<p>overseas- isn’t it interesting how BBC refers to the “US occupation in Iraq” when reporting the news?</p>
<p>I like Hillary, but know many who will NOT vote for her at any time. They intend to vote for Barack in the primary. </p>
<p>This thread is very appropriate because it addresses that underlying “venomous hatred” many feel regarding Hillary.
It scares me.</p>
<p>
Valid question–I don’t have the answer. Would government just provide? If so, then another way that personal responsibility is not encourage today. For example, my d. works as a waitress and is not covered by our family plan. She pays for personal blue cross. However, she says that she is one of the few people who has coverage where she works. The other servers say they cannot afford–but they can afford to go clubbing, buy Coach purses, travel, etc. It is all in priorities in this case. These are young people with no pre-existing conditions that could easily get coverage, but opt not to and take their chances.</p>
<p>“Valid question–I don’t have the answer. Would government just provide?”</p>
<p>Thank you for seeing it that way, I was concerned that it would come off as smart-alecky but it was a serious question. I could really see the actual enforcement component becoming very expensive, but am I missing something?</p>
<p>Zoosermom:</p>
<p>There are many who do not have health insurance. In MA, many were employees of small businesses whose owners felt they could not afford to provide insurance. The state worked with them to lower the cost of health insurance for small businesses. Others are self-employed or unemployed. Obviously, the unemployed cannot afford health insurance. As for the employed, some decide to take the risk that they will not fall ill. MA passed a policy that tried to force everyone to get health insurance, subsidizing those who could not pay. For this group, documentation of lack of income was required. I expect a tax return would do.
MA has become concerned that not enough people registered for health insurance despite a huge amount of publicity; at the same time the cost of subsidizing those who are deemed not to be able to afford it has soared. MA can absorb the cost; most states could not. This is the experience that has made me think about the practical issues of mandating universal health care.</p>
<p>A couple of other points. Both Obama and Clinton realize that the uninsured put a drain on ERs where the cost of treating patients is much higher; that they usually wait until they are quite sick before seeking out care, which is again less effective and more costly than regular, preventive care. This is where some of the savings would be realized if health insurance was expanded. ERs could return to treating real emergencies.
As well, when the uninsured have to pay for health care, they pay a great deal more than the insured, because the latter have large HMOs or insurance companies going to bat for them and the uninsured do not. Thanks to my HMO, for instance, I pay $15 for my monthly medication. If I had to pay out of pocket, it would be $40. The same goes for medical procedures, large and small.</p>
<p>EDIT: Yes, enforcement would be expensive. Obama raised that issue several times and did not get an answer. MA has not yet figured out what to do about enforcement.</p>
<p>Personally I believe that both Barack and Hilary are in the running because of their respective minority status. If they were run of the mill, middle-age white guys, no one would have looked at them.</p>
<p>I am sure lots of us know people around the country. I happen to know a lot of people in red states who truly detest Hillary/Bill and are favorably inclined toward Obama, so I’m speaking from my own anecdotal information, but after the election, I think Obama would find it much easier to govern and gain consensus. There is such a huge accumulation of mistrust and ill will toward the Clintons, and not without reason. And I too have heard that the Republicans are waiting in the wings with revelations about what Bill has been up to, wanting to spring it all if she gets the nomination because they would rather face her than Obama. Gossip, just repeating :D</p>
<p>They are both wonderful public servants. Still, I believe that the population will be so much more energized and hopeful with Barack at the helm and Hillary in a very important cabinet position. JMHO (and I mean that quite literally!)</p>
<p>“For this group, documentation of lack of income was required. I expect a tax return would do”</p>
<p>Marite, thank you so much for taking the time to explain how things have been in Massachusetts. In my borough, we have two relatively small private hospitals to serve a community of 500,000. One of those hospitals is in bankruptcy because of the cost of treating the uninsured (we have no public hospital), so I am very sensitive to the issue of having people insured. I am genuinely interested in how the details will work. Being cynical and living in New York where the state mobilizes all of its forces to berate people to sign up for child healthcare despite lack of genuine need, I can really see the mandate for coverage being abused.</p>
<p>As you discuss the merits of each of the health plan proposals, which is very important to do, but do you think these plans get through the senate and house completely unchanged. </p>
<p>Aren’t these plans just the blueprint, the masterplan, the candidate puts forth, knowing that a Congress will have input, and there may be substantial differences from the original proposal?</p>
<p>Correct me if I am wrong in assuming the candidates are only putting forth their “wish” lists.</p>
<p>Doesn’t it matter more who they intend to bring on as their “team” to guide them?</p>
<p>Zoosermom:</p>
<p>The idea of insuring the healthy is to spread the cost of insurance.
The young and healthy balance out the old and ill.
S2 has not had one day of illness since he was 9 months old. Not even the sniffles. But he is covered by our family health plan until he turns 25. He has had yearly flu shots and the meningitis vaccine free under that plan. Because of genetics, I expect him to start having an expensive yearly medical check up beginning at 20 (as his brother has had). The cost of this procedure will come to $15. If out of pocket, it would be around $1,500.</p>
<p>SouthJerseyChessmom: You are right. Still, I think it is better to present a plan that has <em>some</em> hope of passing.</p>
<p>I am a life long republican and I am voting for Hillary! She does have more experience that Obama, and she is far more intellligent than McCain!</p>
<p>I really have never liked her, or her husband. Looking back on the Clinton years I hate to admit it but, Clinton was better with the economy than Bush!</p>
<p>Hillary has a much better understanding about the economy and foreign policy than any canidate out there.</p>
<p>I have gotten over my animosity for her and I think others should too for the sake of out country!</p>
<p>I’ve never been a Hillary hater and never understood it either. I listened to the first half of last nights debate and like her better than ever. I especially like her stand on healthcare - I don’t care where that money comes from - I think we need universal healthcare. I know so many people who are making decisions not to see doctors or to take jobs they don’t like just because of being afraid losing health insurance. But I will likely pull the lever for Obama on Tuesday, because at this point he seems safer. (And the thought of something like Bill’s second term repeating itself is unbearable.)</p>
<p>“The idea of insuring the healthy is to spread the cost of insurance.
The young and healthy balance out the old and ill.” </p>
<p>I understand that, I was asking about the implementation of the requirement component.</p>
<p>“(And the thought of something like Bill’s second term repeating itself is unbearable.)”</p>
<p>Exactly. I’m far and away not a Hillary fan, but I’ve always acknowledged her hard work and level of engagement in our state. She is an excellent senator for a blue state, meaning that I don’t agree with her positions but don’t expect to. Bill just needs to go away. If she kicks him to the curb tomorrow, I’d vote for her!</p>
<p>From Patient’s post<br>
"And I too have heard that the Republicans are waiting in the wings with revelations about what Bill has been up to, wanting to spring it all if she gets the nomination because they would rather face her than Obama. '</p>
<p>With so many not quite sure who to vote for, but certain they want a Democrat as President, I encourage you to think one step ahead right now (like a chess game :)</p>
<p>Who is more electable in November? Paul Volcker just endorsed Obama-let’s envision the team Obama will assemble. We know Ted Kennedy has taken him under his wing, which will help move things through Congress, where the power really is.</p>
<p>Let’s envision the team Hillary will assemble-starting with Bill. M,m,m,m seems like the baggage is there, and more of the same in Washington. No?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree.^ This was Edwards’ main problem and the reason the media didn’t cover him. Another middle-age white guy seeking the presidency just doesn’t make news.</p>
<p>I agree, too, that regular preventive health care would-- in the long run-- save us all money. At present, each of us who has health care is paying more than we should. We’re paying for those who don’t have any insurance and who end up at the ER, and we’re paying for those who might have health insurance, but who actively refuse to look after their health.</p>
<p>Some interesting poll data posted today:</p>
<p>Democratic Candidate MA MA MA GA AL MN TN
Pollster SUSA Rass WNEC IADV AEA MPR IADV
Date 1/30 1/28 1/20-26 1/30 1/23-24,28-29 1/18-27 1/30
Hillary Clinton 57% 43% 43% 36% 35% 40% 59%
Barack Obama 33% 37% 15% 52% 40% 33% 26%
John Edwards - 11% 8% - 9% 12% -
Other(vol.) 10% 9% 31% 12% 16% 15% 15% </p>
<p>Sorry. It was lined up in columns on the polling site, buy didn’t cut and paste that way. If you can read it, it compares democratic candidates by states.</p>
<p>Post 66 nails it, i.m.o. In themselves, personality and personal perceptions/reactions (by others) are not major considerations. Taken within the reality of working together, achieving consensus, getting cooperation – “likeability” – or at least the absence of aversion --is important to getting the job done. </p>
<p>Think about it: If you’re “difficult,” abrasive, or carry other social baggage such as “a history,” you will either not be hired for a job for which otherwise you meet the qualifications supremely. Or your employment will be short. Or your company team & company results will suffer.</p>
<p>This is one of my (many) reasons for being very anti-McCain. He is known to be very difficult from a personality point of view, despite a contrasting behavior of “bipartisanship” or “independence.”</p>
<p>From a private point of view (private behavior), I find Bill way more distasteful than Hillary. However, he was able to separate that “department” of his personality from his public persona, in some ways. She has not done that.
JMO</p>
<p>And Edit: There are other females in government, plenty of them, that i.m.o. do not carry such baggage, while also being competent. Hillary is not being punished for being female + strong. She is being “punished” partly for personality factors, partly for being a political animal while claiming to be “different because female.” As others have pointed out, either in this thread or on another thread, she plays it both ways: she claims to want to be respected as an equal, with standards no different than applied to men, yet she makes constant reference to her gender as somehow a qualification, and ALSO plays dependency games by using her husband to do her dirty work. Sorry, don’t respect her. Don’t find her credible.</p>
<p>Maybe some women don’t like Hillary because she lies? (or not particularly effectively?)</p>
<p>It looks like AMom2 and dstark are republicans. I am technically a republican (too lazy to switch to independent). Now there’s this:</p>
<p><a href=“HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost”>HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost;
<p>Is it going to be “Republican Women for Hillary”?</p>
<p>note: I can’t stand Ann Coulter. Next thing you know Michelle Malkin will come out for Hillary.</p>
<p>No offense if I’ve misinterpreted anybody’s opinion. It just is beginning to look like Hillary is appealing a little more to republican women than to democratic women, I could be wrong.</p>
<p>On the bimbo issue, JFK had bimbos. Ted Kennedy killed his. Having Ted Kennedy endorse Obama is a plus for Hillary in my book.</p>
<p>You do have to look at who a candidate’s advisors will be. McCain has people advising him on the war who make Rumsfeld and Cheney look like girl scouts. Truly scary. Plus I’d forgotten how mean he is in public situations. Probably even meaner in private. I will probably vote for Romney in the primary.</p>