Why Won’t Barack Obama Answer This Question?
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in 2008 Election, Barack, Health Care, Hillary
This is the latest mailer from the Hillary campaign, and let me just say…GREAT question.
Personally, I don’t think that Asian guy deserves it. He looks pretty healthy, plus he’s kind of smug so no health care for him. And what about that young white guy or the young white gal? I’m sure they can get on daddy’s plan if they want. Nope, they don’t deserve it either.
Okay, all joking aside…folks, this is the level of discourse we’re getting now. This is what her campaign has turned into. Now Hillary is saying that Obama’s plan is somehow based on merit? Really?
The hits just keep on coming…
This entry was posted on Sunday, February 17th, 2008 and is filed under 2008 Election, Barack, Health Care, Hillary. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
February 17th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
This is classic politics, when the truth is against you, LIE! Billary want the WH and will do all of the Rovian tactics they can muster to get there.
February 17th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
I think someone should remix this and give it the following caption “Which of these people will Hillary’ fine for not purchasing health care?”
Seriously though, these negative ads are bad for the dems in general. Does she really care more about winning than about her party? I guess so….
February 17th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Wow, you are suddenly an obaman justin? Go Hilarry gal, Yes you can.
February 17th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
First I wanted to point out that there’s a life insurance ad right below that post. “For the person Obama doesn’t think deserves health care”.
The worst about all this, while there are certainly nuances between their two plans (Obama’s is opt-in, Hillary’s is cause massive federal financial downfall), and THIS is where Hillary attempts to hit Obama?
I think they may be off point a little.
February 17th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
I’m still trying to figure out how a person who failed tremendously at overhauling health care in her husband’s first term intends to be successful the second time around. I’m also trying to figure out where all this experience she supposedly has comes from — she was in the EAST WING during HER HUSBAND’S presidency, not the West Wing. Judging by the way she’s run her campaign–her loyalty to people simply because they’re loyal to her, whether or not they’re the right person for the job reminds me of our current president — I can’t see how she’s going to run a country. Will she simply cry when she doesn’t get what she wants? I’m just hoping Obama gives her a real reason to cry by destroying the ambition she’s been clinging to all the years she’s been putting up with her philandering husband’s shenanigans. I wonder is she ever asks herself if it was worth it–being a doormat in the hope’s she’d someday be president? All I can tell for sure is she’ll do or say anything for power. She’s a Clinton.
February 17th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
With a name like Donklephant I would expect you to shill for Clinton. She is a do nothing middle-of-the-road republican lite war enabler and so is this site.
From the Huffington Post:
Compelling people to buy insurance, however, is not the easiest sell. Big insurers and HMOs have a well deserved bad reputation for heartless denials of care - that’s how they make money. And, it’s pricey. Premiums the past decade have gone up 87 percent, not to mention the ever climbing bills for deductibles, co-pays, and a host of other transaction fees.
The finance industry is over the moon with this scheme.
For insurers, it means millions of new customers marched into their offices with the force of law. With no controls on costs, many consumers will just add on more debt. That’s a boon for the credit card companies and other financial institutions, but a heavy new burden on many of the same people now losing their homes or struggling with other financial hardship.
Moreover, it doesn’t work. The carrot is public subsidies for those least able to pay, but that approach has noticeable flaws, best evidenced in Massachusetts, the individual mandate pioneer and model.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rose-ann-demoro/the-new-bailout-individu_b_85717.html
This site is a joke, you are the Neville Chamberlain of American Politics.
February 17th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Okay.
How is Obama’s plan going to cover everyone if its voluntary?
splain please.
February 17th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Everyone volunteers for it?
February 17th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Everyone who needs it volunteers for it?
February 17th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
Seems like pretty standard political advertising to me. Obama’s plan doesn’t explicitly cover everyone — this is a forceful way of making that point. It doesn’t lie, it just exagerates, which happens in 90% of advertising and 99% of political advertising. What do you want her to do? Obama and Clinton are running on nearly identical platforms. She can’t out-charm him so she’s going to have to whip him on the few policy differences between them.
February 18th, 2008 at 12:43 am
She can’t out-charm him so she’s going to have to whip him on the few policy differences between them.
How Billary does this matters. Half-truths, misleading statements, and outright lies won’t help them. It only makes Barack more appealing, and right now, that’s the last thing Billary needs.
February 18th, 2008 at 8:00 am
“How is Obama’s plan going to cover everyone if its voluntary? splain please.”
If someone eligible but uninsured needs healthcare, they get it, no questions asked… and signed up immediately, I believe, while penalized later on in their life for not having it.
Basically, Obama’s plan is set up to strongly encourage people to join, through employer “opt-ins”, carrots and sticks. If you’re low-income, your insurance is subsidized. If you have young kids, they’re automatically covered.
If you intentionally choose to opt out of the program, and need to see a doctor later, you can sign up immediately, no questions asked. That said, you will apparently be penalized… not in some great lump sum that would discourage you from getting treatment, but in a delayed, over-time, relatively affordable manner.
So, basically, any American who needs to see a doctor with either Obama’s plan or Hillary’s plan will be able to do so once they are fully implemented. The issue is basically how the system chooses to deal with those who do not sign up for it. Obama’s method is a bit less divisive and easier to sell to conservatives, some of whom will presumably have to help approve any plan before it becomes law.
February 18th, 2008 at 8:09 am
The facts are simple in regard to the two plans.
Hillary wants universal health care for all.
Obama wants you to have the choice. To volunteer.
Well my friends volunteering to spend money on something you dont need is comical. If your 21 and healthy who is going to spend 150 bucks a month for health care? Some sure but My guess is about 90 percent of them will say no.
If you have 10 dollars left over each month after you barely pay the rent and food whose going to pay 150 dollars a month for health care for their family?
The problem with affordable health care is that it is just that……affordable to those who can afford it and even one dollar is not affordable for someone who has NO dollars.
I see Obama deserting the masses on this issue for votes. He is a DINO on this issue. His core supporters used to be angry over not having health care, now suddenly they are willing to settle for Voodoo economics to get their man in office. All you Bush/Reagan people out their might remember that from the 80 campaign.
Mandated health care IS NOT that big of a deal. They raise our taxes 4000 dollars a year and it cuts your health care premiums 4000 dollars a year what has it cost you? NOTHING. It just means that people now have coverage instead of hoping and praying they dont get sick this month.
Do I have every answer to every question about it? No. But until you try it you have NOTHING. Perscription drug benefits for Seniors was railed at as a failure. My mother now gets all her drugs for free because they are generic. 31 dollars a month premiums and free drugs instead of before she was spending close to 300 a month in drug premiums.
Amazing how all those doctors suddenly started prescribing Generics because the insurance companies were not making any money off name brands. Amazing how the drug companies started rushing named medicines into generic form.
Amazing what happens when you just DO IT.
February 19th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Universal coverage seems pretty simple really.
Single pool of insurers for ages: 0 to 199 (if you’re over 199, you’re on your own)
Covers: 2 doctor visits per year, 1 annual physical, immunizations, pre-natal care and life threatening major medical (Lung Cancer “yes”, Cleft Pallet “no”, hospitalized Asthma attack “yes”, daily Asthma treatment “no”, you get the idea) Everything else is out of pocket or through secondary insurance if you so desire. The point is to increase preventative care, decrease unnecessary doctor visits and eliminate people going to the Emergency Room for free non life-threatening medical care.
Premiums: Everyone pays the exact same premium, from birth ’til death indexed for inflation. If the government wants to offer tax credits to offset premiums for healthy living or for whatever pet project they have, that’s their discretion. But the premiums are the same for everyone. The young are little screwed and the old a little favored, but hey, most of us will get old sooner or later (the important thing is that you don’t allow diversification which promotes cherry-picking).
Investors: Anyone, anywhere can buy into the pool as an investment. There are no share voting rights conferred. Investing into the pool will likely not yield the highest possible return, but because of the diversity of the insured pool, will yield a very stable return. The government can if it so chooses again offer favorable tax treatment to further promote investment in this pool if it so chooses. (Changes the focus from bottom-line short-term performance to one of long term reliable return.)
Cost Controls: An annual list of common charges for a given service to serve as a guide for patients when deciding whether they should consent to additional testing, treatments or services, which may or may not be covered by their “universal coverage”.
Limiting damages received for medical malpractice.
A 15% reward of funds recovered payed to the informant for billing errors and fraud, can be made on behalf of a patient where there is written consent.
Refundable tax credit for x% of purchase price for favored drugs (generic, low-cost, reliable drugs)
The point is to control costs via reducing unnecessary services and charges elected by patients, limiting malpractice, reducing billing fraud and make sure everyone can afford their necessary prescription drugs.
Not sexy, but it makes a hell of a lot more sense to me than what’s being suggested by the republicrats.
February 19th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
* “diversification” in Premiums, should read “division”
February 19th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
People get your heads out of the clouds. “Universal Health Care” is a myth.
Mandated Insurance is what they are both selling. Neither plan is good for the uninsured.
Massachusetts has mandated insurance since the end of last year. The people (uninsured) that supposedly were going to benefit from it are the same people who can’t buy it. In addition, they are penalized for not being able to afford it.
How would you like your DOR to count your lack of medical insurance as a tax evasion? Exactly what is happening here in MA.
Ma’s legislature passed the law, the State made the policy and the Department of Revenue is ensuring you buy now or get penalized later.
Some of the “perks” of this mandatory insurance.
1. Estate recovery programs for people 55 and older
2. Your privacy and identity is endangered by 20+ agencies sharing your personal info without your permission. Agencies hat have no right getting in your business.
3. “Affordabililty” a very fluid concept.
Three scenario:
a. Get it for free (based on income)
b. get it subsidized if you qualify (based on income)
c. Everybody else forced to purchase it at exorbitant premiums for shoddy medical care. (based on income)
d. Doctors are refusing patients that are on this type of insurance because their return is diminished.
Hillary’s plan would be similar or worse as she plans to garnish people’s wages, if they don’t comply.
Obama’s ‘choice’ of opt-out would not last long.
They all reek! Down with obbligatory insurance!
Ma’s residents are getting together to fight it, regardless of political stripes.
February 19th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
For those that havenot fainted at the last post, here are more reasons to discard this whole mandated insurance.
1. ALL premiums will rise by 14%.
2. The State (MA) gets a 5% kickback on every policy it sells.
3. People are mandated to keep paying for the premium no matter the increases or how useless it is for them.
4. People must re-enroll once a year and resubmit their financial information. If the information they submit doesn’t match the State’s they get kicked off the plan they are on, fined and forced to buy a more expensive plan.
5. You have 10 days to notify the “Connector” (State agency) of any change of income…so they can charge you more.
6. The State and the DOR have added 16 pages to fill out on the 2007 income tax forms.
7. As of 1/08 ALL MA’s residents have had to upgrade their premium to meet the state’s “minumum creditable coverage.”
Lots more to this nightmare in progress, but I hope you get the idea.