The health care plan debate is disingenuous.

[Ravy]

The three top democratic candidates are pretty close in their health care plans. Yes, there are some differences. Yes, you can like one over the other. But to spend so much debate time and commercial time pointing out fairly minor differences in the plans is disingenuous. The decision to select or nominee should be about issues bigger than that.

Why?

Because the President does not make the law. Congress does. If Barrack or Hillary really think their health care plan is absolutely the way to go and the other is a disaster, then they should stay in the Senate and push theirs through.

Each of the candidates should ask the other... "Would you sign or veto my health care plan if it was sitting on your desk, awaiting your signature to become law?" because, as President, that would be the presidential choice they would need to make.

[LSK]

1. the President gets to submit plans to Congress n/t

[Ravy]

2. Anyone can. nt

[FormerDittoHead]

6. Great answer. Now I see where you're going...

Into my ignore list. buh-bye.

[papau]

8. under House rules the presidents plan gets specified consideration procedures

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/hrm/index.html

[Ravy]

10. I see where they list certain subjects for privledged procedures for executive proposals,

but I don't see where this applies.

I fully realize the benefits of the bully pulpit, but IMHO, when health care comes to pass the big argument in Congress will be whether we do it at all...not if certain people can opt out. Getting it, in some sort of acceptable form, is where the energy should go, and that is a basic difference between all Democrats and almost all republicans. IMHO, they are getting mired down in calling each other's plans crap.

[FormerDittoHead]

3. Yeah. Like Bush doesn't get any say about what goes on in Congress....

Or is it that he gets them to do double-jump back flips through flaming hoops? Seems that way to me.

If you look at REALITY, you'll see the President has a lot more input into the process than you suggest...

[Ravy]

5. I understand your point... but the candidates make it seem

like if they are elected, their plan goes into effect. At least, their campaigns do.

There are lots of things a president can do, a TON of them, and after * most of them need to be done over.... military policy, diplomatic policy, style of government... Why do they choose to bash each other over something they are in basic agreement with?

[Rosemary2205]

4. Presidents draft and recruit congress support all the time for their agenda

It's called leadership.

But agree the differences between the Dem candidates regarding healthcare is minimal. With the exception of Edwards wanting to nail the coffin on lobbyists there's not a whole lot of difference between what they all say they want -- and if any of them were to follow through on even 1/4 of what they are promising the benefit to the average Joe could might maybe fabulous.

((you just never know what a politician will do - they are even less predicable than pit bulls)

[Ravy]

9. I think you hit on my point, I usually don't express my points clearly...

Why go to the mat over something in a debate unless you will go to the mat about it as President. I could see President Obama proposing non-mandatory, but affordable health care, but whether it is mandatory or not will be decided in the House and Senate. Here they are, both Clinton and Obama talking about the need to reach out to others, unwilling to reach three feet when they agree so much on that particular issue.

There are big differences in what an Edwards, Clinton, or Obama administration would look like, imho. All are worlds better than the current administration, but we are left to try to interpret those looks because so much time is spent disagreeing on basic agreement.

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. And I wish they woke up and went for single payer

because keeping the insurance companies in the mix ain't gonna work

[Cleita]

11. Edwards is for single payer ideally. He knows, however,

that getting the for profits out of the business is going to take some doing. We talked about it in the past at DU. We talked about beating the insurers at their own game on the free market. A Medicare type insurance would be offered to the uninsured, paid for by the government, and on the free market to employers and unions to compete with the private insurers. The private insurers would be subject to a patient's bill of rights so they can't deny care. They would also have to compete with the Medicare type plan for low premiums. They really can't do that and will eventually have to get out of the business paving the way for single payer. This plan has it's merits if it works. We will see.

[Leopolds Ghost]

12. All the major plans including the 94 plans are appalling and support for them is unconscionable

I will never vote for a Dem again if they pass any law requiring an
American to purchase commoditized public services from a private corporation.

That, despite DU ignorance on the definition, is fascism.

That was the original heart of fascism.

That was what fascist admirers of Hitler and Muissolini *ON THE LEFT*
asked Roosevelt to do back when Germany was called a success story. **

(Thanks to civil libertarians and educated economists on his cabinet, he refused.)

(** Michael Beschloss, "The Conquerors" and other books on the subject
of the nascent popularity of fascism and state-managed cartel economies
in the 1930s by advocates of statism across the political spectrum who
viewd Nazism as a success story and asked Roosevelt to implement an
American-style fascism on the left.)