The Issues:Healthcare

[pied]

In the candidate's own words:

The Problem:

JM-The problems with health care are well known: it is too expensive and 47 million people living in the United States lack health insurance.

BO-Millions of Americans are uninsured or underinsured because of rising medical costs: 47 million Americans — including nearly 9 million children — lack health insurance with no signs of this trend slowing down.

Health care costs are skyrocketing: Health insurance premiums have risen 4 times faster than wages over the past 6 years.

Too little is spent on prevention and public health: The nation faces epidemics of obesity and chronic diseases as well as new threats of pandemic flu and bioterrorism. Yet despite all of this less than 4 cents of every health care dollar is spent on prevention and public health.

Key Plans

JM-John McCain Will Reform Health Care Making It Easier For Individuals And Families To Obtain Insurance. An important part of his plan is to use competition to improve the quality of health insurance with greater variety to match people's needs, lower prices, and portability. Families should be able to purchase health insurance nationwide, across state lines.

John McCain Will Reform The Tax Code To Offer More Choices Beyond Employer-Based Health Insurance Coverage. While still having the option of employer-based coverage, every family will receive a direct refundable tax credit - effectively cash - of $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families to offset the cost of insurance. Families will be able to choose the insurance provider that suits them best and the money would be sent directly to the insurance provider. Those obtaining innovative insurance that costs less than the credit can deposit the remainder in expanded Health Savings Accounts.

John McCain's Plan Cares For The Traditionally Uninsurable. John McCain understands that those without prior group coverage and those with pre-existing conditions have the most difficulty on the individual market, and we need to make sure they get the high-quality coverage they need.

John McCain Will Work With States To Establish A Guaranteed Access Plan. As President, John McCain will work with governors to develop a best practice model that states can follow - a Guaranteed Access Plan or GAP - that would reflect the best experience of the states to ensure these patients have access to health coverage. One approach would establish a nonprofit corporation that would contract with insurers to cover patients who have been denied insurance and could join with other state plans to enlarge pools and lower overhead costs. There would be reasonable limits on premiums, and assistance would be available for Americans below a certain income level


BO-Obama's Plan to Cover Uninsured Americans: Obama will make available a new national health plan to all Americans, including the self-employed and small businesses, to buy affordable health coverage that is similar to the plan available to members of Congress. The Obama plan will have the following features:
Guaranteed eligibility. No American will be turned away from any insurance plan because of illness or pre-existing conditions.
Comprehensive benefits. The benefit package will be similar to that offered through Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), the plan members of Congress have. The plan will cover all essential medical services, including preventive, maternity and mental health care.
Affordable premiums, co-pays and deductibles.
Subsidies. Individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need financial assistance will receive an income-related federal subsidy to buy into the new public plan or purchase a private health care plan.
Simplified paperwork and reined in health costs.
Easy enrollment. The new public plan will be simple to enroll in and provide ready access to coverage.
Portability and choice. Participants in the new public plan and the National Health Insurance Exchange (see below) will be able to move from job to job without changing or jeopardizing their health care coverage.
Quality and efficiency. Participating insurance companies in the new public program will be required to report data to ensure that standards for quality, health information technology and administration are being met.


http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/19ba2f1c-c03f-4ac2-8cd5-5cf2edb527cf.htm


http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

[pied]

OK, the plans are long, but I think this shows us what we need to know.

BO will establish a National HC insurance to insure those who cannot get it.

JM will esentailly do the same thing, and call it GAP. Another key thing that McCain wil do is the tax credit.

Both outline mumbo jumbo about being healthy etc.

Personally, the tax credit would be huge. It will pay my insurance premiums and double what I am putting in my HCSA. How does it affect my other tax burdens? Don't know, but I assume I will be helping to fund it and probably won't realize it.

[jtk1519]

Neither will do anything, but both will have claimed they did something.

[Firebird]

They sound nigh-on identical to me. McCain's tax credit would certainly help plenty of people with their health care, though I would assume that most private employers would reduce contributions accordingly. What I want to know is where his money will be coming from, because it is an astonishing figure. The only choices I see are:

1. Raise taxes on some people
2. Cut spending elsewhere
3. Go further into debt

Realistically, 3 is the only option. McCain is a big believer in not raising taxes, and with what will likely be a Democrat congress, I see no way that he's going to get big spending cuts. So even though I like the idea of getting $5,000 mailed to me, I can't support it in good conscience. Basically, we will be allowing the Chinese to underwrite health care for American citizens. Marvelous.

BO, on the other hand, at least makes no bones about raising taxes to pay for this stuff. What's more, that burden will be placed mostly on people above my income bracket. But, I wonder whether private and state employers will continue to make the same contributions to private insurance, because I like my plan better than any national system likely to be put into place and would probably be willing to pay a slightly higher premium to keep it. Still, if I am voting soley on rational self interest, and health care is my number 1, BO is a clear numero uno.

[pied]

BO, on the other hand, at least makes no bones about raising taxes to pay for this stuff. What's more, that burden will be placed mostly on people above my income bracket. But, I wonder whether private and state employers will continue to make the same contributions to private insurance, because I like my plan better than any national system likely to be put into place and would probably be willing to pay a slightly higher premium to keep it. Still, if I am voting soley on rational self interest, and health care is my number 1, BO is a clear numero uno.

See it similar. If I take my historical POV which is very much like jtk's, I'd go w/McCain and hope my employer does not push more of the burden to me or discontinue the program. McCain's on face value puts money in my pocket. if I don't care where the money comes from, this is the clear winner from that perspective.

Now what it doesn't address is if that view is different, if I feel strongly about National debt, and how this makes BO a socialist.

[Firebird]

See it similar. If I take my historical POV which is very much like jtk's, I'd go w/McCain and hope my employer does not push more of the burden to me or discontinue the program. McCain's on face value puts money in my pocket. if I don't care where the money comes from, this is the clear winner from that perspective.

Now what it doesn't address is if that view is different, if I feel strongly about National debt, and how this makes BO a socialist.

Ordinarily I would agree with you, but as a young worker, I see a bad future for me if we continue to rack up the national debt. I'd love $5,000.00 right now, but not if I am essentially borrowing from my future self or the Chinese, who will want to collect from my future self.

On the other hand, I might get less benefit now under BHO's plan, but I will not be borrowing from myself or the Chinese. Instead, richer, mostly older people than me will be paying for it, although I certainly expect my income bracket to change. At that time I may change my mind, but as for right now it seems the choice is clear for any younger person not in the upper tax brackets.

[Firebird]

By the way, here is a little gem from the McCain website on how he intends to pay down the national debt. It's his first bullet point in that category:

The McCain administration would reserve all savings from victory in the Iraq and Afghanistan operations in the fight against Islamic extremists for reducing the deficit. Since all their costs were financed with deficit spending, all their savings must go to deficit reduction.

I wonder if there is anyone out there ready to swallow that little line. You might think these wars are well worth the cost, but do not try to spin them as a way to pay down the debt. Even if we end up spending less than budgeted, fighting wars is in no way going to help the bottom line by one red cent. Fighting wars is always a cost.

[pied]

By the way, here is a little gem from the McCain website on how he intends to pay down the national debt. It's his first bullet point in that category:

Your getting ahead of me. I want to understand this issue first. Plenty of time for other topics.

[dragonsdaddy]

By the way, here is a little gem from the McCain website on how he intends to pay down the national debt. It's his first bullet point in that category:



I wonder if there is anyone out there ready to swallow that little line. You might think these wars are well worth the cost, but do not try to spin them as a way to pay down the debt. Even if we end up spending less than budgeted, fighting wars is in no way going to help the bottom line by one red cent. Fighting wars is always a cost.

now that logic flies in the face of the big business and agriculture and defense gurus who swear that wwii got us all the way out of the depression. and vietnam set us up for a big run-up in the 60s and 70s. i am not likely to disagree with you philosophically, but in discussing the gnp, a "good" war can certainly stimulate the economy. seems counterproductive to me, but doldrums have been shown to go away when the lead starts flying.

[jtk1519]

They sound nigh-on identical to me. McCain's tax credit would certainly help plenty of people with their health care, though I would assume that most private employers would reduce contributions accordingly. What I want to know is where his money will be coming from, because it is an astonishing figure. The only choices I see are:

1. Raise taxes on some people
2. Cut spending elsewhere
3. Go further into debt

Realistically, 3 is the only option. McCain is a big believer in not raising taxes, and with what will likely be a Democrat congress, I see no way that he's going to get big spending cuts. So even though I like the idea of getting $5,000 mailed to me, I can't support it in good conscience. Basically, we will be allowing the Chinese to underwrite health care for American citizens. Marvelous.

BO, on the other hand, at least makes no bones about raising taxes to pay for this stuff. What's more, that burden will be placed mostly on people above my income bracket. But, I wonder whether private and state employers will continue to make the same contributions to private insurance, because I like my plan better than any national system likely to be put into place and would probably be willing to pay a slightly higher premium to keep it. Still, if I am voting soley on rational self interest, and health care is my number 1, BO is a clear numero uno.

Realistically, all three will happen at some point if these plans are put into effect. McCain is a big government guy so you know he wont cut spending. I agree that he is unlikely to raise taxes so that leaves going further into debt. Of course, whatever debt he racks up will eventually have to be paid for and that is only going to happen by raising taxes or cutting down the size of government.

[Firebird]

now that logic flies in the face of the big business and agriculture and defense gurus who swear that wwii got us all the way out of the depression. and vietnam set us up for a big run-up in the 60s and 70s. i am not likely to disagree with you philosophically, but in discussing the gnp, a "good" war can certainly stimulate the economy. seems counterproductive to me, but doldrums have been shown to go away when the lead starts flying.


A. I have never seen any serious assessment of the effects of the Vietnam war that did not show a disastrous net loss for the U.S. as the result of that war.

B. World War II comparisons are extraordinarily overused. First, though the increased government spending during the war years did result in a boost to the economy, the real long-term benefits came AFTER the war and as a direct result of the war. WWII was a net benefit to no one but the U.S. None of the other participants, even the victors, had anything but ravaged economies and infrastructures after the close of that conflict. The U.S., which sustained fewer casualties and no attacks on its homeland, was able to benefit from that situation, as we were the sole country left standing and were "open for business" and ready to sell our wares to the world. They had no choice but to buy them.

Wars are expensive and nearly always have been. Especially those wars which are to be fought not for access to a market or for imperial conquest, but rather to "liberate" a people. Not to say that there is not a profit to be had for some in Iraq, but most of those profits are financed by taxpayer dollar or credit from some willing nation.

Iraq does not and will not meet that criteria. A victory in Iraq will not leave us triumphant atop the world order, the only nation open for business. Instead, our competitors are happily trading and expanding while we run up the national credit card.

The adventure in Iraq cannot be compared to WWII. Far more apt would be the Soviet foray into Afghanistan, or the endless British wars around the globe back in the days of empire. We may have different goals, but the knock on effects are much the same. We are paying a tremendous sum in blood and treasure with little to no prospect of recouping it in the aftermath. Especially if all goes according to plan and we leave the Iraqis in control. We are paying the costs of an imperial war without asking for the benefits of an empire.

[pied]

A. I have never seen any serious assessment of the effects of the Vietnam war that did not show a disastrous net loss for the U.S. as the result of that war.

This would probably be more suitable for The Issues: Foreign Policy thread. Healthcare only please.

[RedRage00]

This would probably be more suitable for The Issues: Foreign Policy thread. Healthcare only please.

No offense, but since when has a thread stayed on topic?

Good info though from you and Firebird. :cool:

[dragonsdaddy]

This would probably be more suitable for The Issues: Foreign Policy thread. Healthcare only please.

hijack your own thread there pied.

[Firebird]

This would probably be more suitable for The Issues: Foreign Policy thread. Healthcare only please.

OK, back on topic:

Both Obama and McCain are going to have subsidized health insurance plans. McCain is also going to send every family 5,000 in dollars as a tax credit, regardless of how much they pay in taxes. Filing jointly, with my family income, that will be right around half of what I can expect to pay in taxes. I can only assume that part of what they keep from me will go to those earners paying less than 5,000. I will take that 5,000 and use it for health insurance. If my employer keeps making contributions I am way ahead. If, thanks to McCain's plan, my employer does not make contributions or reduces their contributions, I will be either way behind or roughly even.

So under McCain's plan, I will be having my wealth redistributed to other people for health care, and the entire nation will either have to find a place to cut an equivalent amount of spending (unlikely) or spend on credit. Either way, it will put somewhat of a burden on me, as I will be forced to spend more on taxes in the future or do without the benefit of any cut federal programs I may use.

Obama plans to finance his system through tax hikes on people other than me. My taxes will probably remain about the same and it will not require any cuts to other programs I may benefit from. I would like to see how much his health insurance plans to cost, to see if I benefit more from getting back some of my tax money or paying less to be enrolled in BHO's plan. I'd also want to know if if I would spend less to enroll in his plan than I spend on my contributions to my plan right now. If so, I might come out a significant winner.

If one of 'em is socialist they both are. And thus rational self-interest dicatates that I choose the socialist program that puts less of a burden on me, followed by the nation as a whole.

[trojanbacker]

I think that both plans are flawed because the 47 million uninsured number is flawed. Contained in that number are 10 million who earn more than $75,000 but have chosen not to purchase insurance. They can afford it, but for one reason or another have chosen to remain uninsured. Also contained in that number are 14 million who are already eligible for government programs such as Medicaid but haven't signed up.

Also contained in that number are those who have started new jobs and will have healthcare once their waiting period is over. I've never seen a reliable number for that.

So, now we're down to 23 million, more or less. The only plan that I've seen any details for, the Obama plan, proposes that the young and old alike would pay the same premium even though their medical needs are vastly different. Those 25 - 34 spend less than $1,500 annual on medical care but they would be required to subsidize the healthcare of the middleaged and elderly.

I feel we have a problem with healthcare in this country. I believe that those 23 million need help in one form or another. I think it is a shame that in a country with our resources and wealth, we can't provide some sort of basic care for those who need it the most.

[dragonsdaddy]

I think that both plans are flawed because the 47 million uninsured number is flawed. Contained in that number are 10 million who earn more than $75,000 but have chosen not to purchase insurance. They can afford it, but for one reason or another have chosen to remain uninsured. Also contained in that number are 14 million who are already eligible for government programs such as Medicaid but haven't signed up.

Also contained in that number are those who have started new jobs and will have healthcare once their waiting period is over. I've never seen a reliable number for that.

So, now we're down to 23 million, more or less. The only plan that I've seen any details for, the Obama plan, proposes that the young and old alike would pay the same premium even though their medical needs are vastly different. Those 25 - 34 spend less than $1,500 annual on medical care but they would be required to subsidize the healthcare of the middleaged and elderly.

I feel we have a problem with healthcare in this country. I believe that those 23 million need help in one form or another. I thinks it is a shame that in a country with our resources and wealth, we can't provide some sort of basic care for those who need it the most.
and i think it is a shame that i can't get some government relief for my auto repair bills. i choose to drive or be responsible for vehicles with upwards of 960k miles, but why shouldn't i expect those with brand new cars to be anxious to pay a goodly percentage of my repair and maintainance bills. it seems just as unfair, and if the auto repair shops had as good a lobby as the hospitals/insurance they would be just as well regulated and entitled.

[pied]

and i think it is a shame that i can't get some government relief for my auto repair bills. i choose to drive or be responsible for vehicles with upwards of 960k miles, but why shouldn't i expect those with brand new cars to be anxious to pay a goodly percentage of my repair and maintainance bills. it seems just as unfair, and if the auto repair shops had as good a lobby as the hospitals/insurance they would be just as well regulated and entitled.

I see the analogy, but do see healthcare fundamentally different than I do car repair.

The problem specific to this topic isn't whether or not we should do something, that has already been decided. What I want to see is what the candidates actually propose, which to be honest is more similar than what I would have expected.

[dragonsdaddy]

I see the analogy, but do see healthcare fundamentally different than I do car repair.

The problem specific to this topic isn't whether or not we should do something, that has already been decided. What I want to see is what the candidates actually propose, which to be honest is more similar than what I would have expected.

i have read and reread the bill of rights and i haven't yet found where we are guaranteed free medical care, or auto maintainence help, for that matter. can someone give me an explanation of how we got to the point of being entitled to this luxury? i would have to guess our illustrious lbj and his new deal tripe had something to do with it.

[country club]

Just a quick thought. This is an election year:

Candidate A, I will promise (FILL IN THE BLANK) to fix HEALTHCARE, SS, ECONOMY,ETC.....


Candidate B, I will promise (FILL IN THE BLANK) to fix HEALTHCARE, SS,
ECONOMY,ETC.....

Won't Congress have a least a small part in fixing any of these things ?

[trojanbacker]

I'm impressed that you have a car with that many miles. But, I can't quite equate car repairs with healthcare. We are already paying for the uninsured every time they go to the local emergency room and can't pay rather than going to a Dr.'s office. As corny as it sounds, I sincerely believe that a country and its people is judged by how it treats the least in its ranks.

"'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

[pied]

i have read and reread the bill of rights and i haven't yet found where we are guaranteed free medical care, or auto maintainence help, for that matter. can someone give me an explanation of how we got to the point of being entitled to this luxury? i would have to guess our illustrious lbj and his new deal tripe had something to do with it.

Nope, I'll keave to those much smarter than myself. I presume that health care was not something on the top of the framers' heads. Most people probably were left to accept their fate during those times.

Much like federal regultion of airwaves and other issues that they did not face at the time, it is an issue today. Much has been made on this board over the candidates stance and I thought it would be a good way to see what the candidates actually propose.

Again, I am not agreeing/disagreeing, just pointing out that whether you like it or not, the future of healthcare and its expansion are relevant issues in this election.

[EagleDude73]

hijack your own thread there pied.

Rocketgrl, Did Frenchy effect the progress on Judson Stadium at all today?

Has any workers gotten hurt so far and applied for Worker's Comp?

[dragonsdaddy]

I'm impressed that you have a car with that many miles. But, I can't quite equate car repairs with healthcare. We are already paying for the uninsured every time they go to the local emergency room and can't pay rather than going to a Dr.'s office. As corny as it sounds, I sincerely believe that a country and its people is judged by how it treats the least in its ranks.

"'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

no, that is spread over 5 vehicles, from 320 on my p/u to 140 on my jetta.

[ktCarl]

I think that both plans are flawed because the 47 million uninsured number is flawed. Contained in that number are 10 million who earn more than $75,000 but have chosen not to purchase insurance. They can afford it, but for one reason or another have chosen to remain uninsured. Also contained in that number are 14 million who are already eligible for government programs such as Medicaid but haven't signed up.

Also contained in that number are those who have started new jobs and will have healthcare once their waiting period is over. I've never seen a reliable number for that.

So, now we're down to 23 million, more or less. The only plan that I've seen any details for, the Obama plan, proposes that the young and old alike would pay the same premium even though their medical needs are vastly different. Those 25 - 34 spend less than $1,500 annual on medical care but they would be required to subsidize the healthcare of the middleaged and elderly.

I feel we have a problem with healthcare in this country. I believe that those 23 million need help in one form or another. I think it is a shame that in a country with our resources and wealth, we can't provide some sort of basic care for those who need it the most.

I guess somewhere in your numbers you were including all the illegal aliens not paying in but receiving healthcare benefits? I suppose McCains amnesty plan might help get their $$ in the system.

[dragonsdaddy]

I'm impressed that you have a car with that many miles. But, I can't quite equate car repairs with healthcare. We are already paying for the uninsured every time they go to the local emergency room and can't pay rather than going to a Dr.'s office. As corny as it sounds, I sincerely believe that a country and its people is judged by how it treats the least in its ranks.

"'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

that is a wonderful way to live ones life and should be paramount in our charitable enterprises. on the other hand, the federal government was never supposed to be in the charity business. charity loses its virtue for both giver and receiver when it is at behest of a point tipped tax code.

[EagleDude73]

no, that is spread over 5 vehicles, from 320 on my p/u to 140 on my jetta. OMG, How much is the insurance on 5 cars?

[dragonsdaddy]

OMG, How much is the insurance on 5 cars?

luckily 2 are old/worthless enough they survive on just liability. and with only 2 males under 25, they practically pay me for the privilege. my wife pays the bills, i just make the money. i really don't want to know.

[chhspantherfan]

that is a wonderful way to live ones life and should be paramount in our charitable enterprises. on the other hand, the federal government was never supposed to be in the charity business. charity loses its virtue for both giver and receiver when it is at behest of a point tipped tax code.

that is why charity hospitals should be faith based programs, as they were to begin with.

[ktCarl]

I'm impressed that you have a car with that many miles. But, I can't quite equate car repairs with healthcare. We are already paying for the uninsured every time they go to the local emergency room and can't pay rather than going to a Dr.'s office. As corny as it sounds, I sincerely believe that a country and its people is judged by how it treats the least in its ranks.

"'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

The government isn't in the make everyone a Christian business. Having the government force people to adhere to that last Biblical verse you gave won't set well with those on this board whom aren't religious.

[Firebird]

The government isn't in the make everyone a Christian business. Having the government force people to adhere to that last Biblical verse you gave won't set well with those on this board whom aren't religious.

Funny how many people on the board want us to be a Christian nation, though......till it starts hitting the pocket book.

[svhorns]

I hate Richie Sexson

[ktCarl]

Funny how many people on the board want us to be a Christian nation, though......till it starts hitting the pocket book.

Well, our government shouldn't be Christians for us. That's what we pay our Pastors and Ministers for. :D

[DrEdward]

Funny how many people on the board want us to be a Christian nation, though......till it starts hitting the pocket book.

If you look back over the records, the American public is still among the most charitable and generous in the world. Still, the amount of private charitable donations did, in fact, decline, in a relative sense, as the amount of government transfer payments increased. It is clear that the public has viewed their tax payments to some degree as a substitute for charitable donations. Now our wonderful Congressional leaders have seen fit to provide yet another disincentive to chariatable contribution, and hence even greater reliance on the transfer payments of the government, by making it more difficult to deduct private charitable contributions on income taxes. One can argue as to whether or not we are a Christian nation, but it is very clear that we are a nation that does believe in God.

[GoOwls]

Pied, bird and others make fine points and idealistic policy.....but lack the prophecy of the end effects of their high ideals.

I've been delivering mail to 140 small businessmen and women for 24 years....seen 'em come and go.....some survived by using good business practices...others failed because they didn't....some got lucky...some didn't.

I've seen how they do in good economies, and how they do in bad econonies.

I've seen how they react to both.

I promise you...if we get a nationalized health care, many will go out of business almost immediately because they don't have enough profit margin to pay bills now, much less afford such an oppressive tax burden....or they will have to increase their prices a huge percentage to cover it.

Either way, we're all screwed.

One way, the number of people who need the Govt. to provide healthcare skyrockets....probably doubles, or more, because they will be unemployed from business that had to close....and the effects on the economy from the related unemployment.

The other way, we end up funding the thing by increased consumer prices to fund the damn thing.....THE GUYS YOU THINK WILL PAY FOR IT WON'T....THEY WILL EITHER FOLD THEIR TENT, TAKE THEIR TOYS, AND GO HOME....OR THEY WILL PASS THE COSTS ON TO CONSUMERS WHO STILL HAVE JOBS AND THEY (WE) WILL END UP PAYING FOR IT......

GEEZE....WAKE UP PEOPLE....THINK PAST TOMORROW....SHOW SOME FORESIGHT.....:mad:

I get so disappointed in this board for it's short-sightedness sometimes...idealistic ideas are expensive and "you-know-who" always ends up paying for it. (clue: "you-know-who" isn't rich people....it's you and me)

[slorch]

The government isn't in the make everyone a Christian business. Having the government force people to adhere to that last Biblical verse you gave won't set well with those on this board whom aren't religious.

I agree.

signed,
one of the non-religious

[pied]

Pied, bird and others make fine points and idealistic policy.....but lack the prophecy of the end effects of their high ideals.

I've been delivering mail to 140 small businessmen and women for 24 years....seen 'em come and go.....some survived by using good business practices...others failed because they didn't....some got lucky...some didn't.

I've seen how they do in good economies, and how they do in bad econonies.

I've seen how they react to both.

I promise you...if we get a nationalized health care, many will go out of business almost immediately because they don't have enough profit margin to pay bills now, much less afford such an oppressive tax burden....or they will have to increase their prices a huge percentage to cover it.

Either way, we're all screwed.

One way, the number of people who need the Govt. to provide healthcare skyrockets....probably doubles, or more, because they will be unemployed from business that had to close....and the effects on the economy from the related unemployment.

The other way, we end up funding the thing by increased consumer prices to fund the damn thing.....THE GUYS YOU THINK WILL PAY FOR IT WON'T....THEY WILL EITHER FOLD THEIR TENT, TAKE THEIR TOYS, AND GO HOME....OR THEY WILL PASS THE COSTS ON TO CONSUMERS WHO STILL HAVE JOBS AND THEY (WE) WILL END UP PAYING FOR IT......

GEEZE....WAKE UP PEOPLE....THINK PAST TOMORROW....SHOW SOME FORESIGHT.....:mad:

I get so disappointed in this board for it's short-sightedness sometimes...idealistic ideas are expensive and "you-know-who" always ends up paying for it. (clue: "you-know-who" isn't rich people....it's you and me)

Go Owls-It's not my idealistic policy. I copied an pasted directly from the candidates' websites. In November we will, as a nation, decide who we want to govern, supposedly based on the candidate's stance on the issues.

You have not read or did not understand their proposals. I do not see either one advocating Nationalized Healthcare. What both candidates are proposing is access to insurance to all people.

There are some key differences, one of which is the tax credit proposed by McCain.

Some want to debate healthcare philosophically and suggest that we all need to eat better, exercise more, and stop smoking. While I certainly agre, that has ZERO to do with choosing either candidate based on the issues.

[pied]

Looking at the responses to this thread I see no cases being made to vote for McCain over Obama based on their stance on healthcare and related proposals.

It appears that many are disenchanted with the prospect of offering additional coverage, but do not see how the candidates' outlook is relevant to that fact.

[katyfan52]

I guess somewhere in your numbers you were including all the illegal aliens not paying in but receiving healthcare benefits? I suppose McCains amnesty plan might help get their $$ in the system.
But many (most) do pay into Social Security (billions a year), which they will not get anything out of, so in a sense they are floating that right now.

[trojanbacker]

I'm fine with that. Not one of my key objectives to live my life in such a way as to please posters on boards.

[pied]

In the candidate's own words:

The Problem:

JM-The problems with health care are well known: it is too expensive and 47 million people living in the United States lack health insurance.

BO-Millions of Americans are uninsured or underinsured because of rising medical costs: 47 million Americans — including nearly 9 million children — lack health insurance with no signs of this trend slowing down.

Health care costs are skyrocketing: Health insurance premiums have risen 4 times faster than wages over the past 6 years.

Too little is spent on prevention and public health: The nation faces epidemics of obesity and chronic diseases as well as new threats of pandemic flu and bioterrorism. Yet despite all of this less than 4 cents of every health care dollar is spent on prevention and public health.

Key Plans

JM-John McCain Will Reform Health Care Making It Easier For Individuals And Families To Obtain Insurance. An important part of his plan is to use competition to improve the quality of health insurance with greater variety to match people's needs, lower prices, and portability. Families should be able to purchase health insurance nationwide, across state lines.

John McCain Will Reform The Tax Code To Offer More Choices Beyond Employer-Based Health Insurance Coverage. While still having the option of employer-based coverage, every family will receive a direct refundable tax credit - effectively cash - of $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families to offset the cost of insurance. Families will be able to choose the insurance provider that suits them best and the money would be sent directly to the insurance provider. Those obtaining innovative insurance that costs less than the credit can deposit the remainder in expanded Health Savings Accounts.

John McCain's Plan Cares For The Traditionally Uninsurable. John McCain understands that those without prior group coverage and those with pre-existing conditions have the most difficulty on the individual market, and we need to make sure they get the high-quality coverage they need.

John McCain Will Work With States To Establish A Guaranteed Access Plan. As President, John McCain will work with governors to develop a best practice model that states can follow - a Guaranteed Access Plan or GAP - that would reflect the best experience of the states to ensure these patients have access to health coverage. One approach would establish a nonprofit corporation that would contract with insurers to cover patients who have been denied insurance and could join with other state plans to enlarge pools and lower overhead costs. There would be reasonable limits on premiums, and assistance would be available for Americans below a certain income level


BO-Obama's Plan to Cover Uninsured Americans: Obama will make available a new national health plan to all Americans, including the self-employed and small businesses, to buy affordable health coverage that is similar to the plan available to members of Congress. The Obama plan will have the following features:
Guaranteed eligibility. No American will be turned away from any insurance plan because of illness or pre-existing conditions.
Comprehensive benefits. The benefit package will be similar to that offered through Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), the plan members of Congress have. The plan will cover all essential medical services, including preventive, maternity and mental health care.
Affordable premiums, co-pays and deductibles.
Subsidies. Individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need financial assistance will receive an income-related federal subsidy to buy into the new public plan or purchase a private health care plan.
Simplified paperwork and reined in health costs.
Easy enrollment. The new public plan will be simple to enroll in and provide ready access to coverage.
Portability and choice. Participants in the new public plan and the National Health Insurance Exchange (see below) will be able to move from job to job without changing or jeopardizing their health care coverage.
Quality and efficiency. Participating insurance companies in the new public program will be required to report data to ensure that standards for quality, health information technology and administration are being met.


http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/19ba2f1c-c03f-4ac2-8cd5-5cf2edb527cf.htm


http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/


It appears that although healthcare reform was passed, it is nothing linke either of the plans proposed by the candidates. Some of the goals appear to have been acheived (at this point) by the legislation.

It does appear clear that either proposal, with a public option was WAY more progressive than the public/congress had an appetite for.

[BDB]

Neither will do anything, but both will have claimed they did something.

i remember i agreed with this comment when i read it.

[chhspantherfan]

It appears that although healthcare reform was passed, it is nothing linke either of the plans proposed by the candidates. Some of the goals appear to have been acheived (at this point) by the legislation.

It does appear clear that either proposal, with a public option was WAY more progressive than the public/congress had an appetite for.

went live yesterday according to the Startlegram


www.healthcare.gov

[dragonsdaddy]

law of unintended(or at least poorly thought out) consequences. how long until college grads will be forced to go to med school? or at least before drs will be punished if they don't take the pittance offered by medicaid?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/02/emergency-room-waits-crow_n_633476.html

[mad_fan]

I didn't find this thread worth a post in 2008...
And this post is just to point that out...

[Mong Hu]

I read the following article in the Wall St. Journal editorial pages today:

The Massachusetts Health-Care "Train Wreck" (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704324304575306861120760580.html)

It paints a rather bleak picture of Obama-Care's future and for that matter the future of our health care system. In particular this quote towards of the article was frightening:

Last month, his administration also announced it would use the existing state "determination of need" process to restrict the diffusion of expensive medical technologies like MRI machines and linear accelerator radiation therapy.

Makes me think "Who is John Galt?" If you have read the book then you know exactly what I am talking about.

Anyway read the article and explain why you think he is either correct or wrong in his assertions about Obama-Care.