88 RESPONSES TO "MCCAIN'S OR OBAMA'S HEALTHCARE PLAN?"
??????
The free market system does not work in healthcare. In order for the free market system to work the buyer needs to have the option not to buy. Example: I want a new TV but I feel the price is too high so I don't buy it. The TV manufacture lowers the price so they can increase their sales and people like me would then buy the TV at the lower price. Everyone is happy.
If I get sick and need healthcare am I going to wait for the price to come down? I am going to go on having cancer because the price for treatment is too high or am I going to cash in my life savings or take out a mortgage on my house (nevermind that, the credit crunch has eliminated that option)?
You'd have to offer more evidence of your faulty claim. Your TV example is precisely what would happen in healthcare if regulations were eased, so thank you for providing it. For example, you sprain your ankle, you don't need an MD who completed 8 years of training to help you, but the current regulatory environment requires it. You could get treated by someone who is skilled in setting bones/wrapping ankles whose training would be far less expensive, likewise their prices would be. You need to think beyond the current system. Changes like this would need to take place, and they would.
I guess you completely skipped over the last part of my post which offered pricing options if you could buy coverage across state lines. Furthermore the poorest people will still get care.
September 18, 2008 9:43 am
Ryan Karpeles
One of the biggest reasons we're in this mess is because of increased governmental involvement, regulation and legislation in the healthcare industry (particularly as a result of the 1965 amendments involving Medicare and Medicaid and the subsequent ballooning of these programs over the last four decades).
The answer to too much government is not more government. For some reason many people never seem to grasp this.
I have to admit, I never thought I'd hear a Democrat get criticized for infringing upon people's right to choose. McCain would NEVER do anything like that!
@Ryan Karpeles - well said. I wish more intelligent people like you would speak up, start blogs, and spread the word. That is precisely what is required to combat the misinformation floating around.
@Sean -
I never said McCain was perfect. In fact I was rather explicit about that in my post. Let's have a rational discussion about the issues. In my opinion, Barack's infringement is far more grave than McCain's, though McCain does find infringement sporting as well.
When it concerns Health Savings Accounts, Barack's opposition borders on criminal. HSAs are meant to help those who have no coverage mitigate costs, save their money with tax-advantages, and increase transparency. They are used with high-deductible plans or for those ineligible for Medicare. There are no income limitations to contribute, nor do you need to have earned income, and low income individuals who receive some care are still eligible in certain instances. That means an old grandmother who has no money could receive contributions from you and still be able to contribute. That is freedom. The freedom Barack opposes. I cannot believe anyone would be opposed to them.
When individuals are in control of the costs rather than third-parties, they are far more discerning. You cannot argue with that.
There are more solutions to our problems than having Barack Obama play nanny with a piggybank. We need to start thinking. We cannot rely on the government to solve our problems.
I wasn't trying to say that Obama's infringement of choice is any less significant, just making a point that both parties do it. I'm very disillusioned with the 2-party system. Both sides give and take freedoms, it just comes down to which ones you're more content with losing. I'm not sure why it has to be that way. Why can't we have financial freedom as well as moral freedom? Would that be just too much freedom for us to handle? Just a thought.
@Sean - got it. I agree with you. Both parties will bring bad policies, I just believe McCain will bring slightly less.
My metaphor? Let's say there are two men who say they are going to start punching you without end. You don't have a choice not to get punched. One says he'll punch you every minute, while the other says every other minute. If I'm going to get punched either way, I'll take the lesser punishment...
That brings me to another issue: state and local elections really matter. In addition to scrutinizing both candidates we better play close attention to the state and local governments who are responsible for almost 55% of the overall national budget! Their horrible programs and wild spending make a difference.
@Sean - what I wanted to add is that you have a far better chance of getting a third party elected at the state and local level...
September 18, 2008 10:41 am
Liz
This is ideologically driven and analytically poor information. We pay more of our GDP for health care than almost any other developing nation, precisely because prices have been dictated by the market in consideration of profit before all. Further, Health Savings Accounts are pretty much useless for a family that already can't afford the basics. Given the current economic troubles, that number is increasing. Independent reviewers agree that McCain's plan would decrease incentives for employers to pay for health care, and increase the number of people without it. That's BETTER in your eyes?
Finally, your equation of "Obama Hates personal choice," with "Obama Hates Health Care Savings Accounts," is one of the weakest, least supported and nonsensical analogies I've ever heard. The "freedom" to take care of your own $300,000 in medical bills is really not what the founding fathers envisioned. Some problems require cooperative solutions because they are problems of the group, rather than the individual. Out of control health care costs is one.
September 18, 2008 10:46 am
Liz
Oh, and throughout this poorly researched and inadequately supported piece, you referred to Mr. Obama by his first name, and Mr. McCain by his last. That is very disrespectful. Watch Fox News much? Because I don't know any other mainstream media outlet that makes that mistake.
1. It's actually not unconstitutional. Plenty of companies forbid practices for people who are past the age of majority; have you ever tried to rent a car between the ages of 18-25? Federal financial aid takes your parents' income into account for your aid calculation. If you can forbid something, why can't you mandate something?
2. Cost cutting isn't just about reducing access. It's about reducing the amount of time a pharmaceutical company has an exclusive over production of a drug. It's about more people into the mean usage of service so that people who both underuse and overuse the system consume less of the expensive services offered. Those HealthCorps volunteers will provide services and care at significantly less cost than a full time employee. An experienced nurse would have no problem earning 50k anywhere in the US. AmeriCorps volunteers get 15k max each year.
3. He is right. How would I know how much I expect to spend in health care costs for the year? If insurance companies can't even get that right with complex prediction instruments, then how is the average American supposed to figure that out? If you want cost transparency, that is as simple as changing the invoice.
September 18, 2008 10:54 am
Ryan Karpeles
@Sean: Moral freedom must have boundaries. Some may wish that were not the case, but it is. Should I be allowed to push a child into oncoming traffic? Should I be allowed to cheat on my taxes? Should I be allowed to rob my neighbor? Without morality our society crumbles. The question then becomes where to draw those lines. You may draw them in one place; others may draw them in another. This is why we have the democratic process to decide these things (unless of course you're a Supreme Court judge in the state of California).
@Milena: I believe this is less a case of intelligent people than it is a case of intelligent ideas. There are plenty of bright people who spread the word, write blogs, etc. Unfortunately brightness and amount of education received don't necessarily correlate to having good ideas. The real issue is that we need to start asking ourselves "What works?" rather than simply trusting our opinions to be formed by people with Ph.D's or MBA's. There is no shortage of new ideas, but the best ones are often the ones we can learn (or should have already learned) from history. We've already seen what ruins states, countries and societies, yet many people in this nation seem to be advocating those very same policies.
1. We are seeing the effects of deregulation now in the financial sector to the tune of $4 trillion in investor losses and over $400 billion in taxpayer dollars buying private industry. This is the clearest argument against deregulation I have ever seen. Free markets are meant to seek profits above all even is that means a human cost.
2. How do you determine the value of the tax credit? How is the government going to go about seeking proof from individuals that their state of health merits a larger tax credit. It's this just complicating the tax code further?
3. Opening up the market would allow a select few to purchase higher quality coverage. Overall, it would exacerbate inequality as upper middle class individuals leave their mediocre plans. The resulting loss in premiums will force insurance companies to cut costs by denying more coverage to people who cannot afford to leave the plan. McCain's plan does nothing for people with preexisting conditions who have immense difficulty finding adequate coverage.
That TV example is great if the person who is sick could wait. There is no cost to the consumer for waiting for TV prices to fall. Waiting to receive chemotherapy however has a huge costs.
@Liz - your rage certainly outweighs your own evidence and research.
As for the first-name last-name issue, it was entirely unintentional and I appreciate you bringing it to my attention. I will be changing it on my post shortly and will ask Brazen to correct here.
@Ryan - I completely agree, but shouldn't economic freedom have boundaries too?
@Milena - Yes, but I think determining which candidate will "punch" you less is a matter of personal preference, not of objectivity. Someone, say a homosexual, will likely be hurt much more by a ban on gay marriage than what tax breaks they get. The reverse is also true, for someone like a business owner who will get crushed by Democrat taxes. I'm getting way off topic now though. Also I agree with your point about local government.
September 18, 2008 11:46 am
Testudo Liberalis
Vanessa,
"We are seeing the effects of deregulation now in the financial sector to the tune of $4 trillion in investor losses..."
Comedy gold! What color is the sky in your world? Last I checked it was caused by government created incentives for mortgage lenders to sell houses to people who simply couldn't afford them. Lo and behold, they still can't afford them. Imagine that.
Liz,
"This is ideologically driven and analytically poor information."
I suppose you'll provide an example...or not.
"We pay more of our GDP for health care than almost any other developing nation, precisely because prices have been dictated by the market in consideration of profit before all."
You'll need to explain this, asserting it is not enough. Is it possible that Americans pay more for healthcare because they buy more? Perhaps an American spends money on an MRI where a Nigerian does not due to Nigeria's shortage of MRI machines. I heard that Americans spend more on Baseball tickets than Ugandans. (It must be because of the profit motive!!)
In short, you seem to have no problem making unsubstantiated assertions; you speak very forcefully for someone so empty handed. Would you care to actually address any of Milena's points, or is it enough for you to call her analysis poor hoping that no one will notice your deficiency?
Next time you come out firing, make sure your guns are loaded.
Re: age of majority. Private companies can do whatever they want. The government has ruled the age of majority to be 18, therefore they cannot not ad hoc create a law that says children are now 25? It is ridiculous. I also thought you were against maintaining the drinking age 21, that is a similar concept. Unconstitutional.
Re: HealthCorps. Bad idea. Subsidized volunteerism? That is not volunteerism. I want Obama to call it what it is, creation of new government jobs.
Re: cost cutting. It is a fallacy in his plan. He should call it cost-shifting. There will be no actual reduction in costs for services. Taxpayers will take the burden.
Re: HSAs, see my comment above to Sean. HSAs help a lot more than they hinder.
McCain's Plan
Re: deregulation. You wrongly peg deregulation as the sole problem we are currently facing. It is far more complex than that, coming from a problem of improper forms regulation AND deregulation. The current mortgage crisis was worsened by direct intervention and regulation of the government and the Fed. This should not be ignored. I do not blame the government wholesale, but they are certainly NOT the solution.
Re: tax credit. (For the record, Obama supports tax credits for other solutions, such as energy credits, and middle-class income credits.) We have to remember we are looking at solutions within confines of the two plans, not ideals. In an ideal world, we would dramatically reduce the complexity of the tax code, but neither plan offers us that option. As for McCain's tax credit, on an average basis, employers pay about $8,800 for employee healthcare. Since that is part of employee compensation, if the employer didn't provide it in the form of care, they would provide it in the form of wages. The tax credit is meant to serve as an offset for the additional money. You have to understand, if employers didn't provide healthcare, employees would be paid MORE.
Re: Free market. I disagree here. The market would allow proper levels of regulation, coverage, and cost find the consumers who want to buy them. Not every wealthy person will flee to high-cost options. It will be based on health. A wealthy person in good health will probably choose a lower cost option. This will have the opposite effect from what you say, the highest cost plans will actually reduce in cost, though you are right, there will still probably be very high cost plans available. You also have to consider the quality of care Obama's plan provides given his cost structure. How can we determine what that will be?
Re: waiting. You are right. Waiting for prices to equalize takes time. But the benefits far outweigh the negatives of excessive regulation where you will be subject to even greater waiting times and lack of choice if you cannot afford supplemental insurance (which is what most consumers need to do in countries who have universal health care, supplement the government plan.) Don't be fooled that the low-income population is going to be first in line for chemo under Obama's plan.
@Liz - also, I'm guessing you didn't read my post. I only made the "first-name" mistake once when referring to Senator Obama. Either way, it is corrected on my original post.
September 18, 2008 11:56 am
Ryan Karpeles
Vanessa,
Important points no doubt.
1. The financial collapse is primarily a result of immoral and irresponsible lending; not deregulation. That would be like blaming a person for cheating because the teacher walked out of the room. Second, much of this bad lending began after the Community Reinvestment Act was passed in 1977 which bullied lenders into offering credit to high-risk sectors of the market. Over time those loans became more and more risky, especially as housing continued to soar. Thus we ended up with insane practices like 100% credit on mortgages, which politicians convinced us was good for low-income families even though it ruined them in the long-run. In short: deregulation cannot be blamed. Immoral lending, overconfidence, ridiculous compensation packages (investors still made the same salary if they lost their company hundreds of millions of dollars), and government pressure to overextend loans to people who couldn’t afford them all play a major role.
2. All good questions. But why must the government be the agency to assess people’s health? This would of course complicate the issue but only because we’re assuming a faulty solution from the outset.
3. The quality of healthcare is a minor issue at most and has been shown to be essentially the same between people of varying income levels (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/getting_real_about_hea...). Next, preexisting conditions is a very tricky term and gets pretty hairy. After all, what’s the point of buying insurance in the first place if you can wait to purchase it only once something happens to you? I’m not sure what we’d call that, but it certainly wouldn’t be insurance. That would be like getting to scratch every lotto ticket and then only paying for the one that turns out to be a winner.
To your last point: if you’re worried about waiting for an important medical procedure, socializing healthcare is probably the worst thing you could possibly do. The waiting lists (even for routine check-ups) in places where this exists are outrageous. Often patients have to wait months or even years before ever being treated. Not good.
McCain does not propose a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, if I'm wrong, I'd love to see that evidence. He is leaving it up to the states, which is constitutional. There will be plenty of states that allow the right to same-sex marriage.
In fact on many conservative blogs, they criticize him for not supporting the ban.
September 18, 2008 12:02 pm
Ryan Karpeles
@Sean: Economic freedoms must exist within a moral, responsible framework of interaction. This does not mean that we tell every organization what it can and cannot do (which is exactly what happened when Congress passed a bill to intimidate institutions to overextend loans to those who couldn’t pay for them if anything went awry). This was irresponsible and therefore the wrong framework.
What should happen in a free market is that companies who make mistakes cannot be bailed out, AND they should know beforehand that they will not be bailed out. This discourages immoral lending because it makes people responsible for their risk-taking. The current problem is largely that we didn’t address these flaws until too late and much of these loans came out of companies – namely Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae – that had the worst possible model: privately owned yet publicly funded. Therefore they had all the flexibility in the world yet not of the responsibly should anything go wrong. Economic freedom without the potential for economic failure is a disastrous recipe.
Freedom implies the potential for failure. This is what our economy is based on and any attempt to forcefully remove either aspect (freedom or the ability to fail) is usually a step in the wrong direction.
You're right about the limit of choices, but it's because we have not adopted a comprehensive insurance policy that would include everyone and cut cost.
How do we do this?
It's very simple. You stop spending 10 billion dollars a month in Iraq, and you take all of that money- every single fucking penny- and you put it towards a 2 tier healthcare system similar to the UK's that would cover everyone.
If you want your own private coverage, fine. You still have to share the tax burden for covering the 40+ million Americans who don't have insurance. Stop whining. It's part of life. Taxes and death are inevitable, so don't whine about taxes, especially when they go towards preventing death.
The market cannot be trusted to solve the problem. Insurance companies have a bottom line to think about, which prevents them from making moral choices, which ultimately restricts every American's choices.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are ALL hampered by paying for pre-existing conditions and absurd deductibles. How can any American pursue their way of life when the cost of health is more than they can possibly hope to afford?
At the end of the day, it's a really simple equation. Human beings are greater than money. If you think the "choices" that the market provides are more important than that, then I feel sorry for you.
Regardless of whether McCain's health care plan is better than Obama's or not, McCain stands for everything wrong with America. Social conservatism, prudishness, militarism, and invasion of privacy are all his hallmarks.
As a symbol of such evil, McCain must not attain the presidency... regardless of his position on health care. Obama is imperfect, but he's a heck of a lot better than the Dark Prince of the Right.
--
On a related note, increased regulation of a wide variety of industries and systems is necessary for the future progress of our nation. Whether that is to be private or government, though, remains to be seen.
"even though McCain's plan is peppered with questionable features I didn't cover here - it is less likely to dramatically burden taxpayers or degrade the quality of care."
Just as an FYI, the Washington Post just reported on studies of each health care plan. It would be difficult for McCain's plan to be particularly impactful given it doesn't do much to help the uninsured.
"New studies from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center and the policy journal Health Affairs suggest that Obama's proposal would eventually cover more than 34 million of the roughly 47 million Americans currently without insurance, while McCain's would cover at best 5 million uninsured." http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/16/new_studies_report...
I suppose if you take the side of McCain surrogates, there are no uninsured people in the country, because there's always the emergency room. But if you're one of those without health insurance you better be religious because you're going to spend a considerable amount of time praying you don't get sick.
Your argument hasn't a shred of fact in it. I really wish you wouldn't cloud rational discussions (which plenty of commenters who oppose me are capable of having) with your constant haranguing. As a percentage of GDP, defense spending is lower than in the 1960's! Health care spending has more than quadrupled with little gain! Get your facts straight.
Yes, health insurance is different than TV sets, because issues of life and death are at stake. However, food, clothing, and shelter are equally crucial for survival and are largely left up to private markets. Does Obama need to tell me how many bananas I should eat? I know you will jump down my throat with, "The housing market is failing because of private industry." Wrong, see Ryan Karpeles' comments above, he provides a succinct and accurate explanation for the failures.
Furthermore, you are not losing the moral argument here. Just because I do not support inefficient intervention from central planners does not mean I support withholding care from the impoverished. In fact, you already know that. You have argued with me enough times to know where I stand, yet I'm convinced you prefer to set up a straw man with my face on it and beat it down for amusement.
As for your assertion that insurance companies having their bottom line at stake = they won't make moral decisions is preposterous and based in your fantasies of evil corporations.
@Ben Overmeyer - Way to repeat leftist mantras with zero substance or evidence.
@zak - thanks for this link. If McCain's plan is less "impactful" than Obama's that is actually a good thing.
You must consider the costs and quality of Obama's plan. You have to know what you are getting into, not just some vague notion of coverage subsidized by the government.
September 18, 2008 2:02 pm
Tim2
Milena,
Interesting how you used these words to describe both Mr. Obama and his plan: "creepy" "suffering from delirium" "I've heard he got Isaac Mizrahi for Target to design some new hospital gowns and chic bedpans for less" "additional tidbits of incoherence"
And comments about Mr. McCain: "a serious attempt at reform"
Not an objective or unbiased analysis by any means.
Anyway, here are how the campaigns describe their health plans.
I hope everyone examines the details/specifics of each plan.
Milena- there is no fantasy about evil corporations. Insurance companies place their bottom line ahead of the well-being of their customers at every turn. I racked up over 80 thousand dollars in a lapse in coverage. My insurance company did not cover a medical issue I had which forced me to drop out of school temporarily- but because my policy was contingent on my full-time status, I was dropped from coverage. While shopping for new coverage the next week, my appendix burst. I had 2 surgeries because my first surgeon cut a vital artery and nearly killed me. 6 days in the hospital= 83,000 dollars in debt, which they will have to wring from my cold dead hands.
After this fiasco, you can't imagine how hard it has been to even get approved for a healthcare plan. Because I am not lucky enough to be in perfect health, I have to pay a 5,000 dollar deductible.
Not immoral?
This is a real story and I am a real person and this can happen to anyone and it is happening today to millions of other Americans.
You did not even notice that I said we should keep a private option open for those that choose to pay for their own coverage.
Defense spending is lower than in the 60's. Do you know why? Because we don't have a draft and a million soldiers in Vietnam. Does that make our war spending today ok? Just because it's not as bad as it was during our worst militaristic period?
Um... no.
September 18, 2008 2:16 pm
Testudo Liberalis
Tim,
You prattle on and on about morality, but why should I or anyone accept and pay for your version of morality? It isn't moral to force on individual to pay for products consumed by another just because you say so. I'm sorry that you are unhealthy, but what is moral about making everyone else pick up the tab?
You mention that there should be a private option, are you saying you'd support people opting out of the tax should they choose the private option, or do you imagine they should pay double?
"You still have to share the tax burden for covering the 40+ million Americans who don't have insurance."
Why?
Ben,
"McCain stands for everything wrong with America."
I certainly don't agree with all McCain stands for, but you, sir, are an idiot.
@Tim2 - You are correct. I am biased against central planning. Obama's plan happens to fall in line with that. I cannot present an unbiased opinion of his plan from my point of view, it is an impossibility. There is no way to make socialism look good, sorry.
I also hope everyone looks at the impact of proposed policies given the constraint of a two party system and the actual results.
@Tim - Your assumption that I am ignorant or insensitive to the plights of the uninsured is a bogus misrepresentation.
If you want to trade war stories, email me personally and I'll illustrate my own family's experiences with being uninsured. Your personal experience is awful, and I'm sorry for your pain. But is still not an argument for the efficacy Barack Obama's plan.
I did notice you said we should get private options, and of course you can slap private options on top of a universal plan, but that is a paltry trade off for a free market. Bottom line? Barack's plan won't provide universal coverage, it won't result in better care, less wait times, lower costs. Those things matter. Wait times and degradation of care HAS a cost, not expressed in dollars alone. You must consider that.
Your assertion we should all learn to deal with paying taxes for the uninsured is also silly. We already do! Again, we have quadrupled the amount we pay out. So, why is care not any better and costs keep rising? What is the appropriate level of tax contribution required, do you know?
Furthermore, if you think Obama is going to decrease war spending you are dreaming. Again, he should call it defense-spending-shifting. He is going to move over to Pakistan, that's the only difference.
Christopher Hitchens wrote a piece in Slate a few days ago, "Sen. Barack Obama has, if anything, been the more militant of the two presidential candidates in stressing the danger here and the need to act without too much sentiment about our so-called Islamabad ally."
10/18/2007 - Voted Yes on a bill to prohibit funds given to those professionals who perform abortions
(Anti-choice? Strike one!)
05/08/2002 - Voted No on a bill to expand conservation efforts, subsidize small farms, and increase nutrition spending.
(Anti-rural and anti-environment? Strike two!)
02/12/2008 - Voted No on a bill to strike the civil immunities for government-forced telecoms spying on American citizens from S Amdt 3911.
(Anti-privacy? Strike three....but we're not done yet!)
08/02/2007 - Voted No on a bill to increase regulation of lobbyist activity and donations to political candidates.
(I see this man loves to keep his money's origins secret)
03/29/2000 - Voted Yes on a joint resolution that would have began the process of amending the Constitution to make physically damaging or destroying the American flag illegal.
(Enemy of the 1st Amendment much?)
--
I could go on, but the sheer volume of audacious voting McCain has done is too long and too irritating.
Your voting record evidence (though selective) serves to strengthen the case for McCain in my eyes. It is not the government's job to provide funding for pet projects!
Re: strike one - funding shouldn't be given to those who do OR don't perform abortions. What a doctor does in private practice should not be incentivized by the government, he made the right choice.
Re: strike two - same thing. His votes against subsidies is the right choice. It shouldn't matter if it is farms or nuclear polluters, no one should be getting funding for projects consumers can support on their own. Conservation (as a good) is not in danger of having no support. Again, not the government's job.
Re: spying & flag burning - that's total B.S. and I'll agree with you there, both proposals are unconstitutional, but hardly evidence McCain is some kind of Dark Knight (whatever that means) and certainly not evidence that Obama is a better choice.
Unfortunately, we only have these two choices.
September 18, 2008 2:47 pm
Tim2
@Milena
It's not that you are biased, that's no big deal. However, the terms you used to describe both Senator Obama and his plan--as I provided in my previous post--reeked of Intro to Propaganda. You're better than that.
Also, when you state:
"How Obama and McCain approach healthcare are similar to how they will approach most of their other policies, so it is worth reviewing.
The short answer to the question is neither. However, I implore my readers to understand the severe limitations in choice that we have, so let's get started."
It gives one the impression that you are going to provide a thoughtful analysis, which is far from true. I guess I just wanted you to be upfront in declaring your bias, rather than trying to present your article as an objective analysis. That's all.
Just a quick question on the voting record debate.
Specifically on strike one.
Was the funding in question an incentive to perform abortions, or was the bill a disincentive, precluding funding to these doctors which goes to those who don't perform abortions?
In case one, then Milena's point holds, but in case two, then Ben's point holds.
September 18, 2008 2:55 pm
Testudo Liberalis
Ben,
Point by point, then.
1. Voted Yes on a bill to prohibit funds given to those professionals who perform abortions
Why should someone who doesn't believe in abortions have to pay for someone's? Why do you feel so comfortable forcing your morality on others?
2. Voted No on a bill to expand conservation efforts, subsidize small farms, and increase nutrition spending.
Farm subsidies? For real? A farm is inefficient and you want to reward it? And what is nutrition spending?
3. Voted No on a bill to strike the civil immunities for government-forced telecoms spying on American citizens from S Amdt 3911
Far enough, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Obama ultimately had a similar FISA vote.
4. Voted No on a bill to increase regulation of lobbyist activity and donations to political candidates
I agree, boo.
5. Voted Yes on a joint resolution that would have began the process of amending the Constitution to make physically damaging or destroying the American flag illegal.
Agree again, boo.
So what's the conclusion? Some good and some bad. Looks like two good, one wash and two bad. Hardly the Dark Prince of the Right. Symbol of Evil? Grow up.
Look, I'll be the first to agree, McCain is no libertarian. He's certainly not my top choice but given Obama's ghastly economic policies and health care nonsense, I'll have to make do.
Milena- I never said Obama is going to decrease military spending- and it's one of the reasons I'm not going to vote for him in November. But Mccain's promise of more wars makes my idea an impossibility.
I am well aware that universal healthcare will not be cheap. I do think that those who buy their own private coverage should still have to contribute taxes. Here's an analogy that makes it much clearer:
Suppose I have enough money to own my own private army to protect myself and my family. Yet the government still expects me to pay extra taxes in order to finance the Marines, Army, Navy, and Air Force. But I can afford my OWN security, so I shouldn't have to pay to protect other Americans. Is this fair? No. But that's the way it is. Taxes keep us out of anarchy. John Mccain's 2500 tax credit is not going to do me any good. What I could really use is a safety net insured by the government so that I never get dropped from coverage.
I stopped putting stock into anything Christopher Hitchens writes after he decided to try being waterboarded to see if it was indeed torture.
@Adam - This was a prohibition of funding to any medical professional who deigned to perform an abortion, not an incentive to perform abortions.
Given that,
@Testudo - 1) Allowing people a choice is not forcing my morality on others. Disallowing people a choice is forcing morality, and that's what McCain (and especially Palin) supports.
2) I dare you to come here to South Dakota and tell our family farmers that farming is inefficient and not worth supporting.
Nutrition spending is budgeting for the nutrition side of health. For example, the food pyramid.
3) Yes, that's a point. I do remember saying that Obama was imperfect.
"Grow up?" I, for one, understand the potency of symbols. It's a lot harder to motivate people by weighing all the grey. In this case, I believe that McCain's negatives far out-weigh Obama's. After a certain threshold is crossed, it's perfectly acceptable to declare a person "good" or "evil."
@Tim - Aye, I'd love to see a decrease in American military spending - say, cutting it in half. Unfortunately that's not realistic at this time.
@Milena - I think it's obvious by now that we're never going to see eye to eye on politics. I'll lay off.
September 18, 2008 3:48 pm
Ryan Karpeles
Tim,
I know everyone’s already picking on you quite a bit, but the “private army” analogy is beyond farfetched. If we’re going to use examples let’s at least have them exist within the realm of possibility.
But pretending this IS possible, let’s say hypothetically that Iran attacked your family with its military. Even if you were insanely wealthy and had $100 billion to spend on military defense, you’re probably 1 of about 20 people who could (and about 1 of 1 who would) do so. This is not the case with healthcare. There are millions and millions and millions of people who can fend for themselves and who want to fend for themselves. If healthcare insurance was only available for people with net values of over $100 billion, we wouldn’t have this system. (As an aside: isn’t the Left the party that wants to disarm its citizens, not allow them to have personal militaries?)
Also, “insuring the uninsured” is a tertiary issue in this debate. It’s an emotional response that sounds good to say but doesn’t play out effectively in the real world. Access to care goes way down, as does quality (just look at the problems it’s caused in countries that adopt this structure). Keep in mind that almost half the people who are uninsured choose to be for their own reasons. So we’re left with about 6% of the country that is unwillingly without insurance. This does NOT mean they don’t receive healthcare (see: Tim and his appendix). It simply means that their tab isn’t fully paid for. So what happens? About 35% is paid by them and the rest is passed off to taxpayers. So we’re already covering them as it is. Also, according to most studies there is essentially zero sacrifice of quality between the insured and the uninsured.
The biggest issue is cost, not coverage. Fixing costs involves many things but one of the keys is trimming down Medicare and Medicaid to reduce waste and streamline coverage to those who truly need it for major issues (i.e. cancer patients are covered while people with the sniffles pay out of pocket).
Also keep in mind this isn’t a utopia. There are trade-offs. Putting all our military spending into healthcare might work in Neverland, but unfortunately there are evil people in this world who wish to destroy us. Although I admit they’d probably love if we didn’t have a military either…
September 18, 2008 4:26 pm
Doug W.
Milena,
I haven't done all my homework, but even as a casual observer I can see that your arguments are seriously off base.
The McCain plan will end up driving corporations away from covering their employees. I see nothing good coming from that..unless you're an insurer.
Free market? There is not a free market now for health care. Our health care spending per capita is not even close to sustainable and according to Uwe Rienhardt, the current trend in the free market will bankrupt our country if health care spending is not brought under control.
Adopting an intra state insurance approach will bring a massive amount of paperwork and confusion to an already byzantine health care system. Imagine how many insurers will actually choose _not_ to cover people in say, New Jersey or Louisiana because they now no longer are required to underwrite policies in business unfriendly states. It will be sort of like auto insurance where states will be begging firms to please offer underwriting in their states. From your point on intra-state coverage being less paperwork and more efficient you have demonstrated that you do not understand how the business of insurance underwriting works in a free market.
Your rebuttals about health care being good for all income levels misses the point: The US infant mortality rates are comparable with most third world nations, not those of our G8 bretheren. Our health care spending per capita is brining poor service to those who do pay, and those poor people who cannot afford insurance pay an extra burden in declining health due to lack of any health care and their doctors visits are always made to an E.R. Not the best plan for good long term health. Your reasoning only works for already insured americans - you're missing the point of how many people don't have coverage.
Cherry picking your facts to support your conclusions do not lend credibility to your article. Your conclusions are a pipe-dream and your article does nothing but muddy the waters. By the way, who are you fronting for?
A concerned health care consumer,
Doug
P.S. I doubt that you'll keep my post here unedited since it doesn't fit in with your world view, but at least I had fun poking holes in your reasoning.
1) Are you still talking about federal funding for abortions? Your comment on this doesn't make any sense if so.
2) I'm sorry my wording wasn't clearer. I can see how that was misunderstood. I did not mean that 'farming' is inefficient; I meant that if a farm is receiving subsidies, i.e. that they operate at a loss, than it is inefficient. That a farmer would take offense to that is not an argument I find convincing. I'm sorry, but a business that depends on subsidies is not a robust model.
3) Your calling McCain evil because you disagree with his policies is ludicrous. Perhaps you'd be more comfortable arguing with the type that thinks Obama is the devil.
Doug W,
"The McCain plan will end up driving corporations away from covering their employees."
Good point, I wonder if Milena covered that...
Moving on, you claim that there is not a free market right now for health care (which is actually true) yet the free market is the problem. You realize that that doesn't make much sense, right? And, how exactly does the fact that people spend a lot of money on healthcare threaten to bankrupt the country if the market were free and its price mechanisms were allowed to function?
Now, in which states can you get no car insurance? According to you, insurers would not offer their service in certain states because of all the paperwork. Is this what is happening? Is the auto insurance industry an accurate model of the free market at work?
"The US infant mortality rates are comparable with most third world nations, not those of our G8 bretheren"
If only this were really apples to apples. The infant mortality rates really aren't comparable at all. There are many reasons why the US infant mortality rate is where it is. One such reason is that the superb quality of healthcare in the US allows infants to be born, though possibly die later, rather than to be miscarried or die during childbirth. That will negatively affect your IM rate. Citing numerical statistics without any context in order to evaluate the merits of a given system is a fool's errand.
Can I get the exact same care in the US as in country X for the same price, calculating taxes into the price? What happens when you include liability? Malpractice? Accessibility? Availability of procedures? Dollars lost in time waiting? Necessity of the procedure? Etc. It's nonsense to think that just pointing to amount of dollars spent is a valuable statistic. As I said earlier, I'll bet Americans also spend more on baseball, too. So what.
"Our health care spending per capita is brining poor service to those who do pay, and those poor people who cannot afford insurance pay an extra burden in declining health due to lack of any health care and their doctors visits are always made to an E.R."
If this is even true, you'll need to demonstrate how this is because of the free market and not due to excessive government regulations in order for it to support your thesis. Merely stating it is not enough.
"Cherry picking your facts to support your conclusions do not lend credibility to your article. "
Apparently what works is ignoring facts altogether and just asserting opinions. Kinda like 'Our health care spending per capita is brining poor service to those who do pay'
Finally, your comment was evidently posted unedited, hence your bizarre syntax. So much for feeding your imagination about the close-minded guardians of the internet trying to keep you down. As far as poking holes in her reasoning, are you saving that for your next post? Maybe it should read "...I'll have fun...". Like in a future tense.
September 18, 2008 5:52 pm
Tim
Ryan- did you ever consider the possibility that the "evil people" who wish to destroy us want to because we have a military presence in their country when it is not wanted?
50,000 troops in Korea
Thousands in Europe
Almost 200,000 in the Middle East, not including contractors
Yes, there are legitimate threats to national security interests. But when you have national security interests in every corner of the globe, defending all of them becomes both implausible and very expensive. (See: Rome)
We spend more money on defense than the rest of the world combined. Which means if every other country in the world teamed up to try to destroy us, it would be pretty much an even match. This scenario will never happen. Ever.
We could slash our military budget in half three times over and be perfectly safe. The money saved doesn't even have to go for healthcare- it can go for education, fixing social security, repairing infrastructure, investing in alternative fuels, it goes on and on and on. But we insist on having a global empire, which is why we will always have a poverty problem in the richest nation on earth.
September 18, 2008 5:55 pm
Gavin
I fully disagree with your claims, but most specifically, I'm confused about one particular point you make.
Can you provide me with some evidence behind the "government has ruled the age of majority to be 18..."? I have no idea what you're talking about. If you're referring to the 26th Amendment of the Constitution, that does not encompass anything but voting rights. Where in the US Constitution is the age of majority stated?
How do you explain the legal disparity in this country between age of consent, age of criminal responsibility, legal drinking age, marriageable age, and voting age? If your claim were true, would these not be all 18?
Is there some hard evidence to this claim of yours, or is it just fantasy? Please indulge me.
September 18, 2008 6:46 pm
Steve
There must be universal coverage to spread the costs and risks across a larger number of premium payors.
You then get HUGE cost savings when you invest in access to primary care services for everyone. Why? Because you can detect diseases that require expensive surgeries and treat them before they need bypasses, liver transplants, etc. Example - cholesterol screenings = diet and medications to control buildup before you have clogged arteries.
As for choice, HSAs only work for people if they have the capacity to put money in them. They also are only a tax sheltered way to cover the costs not covered by insurance. You still will have people who cannot afford to participate in HSAs.
We pay $200 for swabs to subsidize the costs of care for those who do not have insurance. As more fall off of the rolls of the insured, the more the swabs will cost.
As for costs, you neglect to mention that McCain's plan will consider your employer paid premiums as TAXABLE INCOME. For a family of four with a woman of child bearing age, a good plan will cost an employer as much as $1000 a month - which now will be "income" you are taxed on. If you are in the 25% bracket, that means you pay an additional $3000 in income tax, meaning the $2500 credit results in a net increased cost to the taxpayer of $500.
The free market offers very little benefit to consumers in health care - unless you can pay to play. Those who have resources will get good care, and those who don't won't.
September 18, 2008 6:56 pm
Jeff
Can someone tell me what incentive there would be for doctors to work in a government-run healthcare program?
Go to the DMV for 10 minutes and tell me you want to trust one of the most important functions of a society (healthcare) to government employees.
Healthcare only works when you CARE about people. Governments aren't required to care and they're not punished if they don't.
For that reason alone it should be out of the question. Not to mention the fact that the only examples of socialized healthcare are horrible ones, and people travel here for major health problems because even though our system is far from perfect, it's still much better than their rubbish system back home where no one gives a crap about you.
@Testudo Incentives are just that...optional. If you want to talk about comedy, let's discuss the aggressive advertising that lenders employed actively marketing to poor minorities to make a quick dollar. Laughing now?
@Milena I am against maintaining the drinking age. That still doesn't explain why every student that fills out a FAFSA is obligated to report their parents' income in consideration of financial aid even if they are 18.
If we are going to call Obama's measure cost shifting, then the same goes for McCain. His plan just shifts the costs from the employers to the consumers. Most health care policy experts think his plan will raise costs and decrease access to care.
@Ryan Your analogy doesn't make any sense. If you cheated, you cheated. In a deregulated environment, companies did what they do best: make profits. The companies lobbied for increased deregulation which they got under this administration. That left them open to making ethically questionable loans as well as irresponsible ones.
I'm not exactly sure who you propose to calculate the value of a tax credit if not the government.
The quality of health care is definitely not a minor issue. There are widespread disparities among ethnic groups and socioeconomic levels.
And there are countless more that talk about health inequalities.
September 18, 2008 7:27 pm
Gavin
Jeff, am I to believe that health care providers "CARE" about people just out of the goodness of their hearts? Aren't they more interested in running a business? In short, making money while spending the lowest amount possible?
Neither governments nor businesses are obligated or inclined to care about anyone. Get your head straight.
September 18, 2008 7:30 pm
Ryan Karpeles
Tim,
The sad reality of this world is that good people are often hated. I have no interest in other people liking us. I have every interest in doing what is right and bringing others along with us who wish to do the same.
I guarantee we disagree on the importance of the military and that's fine, we can leave it at that. I simply happen to believe that although we have our faults (as does every country), and we haven't fought every battle perfectly (that is impossible), the U.S. has been the single greatest force for good on this planet. Perhaps you flat-out disagree with that assertion. But if so, please provide the name of another country in this world that you would like to have the strongest military and be responsible for defeating evil and promoting good wherever it may exist.
The U.S. is far from perfect and war is horrible to the Nth degree. But if we're worried about having to fight more, pulling our finger out of every dam is not the answer. I wish this world were a better place, I wish war didn't exist, I wish there were no such thing as poverty, I wish no one starved to death, I wish everyone could live in a free society like ours. But the world doesn't run on wishful thinking. And so it goes: we are destined for criticism either way. If we don't get involved we get blamed for a failure to act responsibly. If we do get involved we get blamed for infringing on people and imposing our will. When you're damned if you do and damned if you don't, it's usually best to air on the safe side. That is what we have chosen to do.
Lastly, one of the largest fallacies in current thought is the idea that money automatically solves problems. Yes there is a threshold at which you need SOME money or your program is destined for failure. But look at education: we've poured billions of dollars into years and years of education yet kids coming out of school aren't any better, wiser or more prepared for life than they were many decades ago. They may have more knowledge about stars or matrices or food pyramids, but their character, wisdom and work ethic show essentially no improvement (and if anything they're probably in decline). Just as an example, simply look at letters written by kids from the Revolutionary Way era who never went to school. They're light years ahead of where we are and they didn't even have to pay $250,000 to go to Harvard or Michigan or Florida. Imagine that.
Anyway, I know we're coming from almost opposite angles on these issues and that's wonderful. As they say, I prefer clarity to agreement. Hopefully this didn't muddy the waters any further.
September 18, 2008 7:53 pm
Ryan Karpeles
Vanessa,
You are right when it comes to deregulation and forgive me for not fully explaining. Deregulation ALONE was not the problem. In fact, deregulation in general is preferable; the problem is that we took it too far. There was no oversight and when there were people who did stand up for doing the right thing, their opinions were shut out.
There are a lot of parties to blame here, and yes, one is the administration - or more specifically, Congress. I believe that might be partially why their approval rating is completely in the tank.
When it comes to providing sources, please point us to examples that stay on topic. One article was primarily about AIDS, which is fine. Except that we're talking about healthcare as a whole; not a specific disease. The second article was loaded with qualifiers that discussed the slant of those reports and how the conclusions were rather questionable. Not to mention the fact that Prospect and The Economist are left-leaning sources to begin with. But fair enough. I'm more than open to honest research and am willing to change my mind given honest data, logic and reasoning, but those articles were a bit of a stretch. Thank you for sharing nonetheless.
88 RESPONSES TO "MCCAIN'S OR OBAMA'S HEALTHCARE PLAN?"
The free market system does not work in healthcare. In order for the free market system to work the buyer needs to have the option not to buy. Example: I want a new TV but I feel the price is too high so I don't buy it. The TV manufacture lowers the price so they can increase their sales and people like me would then buy the TV at the lower price. Everyone is happy.
If I get sick and need healthcare am I going to wait for the price to come down? I am going to go on having cancer because the price for treatment is too high or am I going to cash in my life savings or take out a mortgage on my house (nevermind that, the credit crunch has eliminated that option)?
@?????? -
You'd have to offer more evidence of your faulty claim. Your TV example is precisely what would happen in healthcare if regulations were eased, so thank you for providing it. For example, you sprain your ankle, you don't need an MD who completed 8 years of training to help you, but the current regulatory environment requires it. You could get treated by someone who is skilled in setting bones/wrapping ankles whose training would be far less expensive, likewise their prices would be. You need to think beyond the current system. Changes like this would need to take place, and they would.
I guess you completely skipped over the last part of my post which offered pricing options if you could buy coverage across state lines. Furthermore the poorest people will still get care.
One of the biggest reasons we're in this mess is because of increased governmental involvement, regulation and legislation in the healthcare industry (particularly as a result of the 1965 amendments involving Medicare and Medicaid and the subsequent ballooning of these programs over the last four decades).
The answer to too much government is not more government. For some reason many people never seem to grasp this.
"Barack doesn't believe in freedom to choose"
I have to admit, I never thought I'd hear a Democrat get criticized for infringing upon people's right to choose. McCain would NEVER do anything like that!
Oh, wait... O_o
@Ryan Karpeles - well said. I wish more intelligent people like you would speak up, start blogs, and spread the word. That is precisely what is required to combat the misinformation floating around.
@Sean -
I never said McCain was perfect. In fact I was rather explicit about that in my post. Let's have a rational discussion about the issues. In my opinion, Barack's infringement is far more grave than McCain's, though McCain does find infringement sporting as well.
When it concerns Health Savings Accounts, Barack's opposition borders on criminal. HSAs are meant to help those who have no coverage mitigate costs, save their money with tax-advantages, and increase transparency. They are used with high-deductible plans or for those ineligible for Medicare. There are no income limitations to contribute, nor do you need to have earned income, and low income individuals who receive some care are still eligible in certain instances. That means an old grandmother who has no money could receive contributions from you and still be able to contribute. That is freedom. The freedom Barack opposes. I cannot believe anyone would be opposed to them.
When individuals are in control of the costs rather than third-parties, they are far more discerning. You cannot argue with that.
There are more solutions to our problems than having Barack Obama play nanny with a piggybank. We need to start thinking. We cannot rely on the government to solve our problems.
I wasn't trying to say that Obama's infringement of choice is any less significant, just making a point that both parties do it. I'm very disillusioned with the 2-party system. Both sides give and take freedoms, it just comes down to which ones you're more content with losing. I'm not sure why it has to be that way. Why can't we have financial freedom as well as moral freedom? Would that be just too much freedom for us to handle? Just a thought.
@Sean - got it. I agree with you. Both parties will bring bad policies, I just believe McCain will bring slightly less.
My metaphor? Let's say there are two men who say they are going to start punching you without end. You don't have a choice not to get punched. One says he'll punch you every minute, while the other says every other minute. If I'm going to get punched either way, I'll take the lesser punishment...
That brings me to another issue: state and local elections really matter. In addition to scrutinizing both candidates we better play close attention to the state and local governments who are responsible for almost 55% of the overall national budget! Their horrible programs and wild spending make a difference.
@Sean - what I wanted to add is that you have a far better chance of getting a third party elected at the state and local level...
This is ideologically driven and analytically poor information. We pay more of our GDP for health care than almost any other developing nation, precisely because prices have been dictated by the market in consideration of profit before all. Further, Health Savings Accounts are pretty much useless for a family that already can't afford the basics. Given the current economic troubles, that number is increasing. Independent reviewers agree that McCain's plan would decrease incentives for employers to pay for health care, and increase the number of people without it. That's BETTER in your eyes?
Finally, your equation of "Obama Hates personal choice," with "Obama Hates Health Care Savings Accounts," is one of the weakest, least supported and nonsensical analogies I've ever heard. The "freedom" to take care of your own $300,000 in medical bills is really not what the founding fathers envisioned. Some problems require cooperative solutions because they are problems of the group, rather than the individual. Out of control health care costs is one.
Oh, and throughout this poorly researched and inadequately supported piece, you referred to Mr. Obama by his first name, and Mr. McCain by his last. That is very disrespectful. Watch Fox News much? Because I don't know any other mainstream media outlet that makes that mistake.
1. It's actually not unconstitutional. Plenty of companies forbid practices for people who are past the age of majority; have you ever tried to rent a car between the ages of 18-25? Federal financial aid takes your parents' income into account for your aid calculation. If you can forbid something, why can't you mandate something?
2. Cost cutting isn't just about reducing access. It's about reducing the amount of time a pharmaceutical company has an exclusive over production of a drug. It's about more people into the mean usage of service so that people who both underuse and overuse the system consume less of the expensive services offered. Those HealthCorps volunteers will provide services and care at significantly less cost than a full time employee. An experienced nurse would have no problem earning 50k anywhere in the US. AmeriCorps volunteers get 15k max each year.
3. He is right. How would I know how much I expect to spend in health care costs for the year? If insurance companies can't even get that right with complex prediction instruments, then how is the average American supposed to figure that out? If you want cost transparency, that is as simple as changing the invoice.
@Sean: Moral freedom must have boundaries. Some may wish that were not the case, but it is. Should I be allowed to push a child into oncoming traffic? Should I be allowed to cheat on my taxes? Should I be allowed to rob my neighbor? Without morality our society crumbles. The question then becomes where to draw those lines. You may draw them in one place; others may draw them in another. This is why we have the democratic process to decide these things (unless of course you're a Supreme Court judge in the state of California).
@Milena: I believe this is less a case of intelligent people than it is a case of intelligent ideas. There are plenty of bright people who spread the word, write blogs, etc. Unfortunately brightness and amount of education received don't necessarily correlate to having good ideas. The real issue is that we need to start asking ourselves "What works?" rather than simply trusting our opinions to be formed by people with Ph.D's or MBA's. There is no shortage of new ideas, but the best ones are often the ones we can learn (or should have already learned) from history. We've already seen what ruins states, countries and societies, yet many people in this nation seem to be advocating those very same policies.
McCain's plan:
1. We are seeing the effects of deregulation now in the financial sector to the tune of $4 trillion in investor losses and over $400 billion in taxpayer dollars buying private industry. This is the clearest argument against deregulation I have ever seen. Free markets are meant to seek profits above all even is that means a human cost.
2. How do you determine the value of the tax credit? How is the government going to go about seeking proof from individuals that their state of health merits a larger tax credit. It's this just complicating the tax code further?
3. Opening up the market would allow a select few to purchase higher quality coverage. Overall, it would exacerbate inequality as upper middle class individuals leave their mediocre plans. The resulting loss in premiums will force insurance companies to cut costs by denying more coverage to people who cannot afford to leave the plan. McCain's plan does nothing for people with preexisting conditions who have immense difficulty finding adequate coverage.
That TV example is great if the person who is sick could wait. There is no cost to the consumer for waiting for TV prices to fall. Waiting to receive chemotherapy however has a huge costs.
@Liz - your rage certainly outweighs your own evidence and research.
As for the first-name last-name issue, it was entirely unintentional and I appreciate you bringing it to my attention. I will be changing it on my post shortly and will ask Brazen to correct here.
@Ryan - I completely agree, but shouldn't economic freedom have boundaries too?
@Milena - Yes, but I think determining which candidate will "punch" you less is a matter of personal preference, not of objectivity. Someone, say a homosexual, will likely be hurt much more by a ban on gay marriage than what tax breaks they get. The reverse is also true, for someone like a business owner who will get crushed by Democrat taxes. I'm getting way off topic now though. Also I agree with your point about local government.
Vanessa,
"We are seeing the effects of deregulation now in the financial sector to the tune of $4 trillion in investor losses..."
Comedy gold! What color is the sky in your world? Last I checked it was caused by government created incentives for mortgage lenders to sell houses to people who simply couldn't afford them. Lo and behold, they still can't afford them. Imagine that.
Liz,
"This is ideologically driven and analytically poor information."
I suppose you'll provide an example...or not.
"We pay more of our GDP for health care than almost any other developing nation, precisely because prices have been dictated by the market in consideration of profit before all."
You'll need to explain this, asserting it is not enough. Is it possible that Americans pay more for healthcare because they buy more? Perhaps an American spends money on an MRI where a Nigerian does not due to Nigeria's shortage of MRI machines. I heard that Americans spend more on Baseball tickets than Ugandans. (It must be because of the profit motive!!)
In short, you seem to have no problem making unsubstantiated assertions; you speak very forcefully for someone so empty handed. Would you care to actually address any of Milena's points, or is it enough for you to call her analysis poor hoping that no one will notice your deficiency?
Next time you come out firing, make sure your guns are loaded.
Cheers!
@Vanessa -
Obama's Plan
Re: age of majority. Private companies can do whatever they want. The government has ruled the age of majority to be 18, therefore they cannot not ad hoc create a law that says children are now 25? It is ridiculous. I also thought you were against maintaining the drinking age 21, that is a similar concept. Unconstitutional.
Re: HealthCorps. Bad idea. Subsidized volunteerism? That is not volunteerism. I want Obama to call it what it is, creation of new government jobs.
Re: cost cutting. It is a fallacy in his plan. He should call it cost-shifting. There will be no actual reduction in costs for services. Taxpayers will take the burden.
Re: HSAs, see my comment above to Sean. HSAs help a lot more than they hinder.
McCain's Plan
Re: deregulation. You wrongly peg deregulation as the sole problem we are currently facing. It is far more complex than that, coming from a problem of improper forms regulation AND deregulation. The current mortgage crisis was worsened by direct intervention and regulation of the government and the Fed. This should not be ignored. I do not blame the government wholesale, but they are certainly NOT the solution.
Re: tax credit. (For the record, Obama supports tax credits for other solutions, such as energy credits, and middle-class income credits.) We have to remember we are looking at solutions within confines of the two plans, not ideals. In an ideal world, we would dramatically reduce the complexity of the tax code, but neither plan offers us that option. As for McCain's tax credit, on an average basis, employers pay about $8,800 for employee healthcare. Since that is part of employee compensation, if the employer didn't provide it in the form of care, they would provide it in the form of wages. The tax credit is meant to serve as an offset for the additional money. You have to understand, if employers didn't provide healthcare, employees would be paid MORE.
Re: Free market. I disagree here. The market would allow proper levels of regulation, coverage, and cost find the consumers who want to buy them. Not every wealthy person will flee to high-cost options. It will be based on health. A wealthy person in good health will probably choose a lower cost option. This will have the opposite effect from what you say, the highest cost plans will actually reduce in cost, though you are right, there will still probably be very high cost plans available. You also have to consider the quality of care Obama's plan provides given his cost structure. How can we determine what that will be?
Re: waiting. You are right. Waiting for prices to equalize takes time. But the benefits far outweigh the negatives of excessive regulation where you will be subject to even greater waiting times and lack of choice if you cannot afford supplemental insurance (which is what most consumers need to do in countries who have universal health care, supplement the government plan.) Don't be fooled that the low-income population is going to be first in line for chemo under Obama's plan.
@Liz - also, I'm guessing you didn't read my post. I only made the "first-name" mistake once when referring to Senator Obama. Either way, it is corrected on my original post.
Vanessa,
Important points no doubt.
1. The financial collapse is primarily a result of immoral and irresponsible lending; not deregulation. That would be like blaming a person for cheating because the teacher walked out of the room. Second, much of this bad lending began after the Community Reinvestment Act was passed in 1977 which bullied lenders into offering credit to high-risk sectors of the market. Over time those loans became more and more risky, especially as housing continued to soar. Thus we ended up with insane practices like 100% credit on mortgages, which politicians convinced us was good for low-income families even though it ruined them in the long-run. In short: deregulation cannot be blamed. Immoral lending, overconfidence, ridiculous compensation packages (investors still made the same salary if they lost their company hundreds of millions of dollars), and government pressure to overextend loans to people who couldn’t afford them all play a major role.
2. All good questions. But why must the government be the agency to assess people’s health? This would of course complicate the issue but only because we’re assuming a faulty solution from the outset.
3. The quality of healthcare is a minor issue at most and has been shown to be essentially the same between people of varying income levels (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/getting_real_about_hea...). Next, preexisting conditions is a very tricky term and gets pretty hairy. After all, what’s the point of buying insurance in the first place if you can wait to purchase it only once something happens to you? I’m not sure what we’d call that, but it certainly wouldn’t be insurance. That would be like getting to scratch every lotto ticket and then only paying for the one that turns out to be a winner.
To your last point: if you’re worried about waiting for an important medical procedure, socializing healthcare is probably the worst thing you could possibly do. The waiting lists (even for routine check-ups) in places where this exists are outrageous. Often patients have to wait months or even years before ever being treated. Not good.
@Sean -
McCain does not propose a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, if I'm wrong, I'd love to see that evidence. He is leaving it up to the states, which is constitutional. There will be plenty of states that allow the right to same-sex marriage.
In fact on many conservative blogs, they criticize him for not supporting the ban.
@Sean: Economic freedoms must exist within a moral, responsible framework of interaction. This does not mean that we tell every organization what it can and cannot do (which is exactly what happened when Congress passed a bill to intimidate institutions to overextend loans to those who couldn’t pay for them if anything went awry). This was irresponsible and therefore the wrong framework.
What should happen in a free market is that companies who make mistakes cannot be bailed out, AND they should know beforehand that they will not be bailed out. This discourages immoral lending because it makes people responsible for their risk-taking. The current problem is largely that we didn’t address these flaws until too late and much of these loans came out of companies – namely Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae – that had the worst possible model: privately owned yet publicly funded. Therefore they had all the flexibility in the world yet not of the responsibly should anything go wrong. Economic freedom without the potential for economic failure is a disastrous recipe.
Freedom implies the potential for failure. This is what our economy is based on and any attempt to forcefully remove either aspect (freedom or the ability to fail) is usually a step in the wrong direction.
You're right about the limit of choices, but it's because we have not adopted a comprehensive insurance policy that would include everyone and cut cost.
How do we do this?
It's very simple. You stop spending 10 billion dollars a month in Iraq, and you take all of that money- every single fucking penny- and you put it towards a 2 tier healthcare system similar to the UK's that would cover everyone.
If you want your own private coverage, fine. You still have to share the tax burden for covering the 40+ million Americans who don't have insurance. Stop whining. It's part of life. Taxes and death are inevitable, so don't whine about taxes, especially when they go towards preventing death.
The market cannot be trusted to solve the problem. Insurance companies have a bottom line to think about, which prevents them from making moral choices, which ultimately restricts every American's choices.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are ALL hampered by paying for pre-existing conditions and absurd deductibles. How can any American pursue their way of life when the cost of health is more than they can possibly hope to afford?
At the end of the day, it's a really simple equation. Human beings are greater than money. If you think the "choices" that the market provides are more important than that, then I feel sorry for you.
Regardless of whether McCain's health care plan is better than Obama's or not, McCain stands for everything wrong with America. Social conservatism, prudishness, militarism, and invasion of privacy are all his hallmarks.
As a symbol of such evil, McCain must not attain the presidency... regardless of his position on health care. Obama is imperfect, but he's a heck of a lot better than the Dark Prince of the Right.
--
On a related note, increased regulation of a wide variety of industries and systems is necessary for the future progress of our nation. Whether that is to be private or government, though, remains to be seen.
"even though McCain's plan is peppered with questionable features I didn't cover here - it is less likely to dramatically burden taxpayers or degrade the quality of care."
Just as an FYI, the Washington Post just reported on studies of each health care plan. It would be difficult for McCain's plan to be particularly impactful given it doesn't do much to help the uninsured.
"New studies from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center and the policy journal Health Affairs suggest that Obama's proposal would eventually cover more than 34 million of the roughly 47 million Americans currently without insurance, while McCain's would cover at best 5 million uninsured."
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/16/new_studies_report...
I suppose if you take the side of McCain surrogates, there are no uninsured people in the country, because there's always the emergency room. But if you're one of those without health insurance you better be religious because you're going to spend a considerable amount of time praying you don't get sick.
@Tim -
Your argument hasn't a shred of fact in it. I really wish you wouldn't cloud rational discussions (which plenty of commenters who oppose me are capable of having) with your constant haranguing. As a percentage of GDP, defense spending is lower than in the 1960's! Health care spending has more than quadrupled with little gain! Get your facts straight.
Yes, health insurance is different than TV sets, because issues of life and death are at stake. However, food, clothing, and shelter are equally crucial for survival and are largely left up to private markets. Does Obama need to tell me how many bananas I should eat? I know you will jump down my throat with, "The housing market is failing because of private industry." Wrong, see Ryan Karpeles' comments above, he provides a succinct and accurate explanation for the failures.
Furthermore, you are not losing the moral argument here. Just because I do not support inefficient intervention from central planners does not mean I support withholding care from the impoverished. In fact, you already know that. You have argued with me enough times to know where I stand, yet I'm convinced you prefer to set up a straw man with my face on it and beat it down for amusement.
As for your assertion that insurance companies having their bottom line at stake = they won't make moral decisions is preposterous and based in your fantasies of evil corporations.
@Ben Overmeyer - Way to repeat leftist mantras with zero substance or evidence.
@zak - thanks for this link. If McCain's plan is less "impactful" than Obama's that is actually a good thing.
You must consider the costs and quality of Obama's plan. You have to know what you are getting into, not just some vague notion of coverage subsidized by the government.
Milena,
Interesting how you used these words to describe both Mr. Obama and his plan: "creepy" "suffering from delirium" "I've heard he got Isaac Mizrahi for Target to design some new hospital gowns and chic bedpans for less" "additional tidbits of incoherence"
And comments about Mr. McCain: "a serious attempt at reform"
Not an objective or unbiased analysis by any means.
Anyway, here are how the campaigns describe their health plans.
I hope everyone examines the details/specifics of each plan.
Mr Obama's Plan
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/#coverage-for-all
Mr. McCain's Plan
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/19ba2f1c-c03f-4ac2-8cd5-5cf2e...
Milena- there is no fantasy about evil corporations. Insurance companies place their bottom line ahead of the well-being of their customers at every turn. I racked up over 80 thousand dollars in a lapse in coverage. My insurance company did not cover a medical issue I had which forced me to drop out of school temporarily- but because my policy was contingent on my full-time status, I was dropped from coverage. While shopping for new coverage the next week, my appendix burst. I had 2 surgeries because my first surgeon cut a vital artery and nearly killed me. 6 days in the hospital= 83,000 dollars in debt, which they will have to wring from my cold dead hands.
After this fiasco, you can't imagine how hard it has been to even get approved for a healthcare plan. Because I am not lucky enough to be in perfect health, I have to pay a 5,000 dollar deductible.
Not immoral?
This is a real story and I am a real person and this can happen to anyone and it is happening today to millions of other Americans.
You did not even notice that I said we should keep a private option open for those that choose to pay for their own coverage.
Defense spending is lower than in the 60's. Do you know why? Because we don't have a draft and a million soldiers in Vietnam. Does that make our war spending today ok? Just because it's not as bad as it was during our worst militaristic period?
Um... no.
Tim,
You prattle on and on about morality, but why should I or anyone accept and pay for your version of morality? It isn't moral to force on individual to pay for products consumed by another just because you say so. I'm sorry that you are unhealthy, but what is moral about making everyone else pick up the tab?
You mention that there should be a private option, are you saying you'd support people opting out of the tax should they choose the private option, or do you imagine they should pay double?
"You still have to share the tax burden for covering the 40+ million Americans who don't have insurance."
Why?
Ben,
"McCain stands for everything wrong with America."
I certainly don't agree with all McCain stands for, but you, sir, are an idiot.
@Tim2 - You are correct. I am biased against central planning. Obama's plan happens to fall in line with that. I cannot present an unbiased opinion of his plan from my point of view, it is an impossibility. There is no way to make socialism look good, sorry.
I also hope everyone looks at the impact of proposed policies given the constraint of a two party system and the actual results.
@Tim - Your assumption that I am ignorant or insensitive to the plights of the uninsured is a bogus misrepresentation.
If you want to trade war stories, email me personally and I'll illustrate my own family's experiences with being uninsured. Your personal experience is awful, and I'm sorry for your pain. But is still not an argument for the efficacy Barack Obama's plan.
I did notice you said we should get private options, and of course you can slap private options on top of a universal plan, but that is a paltry trade off for a free market. Bottom line? Barack's plan won't provide universal coverage, it won't result in better care, less wait times, lower costs. Those things matter. Wait times and degradation of care HAS a cost, not expressed in dollars alone. You must consider that.
Your assertion we should all learn to deal with paying taxes for the uninsured is also silly. We already do! Again, we have quadrupled the amount we pay out. So, why is care not any better and costs keep rising? What is the appropriate level of tax contribution required, do you know?
Furthermore, if you think Obama is going to decrease war spending you are dreaming. Again, he should call it defense-spending-shifting. He is going to move over to Pakistan, that's the only difference.
Christopher Hitchens wrote a piece in Slate a few days ago, "Sen. Barack Obama has, if anything, been the more militant of the two presidential candidates in stressing the danger here and the need to act without too much sentiment about our so-called Islamabad ally."
Alright, point by point, then.
10/18/2007 - Voted Yes on a bill to prohibit funds given to those professionals who perform abortions
(Anti-choice? Strike one!)
05/08/2002 - Voted No on a bill to expand conservation efforts, subsidize small farms, and increase nutrition spending.
(Anti-rural and anti-environment? Strike two!)
02/12/2008 - Voted No on a bill to strike the civil immunities for government-forced telecoms spying on American citizens from S Amdt 3911.
(Anti-privacy? Strike three....but we're not done yet!)
08/02/2007 - Voted No on a bill to increase regulation of lobbyist activity and donations to political candidates.
(I see this man loves to keep his money's origins secret)
03/29/2000 - Voted Yes on a joint resolution that would have began the process of amending the Constitution to make physically damaging or destroying the American flag illegal.
(Enemy of the 1st Amendment much?)
--
I could go on, but the sheer volume of audacious voting McCain has done is too long and too irritating.
Source: Project Vote Smart
@Ben Overmeyer -
Your voting record evidence (though selective) serves to strengthen the case for McCain in my eyes. It is not the government's job to provide funding for pet projects!
Re: strike one - funding shouldn't be given to those who do OR don't perform abortions. What a doctor does in private practice should not be incentivized by the government, he made the right choice.
Re: strike two - same thing. His votes against subsidies is the right choice. It shouldn't matter if it is farms or nuclear polluters, no one should be getting funding for projects consumers can support on their own. Conservation (as a good) is not in danger of having no support. Again, not the government's job.
Re: spying & flag burning - that's total B.S. and I'll agree with you there, both proposals are unconstitutional, but hardly evidence McCain is some kind of Dark Knight (whatever that means) and certainly not evidence that Obama is a better choice.
Unfortunately, we only have these two choices.
@Milena
It's not that you are biased, that's no big deal. However, the terms you used to describe both Senator Obama and his plan--as I provided in my previous post--reeked of Intro to Propaganda. You're better than that.
Also, when you state:
"How Obama and McCain approach healthcare are similar to how they will approach most of their other policies, so it is worth reviewing.
The short answer to the question is neither. However, I implore my readers to understand the severe limitations in choice that we have, so let's get started."
It gives one the impression that you are going to provide a thoughtful analysis, which is far from true. I guess I just wanted you to be upfront in declaring your bias, rather than trying to present your article as an objective analysis. That's all.
Just a quick question on the voting record debate.
Specifically on strike one.
Was the funding in question an incentive to perform abortions, or was the bill a disincentive, precluding funding to these doctors which goes to those who don't perform abortions?
In case one, then Milena's point holds, but in case two, then Ben's point holds.
Ben,
Point by point, then.
1. Voted Yes on a bill to prohibit funds given to those professionals who perform abortions
Why should someone who doesn't believe in abortions have to pay for someone's? Why do you feel so comfortable forcing your morality on others?
2. Voted No on a bill to expand conservation efforts, subsidize small farms, and increase nutrition spending.
Farm subsidies? For real? A farm is inefficient and you want to reward it? And what is nutrition spending?
3. Voted No on a bill to strike the civil immunities for government-forced telecoms spying on American citizens from S Amdt 3911
Far enough, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Obama ultimately had a similar FISA vote.
4. Voted No on a bill to increase regulation of lobbyist activity and donations to political candidates
I agree, boo.
5. Voted Yes on a joint resolution that would have began the process of amending the Constitution to make physically damaging or destroying the American flag illegal.
Agree again, boo.
So what's the conclusion? Some good and some bad. Looks like two good, one wash and two bad. Hardly the Dark Prince of the Right. Symbol of Evil? Grow up.
Look, I'll be the first to agree, McCain is no libertarian. He's certainly not my top choice but given Obama's ghastly economic policies and health care nonsense, I'll have to make do.
I guess Milena beat me to it!
Milena- I never said Obama is going to decrease military spending- and it's one of the reasons I'm not going to vote for him in November. But Mccain's promise of more wars makes my idea an impossibility.
I am well aware that universal healthcare will not be cheap. I do think that those who buy their own private coverage should still have to contribute taxes. Here's an analogy that makes it much clearer:
Suppose I have enough money to own my own private army to protect myself and my family. Yet the government still expects me to pay extra taxes in order to finance the Marines, Army, Navy, and Air Force. But I can afford my OWN security, so I shouldn't have to pay to protect other Americans. Is this fair? No. But that's the way it is. Taxes keep us out of anarchy. John Mccain's 2500 tax credit is not going to do me any good. What I could really use is a safety net insured by the government so that I never get dropped from coverage.
I stopped putting stock into anything Christopher Hitchens writes after he decided to try being waterboarded to see if it was indeed torture.
@Adam - This was a prohibition of funding to any medical professional who deigned to perform an abortion, not an incentive to perform abortions.
Given that,
@Testudo - 1) Allowing people a choice is not forcing my morality on others. Disallowing people a choice is forcing morality, and that's what McCain (and especially Palin) supports.
2) I dare you to come here to South Dakota and tell our family farmers that farming is inefficient and not worth supporting.
Nutrition spending is budgeting for the nutrition side of health. For example, the food pyramid.
3) Yes, that's a point. I do remember saying that Obama was imperfect.
"Grow up?" I, for one, understand the potency of symbols. It's a lot harder to motivate people by weighing all the grey. In this case, I believe that McCain's negatives far out-weigh Obama's. After a certain threshold is crossed, it's perfectly acceptable to declare a person "good" or "evil."
@Tim - Aye, I'd love to see a decrease in American military spending - say, cutting it in half. Unfortunately that's not realistic at this time.
@Milena - I think it's obvious by now that we're never going to see eye to eye on politics. I'll lay off.
Tim,
I know everyone’s already picking on you quite a bit, but the “private army” analogy is beyond farfetched. If we’re going to use examples let’s at least have them exist within the realm of possibility.
But pretending this IS possible, let’s say hypothetically that Iran attacked your family with its military. Even if you were insanely wealthy and had $100 billion to spend on military defense, you’re probably 1 of about 20 people who could (and about 1 of 1 who would) do so. This is not the case with healthcare. There are millions and millions and millions of people who can fend for themselves and who want to fend for themselves. If healthcare insurance was only available for people with net values of over $100 billion, we wouldn’t have this system. (As an aside: isn’t the Left the party that wants to disarm its citizens, not allow them to have personal militaries?)
Also, “insuring the uninsured” is a tertiary issue in this debate. It’s an emotional response that sounds good to say but doesn’t play out effectively in the real world. Access to care goes way down, as does quality (just look at the problems it’s caused in countries that adopt this structure). Keep in mind that almost half the people who are uninsured choose to be for their own reasons. So we’re left with about 6% of the country that is unwillingly without insurance. This does NOT mean they don’t receive healthcare (see: Tim and his appendix). It simply means that their tab isn’t fully paid for. So what happens? About 35% is paid by them and the rest is passed off to taxpayers. So we’re already covering them as it is. Also, according to most studies there is essentially zero sacrifice of quality between the insured and the uninsured.
The biggest issue is cost, not coverage. Fixing costs involves many things but one of the keys is trimming down Medicare and Medicaid to reduce waste and streamline coverage to those who truly need it for major issues (i.e. cancer patients are covered while people with the sniffles pay out of pocket).
Also keep in mind this isn’t a utopia. There are trade-offs. Putting all our military spending into healthcare might work in Neverland, but unfortunately there are evil people in this world who wish to destroy us. Although I admit they’d probably love if we didn’t have a military either…
Milena,
I haven't done all my homework, but even as a casual observer I can see that your arguments are seriously off base.
The McCain plan will end up driving corporations away from covering their employees. I see nothing good coming from that..unless you're an insurer.
Free market? There is not a free market now for health care. Our health care spending per capita is not even close to sustainable and according to Uwe Rienhardt, the current trend in the free market will bankrupt our country if health care spending is not brought under control.
Adopting an intra state insurance approach will bring a massive amount of paperwork and confusion to an already byzantine health care system. Imagine how many insurers will actually choose _not_ to cover people in say, New Jersey or Louisiana because they now no longer are required to underwrite policies in business unfriendly states. It will be sort of like auto insurance where states will be begging firms to please offer underwriting in their states. From your point on intra-state coverage being less paperwork and more efficient you have demonstrated that you do not understand how the business of insurance underwriting works in a free market.
Your rebuttals about health care being good for all income levels misses the point: The US infant mortality rates are comparable with most third world nations, not those of our G8 bretheren. Our health care spending per capita is brining poor service to those who do pay, and those poor people who cannot afford insurance pay an extra burden in declining health due to lack of any health care and their doctors visits are always made to an E.R. Not the best plan for good long term health. Your reasoning only works for already insured americans - you're missing the point of how many people don't have coverage.
Cherry picking your facts to support your conclusions do not lend credibility to your article. Your conclusions are a pipe-dream and your article does nothing but muddy the waters. By the way, who are you fronting for?
A concerned health care consumer,
Doug
P.S. I doubt that you'll keep my post here unedited since it doesn't fit in with your world view, but at least I had fun poking holes in your reasoning.
Interesting FAQ from Obama's website.
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/Obama08_HealthcareFAQ.pdf
I could not find FAQ from McCain's campaign
These guys say they are non-partison, but who really knows (and, yes, it is critical of McCain's plan):
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/wn_20080503_8652.php
Tim,
1) Are you still talking about federal funding for abortions? Your comment on this doesn't make any sense if so.
2) I'm sorry my wording wasn't clearer. I can see how that was misunderstood. I did not mean that 'farming' is inefficient; I meant that if a farm is receiving subsidies, i.e. that they operate at a loss, than it is inefficient. That a farmer would take offense to that is not an argument I find convincing. I'm sorry, but a business that depends on subsidies is not a robust model.
3) Your calling McCain evil because you disagree with his policies is ludicrous. Perhaps you'd be more comfortable arguing with the type that thinks Obama is the devil.
Doug W,
"The McCain plan will end up driving corporations away from covering their employees."
Good point, I wonder if Milena covered that...
Moving on, you claim that there is not a free market right now for health care (which is actually true) yet the free market is the problem. You realize that that doesn't make much sense, right? And, how exactly does the fact that people spend a lot of money on healthcare threaten to bankrupt the country if the market were free and its price mechanisms were allowed to function?
Now, in which states can you get no car insurance? According to you, insurers would not offer their service in certain states because of all the paperwork. Is this what is happening? Is the auto insurance industry an accurate model of the free market at work?
"The US infant mortality rates are comparable with most third world nations, not those of our G8 bretheren"
If only this were really apples to apples. The infant mortality rates really aren't comparable at all. There are many reasons why the US infant mortality rate is where it is. One such reason is that the superb quality of healthcare in the US allows infants to be born, though possibly die later, rather than to be miscarried or die during childbirth. That will negatively affect your IM rate. Citing numerical statistics without any context in order to evaluate the merits of a given system is a fool's errand.
Can I get the exact same care in the US as in country X for the same price, calculating taxes into the price? What happens when you include liability? Malpractice? Accessibility? Availability of procedures? Dollars lost in time waiting? Necessity of the procedure? Etc. It's nonsense to think that just pointing to amount of dollars spent is a valuable statistic. As I said earlier, I'll bet Americans also spend more on baseball, too. So what.
"Our health care spending per capita is brining poor service to those who do pay, and those poor people who cannot afford insurance pay an extra burden in declining health due to lack of any health care and their doctors visits are always made to an E.R."
If this is even true, you'll need to demonstrate how this is because of the free market and not due to excessive government regulations in order for it to support your thesis. Merely stating it is not enough.
"Cherry picking your facts to support your conclusions do not lend credibility to your article. "
Apparently what works is ignoring facts altogether and just asserting opinions. Kinda like 'Our health care spending per capita is brining poor service to those who do pay'
Finally, your comment was evidently posted unedited, hence your bizarre syntax. So much for feeding your imagination about the close-minded guardians of the internet trying to keep you down. As far as poking holes in her reasoning, are you saving that for your next post? Maybe it should read "...I'll have fun...". Like in a future tense.
Ryan- did you ever consider the possibility that the "evil people" who wish to destroy us want to because we have a military presence in their country when it is not wanted?
50,000 troops in Korea
Thousands in Europe
Almost 200,000 in the Middle East, not including contractors
Yes, there are legitimate threats to national security interests. But when you have national security interests in every corner of the globe, defending all of them becomes both implausible and very expensive. (See: Rome)
We spend more money on defense than the rest of the world combined. Which means if every other country in the world teamed up to try to destroy us, it would be pretty much an even match. This scenario will never happen. Ever.
We could slash our military budget in half three times over and be perfectly safe. The money saved doesn't even have to go for healthcare- it can go for education, fixing social security, repairing infrastructure, investing in alternative fuels, it goes on and on and on. But we insist on having a global empire, which is why we will always have a poverty problem in the richest nation on earth.
I fully disagree with your claims, but most specifically, I'm confused about one particular point you make.
Can you provide me with some evidence behind the "government has ruled the age of majority to be 18..."? I have no idea what you're talking about. If you're referring to the 26th Amendment of the Constitution, that does not encompass anything but voting rights. Where in the US Constitution is the age of majority stated?
How do you explain the legal disparity in this country between age of consent, age of criminal responsibility, legal drinking age, marriageable age, and voting age? If your claim were true, would these not be all 18?
Is there some hard evidence to this claim of yours, or is it just fantasy? Please indulge me.
There must be universal coverage to spread the costs and risks across a larger number of premium payors.
You then get HUGE cost savings when you invest in access to primary care services for everyone. Why? Because you can detect diseases that require expensive surgeries and treat them before they need bypasses, liver transplants, etc. Example - cholesterol screenings = diet and medications to control buildup before you have clogged arteries.
As for choice, HSAs only work for people if they have the capacity to put money in them. They also are only a tax sheltered way to cover the costs not covered by insurance. You still will have people who cannot afford to participate in HSAs.
We pay $200 for swabs to subsidize the costs of care for those who do not have insurance. As more fall off of the rolls of the insured, the more the swabs will cost.
As for costs, you neglect to mention that McCain's plan will consider your employer paid premiums as TAXABLE INCOME. For a family of four with a woman of child bearing age, a good plan will cost an employer as much as $1000 a month - which now will be "income" you are taxed on. If you are in the 25% bracket, that means you pay an additional $3000 in income tax, meaning the $2500 credit results in a net increased cost to the taxpayer of $500.
The free market offers very little benefit to consumers in health care - unless you can pay to play. Those who have resources will get good care, and those who don't won't.
Can someone tell me what incentive there would be for doctors to work in a government-run healthcare program?
Go to the DMV for 10 minutes and tell me you want to trust one of the most important functions of a society (healthcare) to government employees.
Healthcare only works when you CARE about people. Governments aren't required to care and they're not punished if they don't.
For that reason alone it should be out of the question. Not to mention the fact that the only examples of socialized healthcare are horrible ones, and people travel here for major health problems because even though our system is far from perfect, it's still much better than their rubbish system back home where no one gives a crap about you.
@Testudo Incentives are just that...optional. If you want to talk about comedy, let's discuss the aggressive advertising that lenders employed actively marketing to poor minorities to make a quick dollar. Laughing now?
@Milena I am against maintaining the drinking age. That still doesn't explain why every student that fills out a FAFSA is obligated to report their parents' income in consideration of financial aid even if they are 18.
If we are going to call Obama's measure cost shifting, then the same goes for McCain. His plan just shifts the costs from the employers to the consumers. Most health care policy experts think his plan will raise costs and decrease access to care.
@Ryan Your analogy doesn't make any sense. If you cheated, you cheated. In a deregulated environment, companies did what they do best: make profits. The companies lobbied for increased deregulation which they got under this administration. That left them open to making ethically questionable loans as well as irresponsible ones.
I'm not exactly sure who you propose to calculate the value of a tax credit if not the government.
The quality of health care is definitely not a minor issue. There are widespread disparities among ethnic groups and socioeconomic levels.
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=americas_aids_apartheid
http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1...
And there are countless more that talk about health inequalities.
Jeff, am I to believe that health care providers "CARE" about people just out of the goodness of their hearts? Aren't they more interested in running a business? In short, making money while spending the lowest amount possible?
Neither governments nor businesses are obligated or inclined to care about anyone. Get your head straight.
Tim,
The sad reality of this world is that good people are often hated. I have no interest in other people liking us. I have every interest in doing what is right and bringing others along with us who wish to do the same.
I guarantee we disagree on the importance of the military and that's fine, we can leave it at that. I simply happen to believe that although we have our faults (as does every country), and we haven't fought every battle perfectly (that is impossible), the U.S. has been the single greatest force for good on this planet. Perhaps you flat-out disagree with that assertion. But if so, please provide the name of another country in this world that you would like to have the strongest military and be responsible for defeating evil and promoting good wherever it may exist.
The U.S. is far from perfect and war is horrible to the Nth degree. But if we're worried about having to fight more, pulling our finger out of every dam is not the answer. I wish this world were a better place, I wish war didn't exist, I wish there were no such thing as poverty, I wish no one starved to death, I wish everyone could live in a free society like ours. But the world doesn't run on wishful thinking. And so it goes: we are destined for criticism either way. If we don't get involved we get blamed for a failure to act responsibly. If we do get involved we get blamed for infringing on people and imposing our will. When you're damned if you do and damned if you don't, it's usually best to air on the safe side. That is what we have chosen to do.
Lastly, one of the largest fallacies in current thought is the idea that money automatically solves problems. Yes there is a threshold at which you need SOME money or your program is destined for failure. But look at education: we've poured billions of dollars into years and years of education yet kids coming out of school aren't any better, wiser or more prepared for life than they were many decades ago. They may have more knowledge about stars or matrices or food pyramids, but their character, wisdom and work ethic show essentially no improvement (and if anything they're probably in decline). Just as an example, simply look at letters written by kids from the Revolutionary Way era who never went to school. They're light years ahead of where we are and they didn't even have to pay $250,000 to go to Harvard or Michigan or Florida. Imagine that.
Anyway, I know we're coming from almost opposite angles on these issues and that's wonderful. As they say, I prefer clarity to agreement. Hopefully this didn't muddy the waters any further.
Vanessa,
You are right when it comes to deregulation and forgive me for not fully explaining. Deregulation ALONE was not the problem. In fact, deregulation in general is preferable; the problem is that we took it too far. There was no oversight and when there were people who did stand up for doing the right thing, their opinions were shut out.
There are a lot of parties to blame here, and yes, one is the administration - or more specifically, Congress. I believe that might be partially why their approval rating is completely in the tank.
When it comes to providing sources, please point us to examples that stay on topic. One article was primarily about AIDS, which is fine. Except that we're talking about healthcare as a whole; not a specific disease. The second article was loaded with qualifiers that discussed the slant of those reports and how the conclusions were rather questionable. Not to mention the fact that Prospect and The Economist are left-leaning sources to begin with. But fair enough. I'm more than open to honest research and am willing to change my mind given honest data, logic and reasoning, but those articles were a bit of a stretch. Thank you for sharing nonetheless.
GOT SOMETHING TO SAY?