Obama wants to double federal spending on basic research and accelerate the use of IT in government. He favors postponing for 5 years (effectively eliminating) the human space exploration program and transferring the funds to his education programs. Obama would invest $15B/year in “clean energy” infrastructure. (I’m dubious of his motivations, given his close ties to a nuclear power company) Clinton would increase basic research and double the NIH budget. She proposes a $50 billion research fund for green energy, funded by federal taxes and royalties on oil companies. She would shift some human exploration budgets back and rebalance with space and earth science, but would not retreat to Earth orbit altogether. (More on space policy, with lots of links, in my LJ.) Clinton would require Federal research agencies to award external prizes for innovation goals.
Both favor market cap-and-trade approaches to reducing CO2 emissions. Both have plans to extend broadband access. Both have supported net-neutrality and oppose warrantless wiretaps. Both voted for Real ID in the Senate and have subsequently criticized it. Both support reviewing DMCA.
Obama talks the talk better, but their IT approaches are similar. Brownie point to Obama for a better website. Draw overall on global warming and energy issues, but Obama loses the brownie point because of close ties to (nuclear) energy companies. Half-point to Clinton for specifying how she’d pay for renewables program. Point to Clinton (more, in my own weighting) for having a space policy that still looks outward and inspires kids as well as teaching them. Clinton edge.
Healthcare
Clinton's plan would require that every American have some kind of health insurance, whereas Obama's plan only mandates that children have a health insurance plan. The bit about wage garnishing… is spun, of course, but mandatory deductions are in effect similar to a payroll tax in a single-payer system, as in most other first-world countries. Employees who currently have healthcare payroll deductions are now “garnished” similarly. Americans would be given the choice to keep their current plan, enroll in a plan similar to the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program (which has a choice of private providers, per state) or choose a public plan similar to Medicaid. The insurance industry would be regulated to prevent discrimination against elderly people or people with previous health conditions. It would be paid by letting Bush’s tax cuts lapse for incomes >$250K and various smaller tweaks.
Under the Obama plan, healthy people could choose not to buy insurance, but then sign up for it if they developed health problems later. And insurance companies couldn’t turn them away… so those higher costs would be borne by those choosing insurance, which creates a further disincentive to buy coverage. It ironically takes the current healthcare system and less ambitiously patches it, rather than the broader changes that Edwards (originally) and Clinton propose. Obama’s plan financing would be likewise from letting Bush tax cuts expire, plus efficiency tweaks.
Either plan would IMO be an improvement. But Clinton’s goes further and is a bigger step towards a single-payer system. Edge to her.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
Part 2...
Date: 2008-02-08 11:19 am (UTC)Obama wants to double federal spending on basic research and accelerate the use of IT in government. He favors postponing for 5 years (effectively eliminating) the human space exploration program and transferring the funds to his education programs. Obama would invest $15B/year in “clean energy” infrastructure. (I’m dubious of his motivations, given his close ties to a nuclear power company) Clinton would increase basic research and double the NIH budget. She proposes a $50 billion research fund for green energy, funded by federal taxes and royalties on oil companies. She would shift some human exploration budgets back and rebalance with space and earth science, but would not retreat to Earth orbit altogether. (More on space policy, with lots of links, in my LJ.) Clinton would require Federal research agencies to award external prizes for innovation goals.
Both favor market cap-and-trade approaches to reducing CO2 emissions. Both have plans to extend broadband access. Both have supported net-neutrality and oppose warrantless wiretaps. Both voted for Real ID in the Senate and have subsequently criticized it. Both support reviewing DMCA.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/innovation/
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6224039.html
http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-9864581-38.html
Obama talks the talk better, but their IT approaches are similar. Brownie point to Obama for a better website. Draw overall on global warming and energy issues, but Obama loses the brownie point because of close ties to (nuclear) energy companies. Half-point to Clinton for specifying how she’d pay for renewables program. Point to Clinton (more, in my own weighting) for having a space policy that still looks outward and inspires kids as well as teaching them. Clinton edge.
Healthcare
Clinton's plan would require that every American have some kind of health insurance, whereas Obama's plan only mandates that children have a health insurance plan. The bit about wage garnishing… is spun, of course, but mandatory deductions are in effect similar to a payroll tax in a single-payer system, as in most other first-world countries. Employees who currently have healthcare payroll deductions are now “garnished” similarly. Americans would be given the choice to keep their current plan, enroll in a plan similar to the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program (which has a choice of private providers, per state) or choose a public plan similar to Medicaid. The insurance industry would be regulated to prevent discrimination against elderly people or people with previous health conditions. It would be paid by letting Bush’s tax cuts lapse for incomes >$250K and various smaller tweaks.
Under the Obama plan, healthy people could choose not to buy insurance, but then sign up for it if they developed health problems later. And insurance companies couldn’t turn them away… so those higher costs would be borne by those choosing insurance, which creates a further disincentive to buy coverage. It ironically takes the current healthcare system and less ambitiously patches it, rather than the broader changes that Edwards (originally) and Clinton propose. Obama’s plan financing would be likewise from letting Bush tax cuts expire, plus efficiency tweaks.
Either plan would IMO be an improvement. But Clinton’s goes further and is a bigger step towards a single-payer system. Edge to her.
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/americanhealthchoicesplan.pdf
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/HealthPlanFull.pdf