On heath care plans, Obama OK, Hillary better, Edwards much better, Kucinich best. But why haven't

[Stop Cornyn]

Obama or Hillary offered or supported any legislation to enact their plans, like Kucinich has?

From my perspective, Obama's plan is better than what Romney and Schwarzenegger offered in Massachusetts and California.

Hillary's plan is quite a bit better than Obama's.

Edwards' plan is much better than Hillary's.

And Kucinich's plan is by far the best plan of all.

But no matter whose plan you prefer, why haven't Obama or Hillary taken any steps to offer actual legislation to implement their plans?

Dennis Kucinich deserves much credit for pushing actual legislation (H.R. 676) to make his superior health care plan into law.

If Obama or Hillary believed this issue was so important (as they claim on the campaign trail) and they thought their plans were so great, why haven't they offered any legislation to put their efforts in line with their campaign rhetoric?

[Deep13]

1. It's because there's a drunken chimp holding the veto pen. n/t

[Stop Cornyn]

4. That didn't stop us from raising the minimum wage, increasing fuel efficiency standards, expanding

veterans care and benefits.

[Tejanocrat]

11. We can't let a lame duck with a 30% approval rating set the threshold for what legislation we offer!

[Deep13]

12. Guess I didn't read that part of the Constitution.

He will still veto it.

[Tejanocrat]

18. Did you notice what happened to his approval ratings the last time he vetoed a health care bill?

If we fail to propose good legislation just because we fear he'll veto it, we're still guilty of failing to propose good legislation.

The best way for us to expand the base and win elections if for us to pass good legislation which the public wants and let them suffer the consequences of vetoing it. After a while, they will learn not to veto popular legislation.

[wishlist]

2. Congress couldn't even get through the added health care for children n/t

[Stop Cornyn]

10. If Obama's or Hillary's plans are reasonable, they should offer legislation on all or at least part

of their proposals.

If they are not reasonable plans, why have Hillary and Obama offered them?

If they are reasonable plans, why aren't they promoting them in the legislature?

[OzarkDem]

15. Shows the direction Obama and Clinton want to go - incremental

Actions speak louder than words. Fear of failure didn't stop Dems from introducing legislation for an expansion of SCHIP. Introducing legislation, whether it passes or not, gets the issues on the table and opens public discussion and debate. Its part of the process of eventually getting policy enacted.

The fact that some of our Dems in Congress only offered an expansion of children's health care indicates they have no intention of addressing the needs of uninsured adults. They're apparently not eager to have a public debate on the topic right now.

Everything I've heard is that Dem leaders in Congress want to enact health care reform "incrementally" probably beginning with children first, then expanding eligibility for low income adults. Everyone else will probably be required to purchase health insurance from private insurers. Those adults who become catastrophically ill and can't work will not get covered for a very long time.

[Tejanocrat]

16. If Hillabama favor an "incremental" approach, why haven't they taken even the 1st baby steps?

[OzarkDem]

19. SCHIP expansion

most likely that's what they consider a first step. The problem is, incrementalism is not the product they're selling. On the stump, they're talking about access to health care for everyone, but in reality, they only want to start covering a few more people at a time.

[Stevepol]

20. Not to deflate this thread too much, but DK's plan may not be all that hot.

I'm a DK supporter all the way or until I can't support him anymore but I just heard an author on C-Span talking about her book OVBRTREATED talking about the most successful health care approaches and she wasn't enamored of any of the existing plans. She said that just expanding Medicare would be a mistake. And DK's plan is primarily just an expansion of Medicare, single-payer yes and not-for-profit yes, but still not a plan that's likely to bring the best health care or keep the costs low.

This author said the best types of health care have a couple characteristics: the doctors are salaried and they work together to give the patient what is best for him/her w/o "overtreating." She gave two examples: Mayo Clinic in MN and UCLA Hospital. The cost at Mayo is about half what it is at UCLA and yet the results are as good, and I believe she said better than at UCLA because they are salaried and work together to support each other. She also said a lot more that was extremely interesting w/ re to health care.

No matter who is electred prez, if it's a Dem that is (since the Repub wd just turn it over the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical industry), will have to really wrestle with this system. I think it will require greater control by the government so as to make the doctoring fit the model indicated above. A mix as in France would perhaps fit the US better.

Anyway, a much more complicated issue that DK makes it seem, tho I agree with you his is the best of the ones being offered.

[antigop]

3. Excellent, excellent question--one I have asked previously..and the answer is.....

because then they would have to have DETAILS, instead of just a bunch of weasel words.

<edit to add> and they might be embarrassed if there were no co-sponsors.

[Czolgosz]

9. Did YOU ever get any answers to your questions? I ain't seein' any in this thread.

[peace13]

5. As far as Hillary's plan goes....

she had eight years to get us health care and failed to do so. I have no doubt that if she is selected we will not get a solution to our insurance company woes. She will hand us over to her pals mega corp and we will wallow there. Too sad. Peace, Kim

[Czolgosz]

7. BINGO!

[Deep13]

13. 8 years in the WH...

...the first plan was rejected by Congress. For the next six years the Rs would not consider it. 6 years in the senate as a minority member. Even as a 1-vote majority, shithead still has a veto.

[Echo In Light]

6. Because DK is actually a liberal and has genuine intentions

[Czolgosz]

8. I'd hate to fault Edwards for not offering legislation since he's outside the beltway, but Hillary

and Obama have no excuse.

Dennis rocks!

[TahitiNut]

14. Wrong. Neither Clinton's nor Obama's are "OK" ... they're unacceptable.

Edward's plan is barely acceptable, and then ONLY if one views it as an intermediate step toward single-payer. The ONLY way anyone could regard Kucinich's proposal to be lacking in any way is in the "DOABILITY" in a corporate-controlled (bought-and-paid-for) Congress. That's a false test - the equivalent of surrendering to a permanent condition of begging at the corporate altar. The repeated and constant appeasement of corporate colonialism (based on some perverted sense of 'pragmatism') is a corruption of the left - and it's seen everywhere from claims of "electability" to deluded posturings of being 'centrist' or 'moderate.'

[redqueen]

21. Butbutbut...

I got nothin.

[Joe Fields]

17. I must K&R this important point.

Thanks for bringing it to people's attention.