(This will be a brief diary, have a flight to catch soon, so I apologize in advance).
Think about it. Bob makes $72k per year, Jane makes $36k per year. Both have to pay $6000 for health insurance over the course of the year. This turns out to be 8.3% of Bob's income, but ends up being 16.6% of Jane's income. Subsidies will not make up the full difference here.
The primary difference between Hillary's plan and Obama's is the lack of a mandate. And that's the difference between offering people an affordable option for health insurance and creating a regressive tax. It's also the difference between success and defeat in Congress. Hillary's regressive idea will not pass muster in Congress, and will lose us many votes in November, and not only that, it is not a progressive plan, it's the same plan Mitt Romney created in Massachusetts. The only thing her plan has going for it is it's more likely to receive the support of insurance companies who would love more corporate welfare going their way!
I hope that progressives wake up and see Hillary's plan, although it appeals to those of us who want universal health Care, is NOT universal health care, it is universal INSURANCE funded through very regressive taxation.
Supporting regressive taxation is nothing new for Hillary. She opposes raising the salary cap on Social Security from $90k/year (in other words, ending Social Security as the nation's biggest regressive tax). Obama is for removing the salary cap.
Make your vote count on Tuesday. Don't fall for rhetoric from Hillary supporters that her plan is more progressive than Obama. It simply isn't.