Turkana, you don't understand because you're a "low-information voter" who doesn't understand things as clearly as Barack Obama and his supporters do.
It's a complicated situation, involving a complex balance of politics, economics, and behavioral science. But it can be boiled down into the following principle: Whatever Barack Obama says is right; everyone else is wrong, even if they are economics professors at Princeton with columns in the New York Times.
This leads to the following corollaries:
- Social security is a mandatory social insurance program. It's a great program. (It is, however, in "crisis".)
- Medicare is a mandatory health care plan for seniors. It's also a great program.
- Both it and Social Security are paid for through taxes, generally withheld from paychecks (i.e. the government is forcing us to buy into it, by "garnishing our pay"). This is perfectly fine. In fact, we should increase the amount of our pay that is being garnished for Social Security.
- A mandatory health care plan is, of course, an authoritarian overreach of government into our personal lives. Especially because to enforce it, we may have to require people to pay taxes, which is wrong.
- Unless of course, the mandate is for children, in which case it is the act of a kind and benevolent society that has the best interests of its citizens at heart. It is only natural that we'll pay for this by garnishing people's wages.
- What if you're an adult and take advantage of your freedom to not buy insurance, but then you get sick? Well, then, you'll be socked with a penalty or required to pay back premiums. If you can't afford it, then you can either hope that diabetes cures itself or work out a payment plan. Maybe the government can garnish your wages.
Does it all make sense now? You're welcome.
Posted by Orange at February 6, 2008 01:29 PMDoes it all make sense now? You're welcome.
Why not apply your massive brain power and explain Clinton's plan to us. Compare and contrast it to her 93' plan. Thanks in advance.
Posted by phidipides at February 6, 2008 01:51 PMOrange nails it by summing up the convoluted thought processes that Senator Obama uses on the matter. See mandates are bad if you're trying to bash your opponent using rightwing talking points because your own program doesn't have them... that is unless you're a child then they're necessary...see it's just crystal clear. Plus Obama hasn't discussed the enforcement mechanism to the mandates in his child portion of his plan at least that I have seen.
Sadly you see just like the republicans he truly believes that if everyone could just afford to buy health insurance they would.. (heh and I got some real cheap waterfront property in Louisianna I want to sell you Senator Obama)and that is the problem. Obama's program also states that those in financial need would qualify for gov't subsidies (and those subsidies would come from where... his money making machine??? no that would be tax dollars but Obama supporters don't seem to discuss that detail yet). Anyway this is just more Bush-lite ownershit society crap...with lipstick on it to disguise it.
Anyway it's truly amazing and sad how many Obama supporters that claimed sad that they were Democrats, that I heard say/argue that mandates are the most horrible things they've ever heard of and that they don't know how our gov't could ever contemplate such an inhumane thing! Never fully realizing (or denying it)that by spouting this nonsense they are not only basically undermining the basic tenets of Social SEcurity for seniors, but also Medicare part A and other such programs such as SSI ( disability)....never mind going against every core Democratic value and belief states, that our gov't, if it wants to, CAN be used for the good of it's people. sigh. As you can see it grates me especially knowing that many of these oldtimer blogoshperic Obama supporters were most likely Dean fanatics if they were around back in 2004.
Anyway Paul Krugman speaks for me on this issue. He's a must read for and he's taken quite a unfair flak from those Obama supporters on this matter...but he wipes the floor with them in terms of facts, knowlege, and details everytime. And to be perfectly honest this issue and Krugman's commentary on it helped push me to support Hillary. Krugman was one of the very brave and very few who publically spoke out on the Iraq War issue and Bush/Cheney policies and used his important bully pulpit as Op-ed writer in the NYT even whe it wasn't very publically/politically hip and popular back in 2000-2004 or so to take them on... Even when Bush had popularity and positive approval ratings above 50. He's been consistently right and humble about it from the beginning...and that goes a loooongggg way in my book.
In a very personal framework, there are a lot of things I don't understand about "mandatory" health care coverage.
I have three chronic health conditions (one is diabetes) and I am only able to work part time making about $1,000 a month.
Because of my pre-existing conditions, I currently can't obtain health insurance for less than about $1,000 a mont -- my entire income. For me, this is not a reasonable cost and so I go without health insurance.
If a mandate to buy health insurance takes effect, is there any reason to believe they will overlook my pre-existing conditions and sign me up for a cost I can afford, say the $100 a month I currently spend on my own health care?
I don't hear anyone out there saying what will happen to people like me.
Posted by Lainey at February 6, 2008 02:29 PMThe answer is that Obama will elimimate SS, obviously. The indications are all there: The praise of Reagan, the disdain for the left, the fact that ALL his economic advisers are strongly pro-privatization.
Posted by MarkL at February 6, 2008 02:30 PMas i understand it, under hillary's plan EVERYONE is included, and there will be subsidies for those who cannot afford it.
Posted by Turkana at February 6, 2008 02:31 PMThanks for the reply, Turkana.
I should have included this: One of the things I've heard is that people will get a tax refund to defray the cost of health insurance when they can't afford the premiums.
Do you think that's true? People like me wouldn't be able to wait a whole year for reimbursement.
Posted by at February 6, 2008 02:39 PMif a mandate to buy health insurance takes effect, is there any reason to believe they will overlook my pre-existing conditions and sign me up for a cost I can afford, say the $100 a month I currently spend on my own health care?
YES. Clinton's plan has a provision that insurance companies must offer the same coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions. But you can only get the insurance companies to do this if there is a mandate, which would spread the risk by including healthy people in the pool. Obama's plan will try to make insurance companies take everyone, but without a mandate. Fat chance. Also, Clinton's plan caps premiums at a(n undetermined) percentage of income, so yes, you would get coverage and it would not cost you your entire paycheck.
Orange, great summary.
Turkana, I've been wondering the exact same thing.
Yesterday I was discussing this with my Obama-fan friend and she said she didn't like mandates because: now we have mandated car insurance, but poor people still drive without insurance and then when they hit you, you have to pay for it out of your own insurance. I told her that her car insurance analogy was how things are now--poor people without insurance go to the ER and we all pay for it with higher premiums. Universal health insurance would solve that problem. Got her to pause on that one.
Posted by CG at February 6, 2008 02:51 PMI should have included this: One of the things I've heard is that people will get a tax refund to defray the cost of health insurance when they can't afford the premiums.
That would be the republican plan, as I understand it. I don't know McCain's specific plan, but that's what I've heard in general on the republican side.
Posted by CG at February 6, 2008 02:53 PMHillary's plan does a number of things for people in your situation, Lainey:
1) It requires insurers to give insurance to everyone, at a fair price, regardless of pre-existing conditions or risk. So they can't deny you coverage because of your health problems.
2) If you can't afford these premiums, Hillary's plan will limit the fraction of your income that you have to spend on health care. This will indeed be done through a refundable tax credit, but I'd be surprised if it wouldn't be structured so that it would be paid to you throughout the year. So you'll definitely be able to afford it.
Having looked at Hillary's plan somewhat carefully, I think it's fair to say that it was designed for people exactly like you--who right now want insurance, but can't get it due to the practices of the industry and your health problems.
Obama has been saying that Hillary's plan boils down to requiring people to go out and buy insurance on the market, even if you can't afford it. To put it bluntly, he is lying. Or to use Paul Krugman's phrase, this is unscrupulous demagoguery.
Good luck, Lainey. I'm not particularly optimistic that Hillary will win the primary, but I know the reason she's in this is to help people exactly like you.
Posted by Orange at February 6, 2008 03:04 PMUnder Hillary's plan, payments toward healthcare are cappped at a percentage of income.
There are no figures that I know of yet for what the %age is--probably depends on Congressional developed details.
There are also subsidies for those who cannot afford healthcare costs.
Obama requires all parents to pay for healthcare insurance for their children--that is a mandate. I haven't heard him address why that is acceptable, but having mandates for all to achieve universal care is not.
I think he might be going after young voters, those who think they are invincible, won't get "really" sick, etc. I think the SocSec is in "crisis" is another part of his wooing younger voters as a high percentage of them have absorbed the ReThug message that they will never see SocSec payments for themselves.
I may be wrong--but I think it's that simple.
And, of course, there is a difference between helping the homeless find places to live and requiring every homeless person "to buy a house." I would have expected a better argument from a Harvard grad.
Posted by jawbone at February 6, 2008 03:09 PMBecause anything Obama says is okay.
Posted by NYGiants!Woohoo at February 6, 2008 03:09 PMCG: You should ask your friend how Obama's plan--not requiring people to have car insurance--would help.
Besides, the whole analogy is silly. You might as well say that an apple is like an orange, and therefore we shouldn't try to make pie out of it.
Posted by Orange at February 6, 2008 03:09 PMThe English and their NHS is trying to keep cost down. Now they're thinking about cutting care to the elderly and to people who abuse their bodies, like alcohol, drugs, or are obese. Another piece in the fine print had an elimination of social abortions. Do you want a president, any president, to be able through Executive Order to change our universal healthcare terms? EO's have the weight of law. If the British NHS can eliminate social abortions, how easy would it be for our president to?
CG: You should ask your friend how Obama's plan--not requiring people to have car insurance--would help.
Good idea. I wasn't that quick when I was talking to her.
Posted by CG at February 6, 2008 04:39 PM"One of the things I've heard is that people will get a tax refund to defray the cost of health insurance when they can't afford the premiums."
And Jail if they do not buy into the Hillary plan. Sounds like the IRS to me....
"I told her that her car insurance analogy was how things are now--poor people without insurance go to the ER and we all pay for it with higher premiums."
And a "mandate" will change this circumstance (exactly) how?
"There are also subsidies for those who cannot afford healthcare costs."
Yeah for income re-distribution!
"Now they're thinking about cutting care to the elderly and to people who abuse their bodies, like alcohol, drugs, or are obese."
Please do not point out that "universal healthcare" includes rationing: rationing is irrational to...well, irrational Leftists.
Posted by Bagley at February 6, 2008 05:17 PMOdd.
No one jumping in to plug Obama's health insurance proposal?
Hillary's plan has three major problems. First, the mandates are being framed as an individual responsibility and not a national effort to insure healthcare for all. That is not analogous to Social Security or Medicare. Second, "subsidies" are always subject to attacks from the opposition. A major reason why Social Sec and Medicare have stood the test of time while other social welfare programs have been whittled down. Third, it relies on private insurance. It's likely that with very minor adjustments, total healthcare costs with access for everybody would be no more than what is spent today but that cannot be realized as long as 22-30% is being wasted on administrative costs and profits.
Posted by Marie at February 6, 2008 07:20 PMHaving looked at Hillary's plan somewhat carefully,...
One would think you would know more about it.
I don't hear anyone out there saying what will happen to people like me.
Take a look at Clinton's website. What little information is available on the three plans she talks about is there. There is a lot of "you'll get a new pony" stuff. Reading between the lines and knowing the healthcare plan the Senate receives makes it pretty improbable that anyone will get that plan. That means you would have 1 of 16 private doctors at your immediate call without a wait and access to the most advanced medical hospital in the world, for about $140.00 a month. Call me a pessimist, I just don't think you'll get that plan.
She has a plan she calls "quality public plan" that for the life of me can't be distinguished from anything else she talks about, but you'll pay for it none-the-less.
Her plan is vague and full of promises, as any vague plan can be full of promises since there needs to be no substance.
Obama is the only one of the two to let "nationalized healthcare" slip out during a debate. I'll take that hint for the future over anything Clinton "plans" for healthcare.
Clinton's plan is essentially the Romney plan. Indeed, those here are spouting Romney's talking points. I find that too darn funny! And the MA plan has some real problems. It's mandatory yet many people don't have insurance, and it's only twice as expensive as expected.
Posted by phidipides at February 6, 2008 07:37 PMWays to defray healthcare cost:
Subsidy: Money given up front to assist with payment example: HUD Section 8 payments to landlords given each month to subsidize rent.
Tax Credit: Given at the end of the tax year to qualified individuals.
HRC healthcare plan will give a subsidy to people who need assistance with healthcare cost.
At least thats the way I read it.
Posted by J Rae at February 6, 2008 08:40 PMOne Obama bunny explained it sort of like this. 'Single Payer is free because it is paid for out of taxes; mandates are evil because it makes people pay money.' The level of economic ignorance in this is breathtaking. Like not understanding 'pooling of risk'. Or the concept of mandatory purchasing making something more affordable and giving greater benefits. And then there is the fact that diseases are infectious. Even some cancers have been shown to be infectious. Everyone is at risk for some health problems, now or in the future. And everyone should be paying for health care in general out of their own self interest.
Posted by DaleA at February 6, 2008 09:47 PMTo Marie:
- She doesn't refer to it as mandates--she frames it as "shared responsibility". I suppose that's true in the sense that paying taxes to fund the military is a shared responsibility.
- Subsidies may be unpopular, but there's no other way to provide health care for people who can't afford it. Obama's plan also has subsidies, so if it's a weakness of Clinton's, it's a weakness of Obama's.
- A key part of Clinton's plan is the creation of a new public health plan that will be modeled on Medicare (though it will not be administered through the Medicare trust fund). Ideally, without the need for profit and taking advantage of Medicare's very low administrative costs, this plan will have a competitive advantage over private insurance, and either force them to improve or go out of business.
To answer a comment somewhere else...
- The idea of opening up the plan that Congress gets will be done by allowing everyone to participate in the benefits plan available to federal employees. I think it will even be administered by the same agency.
Posted by Orange at February 7, 2008 01:20 AM