Clinton / Obama Healthcare Plans

[riceowl]

How do you think they would affect the current state of healthcare, and why?  I want to know why some here in the office are saying "she'll ruin healthcare forever!"

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

From what I hear, Obama's is a bit better, but I don't think he can call his "universal health care" if not everyone gets it.

[Platypus]

Well, they're about 95% the same, so if they say that they'd have to drop the 's' as well.

I don't know enough about the current intricacies of US Healthcare to cooment on their policies effects, but I would suggest it could only be positive.

[Wakie]

You know it is really kind of a shame that an honest attempt to actually discuss a major campaign issue has been ignored by the forum.  I think that is very telling about what the forum actually cares about .... who looks/sounds pretty on tv.


That being said I prefer Hillary's plan for a number of reasons, here are 3 big ones for me.

1. I think the Obama camp is drastically underestimating the cost.  They expect much of the financing to come from savings within the health care system.  While certainly there would be savings because people would be more likely to seek preventative care sooner, some of this would be offset by the additional strains this increased preventative care would put on the system.

2. I like that the Clinton plan would invest in independent private-public organizations to certify performance for enhanced reimbursement.  These are the kind of partnerships which help to keep government programs from becoming too "fat".

3. I'm not a fan of "handing out money", I prefer it if we handle dolling out such cash incentives via tax credits.  The Clinton plan would have a refundable tax credit for the most "at rish families" whereas the Obama plan would make subsidies available.

[Sam Spade]

Hillary's health care, while quite expensive, is realistic and should cover up a number of present problems with the health care system.  Of course, this makes government more involved at both a direct and indirect level, which will naturally lessen the quality of health care, and does nothing to address the "trial lawyers gone wild" aspect of American medical care, but neither does his.

Obama's plan, while avoiding the mandatory aspect of the Hillary plan, really doesn't address any other methods to counteract the "free rider" problem.  Without this aspect covered, the idea that a certain class of people will engage in preventative care or get health insurance without it being completely subsidized (the "angus" problem) whether through tax credits or some other means is foolhardy.  Thus, the cost savings aspect will be severely overestimated, as Wakie points out.

[Torie]

The free rider matter is a concern. The only way to justify it tolerating it, is if the incidence is small enough in practice, that it is not worth the candle to unleash  the coercive whip. That is an empirical issue.

[Sam Spade]

The free rider matter is a concern. The only way to justify it tolerating it, is if the incidence is small enough in practice, that it is not worth the candle to unleash  the coercive whip. That is an empirical issue.

Then the question to me is:  At what point and through what effort will the problem (through government or some other matter, but most likely government) diminish itself to being "small enough in practice"?

It seems to me (and I'm sure empirical studies show this) that people, in general, tend to underestimate their health care risks, in comparison to other concerns.

[Torie]

The free rider matter is a concern. The only way to justify it tolerating it, is if the incidence is small enough in practice, that it is not worth the candle to unleash  the coercive whip. That is an empirical issue.

Then the question to me is:  At what point and through what effort will the problem (through government or some other matter, but most likely government) diminish itself to being "small enough in practice"?

It seems to me (and I'm sure empirical studies show this) that people, in general, tend to underestimate their health care risks, in comparison to other concerns.

They sure do if they are young and male, and not gay. But maybe not too many of those show up at the emergency room when they crash and burn, etc. Women seen to overestimate the danger of those big bad microbes. Probably macho men worry about it more, or their wives do, when they get married and have kids.  Interesting issue however to predict behavior.

[opebo]

Horribly inadequate and probably written by the drug cartel/medical lobbies.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

How do you think they would affect the current state of healthcare, and why?  I want to know why some here in the office are saying "she'll ruin healthcare forever!"

Here is the Hillary plan, in a nutshell: require everyone who can buy healthcare to buy healthcare under penalty of law.

It's the same bullsh**t Mitt passed in Massachusetts, and if it disqualified him from being President in my mind, it sure as hell disqualifies her.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I prefer Hillary's plan to Obama's - but only Edward's plan came even remotely close to being universal health coverage.