I hate to keep being so negative on Senator Clinton, but I wanted to write about something I saw on one of the networks earlier today. You can read all about it on her website. Apparently, Obama sent out a couple of mailings in Ohio. One referred to Senator Clinton's historical stance on NAFTA while the other pointed out differences in the two candidate's health care proposals. Senator Clinton, from the short clip that I viewed, apparently went on a rant about the falsehoods contained within those mailings. Here's my issue on the NAFTA mailing. Senator Clinton keeps touting herself as the candidate with experience. Well, part of her experience includes her stance on NAFTA. She may well have changed her position somewhat recently, but that does not wipe the slate clean. I just feel it is somewhat hypocritical of her to campaign based on her experience, and then get mad when some of her past mistakes or errors in judgment are brought into the debate. She can't have it both ways. If she wants to campaign on her experience, then it's wide open. She can't pick and choose the portions of her past experience she wants pointed out to the American people. As for the health care proposals, I am offended by her constant response that those with health care coverage subsidize the emergency care of those without coverage. I am uninsured because I have not been able to afford to buy an individual health care plan. That does not mean I shirk my responsibilities. Nor do I believe that the majority of people in my position shirk their responsibilities. I have in the past relied on a state system to provide health care during a catastrophic illness. That much I will admit. However, even though further state coverage has been available to me since that illness, I have not taken advantage of it. If I need to see a physician now, I pay for it. And I pay a great deal more for my health care than insurance companies pay to health care providers as they have all strong-arm-negotiated cut rates with providers who want to continue to participate in their plans. As I am unable to afford to pay high prices to obtain traditional medical monitoring post breast cancer, I pretty much just hope for the best. So Senator Clinton's claim that she is subsidizing my health care through her health insurance premiums is insulting to me and to many others in my position. And Senator Obama is correct; Senator Clinton's plan will force me to purchase health insurance whether I can afford it or not. It may be true that her plan will reduce premiums to a level where I can afford to buy into it, but that decision will be taken out of my hands. I can't support such a proposal. Senator Obama was right when he said that Clinton's plan does not mandate the government to provide health care coverage; it mandates the people to buy coverage. I would point out that the response to the mailings posted on her website states: "Noted health expert Ken Thorpe of Emory University concluded that under the Hillary plan, everyone will be able to afford coverage." I'm not sure a health expert is in a position to judge what everyone will be able to afford. Couldn't she find an economist to support that position? Report abuseQuick Reply

Okay -- before everyone starts yelling -- I have made two efforts to post this topic. Both times, there were paragraphs. I deleted the first post, then posted again just to be sure I was not dreaming. The paragraphs have disappeared. I know it looks jumbled and difficult to read, but it isn't my fault! Slate did it to me! I want my paragraphs back....

Obama wants to have it both ways here. He advocates for transparency in the health care system, which will apparently lower costs enough for people to buy health care.

But then, by not requiring mandate, the people who do not buy health care but still require medical treatment will push those costs back up (which we, in turn, will end up paying for). And we're not talking about low income people who just can't afford it, we're talking about "free-riders:" people in American who *can* buy insurance, but don't because they want to spend the money on ipods and other things. According to Obama's people, his plan estimates about 2 million "free-riders," will still remain even after he lowers prices. Those "free-riders" will continue to keep prices higher than they need to be. He also offers a subsidy to lower income families who cannot afford insurance, which we will pay for through our tax dollars.

Hillary's plan is to lower costs in the same way as Obama, but then the mandate will lower them further by requiring people to participate, which, although it seems paradoxical, will make insurance easier to afford to lower income people. Forcing lower income people to buy health care also lowers the prices to a level that is easier for them to afford. If they still can't do it, the government will also offer a subsidy to help them make up the difference.

However, Obama's subsidy will end up having to be larger, due to the overall higher cost of health care. So, under his plan, you pay more taxes *and* higher premiums (yay!...wait...boo!). Under Clinton's plan, the subsidy will be lower because health care will be cheaper. So..less taxes *and* lower premiums (boo!...wait..yay!).

Clinton's is just a more economically feasible, workable plan that will save everyone more money and cover everyone at the same time. Mandate = necessary. Yes, I don't like being forced to pay for things, but I think I can handle it if it means I'm saving more money overall and everyone has health insurance. People who are against a mandate are not really taking their best interests, or the interests of anyone else into account.

You're free to believe mandates are necessary or not necessary. What you're not free to do is what Clinton has done -- call for them, criticise Obama for not having them, then criticise him for pointing out that you want them.

This is beyond desperation. It's sheer lunacy. Has the woman completely lost it?

Oh my...did you read anything I posted? You're not even making rational sense anymore. Have you considered the financial cost of not having a mandate? Do you not care that these people are actually going to affect your REAL day-to-day life? Why don't you care about this?

You are seriously living on another planet. I think you've lost it.

I could give a flying fuck what you posted. It has nothing to do with Hillary's stupid and hypocritical attack.

Since you're obviously spectacularly stupid, let me simple it down for you.

1. Hillary wants mandates.

2. Obama sends out a flyer saying Hillary wants mandates.

3. Hillary compares Obama to Karl Rove.

Simple enough, dumbass?

I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm talking about the viability of a mandate, and you're going insane. I said nothing about any mailings in my post, and the OP introduced the idea of wanting to talk about the mandate.

And if you want to talk about that, she was angry because his mailings said that she would force everyone to buy healthcare, without even mentioning the government subsidies and tax breaks that would come along with the program. The mailings are misleading propaganda meant to scare people. I guess your boy is a politician after all!

Yeah, welcome to the world, genius.

Maroci,

While we're at it, can you tell me the potential upsides and downsides to Obama's stance on meeting with Iran and Syria within his first year as President?

How about the potential upside and downside of his subprime mortgage plan as it differs from Clinton's?

Can you tell me why Obama's healthcare plan is economically feasible?

The potential positives and negatives of emphasizing bi-partisanship over partisanship?

Please tell me, since you're so much smarter than I am.

The argument that mandates lower costs is unsound. A mandate to purchase something always removes an important element of competition, always increases demand for the good or service, and never lowers costs; arguing that it does is at best uninformed and at worst misleading.

I'm not sure why people don't understand why Senator Clinton's plan is so off-putting. Imagine there are two used car salesmen (a species of person with approval ratings near those of politicians). Let's call them Rod and Barry. Both claim to offer the lowest prices in town, but Rod's commercials also include the promise to point a gun at your head and force you to buy a car.

People generally enjoy being able to choose what and whether to buy things. They also do not enjoy being told what they must do.

Obama's mandate for children makes sense, because they have no choice in the matter, but for goodness sakes, let the American people decide which goods and services they want to purchase.

" You're free to believe mandates are necessary or not necessary. What you're not free to do is what Clinton has done -- call for them, criticise Obama for not having them, then criticise him for pointing out that you want them.

This is beyond desperation. It's sheer lunacy. Has the woman completely lost it?"

A nice, succinct way of phrasing the issue. Please just leave it at that; don't get sucked into the negativity.

I was under the impression that there would be some price control stucture put in place along with these plans (which is what the candidates mean by regulation and transparency). Insurance companies can no longer raise prices due to demand, because this is a program controlled by the government (am I wrong in that assumption). If it''s not...how is this any different than our current system? Doesn't seem like much of a change.

Then let's talk about the viability of Hillary's mandate. Let's take a look at what she says about subsidies and tax breaks. That information is available for everyone to review on her website.

Senator Clinton’s plan will:

• Provide Tax Relief to Ensure Affordability: Working families will receive a refundable tax credit to help them afford high-quality health coverage.
  
  
• Limit Premium Payments to a Percentage of Income: The refundable tax credit will be designed to prevent premiums from exceeding a percentage of family income, while maintaining consumer price consciousness in choosing health plans.
  
  

This is Senator Clinton's plan to ensure affordable healthcare coverage, which she will force us to buy. How exactly does a refundable tax credit help with my monthly budget? Apparently, I have to pay a high monthly, semi-monthly, weekly, whatever, premium and then get a tax break when I file my income taxes. Refundable tax credits are great if you can afford to get through the rest of the year.

She says that the tax credit will ensure I only pay a certain percentage of my income for health care coverage; but I don't see anywhere exactly what she anticipates that percentage to be. Is there a reason she is not revealing the percentage of my income she is going to force me to pay? Could it be that she knows if she tells me what that percentage is then she will lose support for her plan?

Both candidates have plans that include lowering premium costs and rein in the insurance industry. No one is saying that Senator Clinton's plan does not make that claim. Her plan just doesn't give me enough detail to make me feel secure that I will be able to afford the coverage she wants to force me to buy.

By the way, I don't have an I-Pod. I watch a 15" TV set. I buy clothes off the clearance rack. I expect in about a year and a half, if all goes well, I will be able to purchase a health care plan, and I plan to do so. Right now, I am investing my money in helping to put my son through school so he can afford health care too. If Hillary and you have your way, I won't be able to make that investment.

Welcome to the real world.

Here's somthing to think about. A 20-something is in good health and doesn't feel they can afford insurance, though they probably can afford their cell phone and other little luxuries they think that they can't live without. Then they find out they have cancer. Who pays for their treatment? Do we just let them die without treatment? Is it fair to the responsible people with insurance to pay for their mistake? Somebody's going to end up paying in the end. What if the insurance makes them so sick that they indeed can't buy insurance after they become sick because they can't work?

brownapril:

Then let's talk about the viability of Hillary's mandate. Let's take a look at what she says about subsidies and tax breaks. That information is available for everyone to review on her website.

Senator Clinton’s plan will:

• Provide Tax Relief to Ensure Affordability: Working families will receive a refundable tax credit to help them afford high-quality health coverage.
  
  
• Limit Premium Payments to a Percentage of Income: The refundable tax credit will be designed to prevent premiums from exceeding a percentage of family income, while maintaining consumer price consciousness in choosing health plans.
  
  

This is Senator Clinton's plan to ensure affordable healthcare coverage, which she will force us to buy. How exactly does a refundable tax credit help with my monthly budget? Apparently, I have to pay a high monthly, semi-monthly, weekly, whatever, premium and then get a tax break when I file my income taxes. Refundable tax credits are great if you can afford to get through the rest of the year.

She says that the tax credit will ensure I only pay a certain percentage of my income for health care coverage; but I don't see anywhere exactly what she anticipates that percentage to be. Is there a reason she is not revealing the percentage of my income she is going to force me to pay? Could it be that she knows if she tells me what that percentage is then she will lose support for her plan?

Both candidates have plans that include lowering premium costs and rein in the insurance industry. No one is saying that Senator Clinton's plan does not make that claim. Her plan just doesn't give me enough detail to make me feel secure that I will be able to afford the coverage she wants to force me to buy.

By the way, I don't have an I-Pod. I watch a 15" TV set. I buy clothes off the clearance rack. I expect in about a year and a half, if all goes well, I will be able to purchase a health care plan, and I plan to do so. Right now, I am investing my money in helping to put my son through school so he can afford health care too. If Hillary and you have your way, I won't be able to make that investment.

Welcome to the real world.

The reason she's not revealing the percentage is because it is based on income, and that kind of decision making will come later, when the plan is being hashed out in the Senate. I, too, take pause at the idea of a tax credit. But then again, they might institute a system where you only pay your premium once a year, not every month, and the tax credit will go toward that payment. But those specifics will come later.

So if you or your son gets sick, I should pay for you? What if you get into a car accident? What if you get cancer? What if he slips on some ice and breaks his leg? I understand your position and right now I don't mind paying for your investment in your sons future (as long as you mean college, and not private school). Because I'm a bleeding heart and you want more than your finances will allow. But, under the mandate (and Obama's plan), if you can't afford health care, the government will make sure that you can. And if people still don't buy insurance even though it's easy, I'm sure many people will kick their butt. And then they'll need health insurance.

Lbutterfly:

What if the insurance makes them so sick that they indeed can't buy insurance after they become sick because they can't work?

What do you mean?