This is of course, my opinion, but I've been asked previously why I don't like Obama's plan and instead favor Clinton's more drastic plan.

As I see it, the main difference between Obama and Clinton is the mandatory coverage instituted under Clinton's plan. Obama and Clinton both envision a series of vouchers or subsidies that will lower the cost of premiums to individuals seeking health coverage. Clinton will require health coverage to be mandatory, and proposes a series of fines for individuals who do not attain coverage within a certain period of time.

First off, I don't see why health coverage is not already mandatory. We are required to have liability insurance on motor vehicles. Doctors are required to carry malpractice insurance (in most states, though there are different rules in some places), etc. The list goes on. Why is what is arguably one of the most important things (personal health) not mandatory already? I'm not a socialist, and I don't think that the government should run healthcare, but why aren't more people insured just boggles me.

Now comes one of the big issues I see with our current system: people don't plan ahead. Just like someone who doesn't expect to get in an auto accident (and therefore doesn't set aside thousands of dollars for potential liability) we don't expect to have health problems (usually). Nobody expects to get cancer (even smokers often think they can "beat the odds"). We don't expect to cut our fingers off with a paring knife and have to spend a night in the ER in surgery having them re-attached etc. That is why it is called insurance, it is in the case of something happening.

And parents are, let's face it, sometimes irresponsible. With state funding being cut constantly, the availability of coverage for children is often not very readily available. In Georgia, to get state funded medical insurance you have to be either disabled (and usually that qualifies you for Medicare) of make less than $7,000 (roughly, the limit is higher depending on number of children). So, for a person, like myself, who makes more money, I can't get state coverage, but yet to get comparable coverage individually, I'm looking at close to $200 a month (and it still doesn't match the group coverage I discuss below), and that is an expense I just can't afford. So, while I have coverage I have the lowest level available (catastrophic care, in case I cut my fingers off or something).

Of course, there is the argument that why don't we just eliminate the need for insurance and regulate the costs of health care. Then you have another problem: doctors don't come cheap. If you lower the cost of healthcare (by regulation) then you also have to lower the cost of education etc. And I have issues with that.

If people are able to afford procedures on a "cash" basis as well it still ends up being a heavy burden to people who tend to be more ill. This is where the system works (using for an example here a company "group" policy): the group pays a certain premium with the expectation that not everyone will use the coverage. That allows insurance companies (which lets face it are corporations) to set policy limits and maximum costs for individuals (this gets technical but things such as "out of pocket limits" define how much any one person has to pay yearly before the plan picks up 100% etc). Yes, you may never use the policy but you are paying for the assurance that if you need it, it will be there. And while Betty in the cubicle next door may see 15 different doctors and run up a $50,000 in medical bills a year, her overall premium is the same as yours because of the group policy.

I realize this is kind of scattered. And without having experience in dealing with the stupidity of insurance companies it may be difficult to understand fully...

I'm an Obama supporter and I like Hillary's plan better too.

However, Obama makes a good point: He doesn't think Hillary's plan can pass. His middle ground has a better chance of getting enough Republican votes to pass.

Of course, the real solution is to elect enough Democrats so the Republicans can't filibuster it!

You are right that we need to have a solution that will pass, and I can see why Obama's caters more to a bipartisan congress. However, I just don't think his goes far enough to actually fix what is wrong with our healthcare system. To me, it feels like putting a bandaid over an incision wound. Sure, it covers the wound (or part of it) but it doesn't really fix anything.

Yeah, but it's better than nothing.

Maybe if Democrats really capture both Houses by huge margins, he will be more likely to propose a better plan.

Mind you, just because I am voting for Obama does not mean I agree with him 100% or think that Clinton has bad ideas. (I'm not a mindless puppet, despite the image Bradley may have of me)

Anyone can just demand people buy health care and claim it covers everyone, that's not a plan, that's a cheat.

Because you don't have to own a car. So buying car insurance is not mandatory unless you choose to buy a car.

Again, a choice is involved. They chose to practice medicine.

You might say that well then the ER shouldn't treat them if they don't have insurance and I don't have a big problem with that - although in many cases the people did pay taxes that keep the ER running so you'd think they'd be entitled to something even if not great care or anything elaborate.

You could pay for a lot of kids being covered with the money saved from not mandating people buy healthcare. Just mailing out a letter telling people they had a rebate coming this year cost 42 million, can you imagine how much the bureaucracy would cost for Hillary's plan?

I'm not saying there is not a problem with bureaucracy as I certainly can appreciate that. Are there problems? Yes. Can it be overcome? Yeah.

And that is true, I would rather see at least something be done than nothing. So if either one wins I do think we will see a little progress. Maybe at least get the gears in motion.

And I know you aren't a mindless puppet.

So lets just deny health care to people? Yeah, that is a brilliant decision! Because you know as long as it is not mandatory people won't get it and then when they have horrible problems with illness their stories will make the news and we'll back at square one about the problems with the US healthcare system.

I'm not saying that's ideal. A national health care single-payer plan might be best. But just mandating people buy coverage isn't a universal healthcare plan except semantically.

Single payer is far to socialistic for my taste, and damn it I had a whole retort to that idea but I'm just too tired to get into that now I'll try and explain tomorrow.

Anyway on the topic of what you mentioned earlier, about driving being optional etc., you know people don't "choose" to be sick nor do children "choose" to be born. At the least, I think coverage should be mandated to children under 18, because their parents inability to pay should not prevent them from receiving medical care. Period. Yes, there are hospitals that work with patients, especially children, but I'm referring more to out patient care, physician visits etc. that aren't mandated to those terrible inner city "clinics" which I'd be terrified to go to.

Single Payer is the extreme. Hillary's plan is already the middle ground that 'might' pass. Obama's plan will not bridge the bipartisan divide; Republicans will tear it apart exactly because he said it isn't mandatory. They'll pounce on that and find a way to make sure it reaches absolutely no one.

I also hate child-only ideas of coverage. What? Adults that are struggling 'deserve' the situation they are in? I don't believe in creating a pre and post-lapsarian divide. Everyone deserves access to health resources. Plus, I've seen kids with sick care-givers, and it holds them just as far back from their peers as if the kids themselves were sick.

One of my strongest opinions, as mentioned in another thread already, is that health care needs to be mandatory. In addition, the only way Republicans won't break it down to the bone is if the candidate explicitly states while on the campaign trail that it is a mandatory plan. Otherwise, its all over.

You just run into so many problems with "its a free country" and holistic health followers etc. if you mandate coverage to everyone (which is the biggest problem) which is why I think at the minimum (and keep in mind we are talking minimums here), coverage should be available to every child. I'd even say under 21, and probably through college.

Like I said, minimum is that, everyone should be covered but we've got to start somewhere.

As of right now I would never vote for universal health care for the simple fact that neither Obama or Clinton's plan would end up working. We need to cut government spending, not continue to add to it and who ever is elected president, our troops won't be out of Iraq in the next 4 years and until that happens it is tough to have any new government spending.

Except, of course, a good health care plan would save us money, because we wouldn't be using taxpayer money for as many emergency room visits and with preventive care, would actually reduce hospital stays.

Ding, ding, ding. And, we have a winner.

I pretty much feel the same way about education and other public infrastructure, as well. Put down a buck now and save way more in the long run.

I'm the same as Groucho, I support Obama but prefer Hillary's plan. To be honest though, the biggest reason I'm an Obama supporter is because he can actually win the general election (it's not like the healthcare issue actually effects me.) If Hillary was the nominee, I'm almost convinced she'd lose.