so instead of reporting FAKE news, such as this, how about giving it some SUBSTANCE, like what ARE the differences between the two candidates health plans???? ... of course, this would require research and dealing with the issues and the facts... WAAAY too boring for mainstream infotainment... funny you never hear much about polls taken on the news industry... i bet their approval rating would be lower than bush's...

If HRC continues to attack Obama on the healthcare reform issue, she will loose the nomination because it is becoming more clear that HRC is doing it out of desperation,for I still don't beleive that HRC has been talking about the same issue for almost three weeks. HRC had 8 years with a democratic Congress to pass her plan, she failed. Now, how can we believe in her this time that she will succeed since she still refuses to release her records as first Lady.

Bill and Hillary Clinton think that american people are stupid. How Bill could say that he was his fault that healthcare reform did not pass during those 8 years. That was stupid thing to say. I think HRC campaign needs to remove this guy from the campaing because he is hurting HRC especially with his new stump speech that he was against the war from the beginning when his wife authorized it.Both have some serious explanation to make regarding their difffernces on that Iraq issue.

Like Edwards' healthcare plans, participation in Obama-care would be mandatory. You will comply.

Obama says he would enforce his socialist vision of healthcare for all children by FINING parents if they refused to commit to coverage for their children. “I am happy to be very clear how we enforce mandates for children, and the reason is because children don’t have an option.” Yeah, let’s hear it for freedom of choice.

Obama and Edwards would turn the doctor’s office into a police office by forcing parents to sign their kids up for health insurance or face fines. And if they don’t pay the fines, then what? Do we jail the parents, and whisk away their kids to some state-run orphanage? Do we garnish their wages, thereby confiscating their money to pay for something that they didn’t voluntarily pay for?

What about for illegal aliens? Currently, we have 12 to 20 million in the country illegally, stressing hospitals by failing to pay for treatments that they’re seeking. Only an absurd government would force illegal aliens to sign up for mandatory health care coverage--but then turn around and let them get away with actually being here illegally in the first place.

none of them address the real issure regading health care plans: that it is a for profit business and that the earn that profit it is in the best interest of insurance companies to limit and deny coverage. A national health insurance is the only thing that makes sense if there can be an agreement that the nations health is as vital a social service as education or defense.

If that can be accepted then the issue at hand is not health care, but the cost of health care, how it would be paid for and the particular impact on the people. The statistics I have access to show that approximately $1.8 trillion dollars is spent on health care in the U.S. or approximately $6000 per person, twice that and more than other industrialized western nations. Despite spending so much, over 15% of our population is without any health insurance and cannot afford to see a doctor for preventive care and health maintenance, and that up to 60% have insurance with inadequate coverage, and high premiums and deductibles. If you accept that health care is an essential service and the health of the nation has an affect on production, education, economy, and general welfare, it would be in the best interest to have a national insurance plan that would take the dollars already being spent and insure that most of them go to directly provide health care to individuals.
First order would be to insure that the government would be banned from building or operating any civilian hospital. Medical care for the military would not be affected but there will not be any government run hospitals for the public. It is critical that medical facilities and providers remain competitive and independent.
Costs: Capping malpractice insurance rates at a percentage of income and awards for litigation. By allowing hospitals to compete for patients with the guarantee that every patient seen will have their costs covered, overall cost of coverage will come down, the goal being no higher than $3500 annually per capita or $1.05 trillion, needed per year. This amount is on par with the per capita cost of other industrialized states, and still would put us high on dollars spent.
Coverage: A review of conditions and procedures that are currently covered in any percentage by current commercial insurance will be covered 100% by national insurance. No co-pays, no prescription costs, including dental and vision.
Payments: A review of currently negotiated rates with hospitals and Drs will set the base for payments to them for services rendered; renegotiations can use inflation and cost of living as bases for increases. Profit in the medical community will be primarily determined by those that provide the highest quality care efficiently, thus being able to see more patients and have more income. Upon receiving an accurately completed claim from the provider, payment is issued.
Prescriptions: Price and quality will be the basis for negotiations for medications. While American companies will be a priority, there will be no requirement that they be the sole suppliers.
Funding: At a savings to all of the currently insured; their rates will drop from their current premium to 10% of monthly income up to $100 per month. With the low estimate of 100 million workers in this category, that raises $120B a year, employers will also save by having a reduced premium for insurance at 4 times what their employees pay and this will result in an additional $480B. $600B collected while putting more money back into the economy. Everyone who works will pay the 10% of income per month with the $100 cap. There are approximately 50 million more workers, with little or no insurance. Assuming the lowest income under the poverty line for this group, these workers will still contribute $1000 a year each or an additional $50B, their employers working on the same sliding scale will provide an additional $200B. So from the workers and employers $850B, can be garnered, and the remaining $200B required has already been appropriated under Medicare, Medicaid, VA medical and any number of other programs that provide medical services both federal and local. I realize that this formula is overly simplified; if you are able to provide the necessary data I would gladly do the necessary calculation to provide the accurate results.
The role of government in this process - pay the bill. Review and oversight will be in place to address issues of abuse. Like the tax database, a medical database can be built to monitor national health and provide support and direction for medical research. Procedures or medications not listed as covered will be reviewed by state medical boards and the basis for approval will be benefit to the patient, not cost of the procedure.
This benefit will only be available to legal residents of the United States. Illegal residents will be treated, but also deported once able to travel.
Using the free market so hospitals compete for patients will make for better services and shorter wait times. With over $1 trillion available for the market, it will be a very profitable for hospitals and Dr's, look for insurance companies to open their own health care facilities and provide private insurance for previously uncovered procedures.
If there is relevant data that would show that such a plan would not work, please share it. I am no specific fan of socialized medicine, having the government run oversight on medical decisions is a bad idea. National insurance will allow for all citizens to have better access to care, a better national database for health trends across the country, and more money available in the economy seem to be only the initial benefits of such a plan.

Hilary plan is a political statement not a mandatory healthcare plan. She wanted to copy Edwards but did it the wrong way. The must be checks on Mandates without which it isnt mandates.

Just like social security that she is evasive of , healthcare cant be a political ploy Mr Clinton. What will you do if someone doesnt buy the so called "mandatory healthcare"? Are u afraid to say it for fear of losing votes?