Obama's Health Plan > Hilarys Plan

[ThePhrozenPhoenix]

Hilary Clinton is again withholding information to the citizens of the United States. Her argument is that her health plan "affects all the people in the country." Yes, that's true, but in an unlikable fashion. She is requiring all citizens adopt her plan. "And what about the people who cannot afford that plan?" Obama points out. "She refuses to tell us how much she would FINE people who cannot afford her plan." Obama says the reason so many people don't have health insurance is because they can't afford. From what I can tell, Hilary's plan would be dumping salt on a wound. According to Obama, his plan would save American citizens "$2,500." More than any other candidates.

Main article here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071125/ap_o n_el_pr/obama_clinton

Obama's solution is clearly the best. I also just think that Hilary Clinton's personality turns me off. Another thing to notice is that if we elect Hilary, (and she gets re-elected) we would have 28 years of Bushs and Clintons. How much worse are we going to make our country?

[SmilezRoyale]

1) Of course, according to obama, clinton's plan isn't going to work, why would he say otherwise?

2) I couldn't find in the article where it said what obama's plan would be. Really when i read it, i got the jist of this; "Clinton is going to force us to buy insurance we can't afford"

[fahrenheit]

At 11/25/07 07:10 PM, ThePhrozenPhoenix wrote: we would have 28 years of Bushs and Clintons. How much worse are we going to make our country?

How is that an argument?

[Lindione]

in my opinion, forcing peope to buy health insurance is wrong since they might be trying to send a kid throuh school with the money of not buying health insurance or putfood on the table. never should a completely healthy person have to choose between health insurance and food/ heating/water/electric.

[TheMason]

I posted this question on the other current healthcare topic: where are we going to get the money from?

Over 60% of the federal budget goes to entitlements. In his book Colossus, Harvard Historian Niall Ferguson talks about how it is our entitlement programs and not military adventurism that will bring down the American economy unless things are done to fix Social Security and Medicare/aid.

While universal healthcare would be nice, it costs a ton of money that we frankly do not have. And when the government spends itself into bankruptcy, who is going to pay the doctor's bills then? Where will money for highways and retiree's social security payments come from?

[cellardoor6]

At 11/25/07 07:10 PM, ThePhrozenPhoenix wrote: Obama points out. "She refuses to tell us how much she would FINE people who cannot afford her plan."

Pwn.

If I get the jest of it... Clinton's system forces healthcare on people, and fines people who don't buy it which is ironic. Obama's healthcare plan simply provides for people who aren't insured and want to be insured.

Kind of funny though if you think about Clinton's plan. it's basically saying "you don't want healthcare? TAKE THIS AHAHAHA, take this healthcare and pay for it OR ELSE!". Obama is saying "you need healthcare? take this".

Both systems are flawed in that even Obama's plan (which is good compared to Clinton's atrocity) will result in a larger government, higher taxes, more government spending, more bureaucracy etc... But I see more logic in Obama's plan.

[Gunter45]

At 11/27/07 03:26 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: But I see more logic in Obama's plan.

Or, rather, the illogic in Hillary's. Hillary Clinton has always come across as someone who wants government to tell the citizens exactly what to do and how to do it and, frankly, that pisses me off. The government's job is not to tell people how to spend their money or how to raise their children, that is the duty of the citizens. The government is meant to serve the people, not tell them what to do. That is ass-fucking-backwards.

[RedSkunk]

Anyone have any specifics or are we just dealing in vague political snipes?

(Gunter, need a paper bag to hyperventilate into?)

[SlithVampir]

At 11/27/07 04:40 AM, Gunter45 wrote: The government's job is not to tell people how to spend their money or how to raise their children, that is

Oprah's job. lulz.

Oh yeah, Ewards and Kucinich have the best health plans.

[Abele]

At 11/27/07 04:04 PM, SlithVampir wrote:

Oh yeah, Ewards and Kucinich have the best health plans.

...Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Kucinich want universal health care?

[TonyTostieno]

From what I understand both plans just don't work. Obama is coming to close to socialized healthcare for my taste (folks if I'm missing something please forgive me, I'm extremely tired right now so just point it out and don't rag on me for it), and Hilary is just being a plain dumbass.

[TonyTostieno]

Speaking of Hilary vs. Obama, why are they like the leading candidates? They both suck so hard it's not even funny.

[cellardoor6]

At 11/27/07 04:40 AM, Gunter45 wrote:

At 11/27/07 03:26 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: But I see more logic in Obama's plan.

Or, rather, the illogic in Hillary's.

Well I see logic in Obama's at face value... while Clinton's system is just an atrocity (at all levels), as I said.

Obama's plan is logical because it's essentially a system where the private industry stays intact, and the government provides healthcare funding, through the private industry, for people who can't afford it. People still get to keep their current plans. People aren't forced into a single payer system or anything like that, there is just a bit of assistance for people who can't afford healthcare and WANT healthcare. The idea is that the government provides assistance instead of forcing government healthcare down the throat of the country.

Clinton's system is basically a giant leap into socialism. It's basically government mandated healthcare, with penalties for people who don't fall inline. It's still through the private sphere, but it would be nearing the point of no return, where social healthcare would become the norm.

Hillary Clinton has always come across as someone who wants government to tell the citizens exactly what to do and how to do it and, frankly, that pisses me off.

And the funny thing is... by contrast, she is centrist or even relatively conservative compared to some other democrats.

The government's job is not to tell people how to spend their money or how to raise their children, that is the duty of the citizens. The government is meant to serve the people, not tell them what to do.

That's where liberal ideology begs to differ. By telling the people what to do, liberals think they're serving the people by saving them from themselves. They think they are saving them from their own choices which will be inherently wrong according to them if those choices don't reflect the liberal agenda.

That is ass-fucking-backwards.

Quite so.

[ThePhrozenPhoenix]

At 11/27/07 09:58 PM, TonyTostieno wrote: Speaking of Hilary vs. Obama, why are they like the leading candidates?

It's a battle between who will be the democratic representative.

They both suck so hard it's not even funny.

Well, that's your crappy opinion (actually I agree with you in terms of Hilary).

[ThePhrozenPhoenix]

At 11/25/07 07:32 PM, fahrenheit wrote:

At 11/25/07 07:10 PM, ThePhrozenPhoenix wrote: we would have 28 years of Bushs and Clintons. How much worse are we going to make our country?

How is that an argument?

Because they've both fucked up our country.

[RobSoko315]

At 11/25/07 07:32 PM, fahrenheit wrote:

At 11/25/07 07:10 PM, ThePhrozenPhoenix wrote: we would have 28 years of Bushs and Clintons. How much worse are we going to make our country?

How is that an argument?

I think that's a very valid argument. The Bush / Clinton administration is become like the Zhang Dynasty of Ancient China, and before you know it, they'll have too much power.

[therealsylvos]

At 11/28/07 10:44 PM, RobSoko315 wrote:

I think that's a very valid argument. The Bush / Clinton administration is become like the Zhang Dynasty of Ancient China, and before you know it, they'll have too much power.

And the Fact that they are diametrically opposed means nothing?