Clinton is no solution.
As for healthcare, for COVERING EVERYBODY, Clinton's solution is … to MAKE EVERYBODY PAY, and PUNISH those who cannot pay!
Her story about "Mandate" is nothing else than a disguised word for "coercion".
Punishing the weakest in society that one pretends to help: I've never heard anything more absurd and insensitive in politics.

Mark, Mr. OBama's plan is not any better. At least 15 million or more Americans will suffer without any health insurance under his plan. I have been examining Hillary's plan, and the poorest people will still have health insurance and even thought it will be mandated, the poorest sector of the country will receive subsidies and tax credits and other help so they will be able to afford excellent coverage, the same as congress receives. That is Hillary's plan, and I support it.

There is a difference in punishment and responsibility. Health care that the congress gets is the best and the cheapest. Having to pay is like having to have car insurance to drive on the roads, it's being responsible for your health care. It gets the free loaders off the free ride that the rest of us pay for, and they are there contrary to Obama's naive slogan. His inability to see that difference is another reason to not trust his judgment. It's the details and his lack of comprehension about them that bother me and that glows brightly in a debate, which is why his handlers keep him under wraps, on script and his responses limited to trite quips.

We require insurance for ALL autos why not people?

Score one for Clinton. A person who's facing mortgage foreclosure sees that there is light at the end of the tunnel under a Clinton administration. Where is Mr. hOpeBama on this issue. His only mortgage concern is the special deal he got on his house through his relationship with an Illinois slumlord.

Hey, I just drove by there and saw reporters out front, talking! Anyway, I'm voting for Obama in March (already got my absentee ballot). I know Hillary's smart and capable, but I was 8 years old the last time I had a president not named bush or clinton. The country must take a chance on Obama - can you imagine Hillary being able to unite the House and Senate to push forward substantial legislation?

This country needs to move toward single-payer universal health coverage. Neither Clinton's nor Obama's do enough, but both are steps in the right direction.

Obama did not propose health care for everyone until Ted Kennedy made him promise to fight for universal health care to get his endorsement. Hillary's ideas are original and she has fought for universal health care for many years. It takes "experience" to bring change.

More than oratorical eloquence, is our continued survival and unity as a people committed to survive as one nation. We should know beforehand
before electing the next president on the basis of specific solutions rather that vague political cry of "change."

We need specific actions to our
problems on health care, national security, illegal immigration, social securiy, jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs,and jobs, among others.

So, people of America, thre choise is yours:

HILLARY KNOWS OUR PROBLEMS IN DETAIL AND HAS PLANS. OBAMA HAS PLAYED A LOT OF TRICKS WILL COME AND BITE IN GENERAL IF HE ELECTED BUT I PRAY LORD THAT HE WILL NOT. IF HE ELECTED THIS COUNTRY WILL DIVIDE SO MUCH BASED ON RACE.

MOST IMPORTANT FOR ONE TERM SENATOR OBAMA IS VERY CALCULATION AND CURROPTED.

What solutions does she keep referring to, anyway?

Like her vote to authorize Bush's moronic invasion of Iraq?

Like her support of NAFTA that shipped all these jobs overseas in the first place?

Like her divisiveness and shrill tone that unifies and mobilizes the republican base?

Simply put, taking more lobbyist money than the republicans, triangulation and calculation are not solutions for me.

Even if Obama didn't offer practical solutions, I'd still take his speeches over her 'solutions.'

Obama seems more like a preacher rather than a president. He is a feel-good candidate. I have not yet seen any Presidential quality or proposal. Promise of hope is good but where is the substance. Hillary, while on defensive with current Obama surge, seems more presidential in light of current adversity, making necessary adjustments to get the message through. She has talked issues and she has talked numbers. She also is far more practical in analyzing issues and defining solutions, not just feel-good promises. We don't need to just feel good with promises and good oratory. The recent trend of african-americans voting overwhelmingly for Obama is alos disturbing. One would hope that this election does not plunge this country back to the racial politics. That is the last thing this country needs and one would hope that the African_American leaders would be responsible and endorse a candidate on their merits and not race.

Frank Mango: What's a choise?

Paul: You are right that we (read: all individual states) require auto insurance to drive. In a perfect world, we would have health care for all. But the reason Obama's plan is superior to the Clinton plan is, in a way, related to auto insurance.

We require auto insurance, yet not everyone has insurance. Fair.org says that in 2004 (the most recent statistics available), 13.3% of drivers involved in an auto accident did not have insurance, even though it is mandated. Why? Because the social cost of a constant crackdown on illegally uninsured drivers is too high a price to pay for enforcement. The same will be true of Clinton's health plan. She will mandate coverage, but the social cost of enforcement will be far too high.

If we extrapolate the 13.3% figure for America (for the sake of argument), that would mean 40.05 million uninsured Americans - far more than Obama's plan leaves out. I will take a plan that lowers health care costs for all Americans who wish to take part as an alternative. That plan is the Obama plan.

the more you listen to what he says regarding "no more politics as usual", no negative attacks,etc., and then see what he comes back with - well, it looks a lot like - "do as I say - not as I do". listening to him, you would get the impression that if he is elected, all of congress will take a nap daily and have cookies and juice, then take turns deciding who gets to be first in line for what their people who elected them want.

Snakebaby: Sorry to quibble, but your argument is a non-sequitur. As you say, not everyone would choose to buy health insurance, no matter how affordable it is. I certainly don't deny that Hillary's plan would lower the immediate dollar cost of health care. It's the social cost that makes her plan problematic. How will you enforce the mandate? There is no way to do so without the enormous social cost of things like government intrusion, etc., which I doubt very much that people would put up with. That being said, if a plan cannot achieve full, universal coverage without a prohibitive social cost, the plan which saves the most money to people who will actually use it (Obama's) strikes me as the better plan.

Also, where are you getting that 50 million figure from? The highest I've heard tossed around (including by Hillary in the L.A. debate) is 15 million. And since I'm good at math, I'd like to point out that your figure is higher by 333%.

Thanks for the compliment!

Paul - "We require insurance for ALL autos why not people?"

Other Paul's response - maybe your state does, but mine doesn't. I'm in Virginia and we can opt out of car insurance. We need to pay a fee to do it legally, but that option is there.

One reason not to mandate health insurance is that it would be one more decision made for us by our government. We were founded on the notion of individual liberty. We've gotten further and further away from that notion, for better or for worse. And now examples of lost liberties are being used - as you have argued - to justify proposals for additional lost liberties.

I'm more comfortable with Obama's approach of making it available, and then leaving it to individual people to decide if its the right choice for them.

Is Obama for real? So he's running for President and no one can attack him on anything, even though he does it? Becaue apparently people don't like negative attacks if it's happening to him only? That's his response to not having real solutions? He wants to become President based on speeches? Just how lame does he think the majority of people are in this country?

Oh yes I've seen Hillary's solutions she supported Bush and "HIS" war was THAT a solution? She goes on to say that Sen. Barack Obama only makes promises well yes, he promised that if we take our eyes off Afghanistan and go to war with Iraq it will be a big mistake and he was right then and he is right NOW!

"Sen. Clinton is apparently incapable of taking a clear stand on the war in Iraq, and that alone is enough to disqualify her." Quote from the late Molly Ivins, journalist and columnist in her 2006 article "I Will Not Support Hillary Clinton for President"

Clinton is right that speeches don't do anything by themselves. Let's look at her record for proof of that:
On the initial authorization for Iraq, she voted for it but made a speech that she was misled. On further votes she would make very fiery speeches about the war being wrong and the need to try to get out but vote after vote, when her influence may have turned the tide and proven herself a leader, it only amounted to fiery speeches and sound bites but about as much substance as a rice cake. On FIZA she chose an entirely different tactic. Rather than even showing up to vote for it or against it, she chose to ignore it. Obama flew back to vote. It is his job to do so. Yeah, I agree Mrs. Clinton that speeches do nothing without action. And that is why you are not my candidate.

Mr Russell, you are talking about "ducking" from voting and you are comparing Obama's record with Hillary's.
Don't try that the records will embarras you. His voting record in Chicago and Washington is not good , just like his speeches, it is slippery.

Hi Sandra, you will support Obama, that is your mistake , but do not fabricate and twist history to suit your palate. You are beating your drum and dancing. Your drum beating ain't good enough, it has no logical rhythm.

Mark check and get the real facts about both health plans. Both plans talk about penalties.