Obama '08?

Obama addressed this last night. He said that if people don't want to sign up for health insurance, fine.

But if they come to the emergency room with their hat in their hand, they are getting signed up and they can pay the back money they owe for not being part of it in the first place.

EMINENTLY sensible if you ask me. It forces nothing on people but responsibility.

Cycloptichorn

I agree with that whole idea, Cyclop, but the part that's hard to quantify is how much those people who aren't covered will cost? Clinton people want us to believe it will be a huge number, and Obama's predictably want us to believe it will be practically nothing.

What's the real answer? Anyone know?

The lies in this mailer are all the more frustrating as they are easily identifiable by everyone who actually reads Clinton's plan.

Of course, the only reason I'm pointing this out is to show what a difficult issue healthcare is.

Thomas wrote:

Of course, the only reason I'm pointing this out is to show what a difficult issue healthcare is.

Clever, clever

I love everyone, so your charge has clear merit. But it's also the case that I've just passed through two weeks of denial to O'Bill and others that I had a big unique chubby for Hillary.

Hillary's health care plan does force pretty much everyone to buy insurance. It's limits appear to be hinged to a percentage of income, returned in the form of Tax Credits. He who already can't pay his bills can afford not one tenth of a percent more for Health Insurance. That ad is spot on.

Kind of a silly sticking point, anyway, if you ask me. Yes Hillary's plan is more Universal, but: Neither plan will ever become law anyway.

While Hillary busts Obama's balls about the 15 million people he doesn't force to buy insurance out of one side of her mouth; she accuses him of liking the idea of a Single Payer System out of the other (which, of course, he does). In other words; he's not left enough, despite being too left.

If you want to bring costs down; Single Payer has to be the End Goal… and my guess would be that both candidates would prefer this system if it seemed feasible to get it passed. If this is so; then both Clinton and Obama are compromising and their respective guestimates of how much compromising is necessary is the only real difference in their philosophies… which is of course what we're supposed to be comparing... since neither is running for King.

Now, before the free-market advocates yell foul, for suggesting a single payer would bring costs down, let me explain. The Mandatory Insurance game perpetuates the same single biggest problem with health care we face today: It is more profitable to treat disease than it is to cure it. Take Diabetes, for instance. We're going to spend well over a trillion dollars maintaining it over the next decade (really)(and that's just in the U.S.). This is BIG BUSINESS! If you are a test strip, insulin pump, or syringe manufacturer; Diabetes is your friend! If you are one of the 20 to 30,000,000 Americans who have it; Diabetes is your enemy. Insurance, by designs, will spread this cost to each and every one of us. We're talking over $500 a year from every man, woman and child in this country, just to maintain Diabetes alone (really). This means a single payer could put out an absolutely extraordinarily massive reward for a cure (think billions and billions) and still come out ahead in its very first year.

Far be it for me to begrudge other man's profits; but if that profit is hundreds of billions of dollars derived from the suffering of tens of millions of people, who may indeed be suffering in vain, I think it's high time we consider a better alternative. Medicine, like Law Enforcement, is an issue that should transcend the need for profit, and should be dealt with accordingly.

I believe both Obama and Hillary would agree with me, wholeheartedly and without reservation......

.....I further believe Obama is more likely to sell it to both the American people and the Congress of the United States.

I agree with that whole idea, Cyclop, but the part that's hard to quantify is how much those people who aren't covered will cost? Clinton people want us to believe it will be a huge number, and Obama's predictably want us to believe it will be practically nothing.

What's the real answer? Anyone know?

In a resounding vote today, MoveOn.org Political Action's members nationwide voted to endorse Senator Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination for President. The group, with 3.2 million members nationwide and over 1.7 million members in Super Tuesday states, will immediately begin to mobilize on behalf of Senator Obama. The vote favored Senator Obama to Senator Clinton by 70.4% to 29.6%.

But if families are saving on their health costs by around $2500/year, as Obama said is the goal with his plan, then who cares if we're paying for someone who isn't covered? We're still paying less, aren't we?

This week the Albuquerque Journal commented on the universal coverage plans in the UK and Canada. Both do not provide coverage for treatment of prostate cancer for persons age 65 or older

If Obama now says that people will pay back if they are delivered to an emergency room, that's a step into the right direction. But his plan itself doesn't say that. This is either a new development, or Obama is misrepresenting his own healthcare plan for tactical purposes.