Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentElections · 1 decade ago

What is the difference between Obama's health care plan and Hillary's?

I went to each of their websites this morning and looked at their proposed health care plans if they are elected. Funny, I didn't see a whole lot of difference. They look mostly the same to me, though I didn't take notes and compare them line by line.

The main difference I see is that this is not Hillary's first plan. Remember back in '92? It's what got her husband elected ... at least that's why I voted for him. Her first plan failed ... I don't think it was her fault. But then she never tried again! Bill was in office 8 years, and her initial plan was shot down in the first two. Where was this plan years ago?? I have a sick husband and daughter and we've lost everything because of no health coverage.

Why vote for someone who has proven that her health care plan is only there to get her elected?

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/#cove...

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcarepl...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_p...

Update:

The constitution was meant to be changed and amended from the beginning. Your answer makes no sense.

Update 2:

*sigh* ... can anyone give me a real answer? I don't even mind people telling me I'm wrong, as long as it's an intelligent answer.

Update 3:

Still waiting ....

Update 4:

Happy Holidays: I did go watch "Sicko" as you suggested ... you need to go back and watch it again, because you have your facts backwards. The movie says Hillary failed and didn't try again because she was heavily lobbied. People like you make me mad ... I bet a lot of people saw your answer and took you at your word without looking into it themselves.

7 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Best Answer

    I'm doing the same research. Here's a good article to start with, but there's a lot out there summaries out there if you don't have time to read the entire plan:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/business/02leonh...

  • T E
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    HERE ARE THE ANALYSES BY TWO EXPERTS:

    That Obama health care plan is a dog's breakfast of bad ideas from Left, Right, and center, topped with an unhealthy amount of wishful thinking. If enacted it would cost Americans dearly — in higher taxes, lost jobs, reduced freedom of choice, and lower quality health care.

    Here is the detailed analysis of what is wrong with the Obama’s health care plan.

    http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8266

    ANOTHER ANALYSIS:

    Obama’s health care plan is not universal (Hillary’s plan is universal), and it lacks audacity. Obama’s’ plan is like himself – full of hope but not deliverable.

    Compared to John Edwards, who had a detailed plan, and Hillary Clinton, whose fluency with the subject is unmatched among the contenders, he seemed uncertain and adrift. An Associated Press article asked, "Is Obama all style and little substance?"

    Number one, he didn't make sure everybody is in. There is perhaps no more surprising fact about Obama's plan than that it is not universal. It is certainly sold as if it is. In his speech unveiling the proposal, Obama bragged that, "[m]y plan begins by covering every American." But it doesn't. To say otherwise is rhetorical overreach, the appropriation of a popular and broadly-supported goal without an attendant mechanism for achieving it.

    There are a few ways to achieve universal health care. You can create a single-payer plan that enrolls the population automatically. This is what Canada does, and how Medicare covers the elderly. You can create an employer mandate, where the primary responsibility falls on workplaces, and smaller mandates mop up the remainder. That was the approach showcased in the Clinton reforms of the early '90s. You can create an individual mandate that charges every American with procuring health insurance, and penalizes them if they don't. This is the approach favored by Mitt Romney in Massachusetts, Arnold Schwarzenegger in California, Ron Wyden in the Senate, and John Edwards in the presidential campaign. Obama's plan offers none of these approaches.

    Instead, it seeks to make care cheaper and more accessible, assuming that, if it succeeds — and that's a big if — Americans will enroll of their own volition. It is a plan with the potential to be universal, rather than a universal plan. In that respect, it is very much like Obama himself.

    Few are looking to Clinton for details, as her public record is so well-known, and her policy commitments so lengthily expressed. It is Obama who has remained a relative cipher, the interplay of his ideology and political instincts opaque. Obama’s plan lacks details, and skeptics say Obama is merely an inspiring speaker than a practical health care advocate.

    Obama’s failing, somewhat ironically, is a lack of audacity. It accepts the sectioning off of the market into the employed, the unemployed, the old, the young, and the poor. It does not consolidate the system into a coherent whole, preferring instead to preserve the patchwork quilt of programs and insurers that make health care so difficult to navigate. It does not sever the link between employment and health insurance, nor take a firm step towards single-payer, despite Obama's professed preference for such a system.

    Obama's plan is not dissimilar from Obama himself — sold with stunning rhetoric and grand hopes, but never quite delivering on the promises and potential. And so he remains the candidate of almosts.

    http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=a_lack...

  • 1 decade ago

    There's no particular difference I can see and pols always waffle when the rubber meets the road.

    You already know the current system is NOT working, so I don't have to address that.

    The bad news is that UHC doesn't work anywhere it is tried. It leads to RATIONED care and goes BANKRUPT.

    The closest thing in the US to UHC is Medicare and it's going belly up--but tax dollars and such will keep it afloat awhile longer:

    In the US, Medicare is going bankrupt. In 1998, Medicare premiums were $43.80 and in 2008 will be $96.40--up 120%. "Medigap" insurance is common because of the 20% co-pay required for service. Medicare HMOs are common because they reduce that burden without an extra charge in many cases. HOWEVER, many procedures which used to have no or a low co-pay NOW cost the full 20% for the HMO Medicare patient. ALSO the prescription coverage they tended to offer has been REDUCED in many cases to conform to the insane "donut hole" coverage of the feds. Doctors are leaving Medicare because of the low and slow pay AND because the crazy government wants to "balance" their Ponzi scheme on the backs of doctors.

    "That dark cloud lurking over the shoulder of every Massachusetts physician is Medicare. If Congress does not act, doctors' payments from Medicare will be cut by about 5 percent annually, beginning next year through 2012, creating a financial hailstorm that would wreak havoc with already strained practices.

    Cumulatively, the proposed cuts represent a 31 percent reduction in Medicare reimbursement. If the cuts are adjusted for practice-cost inflation, the American Medical Association says Medicare payment rates to physicians in 2013 would be less than half of what they were in 1991."

    http://www.massmed.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=vs_...

    GOOD NEWS. What's the plan then? There IS one, but politicians don't seem to want to listen to this one (I've been emailing pols for a while now since I found the plan AND I fear too many on YA don't bother to check it out, but THIS is sensible):

    There IS a sensible plan that does NOT force patients on it with fear of fines; does NOT impose the costs on employers; does NOT raise our taxes; and DOES resolve another abuse of the taxpayer in its funding, provides for preventative care (moral and economical), and would prevent bankruptcies (more than half are caused by medical bills and most of those folks have insurance). Check it out:

    http://www.booklocker.com/books/3068.html

    I wish the best for your husband and daughter and everyone else in similar situations. I've been chronically ill my entire life and rarely have had insurance.

  • 1 decade ago

    Nothing. They are both unconstitutional.

    Health care should be handled at the state level, preferably by donors who wish to give to the poor. The rest can save for themselves.

    *We have something called a Constitution. It defines what the government has the power to do, which is basically defend the rights of Americans, maintain a world class military, ensure trade, and maintain roads. And with the wasteful nature of government, be thankful we have such a document. We are allready wasting too much on "medicare" which cost $372 Billion last year!

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    It doesnt matter, universal healthcare won't happen, and if it does it'll last a couple weeks, just long enough for it to colapse, and put the US in even more debt then we are already in (check out the link below)

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    The amount of taxes you have to pay for your own free health care? What joke! It does not work in England or Canada and you want it for the US? Please god no!

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Who cares? Both plans are socialist nonsense.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.