HOW ABOUT WE ALL GIVE UP ARE INCOME TAX REFUND TOO HEALTH CARE FOR ALL AMERICANS. IT WORKS OVER SEAS

John Edwards and Hillary Clinton don't trust American people to buy healthcare if it's affordable.
Barack Obama trust American people to buy health insurance if it's affordable.
That is the difference between the top three's healthcare plan.

Washington Post: "It Could Be A Struggle For Clinton To Find Someone Who Wants Health Insurance But Doesn't Qualify Under The Obama Plan, Because It's Not Clear Such A Person Exists." The Washington Post reported, "For people who want to get health insurance and make an effort to do so, Clinton and Obama have almost exactly the same plan: increasing the number of poor who can qualify for Medicaid, offering tax credits or subsidies for people who need help paying their health care bills and requiring insurance companies to offer everyone coverage, with the government subsidizing those who can't pay the full amount. So the 15 million people without insurance under Obama's plan would be a combination of relatively well-off people who choose not to purchase health insurance and people who qualify for public programs like Medicaid who don't sign up. It could be a struggle for Clinton to find someone who wants health insurance but doesn't qualify under the Obama plan, because it's not clear such a person exists." [Washington Post, 11/28/07]

Clinton Campaign Health Care Adviser: Clinton's Health Care Plan Will Not Include Everybody. "The truth is that neither the Obama plan, nor the Clinton plan, guarantees 'universal coverage' for all Americans, although they both aspire to this goal. Let's look at the Clinton plan first. MIT economics professor Jonathan Gruber, one of Clinton's health care advisers, describes her plan as a 'universal coverage' plan, in contrast to the Obama plan, which he terms a 'universal access' plan. But he also acknowledges that the Clinton plan will not include everybody. 'Any system that does not have a single payer will not have 100 per cent coverage,' he told me, when I reached him after the Las Vegas debate. 'But you can come very close.' ... The system proposed by Clinton is more analagous to the government-subsidized private insurance system in the Netherlands, where roughly one and a half per cent of the population is estimated to fall through the cracks." [Washington Post Fact Checker, 11/19/07]

Obama 08!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anyone looking for some new Hillary video from an SC stop and an interesting commentary on how race is impacting that primary should try: http://goupstate.us/index.php/lanefiller/2007/11/27/hillary_and_the_black_men_of_god

You Hillary supporters are gonna be pretty bummed if she's elected, and the premium she wants you to pay is a heavy financial burden- on top of the penalty she'll impose.

Hillary is backed in a corner, and the claws come out.

Hillary's plan forces people to pay for health insurance or be fined, like they do in Massachussets. People don't have healthcare, not because they aren't forced to but because they cannot afford it.
Yiannis, Baltimore (Sent Wednesday, November 28, 2007 5:37 PM)

Obama also supports fines for those who don't insure their children.  Just an FYI.  I'll be waiting to see you blast him for that as well.  :)

Wow!  The comments are blazing today!

I'd like to weigh-in my own perspective: I am a Physics Fellow who is preparing to take his boards in Diagnostic Medical Physics.  I am married with a son who just turned nine years old.  My profession is basically serving as a radiation physics specialist and troubleshooter for a hospital's Radiology department.  Back when I was in Graduate school, my wife was a stay-at-home mom, so we were dirt-poor.  My son was in school, and was a recipient of Medicaid, but my wife and I had NO MEDICAL INSURANCE.  I did MRI research in the basement of a university hospital, but I couldn't afford to walk down the hall to the ER room if something should happen.  I still grumble over those days.

If Senator Clinton or Senator Obama were president then, and had actually passed their proposed plans - as they are currently designed and intended - then what would have happened to me?

Under Clinton's plan, I would have to find the money to afford a health care plan, on fear of penalty - a fine (more money?) or worse?  The reason I didn't qualify for Medicaid coverage along with my son was because I made TOO MUCH MONEY - at the time, I claimed ~$15,000 a year on my tax return.

Under Obama's plan, I suspect nothing would change, except this: there may be a bargain-basement option designed to cater to us "just over the limit" families.  I don't know if I would take it, but if I could make up the difference with tax breaks and selling cookies outside the grocery store, I may be willing to sign up my wife for it.

Of course, the best route would be to provide healthcare in the same fashion as garbage collecting - a public service paid for by tax dollars.  But, would people be willing to pay the extra tax for it?  Offhand, the only people who stand to lose are the many medical insurance salespeople who need to pay their own medical bills with my insurance premiums...

My vote is for Obama.

Universal Health Care is the “order of the day.” Everywhere you turn it is on the news and being discussed by Presidential hopefuls and gubernatorial lame ducks. San Francisco California is just beginning to offer free health services to its residents and Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, is expected to reach a final agreement in the next week on a health care overhaul that could go to a vote as soon as December 05, 2007. Yet why can’t these factions get together to make Universal Health Care work?

I spoke with a member of my Health Advisory Committee regarding this “health care overhaul” and he advised me that “the public hospitals and clinics will suffer from this overhaul.” More money will come from certain sources, and less money will come from others. Yet the fear is that the two income sources will not be able to generate the amounts needed to continue sustain this venture. Does this mean that Schwarzenegger’s 2006 speech about “reforming health care” fall short? "The Governor's plan recognizes that health coverage for all Californians will benefit all Californians," said California Health and Human Services Secretary Kim Belshé. "

Public and private hospitals will be asked to pay a new tax on services. The tax would be offset by an increase in reimbursement rates for services provided to people enrolled in government-subsidized Medi-Cal and Healthy Families programs. Yet with declining state and federal funding, many fear that public hospitals may not receive the full benefit of higher reimbursements, leaving them short of funds.

And on the national stage we see President Bush talking and writing on health care. From his February 2006 letter titled “Reforming Health Care for the 21st Century” to his weekly radio address where he discusses the “State Children's Health Insurance Program.”  Funny thing is that Bush says “If putting poor children first takes a little more than the 20 percent increase I have proposed in my budget for SCHIP, I am willing to work with leaders in Congress to find the additional money.” Yet one month later White House Press Secretary Dana Perino says “The Senate passed another SCHIP bill with major flaws, especially its failure to cover poor children first.  Congress has known for weeks that the President would veto this bill.”

And while on www.WhiteHouse.gov says “Americans are fortunate to have the most advanced and innovative health care system in the world. The President's plan will make private health insurance more affordable and increase the number of Americans with health insurance. The plan will also help our Nation move away from reliance on government-run health care and toward a system in which Americans have better access to basic, affordable private insurance, and increased ownership of their medical decisions.”

This “double speak” means that the President's plan includes two parts: Reforming the tax code with a standard deduction for Health Insurance so all Americans get the same tax breaks for health insurance and helping states make affordable private health insurance available to their citizens. Tax breaks for the rich who can already afford premium health care. And of course premiums for those who live at or below the poverty line. Yet what is the answer? Single-payer.
[1] Single payer is basically a way some countries use to provide its citizens with health insurance. Its name comes from the fact that doctors and hospitals are paid by one organization: a single payer. By having only one payer, you can simplify the health care system enormously. Single-payer national health insurance would provide health insurance coverage for everyone in the United States (the US currently has about 45 million uninsured), alter the way businesses pay for health care, modify how doctors are paid, how hospitals calculate their costs and budgets, and how much prescription drugs cost in the United States.

And how would this get paid for? The United States spends double what most other countries spend on health care, and Americans still have shorter lifespans, and 45 million people still go uninsured every year. Many financing schemes exist. Hundreds of billions of dollars could potentially be saved in administrative costs, which would far exceed the amount needed to insure everyone in the United States. Put most simply, the money that businesses currently pay for health care would go to the single-payer; this would make up most of the money needed.

And prescription drugs would be cheaper also. Virtually all other industrialized, capitalist countries have some sort of large-scale bulk-purchasing program. It's just like Wal-Mart using its purchasing power to buy in bulk, and provide cheap goods to customers. In fact, the reason many people are buying drugs from Canada is because they're much cheaper there. Insurance companies do this all the time--buy drugs for all of their members, and get cheaper prices, so would it really be that different to have the government buy for everyone? The VA and the Department of Defense already do this, but the current Medicare legislation does not allow the government to do so.

Now this idea has been bantered about for some time, yet we still see no real movement towards the single payer model. Senator Barak Obama’s “National Health Insurance Exchange” sounds a lot like what San Francisco is doing right now, minus the lawsuit by the Golden Gate Restaurant Association. And Senator Hillary Clinton's “American Health Choices Plan” says it will cover all Americans and improves health care by lowering costs and improving quality. Yet how will you make companies lower their costs for health insurance?

These ideas, by themselves, have flaws that will upset one entity or the other. So why not pull all the ideas together, take the best of each and make a working plan. I know, I simplified the entire process and of course this will never happen. Yet somewhere in this morass is the solution. A solution where all Americans can have free healthcare, and with that, perhaps to lead a more dignified life.

The repubs wont have to do anything the Demo's will self destruct on their own
1. For wishing the war in Iraq would fail
2. Noone will  vote for a canidate  that includes forced care, what do  they intend to do if  you  dont accept care, aresst us ?
Its the right of the people to alter or abolish the government ( declaration of Independence )

i am not old enough to vote but i watch the dabates and hillary has a great plan for America. i hope she win and become our President

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