What is the difference between Obama's & Hillary's health care plans? Which better?

That Obama health care plan is a dog's breakfast of bad ideas from Left, Right, and center, topped with an unhealthy amount of wishful thinking. If enacted it would cost Americans dearly 鈥?in higher taxes, lost jobs, reduced freedom of choice, and lower quality health care. Here is the detailed analysis of what is wrong with the Obama鈥檚 health care plan.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_...



Obama鈥檚 health care plan is not universal (Hillary鈥檚 plan is universal), and it lacks audacity. Obama鈥檚鈥?plan is like himself 鈥?full of hope but not deliverable.
Compared to John Edwards, who had a detailed plan, and Hillary Clinton, whose fluency with the subject is unmatched among the contenders, he seemed uncertain and adrift. An Associated Press article asked, "Is Obama all style and little substance?"
Number one, he didn't make sure everybody is in. There is perhaps no more surprising fact about Obama's plan than that it is not universal. It is certainly sold as if it is. In his speech unveiling the proposal, Obama bragged that, "[m]y plan begins by covering every American." But it doesn't. To say otherwise is rhetorical overreach, the appropriation of a popular and broadly-supported goal without an attendant mechanism for achieving it.
There are a few ways to achieve universal health care. You can create a single-payer plan that enrolls the population automatically. This is what Canada does, and how Medicare covers the elderly. You can create an employer mandate, where the primary responsibility falls on workplaces, and smaller mandates mop up the remainder. That was the approach showcased in the Clinton reforms of the early '90s. You can create an individual mandate that charges every American with procuring health insurance, and penalizes them if they don't. This is the approach favored by Mitt Romney in Massachusetts, Arnold Schwarzenegger in California, Ron Wyden in the Senate, and John Edwards in the presidential campaign. Obama's plan offers none of these approaches.
Instead, it seeks to make care cheaper and more accessible, assuming that, if it succeeds 鈥?and that's a big if 鈥?Americans will enroll of their own volition. It is a plan with the potential to be universal, rather than a universal plan. In that respect, it is very much like Obama himself.
Few are looking to Clinton for details, as her public record is so well-known, and her policy commitments so lengthily expressed. It is Obama who has remained a relative cipher, the interplay of his ideology and political instincts opaque. Obama鈥檚 plan lacks details, and skeptics say Obama is merely an inspiring speaker than a practical health care advocate.
Obama鈥檚 failing, somewhat ironically, is a lack of audacity. It accepts the sectioning off of the market into the employed, the unemployed, the old, the young, and the poor. It does not consolidate the system into a coherent whole, preferring instead to preserve the patchwork quilt of programs and insurers that make health care so difficult to navigate. It does not sever the link between employment and health insurance, nor take a firm step towards single-payer, despite Obama's professed preference for such a system.
Obama's plan is not dissimilar from Obama himself 鈥?sold with stunning rhetoric and grand hopes, but never quite delivering on the promises and potential. And so he remains the candidate of almosts.
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?arti...

They both suck!

the bottom line is, there is no difference.

Senator Clinton's proposal is actually "universal".. it provides coverage for all Americans & lowers costs, while Senator Obama's plan would leave 15 million people uninsured & only mandates health care for children. I'm not a fan of either plan, but Senator Clinton's is better.

Not much difference and the final result will be the same. Neither plan will become a reality. WAY TOO MUCH money involved.

They both suck! Obama sounds like he's figured out how to pay for it. Hillary has figured out about half of the costs. Either way, the taxpayers are footing the bill!

they are both unbelievably poor. they are saying we are going to guarantee that it is affordable but mentions nothing about the pre-existing issue. So if u have insurance and are denied treatment you are still screwed. last time we left it up to Hilary she quite fighting for us and started taking money from the medical industry lobbyists.

They plans are very similar but they do have a few small differences. Hillary want to legally make all americans have health insurance which means they may be eligible for free or they will be required to purchase through the gov. I dont think it's fair to require someone get coverage & then fine them if they dont thats just not the right approach to me. One way she plans to do this is by taxing those making 250k & up. Obama plan will require all children to have coverage while leaving the adults the option to purchase the coverage which he claims will be affordable for them & also lowering premiums. He also want to allow dependents to be under their health plan until the age of 25. He plans to tax those making 200k & up. They both agree that if youre happy with the coverage you already have you can keep it & they both agree on it being portable.

<edited> Everyone would be accepted regardless of any pre existing conditions.

who cares any of these two is better than what we have now.