare is not the answer. Its socialism and I don't support either of their plans. And yes medicare and medicaid is socialism too.
Finally! The truth comes out! Spoken like a true Republican. The hell with the poor people!
"Are there no workhouses, are there no prisons, are there no poorhouses. These are the institutions I support with my taxes and those that need to, should put them to use or die and reduce the surplus population!” -Ebenezer Scrooge, Charles Dickens, A Christmas Carol, 1843
Just out today: More damning evidence against the Obama non-plan for healthcare. And this guy says he's for change!:
Excerpt:
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYTimes
So the Obama plan would leave more people uninsured than the Clinton plan. How big is the difference?
To answer this question you need to make a detailed analysis of health care decisions. That’s what Jonathan Gruber of M.I.T., one of America’s leading health care economists, does in a new paper.
Mr. Gruber finds that a plan without mandates, broadly resembling the Obama plan, would cover 23 million of those currently uninsured, at a taxpayer cost of $102 billion per year. An otherwise identical plan with mandates would cover 45 million of the uninsured — essentially everyone — at a taxpayer cost of $124 billion. Over all, the Obama-type plan would cost $4,400 per newly insured person, the Clinton-type plan only $2,700....
Healthy people don't sign up for insurance if they don't think they'll need it.
Imagine if car insurance were optional. Would you carry it?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
