Look! This campaign actually has subtance: Health Care

Thanks John. Edward's has finally pulled the plug, making my overview of candidate policies a bit easier.

The key difference between the two remaining candidates health care plans is choice v. requirement. Obama's plan would provide people the choice to obtain affordable health care insurance, while Clinton's would require it - the dreaded universal health care.

Both would allow people who are happy with their current coverage to maintain their coverage. Both would also offer a new public plan, crafted in the image of Medicare, and offer the same type of plan offered to members of Congress.

To ensure that those who can not afford insurance are able to meet the requirement of insurance Clinton's plan would offer: refundable tax credits, limit premiums to a percentage of income and create a tax credit for small businesses to encourage them to cover employees.

Obama's plan touts low premiums and co-pays (without providing specifics). Obama would also offer subsidies to those who do not qualify for SCHIP or Medicare. He would require that all children are insured (a notion implicit in Clinton's universal plan) and raise the age that young adults can stay on their parents plan up to 25.

Both would eliminate insurance company discrimination based on pre-existing conditions. To achieve this Clinton says she would require that insurance companies automatically renew a person's policy if they wish to remain in that policy. It would also prohibit insurers from charging different premiums based on age, gender or occupation.

Additionally, under Clinton's plan, premiums collected by insurers must be dedicated to quality health care coverage, not excessive profits or marketing. Obama's plan offers a similar measure, but he sees it as a way to increase competition. Under his plan only insurance companies in regions that lack competition would be required to dedicate premiums.

In an effort to reign in the cost of prescription drugs, both would repeal the 2003 Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act, which forbade Medicare from negotiating directly with pharmaceutical companies. This cost saving measure is rooted in precedent, the Veterans Administration's ability to directly negotiate prescription drug prices has been seen as a success.

Both candidates want to help reduce cost by stopping overpayments to Medicare. Obama proposes eliminating payments made to Medicare's private plan alternative, called Medicare Advantage. Obama says that the government pays 12 percent more to treat patients with comparable conditions through Medicare Advantage than it does through traditional Medicare. Clinton does not specify how she would end Medicare overpayments.

Obama's plan would also include protection from the catastrophic cost associated with catastrophic illness/injury. The plan would reimburse employers a percentage of catastrophic cost that employers incur above a certain, undetermined, threshold. Clinton's plan includes no such provision.

Clinton estimates her plan will cost $110 billion a year, she plans to pay for it, in part, by rolling back the Bush tax cuts on those earning $250,000 a year. She also will limit the amount employers can exclude from taxes for health care benefits paid for those making over $250,000.

Obama estimates his plan will cost between $50 to $60 billion a year once fully implemented, and he will also fund it by rolling back the Bush tax cuts on those making $250,000 per year.

I try to inject a bit of personality and humor into my posts, but the only thing drier than health care reform is Fred Thompson on the stump. Needless to say health care, like Grandpa Fred, does not lend itself to humor.

Look! This campaign actually has subtance: Iraq

Well, in a New Hampshire-esque curveball, it turns out there are differences in the Democratic presidential canidate's Iraq plans. Who knew?

Let's jump in.

All want some sort of large troop withdrawl, but the three plans resemble Dennis Kucinich and Mitt Romney - their different.

Edwards wants an immediate withdrawal of 40,000 to 50,000 troops, and wants to achieve a full withdrawal in 9 to 10 months. Edward's plan would leave one brigade behind to protect the embassy and a couple hundred to guard humanitarian workers.

His plan is the most aggressive. Clinton's does not provide a target troop withdrawal, but says she would direct her Department of Defense, her Secretary of Sate, and her National Security Council to come up with a plan to begin withdrawal withing 60 days. She wants to move...but she is undeceive, like a color-blind guy nervously idling away at a traffic light.

Obama would immediately begin the withdrawal of one or two brigades a month (a brigade is roughly 1,500-3,500 troops). He would continue this until all combat troops were out, he anticipates this taking until late 2009.

All want to leave some troops in the region, but again, there are differences.

Obama and Clinton do not provide specifics, but simply say that they would leave some number of troops in the country to fight Al Qaeda and protect US interests in the country. Obama's plan would remove troops from secure areas first.

Edward's plan provides troop estimates. He would leave 3,500 to 5,000 troops in Iraq to protect embassies and humanitarian workers. Edwards also wants quick reaction troops in friendly countries, in case of genocide and to stomp out Al Queda safe havens.

On a topic in which she once used as a means to attack Obama's experience, which countries in the region to negotiate with, Clinton's Iraq plan displays a classic example of politician blabber. Earlier, she criticized Obama's foreign policy inexperience because he said he would engage hostile countries like Syria. Under Clinton's plan she would gather a regional stabilization group including: key allies, other global powers and all bordering states. It is this last group that best highlights Clinton's aptitude for politician blabber (take a look at which country is placed snugly next to Iraq's Northwest boarder).

Instead of saying, oops, I guess I would also bring Syria to the table, my bad. She slipped the idea into the politically euphemistic, regional stabilization group. Umm, that's good blabber. Obama actually takes a stronger stance than Clinton. He says he would encourage Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia to steam the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq. A clenched fist, to Hillary's foam finger.

On the issue of continued training of the Iraqi security force, there are differences in all three plans.

Edwards would intensify the training, while Obama would tie our continued training to the stipulation that the Iraqi security forces do not become sectarian. Clinton has not really addressed the issue.

Under Obama and Clinton's campaigns the United Nations would be given a fairly prominent role. Obama would have the UN convene a constitutional convention. The council would address issues such an oil revenue sharing, De-Ba'thification and Federalism. He would also have the UN create a team that would investigate possible war crimes, in an effort to prevent genocide.

Clinton's plan involves a multi-billion dollar plan, lead by the UN's High Commissioner for Refugees, to address the needs of refugees. Additionally, to help curtail sectarian violence she advocates the appointment of a high level UN representative to help broker a peace deal between Iraq's three ethnic groups.

Edwards does not give the UN an explicit role in his Iraq plan.

Im sure I missed a ton, there is much more to cover. It may be incomplete, but there is a rough outline of each Democratic canidate's Iraq plan, including their, apparently elusive, differences.