Two Tough Timely Questions for Obama

Obama is just not presidential … most politicians wait until after they are elected to “spin” their policies.

“Under the Obama plan, as it now stands, healthy people could choose not to buy insurance — then sign up for it if they developed health problems later. Insurance companies couldn’t turn them away, because Mr. Obama’s plan, like those of his rivals, requires that insurers offer the same policy to everyone.”
“Well, John Edwards has just called Mr. Obama’s bluff, by proposing that individuals be required to show proof of insurance when filing income taxes or receiving health care. If they don’t have insurance, they won’t be penalized — they’ll be automatically enrolled in an insurance plan.”
Signing people up when they show up for health care is the same between the plans. (I love how Obama is slammed for that and Edwards is praised.) So Edwards is basically proposing adding proof of insurance to everyone’s tax returns. That would create a further financial disincentive to file returns, and I wonder whether the cost savings would be greater than the cost of the new bureaucracy created.

I think when you call a kettle black you should be able to back up your own ideas. Let Hillary answser questions about how she will mandate her health insurance, how she will pay for it and who benefits including big insurance and pharma??
It appears that Hillary is a little scared with all her kurfuffel.

We are no longer Obama supporters.
Enough is enough.

Hillary is the one being dishonest!
Her plan doesn’t “cover” anyone!
We all cover ourselves- forced to buy our own insurance under Hillary or Edwards’ plans.

The first question is to determine whether or not health care is an essential social service, on par with education, or Police and fire protections. I believe that it is. That it is to the benefit of the nation, as a whole, to have unfettered access to health care. If that can be accepted then the issue at hand is not health care, but the cost of health care, how it would be paid for and the particular impact of this cost on the people. The statistics published by the government show that approximately $1.8 trillion dollars is spent on health care in the U.S. annually or approximately $6000 per person, twice that and more than some industrialized western nations. Despite spending so much, over 15% of our population is without any health insurance and cannot afford to see a doctor for preventive care and health maintenance, and that up to 60% have insurance with inadequate coverage, high premiums and up front deductibles. If you accept that health care is an essential service, then a national insurance plan that would take the dollars already being spent and insure that most of them go to directly provide health care to individuals makes sense.
First order would be to insure that the government would be banned from building or operating any civilian hospital. Medical care for the military would not be affected but there will not be any government run hospitals for the public. It is critical that medical facilities and providers remain competitive and independent.
Costs: Capping malpractice insurance rates at a percentage of income and awards for litigation. By allowing hospitals to compete for patients with the guarantee that every patient seen will have their costs covered, overall cost of coverage will come down. Dealing as the largest customer drug companies will have, the ability to negotiate lower drug prices should be feasible. The end goal being no higher than $3500 annually per capita or $1.05 trillion, needed per year, to cover the entire populace.
Coverage: A review of conditions and procedures that are currently covered in any percentage by current commercial insurance will be covered 100% by national insurance. No co-pays, no prescription costs, including dental and vision.
Payments: A review of currently negotiated rates with hospitals and Drs will set the base for payments to them for services rendered; renegotiations can use inflation and cost of living as bases for increases. Profit in the medical community will be primarily determined by those that provide the highest quality care efficiently, thus being able to see more patients and have more income. Upon receiving an accurately completed claim from the provider, payment is issued.
Prescriptions: Price and quality will be the basis for negotiations for medications. While American companies will be a priority, there will be no requirement that they be the sole suppliers.
Funding: instead of paying the current premiums, the plan would be funding through payroll via a tax of 10% of monthly income up to $100 per month. With the extremely low estimate of 100 million workers in this category, that raises $120B a year. Employers will provide 4 times what their employees pay per month, this will result in an additional $480B annually. this $600B is a significant drop in current premium costs for both individuals and employers and will allow even small businsess to pay. If you work, you pay the 10% of income per month with the $100 cap. There are at aminimum of 50 million additional workers, assuming the lowest income under the poverty line for this group, these workers will still contribute $1000 a year each or an additional $50B, their employers working on the same sliding scale will provide an additional $200B. So from the workers and employers en total: $850B, and the remaining $200B required to full fund such a program has already been appropriated under Medicare, Medicaid, VA medical and any number of other programs that provide medical services both federal and local. I realize that this formula is overly simplified; but the math is accurate and the estimates conservative.
The role of government in this process -pay the bill. Review and oversight will be in place to address issues of abuse.
Like the tax database, a medical database can be built to monitor national health and provide support and direction for medical research. Procedures or medications not listed as covered will be reviewed by state medical boards and the basis for approval will be benefit to the patient, not cost of the procedure.
This benefit will only be available to legal residents of the United States. Illegal residents will be treated, but also deported once able to travel.
Using the free market so hospitals compete for patients will make for better services and shorter wait times. With over $1 trillion available for the market, it will be a very profitable for hospitals and Dr’s.
Look for insurance companies to open their own health care facilities and provide private insurance procedures they did not previously cover.

OBAMA TALKS LIKE HE HAS THE PLAN FOR EVERYTHING WITHOUT US TAX-PAYER PAYING FOR IT…FIRST HE WANTS TO REACH-OUT TO EVERY THIRD WORLD NATION AROUND THE GLOBE WITH FINANCIAL HELP, SO OUR ENEMIES WON’T HATE THE U.S., THAN ELECTED HE WANTS TO BEG IRAN TO NEGOTIATE A PEACE PLAN?, NO SOCIALIST STYLE HEALTH-CARE FOR EVERY WORKING CITIZENS? ARE YOU FOR REALS, OBAMA? LOOKS LIKE YOU HATE US AMERICANS MORE BY TAXING US TO OUR LAST PENNIES…

FOR YOU OBAMA-LOVERS…REMEMBER WITH MR. PEANUT (JIMMY CARTER) WAS PRESIDENT HE ALSO TRIED BEGGING IRAN FOR PEACE…YEAH LOOK WHAT HAPPENED? AMERICANS HELD HOSTAGED IN OUR U.S. EMBASSY IN TEHRAN…OBAMA HUSSEIN BARACK, SOUNDS LIKE YOU ARE GOING TO BE THE NEXT GREAT LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD…TO THINK U.S. MARINES HAVE TO PROTECT THIS GUYS OBAMA, WHO NEVER SERVED IN THE U.S. MILITARY, GREW UP IN INDONESIA STUDIED IN A MADRASSA (EXTREME ISLAMIC ANTI-AMERICAN STUDIES), SNORTED COCAINE, SMOOTH-TALKING WITH EMPTY PROMISES AND ILLINOIS IS STILL WAITING FOR BETTER HEALTHCARE, BETTER MASS TRANSIT, CHEAPER HEATING COST WHICH BY THE WAY YOU PROMISED IN YOU CAMPAIGN FOR YOUR SEAT IN THE U.S. SENATE…

Louis, you wrote: “Employers will provide 4 times what their employees pay per month, this will result in an additional $480B annually.” I haven’t tried to crunch all of your numbers. But I can tell you that this portion involving employers, alone, will result in an unemployment rate of at least 7%, but more likely as high as 10%. That means nearly TWICE the number of unemployed as we currently have. Thus nearly TWICE the number of people not paying any income or payroll taxes. And that will drastically affect ALL of your other calculations.
A study was conducted several years ago that attempted to determine how much additional tax revenue would be generated over a 10-year period if the tax rate was 100% for income over $100,000. The numbers reported for the 10 years were staggering. BUT the study failed to consider one important fact. In reality the increase would last only ONE YEAR. After that, almost no one would earn above $100,000. Tax revenues are not static. When you raise or lower taxes, the people change their behavior accordingly. You raise taxes they spend less, resulting in the loss of jobs — higher unemployement and less tax revenue. You lower taxes they spend more, resulting in the creation of jobs — lower unemployement and more tax revenue. Just look at the huge increase in tax revenues collected the past several years since the Bush taxcuts were implemented.

So basically the argument is over how they will force me to become a mandatory consumer of BIG PHARMA?

Hillary Clinton continues to lie about Obama’s plan, and her own.
Her plan doesn’t “cover” anyone, just forces every american to buy their own insurance.

I simply think that we need to vote someone in that will actually listen to the people. Its funny how Obama says his plans covers everyone when it doesnt then he talked on the live debate on how we need someone that will give us straight answers. Dude, you totally bit yourself in the ass. Like my great Estonian friend said to me: you destroyed a Hussein while you gained a comeplete new Hussein.

Personally I like Clinton but OBAMA represents a new change that our Country desperately needs. People are saying he is inexperience when they know nothing of his 8 years of state legislative service or many years as a civil rights attorney. You guys need to get off the experience tip cause look at BUSH with his running a Government and where did it get the U.S we are more broke today, our dollar is loosing it’s power faster than melting butter and 1.8 million jobs have been lost cause of a floozy WORLD TRADE DEAL

Senator Obama never attended a madrassa as a child. He went to a school in Jakarta that had a standard academic curriculum and that attracted students of diverse backgrounds. His mother became a cultural anthropologist and inculcated in her children a tolerance of all faiths and peoples. That is one of his great strengths as a presidential candidate.
As for Iran, don’t forget that the CIA helped overthrow a democratically elected government in Iran in 1953, and we then installed the Shah, who was very brutal with his own people…every bit as brutal as Sadam Hussein. Of course, the Iranians are suspicious of our behavior after we interfered with their election. That is why they took hostages in 1979 at our Embassy in Teheran, thinking that we would do it again.
The top foreign policy experts in America are backing Senator Obama, because he has wisdom. Wisdom that HRC doesn’t have, as she is mired in ‘conventional wisdom’ of warmongoring and being more secretive than Nixon.
We are blessed to have Senator Obama as our candidate and the people in Iowa are looking at him closely and realizing that he would be a transformational leader for America, and the world. He would definitely help heal our world.
Please just look at his record and listen to speeches. All his policies are outlined on his website, in detail. So please don’t say that he has no substance. He is pure substance. The moment he is inaugurated, the whole world will breathe a sigh of relief and welcome the United States back to the community of nations, again.

Folks:
Please get real. I used to pay for my health insurance. I lost my job and lost my health insurance because I could no longer afford it.
Hillary is offering tax credits to mandate health insurance. Hillary and Krugman are fundamentally missing the point. If you cannot afford it, you cannot afford it! Before you claim tax credit, you should have purchased the insurance first so if you cannot afford it, how do you pay and claim the tax credit later. I know this because I have been preparing my taxes for the last several years. No insurance company would automatically give you coverage just because you can claim a tax credit. They want their premiums paid before you get the coverage.
Hillary and Krugman’s proposal would be God-sent to the insurance companies to rain in big bucks.
Hillary is really bought by the health insurance lobbyists and Krugman is living in academia and forgets that people lose their jobs everyday and others just do not have jobs.
Obama says that those who just cannot afford would be asked to sign up in a national health insurance program. Edwards says that when those who cannot afford file their taxes they would be asked to sign up for covergae. The reality is that if you earn below a certain income, you do not need to file tax returns and there are millions of people in this category.
Hillary’s supporters should stop backing a hollow health insurance plan.

Not to mention; Kucinich has a PROVEN political AND personal history of being TRULY ETHICAL, INTELLIGIENT & COURAGEOUS, along w/the fact that he has LEADERSHIP EXPERIENCE…HOW CAN ANY OF THESE OTHER CANDIDATES BEAT THAT?!?

Many refuse to vote for a given candidate no matter who else is running. They could do so directly if the ballot had a no column and the highest yes wins. They could even help their party win without endorsing their candidate in the general election. A way to cast a vote that honestly reflects your view. How refreshing. And effective trashing would not necessarily result in votes for the trasher.

JUST make it simple. Although I plan to vote for Hillary; I think the single payer; no insurance companies involved approach of Kucinich is actually the right way to do health care. I watched a video of him; not as wimpy looking or sounding as I thought. But seeing how many of my fellow Americans vote for president like they were voting for a beauty pageant, he probably would never get anywhere.
I say this as someone on SSD after working for 25 years. Twice I’ve had to give up my apartment; several times I’ve had to go off meds cold turkey; not enjoyable especially considering the pain and the fact I have LIFE threatening conditions.
I realize looking at the Republican status quo that not being rich and not being able to work I should just fall in the Medicaid Part D doughnut hole and DIE. I try so many different avenues seeking help, and cost you even more than my meds when I land in the hospital. I think the Pope misspoke about atheists’ cruelty. I think he meant Neocons’ cruelty.
One other point, like FDR’s New Deal, a government sponsored health program would circulate money WITHIN the US, paying doctors and nurses. Once the money circulates, Bushites can start to syphon off more wealth because doctors, nurses and healthier citizens will use more oil!
End of rant.

James,
Keep in mind that the ‘average’ insurance rates include the rates for lower income jobs, the 10% would likely balance, and in the event that it did not, the percentage could be variable based on rate of salary, I used a flat rate for simplification.
thank you for pointing that out and providing stats to support your statement.
I do not think that any worker should be entirely exempt from paying into the fund, though or receive tax credit for it.

I still say we need a no column on ballots and polls and the highest yes wins. Many adamantly oppose a potential nominee of their party. The voter could impact the result, help their party win, without endorsing that nominee. It’s not a free and fair election if you can’t vote as you really feel and the yes only ballot denies the voter that option.

“It’s not a free and fair election if you can’t vote as you really feel and the yes only ballot denies the voter that option.” If a candidate was unopposed, then your suggestion makes plenty of sense. Some states already have yes-no options for some offices such as judges. BUT if the race has multiple candidates a vote for one candidate is the same as a no vote for all of the other candidates. If you don’t like any of the candidates then you have the option of writing in the candidate of your choice. Now it would be nice if there was a “None of the Above” category for those who dislike all of the candidates and don’t want to write-in a candidate. That would be better than not voting at all.