The stats I have read (and the ones that Citizen posted earlier this month) said that Obama's plan would save people $2500, and Hillary's would save $2200.

Here is my question....

If their plans are 95% the same, and she says in his plan 15 million people would NOT be so low in income that they would be eligible for subsudies, and they also wouldn't be able to afford health insurance themselves.

Where do these people fall in her plan? Are they simply forced to pay for health insurance that they can't afford?

What about people who work "under the table"? If they don't have wages on the books to be garnished, how can they be forced to pay? Will we end up paying more to cover them?

I feel like Hillary hasn't learned her lesson from the last time she tried the healthcare issue.

Think of all of the people who could have used some kind of health care reform 10 years ago!! Because she over reached, people have suffered. When you ask for too much, you get nothing. If you are more reasonable with your ideas, people get help. Even if you go by Hillary's numbers, 300+ million people would benefit from Obama's plan, and it is a plan that could make it through Congress.

Sometimes to achieve our end goal, we need to take steps to get there. Forcing people to chose all or nothing is a good political game, but it ignores the needs of the people.

In Jills words "Forcing people to chose all or nothing is a good political game, but it ignores the needs of the people" Couldnt have said it better myself.

What I found more interesting is not which plan is "better", but their characterizations of each other's plans. As far as I can tell, experts agree that they're generally the same, and Obama pointed out such.

Clinton, however, portrayed Obama's plan as very negative and said it "looked like a Republican wrote it". This kind of unnecessary exaggeration is exactly what I usually hate about politics - if a politician says something is really bad, you don't know if it's because they think it's really bad, or if they're simply trying to push their own agenda.

I'm sick of politicians making it sound like the world will end if their opponent gets what they want, with their opponent saying the same thing about them.

It's Obama's disarming honesty about his opponent's positions that's making me lean towards him.

Yeah and the fact that she keeps using the word "fight" just makes it so much more unattractive to me. And the same people who she fought all those years again would be more unwilling to work with her, maybe they would work more with Obama.

I personally think that the healthcare issue will be a tough sell in November for either candidate. The Republicans will bring up fears of big governments and socialism. I know quite a few people who agree with democrats but think universal healthcare is a slippery slope to socialized medicine. I think it's easy to talk about their differences when you're talking to people who generally think it's a good idea, but when they're up against someone who doesn't, there's gonna be some serious 'splainin' to do.

"I know quite a few people who agree with democrats but think universal healthcare is a slippery slope to socialized medicine."

This is one of the reasons that I don't think Hillary's plan would pass.

I think Obama's plan would be difficult to pass, but it has greater potential than Hillary's plan.

Quite frankly, I don't think either of them will. People aren't that nuanced. They hear "Universal Healthcare" and they switch off. It's easy for those of us who really listen to politics to talk about this. Unfortunately, I don't a lot of people do, in this country. Whether they're supporting something good or something bad, they usually seem to only know the surface picture. That's just what I think.

> It's easy for those of us who really listen to politics to talk
> about this. Unfortunately, I don't a lot of people do, in this
> country.

4 years ago I would've agreed this whole-heartedly, but it really looks like things are different this election. Turnout is shattering all kinds of records in these primaries; Hawaii used to get 3k voters, expected 15k, got 37k. I think (hopefully without jinxing it) that people are actually starting to pay attention.

Well, I do, too.

Sometimes to achieve our end goal, we need to take steps to get there. Forcing people to chose all or nothing is a good political game, but it ignores the needs of the people.

I think that was perfectly put, Jillness. And one of the reasons that I believe Obama will be better for America is that he will be much more capable of creating coalitions to actually get things done.

Thank you Jude! It is something I really believe, so I am glad it struck a chord with someone else too!

By the way...how do you get bold font? I can never make it work! ::

I don't see how anybody is going to achieve national health care coverage, at a low cost to all of our citizens, without drastically raising taxes.

Neither Hillary nor Obama can conjure money up out of thin air. National, affordable healthy coverage isn't truly possible. One way or another, Americans are going to feel the cost.

I personally don't like the idea of a national health plan. I don't think it's the government's responsibility to babysit it's citizens and make sure they are healthy. I think the real problem with health care lies in the corrupt insurance providers and drug companies that are more interested in developing and pushing expensive drugs than they are with providing basic health care.

Honestly, some of you should watch Sicko. You can't place all (or most) of the blame on HRC for the failure of trying to get Universal healthcare when her husband was in office. All of the money and kickbacks related to healthcare and the drug industry and special interests going to policy makers is a HUGE problem.

clarient, you are right that the insurance providers and drug companies are at fault for being corrupt..this is a huge part of the problem.

"low percentage of your income" Is that the part that is different with Sen. Clinton's* plan?
*Note that I am following the Karl Rovian style for identifying the candidates! (See Link Time)

I think one thing to keep in mind here people is that what Senator's Clinton and Obama are offering are just PLANS at this point. I get why people are interested and passionate, but before either plan can become a reality one of them has to be officially nominated THEN they have to beat McCain THEN they have to get their plan past Congress, which I think is really the doozy.

We're thinking short when we should be thinking long...Arguing about which plan theoretically covers more people is small potatoes next to getting either plan past the House and the Senate. I personally feel the "foot in the door" method of creeping towards medical socialism is much more likely to succeed (i.e. - Obama's plan) but regardless I'm hopeful we end up with a President who realizes health is not a commodity and is able to convince both parties that universal healthcare is in their best interest. And it seems like some people seem to think a mandate isn't in their best interest, but as I see it, right now my tax dollars provide universal healthcare anyway since some hospitals can't turn away the uninsured (i know, i worked in one) AND i have to pay seperately for my own health insurance. Atleast if healthcare was socialized I'd only have to pay for it once.

Also, it's really interesting to read a media source that so clearly favors Sen. Clinton...I've become so accustomed to newcasters preffering Sen. Obama. Mind you, I whole-heartedly disagree that she's a better candidate, but it's interesting to see how her supporters must feel all the time.

I do think that in this stage, the primaries, that talking about the differences in these two candidates is important. I was undecided and when it was time to vote in my primary since Obama and Clinton are so similar it came down to the differences for me.

I'm typically an Obama supporter. But after watching the debate, especially the section on Health Care I'm for Hillary. I think she was much stronger arguing for her Health Care plan. I think it was clear as well. I think her examples and explaining the mandates was excellent! I especially liked when she explained that you can insure kids, but if you don't insure the parents there are serious consequences for the children.