They're both offering "affordable" Corporate Care.

There are differences but they're both a far cry from Single Payer.

I agree that single payer is the way to go, and that neither plan has that.

But universal and single payer aren't the same. From the diary, it looks to me like Hillary has both a mandate for universal coverage, and a mechanism to cover it. Obama's plan doesn't. So he has the free rider problem:

However, without mandating coverage, a "free rider" problem is created. Under Obama's plan, healthy people can choose not to buy health insurance until they experience a medical problem. At that point, they can simply buy into a plan with no added cost concerning their sickness.

In essence, they can free ride on the system while they're healthy, and they can just join up when they get sick. They won't be added to the pool until they're high risk, themselves. This increases costs for all.

At one point, Obama suggested he might create a penalty for people who attempt this scheme. There are two problems with this. First, Obama hasn't actually proposed it. Second, it's the same basic problem as underwriting--people will be charged more for coverage if they're sick, which makes it less likely that the people who need care the most will be able to afford it.

Could you imagine if we had a Medicare or Social Security system that allowed free riders? The healthy and wealthy could opt out of the system until something bad happened to their health or their wealth. At that point, they could buy into the system at the last minute and receive all of the same benefits as the people who have been buying into the system since Day 1.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Clinton dismisses single payer out of hand and describes her plan as "personal responsibility," which is a classic right-wing talking point. At the end of the day, I would expect Hillary-care to be something on the order of a law requiring you to purchase ridiculously priced insurance from the companies that are stuffing cash into her and Obama's pockets. What a joke . . .

Take Pelosi "off the table." Support Cindy: www.cindyforcongress.org

It gives a huge hammer to hit companies over costs and could even, in the long run, lead to single payer. Why? For the same reason Republicans can never kill Social Security. Once everyone has health insurance, they aren't going to want to give it up. So if costs continue to rise, the government will have to do something, but the one thing it won't do is take coverage away because that would be political death. This is why, IMO, Republicans are going to fight universal healthcare with everything they've got - they know that once people have it, Republicans are screwed.

Even more importantly, in the short term, mandates make a huge difference in the cost of healthcare. The difference is contained in a very nice chart on Paul Krugman's blog here - http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02... .

According to everyone that I've read (except the Obama campaign, the American Enterprise Institute, and an Iowa college newspaper) there's simply no way to get to universality without mandates. And universality is the key to controlling costs - and regulating the industry - not only now, but in the future.

In my mind, universal healthcare is the domestic equivalent of the Iraq war. The only difference is that the Iraq War vote is in the past and my vote in the election can't change that. But universal healthcare is in the future and my vote can sure as hell have an impact on that.

I'll also note that I think Clinton is truly dedicated to is universal healthcare. If you listen to her, she's pretty much basing her campaign on it - specifically running as the universal healthcare candidate. That, IMO, is how you build a mandate. If she wins, it would be hard to say that she didn't have a mandate for UHC. Obama, OTOH, will have a mandate for change and unity, whatever the hell that is.

Iowa College Newspaper. Think an OFB planted it in th paper, then used it for the campaign? Heh.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Hillary's saying what she plans to do, and then asking us to vote for her?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Another right wing talking point. Sigh. Not only that, I went to the source, and the writer distorts the link:

“It is urgent that the rest of the country know that Massachusetts is a living laboratory for the health care reforms being pushed in California and by the Obama/Clinton/Edwards campaigns. Right now the Gov. Romney/Massachusetts’ plan gets a failing grade on the ground,” said Dr.Rachel Nardin, Assistant Professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School.

So, the author has issues with all the Democratic plans, not just with Hillary's.

So, right wing talking point? Distorted evidence? Hillary slam? I'd say OFB, definitely. Everything's justified when done in service to He Who Is Obama...

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

While I agree that Hillarycare is significantly better than Barackcare, neither is likely to be enacted into law. Once you involve the insurance companies, you have failed to contain costs and your plan will be defeated as too expensive and a burden on the taxpayers.

No Republican is going to vote for any health plan proposed by Hillary Clinton - that's a suicidal gesture among the wingnuts. Obama will ride the Unity Pony until we end up with something as ridiculous as the Bush Medicare Prescription Drug Program.

Instead of wasting valuable progressive energies on either of these center-right candidates, let's focus on the Congress. If we can move the Congress to the left, get more single-payer advocates in the House and Senate, we can move the debate where it needs to go.

Wherever there's a potential for pain, we need to prod them left...

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

I know, I know, he has no credibility because he's deigned to notice that Obama's healthcare plan isn't nearly as good as Clinton's, but Krugman has looked at the info from Massachusetts - http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02...

Among other things, he notes that

And there have, indeed, been some very downbeat reports in the media lately.

The problem is that they’re all wrong. People are confusing an increase in costs that was largely (not completely) anticipated — after all, the plan is supposed to cover more people, and subsidize their coverage — with a cost overrun.

Obama's plan is not as good as Clinton's. One of the things that scares me most about Obama is the tendency of his supporters to support every single thing he says, regardless of how demonstrably untrue it is. It reminds me too much of the Cult of Personality that has been George W. Bush.

And before I get a 1000 comments, no, I don't think Obama's policies are anything like Bush's. That's not what I said, go back and re-read it.