tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6757412088323843163.post5008493976123295578..comments2024-02-15T06:40:30.058-06:00Comments on DREAM ACT - TEXAS: Please don't sing to us in SpanishMarie-Theresa Hernández, PhDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06010416361776783800noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6757412088323843163.post-81094813134916640022008-02-01T18:26:00.000-06:002008-02-01T18:26:00.000-06:00Here's an article about why Hillary's health care ...Here's an article about why Hillary's health care plan is superior to Barack's health care plan (the article also talks about a negative attack mailer from the Obama camp). <BR/><BR/>http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=02&year=2008&base_name=health_care_debate_mandates_as<BR/><BR/>The main problem with the lack of mandates in the Obama plan is that people can skip health insurance until of course, they get sick and the public has to subsidize their treatment, which is one of the reasons why health care is so expensive. Having insurance would allow for preventative measures to take place instead of waiting until your really sick to go to the hospital. The author of the article (from The American Prospect, a liberal publication) explains it much better than I: <BR/><BR/>"Meanwhile, here's how Clinton should have explained the problem in Obama's plan: A central tenet of his proposal is that " No insurance companies will be allowed to discriminate because of a previous bout with cancer or some other pre-existing illness." You literally cannot have that rule without some mechanism forcing everyone to buy in, as the healthy will stay out. So one of two things will happen during the legislative process: Either a mandate will be added, or the prohibition against preexisting will be dropped, or limited to Obama's National Health Insurance Exchange. What will happen in that case is that the Exchange will largely become the domain of the public insurer, which will be a catch-all for the ill and unhealthy. Meanwhile, most insurers will operate outside the Exchange -- you don't have to buy insurance within the Exchange, it's just an option -- and use the existence of the Exchange to enhance their ability to skim the healthy and young and fob off the sick and old. A mandate is not how you cover everyone, it's how you force insurers to cover everyone, and discriminate against no one. And even if you don't have a mandate in your plan, to argue against universal mechanisms because they force people to buy insurance is supremely damaging to the long-term goal, which Obama professes support for, of some system in which everyone is, and has to be, covered." <BR/><BR/>Obama's plan is good and much better than anything the Republicans offer. But Hillary's plan is better because her plan is actually universal, provides more health care subsidies for everyone, and forces the insurance companies (without loopholes) to stop cherry picking clients.<BR/><BR/>C_DAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6757412088323843163.post-59722483774097933512008-02-01T04:03:00.000-06:002008-02-01T04:03:00.000-06:00Barack Obama's Health Care is the Same Universal H...Barack Obama's Health Care is the Same Universal Health Care offered by Hillary but with one Major Difference: You Have the Option of Choice! Do you want to be forced to pay for medical insurance like you are mandated to pay your auto insurance now? Or would you rather have the option of CHOICE --to be able to decide whether or not you want to buy your medical coverage at this time? This way Barack Obama's plan does not put another mandated cost, like auto insurance, on the backs of the people, especially the young who already have college costs to contend with. However, the coverage is always there for you, if and when you need it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com