What's Obama's health care position?

Posted: Thursday, November 15, 2007 8:28 PM by Domenico Montanaro

From NBC/NJ's Aswini Anburajan
Obama regularly reminds supporters on the stump, the plans of the three major Democratic candidates running for party’s nomination for president are “95 percent” the same. Which makes Hillary Clinton's attacks all that more pointed. The difference, Obama stresses, is who can unite the country and stand up to the drug and health insurance industry to actually get it passed.

So what is the real difference between Obama and Clinton's health care plans? Like Clinton and Edwards, Obama would subsidize care for those Americans who cannot afford it; unlike the Clinton and Edwards plan, Obama would only require mandatory health coverage for children.

Obama has pledged, repeatedly, on the stump to pass universal healthcare by the end of his first term in office. He promises to do so through a mixture of bravado, “If Harry and Louise get up on TV, I’ll dip into my campaign fund and run my own ads saying Harry and Louise are wrong;” and by running an open process in which every party will have a seat at the table.

However, Obama knows though that the health care and pharma companies are an integral part of the American health care system. He stresses that Americans will have individual choice when it comes to choosing either a private plan or buying into the government plan and that instituting a government plan is not a move towards “socialized medicine.” He also warns his audiences that passing universal health care will be an “eked out” victory, similar to the slim margin of votes that allowed Lyndon Johnson to pass Medicare and FDR to pass Social Security.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

I think the juice is in who's capable of bringing the country together to get it passed. One of the candidates has had an opportunity to do this in the past and maybe that experience will work well for her. http://www.enewsreference.com

eNews Reference (Sent Friday, November 16, 2007 12:30 AM)

That candidate, Hillary Clinton only has experience failing on health care. Obama has a proven track record for success on health care in Illinois. And a proven track record for getting things done by bringing people together on many issues. The most outstanding difference between the two is Senator Obama's amazing ability for leadership.

Pat, Cedar Rapids, Iowa (Sent Friday, November 16, 2007 12:54 AM)

The government caused the problem with health care in America by over socializing (with mandates) medicine to the extent it is not completive, and we want to exacerbate the problem? Kids have health care. The needy already have health care. The U.S. is not a socialist state ( see http://tinyurl.com/2znnvl ). No one is entitled to be given a house, car, food or health care, etc. If we want these things, we have to earn them. The government does not earn money. Perhaps some of us should take a civics class and learn about America. We all have to labor for what we want. For those who need help there are the charities and state programs. We need to fix the health care issue but we cannot fix it unless we know how it is broken. For the answer, please see http://www.InteliOrg.com/

Dr Coles, Los Angeles, CA (Sent Friday, November 16, 2007 10:52 AM)

Republicans are fractured, yet they will all unite if Hillary wins the primary. Hillary has now become our Nader. Instead of sucking away votes from the Dems like Nader, she will push away votes that could have gone to the Dems. Nader voters were egotistical in their cause and did not see the folly in their voting pattern in 2000 and Gore could have won. Now we are going to see Mitt, Rudy, or whoever take office and again we are going to be left wondering why we voted for someone we may personally like, but who adversely offends independents. I will, from here on out, call her Hillary Nader.

Paul Lee, Austin, Texas (Sent Friday, November 16, 2007 11:36 AM)

Has anyone stopped to think about the possibility Barack Obama may be like many other perpetual presidential candidate -- a man with ideas energy an oversizeed ego and ambition whose time will never come.
In some ways he seems similar to George Wallace and Eugene McCarthy or even in some ways George McGovern and Hubert Humphrey. Or for that matter Al Gore -- individuals who spent their lives chasing he dream of being something that was inevitably always beyond their grasp. Which is not to say they dod not make sizable contributions to the history of ideas or politics.
In the end the difference between the two comes down to their understanding of the role of the president in accomplishing things or establishing the legislative agenda.
The real isue is which of the candidates can best manipukate Congress in agreeing to tackle a reasonable and visable legislative agenda -- The dreamer or the doer?

Gerry123 (Sent Saturday, November 17, 2007 8:10 PM)

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=469203