US Elections - FK CL October vote

[FlashLackey]

I really am not a fan of McCain's. I doubt he came up with it himself. But, the health plan he proposes really is good, imo.

[gerbick]

ah, I didn't see that the first two times I read it.

I still have to say that my gut feeling - which is my basest instinct - is that his plan, and Obama's... are wrong. Dead wrong.

[david petley]

...and it looks like McCain is toast based on our survey here

Over 83% percent of people polled are voting for Obama...landslide.

david

[Loyal Rogue]

McCain's freemarket healthcare tax credit plan would only provide $2,500 for an individual and $5,000 for a family.
The average cost of providing health insurance for a family of four is $12,000.

This, much like school vouchers, only benefits (subsidizes) those people who can already afford insurance to begin with.
It's just another plan that favors the wealthy.

There is no study or evidence that suggests that this will change the industry from it's present and already competitive standards.
To the contrary, it is more likely to result in less employer provided coverage and worse coverage as more people move from group based policies to individual policies.
Also those people with pre-existing conditions would still end up getting pooled into "high risk" coverage which is more expensive than regular coverage and barely provides any coverage at all.

While the insurance and drug lobbyists support McCain's plan, a majority of America's doctors prefer a single-payer national health plan like Obama's and recently more than 5,000 doctors came out and publicly endorsed Obama's plan.

I guess we should be asking ourselves... who's opinion do we trust more with our healthcare? The doctors, or the insurance/drug lobbyists?

[FlashLackey]

McCain's freemarket healthcare tax credit plan would only provide $2,500 for an individual and $5,000 for a family.
The average cost of providing health insurance for a family of four is $12,000.

I'm not sure how anyone could be calculating average costs at $12k. I happen to have a family of four. I pay for a single policy which is more expensive than group policies and it comes out to right around $5k per year.

To the contrary, it is more likely to result in less employer provided coverage and worse coverage as more people move from group based policies to individual policies.

The group policies are part of the problem with the current system. Insurance companies focus on selling to businesses who have their own agendas rather than focusing on selling to the individuals who actually have to live with the policies. McCain's plan would force the insurance companies to work harder for each person.

Also those people with pre-existing conditions would still end up getting pooled into "high risk" coverage which is more expensive than regular coverage and barely provides any coverage at all.

False. McCain also proposes a "Guaranteed Access Plan" for people with pre-existing conditions.

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/...f2edb527cf.htm

While the insurance and drug lobbyists support McCain's plan, a majority of America's doctors prefer a single-payer national health plan like Obama's and recently more than 5,000 doctors came out and publicly endorsed Obama's plan.

Out of curiosity, I actually made it a point to ask every doctor I saw this year about this subject. Not one of them thought that national health care like Obama's was a good idea.

What makes you say that insurance and drug lobbyists support McCain's plan? Not saying that they don't. But, I would like to see evidence of that.

[random25]

Just saw this on digg, and thought it was pretty cool:
Obama '08 - Vote For Hope
Maybe it should be in the videos thread though.

[silverx2]

So instead of buisness being able to provide employees with affordable health care, i get to go out and find my own and hope it costs less then $2500?

[FlashLackey]

So instead of buisness being able to provide employees with affordable health care, i get to go out and find my own and hope it costs less then $2500?

Businesses could still provide health care if they wanted to. If they stopped doing so, I believe that would entitle people to a raise of that value.

Again, I don't know what policies people are talking about here. When I was single, I never paid more than $800 a year on my health insurance (again for an individual policy rather than group). $2500 would be plenty.

[silverx2]

Businesses could still provide health care if they wanted to. If they stopped doing so, I believe that would entitle people to a raise of that value.

Again, I don't know what policies people are talking about here. When I was single, I never paid more than $800 a year on my health insurance (again for an individual policy rather than group). $2500 would be plenty.

im sure when you were single you could also get a loaf of bread for under 3 dollars. or a candy bar for $.25. Does anyone remember when a snack size bag of chips was $.75? now its almost a $1.50.

Same thing with health care. Prices go up.

[Loyal Rogue]

I'm not sure how reliable your scientific methodology of asking every doctor you saw this year is... or how your coverage compares to the average policy ... or how your German girlfriend back in college felt as an arguement against the actual facts?

Back in 2005, USA Today did a story on the average cost of a family healthcare policy topping $10,000 for the first time, http://www.usatoday.com/money/indust...h-policy_x.htm , and it's only gotten more expensive since then.


* Estimate is statistically different from estimate for the previous year shown (p<.05).
Source: Kaiser/HRET Survey of Employer-Sponsored Health Benefits, 1999-2008.


As for Doctors' opinions:

From Reuters earlier this year:

WASHINGTON, March 31 (Reuters) - More than half of U.S. doctors now favor switching to a national health care plan and fewer than a third oppose the idea, according to a survey published on Monday.

Doctors for Obama

DOCTORS SPEAK OUT FOR OBAMA

MORE THAN 6,000 PHYSICIANS ACROSS THE COUNTRY SIGN ON SO FAR TO SUPPORT THE OBAMA HEALTH CARE PLAN

LARGEST NUMBER OF PHYSICIANS EVER TO ENDORSE A CANDIDATE FOR POLITICAL OFFICE

At a level unprecedented in modern American history, physicians and medical students from across the nation, from private practice and academic medicine, have come together to sign a letter in support of the Obama health plan. They are members of Doctors for Obama, a grassroots organization of physicians and medical students who believe it is time to make their voices heard in the national healthcare debate. Over 6,000 physicians and 1,000 medical students have signed so far from all 50 states, including many of the nation's most prominent leaders in healthcare. This is believed to be the largest number of physicians ever to endorse a candidate for political office.

http://doctorsforobama.net/pressrelease.html

That Reuters article above also touches on some other healthcare facts that can't be denied.

Many other countries have national plans, including Britain, France and Canada, and several studies have shown the United States spends more per capita on health care, without achieving better results for patients.

Our free market system is causing Americans to pay top dollar for second class care.
We are the only industrialized nation that doesn't provide some form of national care and when compared to those other countries it shows.
We have a lower life expectancy, higher infant mortality rate, lower survivability rates, and higher premature death rates for both children and adults when compared to other industrialized countries, all while paying the highest percentage of GDP per person.

US Ranks Last Among Other Industrialized Nations On Preventable Deaths, Report Shows
ScienceDaily (Jan. 8, 2008) — The United States places last among 19 countries when it comes to deaths that could have been prevented by access to timely and effective health care, according to new research.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0108082944.htm

That is what happens when the primary goal of caregivers is to make a profit instead of actually providing healthcare.
It's the same with other types of private insurance as well.
Private insurance companies aren't in the business of providing insurance, instead they are in the business of making a profit by denying as many claims as possible.

As for McCain's GAP plan, that is exactly what I was talking about.
His plan is to treat patients with pre-existing conditions the same way that insurance companies in certain states already do, which means moving them into a "high risk" pool which is separate from the coverage for everyone else.
This has been a huge failure when it's been tried in the past and has always resulted in worse coverage at much higher rates, and has even caused some insurance companies to close shop and move out of state.

On healthcare and drug lobbyists supporting McCain, I think that considering some of the 115 lobbyists still working on his campaign and raising money for him are lobbyists for health insurance companies and Big Pharma, that qualifies as supporting him.

I have to disagree with your position on government-run commons as well.
The only time that those commons don't seem to work or are inefficient are when they are either not properly funded, or are used as feeding troughs for private companies that are friends of the politicians.
Again, there is a huge difference between a service provider who's primary goal is profit as opposed to a provider who's primary goal is to provide service.
One only needs to look as far as Haliburton and KBR overcharging and ripping off American taxpayers to the tune of $100+ million a year to see the success of privatization.

And as for me being fiscally conservative, I don't mean the term as in the rightwing kind of ideological "conservative" or "neoconservative" which has nothing to do with conservation of anything that I can tell.
I mean being fiscally conservative as in running a balanced budget like under Clinton and having a surplus, as opposed to running up the credit card bills with no plan to pay them off, spending like drunken sailors, and running the largest debts and biggest government bureaucracy in American history as the "conservatives" like Reagan, Bush 1, Bush 2, and McBush the third will do if elected.

Being fiscally conservative means doing away with inefficient spending and being smart with our money like lowering our current healthcare costs and getting better healthcare for our dollar like other countries with a form of national healthcare are currently doing.
Basically to me, being fiscally conservative means being fiscally responsible... something we haven't seen in a very long time out of those in charge who call themselves "conservatives".

Does anyone remember when a snack size bag of chips was $.75? now its almost a $1.50.

Now you're making me feel old... I remember getting snack bags for 25 cents.
I hate you.

[FlashLackey]

I'm not sure how reliable your scientific methodology of asking every doctor you saw this year is... or how your coverage compares to the average policy ... or how your German girlfriend back in college felt as an arguement against the actual facts?

I never claimed those methodologies to be scientific or comprehensive. Are we not having an adult conversation where people can simply describe their experiences?

As far as my coverage goes, I believe that it's pretty good. It's comparable to what I had when I was employed elsewhere. I have looked at the better plans and do have the means to pay for those if they were worth it. But, I've done the math and they are not. They just charge larger premiums so that you don't ever have to make co-payments. But, the cost of the co-payments per year doesn't even come close to the extra premiums, even in a year where my wife stayed in the hospital and had a baby. The more expensive plans are a stupid buy and are a big part of the problem since employers are paying for them for employees at expense to all of us.

I would like to hear from cancerinform on what the doctor crisis my ex-gf described was all about. Considering that she was going to medical school and is now a doctor (in a country other than Germany), I doubt that she was stating things "against the facts."

Back in 2005, USA Today did a story on the average cost of a family healthcare policy topping $10,000 for the first time, http://www.usatoday.com/money/indust...h-policy_x.htm , and it's only gotten more expensive since then.

Nobody contests that the current system is broken and is costing us more than it should. Insurance companies have been able to inflate prices like this because government has pushed for health care to be provided by employers. People don't realize the increase in cost to them because those expenses aren't coming out of their accounts directly. They are a tiny blurb on their check stubs each month. Most employers pay for most of the cost (and receive a tax break on the cost which is why they are motivated to pay employees this way) and pass on a fraction of that to the employee. The employee doesn't even realize that that extra amount employers pay each year is cost of labor that could be given to them in the form of salary instead. Under McCain's plan, the people who are affected most, consumers, will be in a better position to judge the transaction and what they are willing to pay for what type of coverage.

As for Doctors' opinions:

From Reuters earlier this year:

You're right. It looks like most doctors are now for national health care. But, it's hardly overwhelming at 59%. Also, doctors are experts in healing people, not economics. It also isn't clear how the 59% defines national health care. Since McCain's plan would provide health care coverage to all citizens, it may be seen as national health care to doctors or anyone else polled.

Our free market system is causing Americans to pay top dollar for second class care.

Our current system has removed the free market part. That is why it is broken. If insurance companies aren't having to compete for the business of the consumers, you can't call it a free market system. It's a controlled market and that's the problem.

We are the only industrialized nation that doesn't provide some form of national care and when compared to those other countries it shows.

And the health care systems in just about every one of those countries is a point of contention and controversy due to the burden on their economies. Furthermore, the "studies" that have shown their care to be better that I have seen are total bs and contrived to give higher scores to national programs.

We have a lower life expectancy, higher infant mortality rate, lower survivability rates, and higher premature death rates for both children and adults when compared to other industrialized countries, all while paying the highest percentage of GDP per person.

There are many factors besides health care that can affect those statistics. For instance, crime rates can affect life expectancies and have nothing to do with quality of health care.

It's true that we pay too much. But, that has had the side effect of attracting the best doctors in the world. That is my only reservation about McCain's plan. The price needs to move closer to the rate of inflation. But, I wouldn't want it to move so low that we aren't globally competitive in pay for doctors.

That is what happens when the primary goal of caregivers is to make a profit instead of actually providing healthcare.

No. What happens when profit is not the incentive is that the organization no longer cares how efficient they are, causing prices to go up (and become less transparent) and care to be rationed as it is in countries with national health care.

This has been a huge failure when it's been tried in the past and has always resulted in worse coverage at much higher rates, and has even caused some insurance companies to close shop and move out of state.

Can you point out specifically where it was tried in the past and what the statistics were for the costs, etc.?

On healthcare and drug lobbyists supporting McCain, I think that considering some of the 115 lobbyists still working on his campaign and raising money for him are lobbyists for health insurance companies and Big Pharma, that qualifies as supporting him.

A simple "no, I don't have any evidence" would have sufficed.

The only time that those commons don't seem to work or are inefficient are when they are either not properly funded, or are used as feeding troughs for private companies that are friends of the politicians.

There you have it. Anything liberals propose that doesn't work is because we didn't throw enough money at it or the opposition sabotaged it. It's never because it was a bad idea that led to massive inefficiency.

Education, amongst highest cost in the world. Amongst lowest scores in the world.

Social security, is visibly on a path to bankruptcy. People are paying into the system knowing already that they will not benefit when they retire.

Same with Medicare. The cost in the US budget has ballooned to the point that it will not be possible to continue. People are paying for a service that is on path to not be sustainable when they need it.

Again, there is a huge difference between a service provider who's primary goal is profit as opposed to a provider who's primary goal is to provide service.

Again, there is a huge difference between a service provider who is motivated by profit and avoiding consequences of failure than one who plods along the same regardless of their efficiency.

And as for me being fiscally conservative, I don't mean the term as in the rightwing kind of ideological "conservative" or "neoconservative" which has nothing to do with conservation of anything that I can tell.

You don't mean it in the way that people typically use the term either. Being fiscally conservative means that you are for less government spending. You clearly are not since you are for new programs requiring additional spending through government. And it has nothing to do with surpluses. Bill Clinton was not a fiscal conservative. He is more conservative than Obama. He was more fiscally conservative in terms of over-all spending than Reagan. But, not a fiscal conservative in category or principle.

Fiscal conservatism of today is most closely associated with Reaganomics, named after President Ronald Reagan, who, after taking office in 1981, cut income taxes, deregulated the economy and attempted to reign in spending all to reduce the size of government.

...

Clinton, however, has been the exception -- not the rule. By and large, most Democrats still believe in paying for outcomes by using public money, and their records prove it.

http://usconservatives.about.com/od/...FiscalCons.htm

You can use whatever term you like and ascribe your own definitions. But, it seems like, for the sake of avoiding confusion, you should use the commonly understood term to describe yourself: fiscally liberal.

[FlashLackey]

im sure when you were single you could also get a loaf of bread for under 3 dollars. or a candy bar for $.25. Does anyone remember when a snack size bag of chips was $.75? now its almost a $1.50.

Same thing with health care. Prices go up.

lol. How old do you think I am?

I haven't been married that long. The cost has gone up. But,it hasn't more than tripled in a couple years.

[silverx2]

lol. How old do you think I am?

I haven't been married that long. The cost has gone up. But,it hasn't more than tripled in a couple years.

a couple of years ago the us dollar was worth more then the canadian dollar.

start using some hard numbers.

Exactly how many years ago you paid exactly how much for insurance just for you?

[gerbick]

I can join you in that hate... I remember 25/35 cent grab bags too.

But it just hit me. If Obama actually does win, a lot of conservatives will stand in the way of any progress.

[Loyal Rogue]

Haha, that JUST hit you???

What do you think their whole strategy has been for the last two years?
The Republicans have blocked an unprecedented number of bills and legislation over the last two years strictly as a political stunt so they could run against the Democratic congress as a "do nothing" congress in 2008.

They aren't even trying to hide it.

Republican Senator Trent Lott stated on 4/18/07:
“The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail…and so far it's working for us.”

As soon as the Rebublicans lost the majority they went from being "Rubberstamp Republicans" to "Roadblock Republicans" overnight.
Never before in the history of congress has there been two years of congress with this much obstruction and this many filibusters.
I'm just amazed that the media has completely turned a blind eye to such historical and obvious dirty politics.

Here's a little visual perspective of what's going on and what we can expect if the Dems don't win both a filibuster-proof majority of congress and the Presidency...

Record of Senate filibusters threatened from 1981 to 2008

[gerbick]

It's tripled for me in the last 9 years. From October 1999 to October 2008. And for those years, I've been in the US only.

[gerbick]

Didn't those middle class tax cuts by Reagan and Bush create deficits though? 300 billion or so?

[FlashLackey]

Didn't those middle class tax cuts by Reagan and Bush create deficits though? 300 billion or so?

No. In both cases, tax revenues went up. Ironically (in regard to liberal cries of the Bush "tax cuts for corporations") since the 2003 cuts, the amount of taxes collected from corporations per year has [nearly tripled].

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfa....cfm?Docid=203

The deficits were caused by increased spending.

[gerbick]

this kind of stuff sickens me...

In September, some 28 million of the "Obsession" DVD's were distributed as advertising inserts in 70 newspapers, primarily in critical swing states such as Colorado, Florida and Ohio.

It was paid for by the Clarion Fund, a nonprofit group established by the film's Israeli producer with the goal of exposing what it calls the threat of radical Islam. The Clarion Fund was created in 2006, the same year "Obsession" was released.

"Our focus is to educate with our movies and raise awareness, not influence elections," said Gregory Ross, a Clarion spokesman.

And now evidence points to a connection to the Center for Security Policy.

And is this who McCain means when he oft repeats "me and my friends"?

Sorta odd to see Colin Powell put his endorsement behind Obama. I did not expect that. But the right wing is rather upset. Sadly, now race is being brought in... again.

wtf people.

[gerbick]

Why in the world would you increase spending when you have tax cuts in place?