On Health Care, Dems More Alike Than Apart

Clinton, Obama And Edwards Spar Over Who Has The Best Plan, But Details May Not Make A Difference

(CBS)  This story was written by CBSNews.com political reporter Brian Montopoli.

---

With less than a month before the crucial Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses, the three leading Democratic presidential hopefuls - Sen. Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Sen. Barack Obama - are each trying to convince voters that they have the superior health care plan, often by stressing the ways in which their opponents' plans are lacking.

"There's a big difference between Sen. Obama and me on health care," Clinton said. "I have a health care plan that covers every single American. He does not." The Clinton campaign has called on Obama to remove a television ad in New Hampshire in which Obama says he has "a plan to cut costs and cover everyone."

Edwards has also criticized Obama's plan.

"Barack Obama's plan leaves out 15 million people," he said in a statement. "The truth is that some people will choose not to buy insurance even though it's affordable, knowing that the rest of us will pay for their emergency room visits." (Obama's campaign says that only 3 million people would be left uninsured under his plan.)

There are significant similarities between the Democratic hopefuls' plans: All three would create public insurance plans (separate from, but similar to, Medicare) that would compete with private plans. All three would be financed, according to the candidates, in part by rolling the Bush tax cut on people with incomes over $250,000.

Clinton estimates the cost of her plan, which also allows people to keep their present plans or opt into a plan similar to what Congress has, at $110 billion. Edwards, whose populist platform includes vows to take on drug and insurance companies, says his will cost between $90-$120 billion. Obama estimates the cost of his plan at $50-$65 billion per year, and notes that it will include provisions that "undesirable" Americans - say, those with a preexisting condition - could not be refused coverage.

The difference Clinton and Edwards are trying to spotlight has to do with which of the plans truly constitute "universal" health care. While Clinton and Edwards would mandate that all Americans have insurance, Obama would only have such a mandate for children.

Obama, who says that health care costs are presently too high to justify forcing people to buy coverage, argues that Clinton has not explained how she would make people pay for their health care.

"Senator Clinton says 'I'm gonna make universal health care by mandating that everybody buy it.' But if people can't afford it, it doesn't matter what the mandate is, they're not gonna buy it," he said.

“Without an enforcement mechanism, there is no mandate," added Obama.

Edwards has explained how he would force people to opt-in: By making them prove that they have health insurance when they file their taxes and, if necessary, sending collections agencies after them if they don't pay. He is also running an ad saying he would take health insurance away from members of Congress who don't support universal health care by 2009.

Broadly, the health care plans of all three candidates are less different than the candidates might want voters to believe. Obama seeks to create a national health care "exchange" of private insurers, for example, while Edwards wants similar, regional "health markets." And even though Obama, unlike Clinton and Edwards, would not try to force everyone in America to purchase health insurance, it remains unclear how close to truly "universal" any plan could get without harsh enforcement levels that could result in backlash.

---

Candidates' Health Care Proposals
WebMD Details The Health Care Proposals Of The Presidential Candidates

---

Health care expert Henry Aaron of the Brookings Institution argues that the specific differences in the plans may ultimately not make much of a difference.

"The plans differ in detail, but I don't think those details are critical, because in the end everybody's going to have to negotiate with Congress," he said. Aaron stressed that the real difference is between Democrats, who want to significantly reform to the health care system and insure more people, and Republicans, who want more minor reforms.

"This is not a primary campaign issue - it's a general election issue," said Aaron. "And I think the diversion into trying to determine whether my health care plan is bigger than yours is a complete waste of time."

[brianbwb-2009]

All these plans sound like Republican plans, create captive markets for the insurance companies, and eff those who cannot afford it, except Edwards, who proposes a health "protection racket".

Here it is, the best way to do it:

1. Tax tobacco, alcohol, firearms, marijuana (after legalization), gambling, and remove tax exempt status for all religious organizations that involve themselves with political candidates. Audit all the war profiteers, recover all monies paid for services not rendered, or overbilled. If necessary, seize and sell the assets of uncooperative companies. Close tax loopholes for companies moving overseas to escape taxes, require all companies doing business in the US to pay taxes on money earned in the US, no matter where they are registered. Institute a progressive tax on income, with simple, direct formulas, and no exceptions. Redirect foreign aid currently paid to countries that don''t need it, or that corrupt the funds.

2. Use the money to build public hospitals, contract labor to local American builders.

3. Subsidize med school for bright but underprivileged aspirants, in exchange for a four year bond to work in the public hospitals.

4 Publish prices for services, peg the prices to make up for revenue shortfalls, not for maximum profit.

There you are, no increased taxes for services everyone can afford.

Why is it that no one understands the humanistic approach?

[cyberus-2009]

Doesn''t matter who is elected, no plan that doesn''t directly benefit insurance and drug companies will never make it through congress even if it did somehow get out of committee.

[blazercoach1]

Makes a HUGE difference.

Obama''s plan does not imply that an individual would be punished for not having insurance. To his detriment, he has not said HOW he would get the costs down.

Hillary, on the other hand, has used the word "mandatory". What does this mean? What is the consequence if you don''t have it? Do you pay a fine? Do you get thrown in jail? If you don''t have driver''s insurance you lose your license to drive.....if you fail to acquire mandatory health insurance, do you lose your license to live? :) She needs to explain the word "mandatory".

But she won''t....because she can''t.

[prinzowhales]

Good, then they will all tax us to subsidize Big Pharma and the Great Swindle known as the ''American Health Care System''.

[fulluvit]

Hey--wait a minute! There are more than three Democratic candidates. Where is the Kucinich plan for universal, single-payer, not-for-profit health care? That''s the one that we want to hear about in the news--not the one the keeps the insurance companies entrenched in the game.

CBS''s job is to report the news--not to guide us into their choices for us. Report on all of the candidate''s views so we can choose for ourselves.

[DrColes]

The only thing that is broken in health care is the cost of health care and no one is addressing this problem. The government caused the problem with health care cost crises in America by over socializing (with mandates) medicine to the extent it is not completive.
http://www.InteliOrg.com/

[clarkssuppor]

Here is another way to do it. Redirect all the foreign aide given to Israel and use it for health coverage.

[mudrose-2009]

Here is another way to do it. Redirect all the foreign aide given to Israel and use it for health coverage.
Posted by clarkssuppor

I got a better idea. Defund Planned Parenthood.

[standlee5]

....and sadly, the Republicans'' candidates plans are all alike as well ; healthcare problem? What problem?

[voter69]

Um...Dennis Kucinich already has a plan with congressional co-sponsors (HR 676). This is really poor reporting not to mention HR676 at all. Single payer not-for-profit health care for all. It would eliminate the need for Insurance companies and no one could be turned down for pre-existing conditions. It is the best way to go and this article does not mention it at all. AND IT IS NOT LIKE ANY OTHER CANDIDATES MEDICAL PLAN. This article is bull.

[incog-nito]

Hillary, on the other hand, has used the word "mandatory". What does this mean? What is the consequence if you don''''t have it? Do you pay a fine? Do you get thrown in jail? If you don''''t have driver''''s insurance you lose your license to drive.....if you fail to acquire mandatory health insurance, do you lose your license to live? :) She needs to explain the word "mandatory".

But she won''''t....because she can''''t.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by blazercoach1 at 09:50 AM : Dec 05, 2007

She did. You just chose not to read up on it. Mandatory means everyone gets a policy. Those who cannot afford it gets some kind of credit. Of course the details need to be worked out, but it''s not all that difficult to figure out. You have to pay taxes, don''t you? If you''re low-income you pay less tax or not at all.

[sgtrds]

Any of the democrats plans would be a huge improvement over the do-nothing republicans who are in the pockets of the insurance and pharmaceutical companies. All are acceptable to me on the level of all of them are one step closer to the dream of comprehensive government funded health care for all Americans. Americans want it and it will happen.

[samthetvcat]

There''s not much difference amongst the plans in the sense that universal healthcare is just a pipe dream at this point, and there''s probably little any one individual is going to be able to do to revolutionize the system any time soon, even if that person is President.

I''ve only checked out Hillary and Obama''s plans, but the big differences between their plans are that:

1. Hillary''s plan is a monumental shift which a government report in 2004 found would likely cause 168 million Americans to lose coverage from their employers. With responsibility left to the individual to purchase coverage, only about 28 million of that 168 million would likely be eligible for government subsidies to help cover the cost.

Who benefits from Hillary''s plan? Insurance companies who get millions of new customers (she is NOT planning on setting up a new government insurance plan), and big business will have the excuse they''re looking for to not bother with health insurance for their employees anymore (via Clinton''s repeal of the government tax break subidy for health care costs). Who gets hurt by Hillary''s plan? The lower-class who now have to pay for insurance with only partial subsidy, the middle-class who will have to pay out of pocket for insurance once their employers stop coverage, and all classes who will end up with a lower quality of care as people are burdened with the additional costs. Hillary''s plan is pro-big business and shifts the burden on individuals.

[samthetvcat]

pt 2
2. The second big difference is that Hillary is not planning on taking on the Insurance Industry the way Obama (and Edwards?) intend. With Corporate America being so greedily out of control, does this seem fair?

[samthetvcat]

You know what everybody should do is find out how much health insurance would cost for them and their family if it becomes mandatory and their company drops coverage because that''s the additional cost they''re might have to shell out every year under Hillary''s plan. Even the most basic plans are in the thousands, and plans comparable to the ones many probably have through work aren''t going to be affordable for individuals who don''t have the bargain power to secure a group rate like they currently probably enjoy through work.

[denn034]

Yeah, they want to bankrupt America and lower the health care of all Americans by following the Canadian''s example of long lines and poor health care. In the end, this is a deficit exploder and should be defeated.

[sgtrds]

Yeah, they want to bankrupt America and lower the health care of all Americans by following the Canadian''''s example of long lines and poor health care. In the end, this is a deficit exploder and should be defeated.

Posted by denn034 at 05:48 PM : Dec 05, 2007

ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!!

The republican right wing has driven this nation into massive debt and deficits for as far as the eye can see every time they''ve been in power and yet some of them still think they have credibility on spending. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!

Also the system in Canada is a whole lot better then the one here that leaves 45 million plus with no insurance at all. esp considering that saying it involves long lines and poor health care is an out and out lie.

[avraamjack]

CLINTON SLEAZE WILL INVIGORATE GOP, DISPIRIT DEMOCRATS AND SINK DEMOCRATIC TICKET
.
It is possible that Senator Clinton is the best candidate. However, even though many may like the policies that Senator Clinton proposes, they should also consider her record, just as Senator Clinton insists.
.
The last Clinton Administration, when faced with the fact that protection rackets where assaulting, torturing and murdering people with poison and radiation, chose to avoid its responsibilities to incarcerate the criminals and to protect the citizenry.
.
Instead, they made a deal with the criminal gang stalker protection rackets to leave them alone and to consequently abandon the citizenry.
.
Do we want a President who sells out the citizenry for votes?
.
Do we want a President who sends a "crime does pay" message to society?
.
Would you vote for a President who signed nonaggression deals with the KKKlan or the Nazi party? Gangs that torture with poison and radiation are much like the KKKlan and Nazi Party.
.
We do not need a sellout President. We need a principled leader President.
.
If you are one of the few who do not know what the above refers to, do a web search for %u201Cgang stalking%u201D to see the tip of the dirtberg. Please do it before you decide to reply to my post. Here let me make it easy for you: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22gang+stalking%22.
.

[tripleenot1e]

I suggest, everyone spend some time reading these peoples views before commenting ...

Richard Carmona, MD, former U.S. Surgeon General
Bill Novelli, CEO of AARP
Billy Tauzin, president and CEO of PhRMA
Edward Langston, MD, chairman, American Medical Association
Grace-Marie Turner, president, Galen Institute
Ron Pollack, executive director, Families USA
Drew Altman, president and CEO, Kaiser Family Foundation

"Education, Energy, and Emergency Health Care" not just "Economy" silly

[samthetvcat]

"I suggest, everyone spend some time reading these peoples views before commenting ...

Richard Carmona, MD, former U.S. Surgeon General
Bill Novelli, CEO of AARP
Billy Tauzin, president and CEO of PhRMA
Edward Langston, MD, chairman, American Medical Association
Grace-Marie Turner, president, Galen Institute
Ron Pollack, executive director, Families USA
Drew Altman, president and CEO, Kaiser Family Foundation

"Education, Energy, and Emergency Health Care" not just "Economy" silly"

Posted by tripleEnot1E

It would probably be helpful if you''ve read the report yourself and believe it contains information pertinent to this debate to paraphrase the most salient points of the article for the rest of us since it''s impossible for all of us to read everything on every subject in this information age. I''m always interested in hearing all sides of an issue, but I given that you''ve used an argument of ''expertise'' to make your point and given that half of the experts you''ve listed stand to benefit the most financially from Hillary''s plan (PhRMA - big drug, AMA - doctor''s association, Kaiser - big Insurance, Galen Institute - mission is to make corporate America not responsible for providing healthcare to their employees) I think the tendency for the average reader would be to assume the article has an agenda . . .

[samthetvcat]

tripleEnot1E, are the quotations you''ve used to show the name of an article or are you just saying that because you believe these people are important their opinions matter more than ours? I couldn''t find any article when I searched for "Education, Energy, and Emergency Health Care" . . . is that some sort of Hillary slogan or something? Yikes . . .

[tcoleman12]

The cost estimates that these candidates use are ridiculous. There is no sane way that they could provide coverage for the number of people they claim with the amount the say.
This tax will expand down to everyone who pays taxes and the coverage will be forced on everyone who lives in America, if allowed to happen...under the guise of "Free Health Care".
Where in the Constitution is the Right to Free Health Care?

[greatdrivew]

DNC Chair Howard Dean: %u201CREFORM THE PATIENTS FIRST%u201D

(Iowa City, IA)%u202612/05/07 8:28PM%u2026On Wednesday DNC Chair Dr. Howard Dean addressed a group of urologists at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics. Speaking about health care reform, Dean stated %u201CWe need to start by reforming the patients.%u201D He added, %u201CPeople don%u2019t understand how tired we doctors are of constantly having to listen to people complain about things like stomach aches.%u201D He then said, %u201CWe need to make it clear that doctors are moving forward%u2026and now we%u2019re focusing on new conditions like restless leg syndrome.%u201D

At the conclusion of the forum, the Brotherhood of Urologists, Local 219, awarded Dean with a solid gold three-foot-tall statue of male genitalia. Weeping, Dean said, %u201CI can%u2019t wait to get this thing home, guys%u2026yeeeehaaaw.%u201D

[mudrose-2009]

The cost estimates that these candidates use are ridiculous. There is no sane way that they could provide coverage for the number of people they claim with the amount the say.
This tax will expand down to everyone who pays taxes and the coverage will be forced on everyone who lives in America, if allowed to happen...under the guise of "Free Health Care".
Where in the Constitution is the Right to Free Health Care?

Posted by tcoleman12

Where is it in the Constitution that the Government has the right to even discuss it? All thress stooges are socialists with Hillary being the most serious of the three.

[venkata4--2008]

"The cost estimates that these candidates use are ridiculous. if allowed to happen...under the guise of "Free Health Care".
Where in the Constitution is the Right to Free Health Care?

Posted by tcoleman12

Where is it in the Constitution that the Government has socialists with Hillary being the most serious of the three.

Posted by mudrose at 09:19 AM : Dec 06, 2007"

But we have 2 trillions in next 6 years to fund for illegal war and pay big fat Halliburton billions of worth no bid contracts. No money for SCHIP. Look who is running conservative government, barrowing 9 trillions internally.