Arizona Senator John McCain (official)

[sandgk]

Originally Posted by Steve19

The article disappeared but is available here today (link).

The original WP article is now found here ..

[Steve19]

How does McCain's health care plan compare to the Democratic proposals. I understand he would propose tax credits, which I find preferable to the screw-up that is nationalized health care in Britain, Canada, etc. Am I right?

[CookyPuss]

Originally Posted by Steve19

How does McCain's health care plan compare to the Democratic proposals. I understand he would propose tax credits, which I find preferable to the screw-up that is nationalized health care in Britain, Canada, etc. Am I right?

This was discussed in the Obama thread (LINK), but to summarize:

McCain's plan also removes incentives for employers to provide health care. Bad, because his tax credits don't make up for the difference employers provide. Employers typically provide 9K, his tax credit is 5K.

McCain's plan allows insurance companies to sell policies across state lines. Bad, because companies will move to where the laws are more lax, like how most of the credit card companies are in Delaware.

McCain's plan makes it easier to discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions. Really bad. The McCain plan is don't seriously ill unless you are independently wealthy.

Obama and Clinton's plans are not nationalized plans. They provide the opportunity for the uninsured to buy into the same plan that congress uses. It builds on the current system, but opens it up to everyone and provides subsidies for those that can't afford it. The main difference between the plans is that Clinton mandates that everyone buys in (this is because it helps control costs in the long term by more "healthy" people to pay in). Obama does not have the mandates as it is cheaper to get up and running and more likely to pass in congress. He has said he would be willing to look at mandates down the road if not enough people are paying in.

The difference between the Obama/Clinton plans and the Brits or Canadians is that they are not single payer systems. In those systems, you basically don't have a choice of plan. The current proposals by the Dems relies on the current employer-based, free market system staying in place (but providing some savings by taking catastrophic cases out of the system, modernization of record keeping, etc). Then, there will be a secondary system for everyone who cannot get insurance or affordable insurance through their employers. Employers will be mandated to either provide employee plans or pay into the general fund (smaller employers may be exempted). It is not a socialized system, but expansion and subsidization of the current free market system. It should take a big chunk out of the Medicaid program costs and reduce premiums because there are so many people without insurance going to ERs that cannot refuse treatment (those costs are passed along through higher premiums for you and me).

[sandgk]

Originally Posted by Steve19

How does McCain's health care plan compare to the Democratic proposals. I understand he would propose tax credits, which I find preferable to the screw-up that is nationalized health care in Britain, Canada, etc. Am I right?

If you read Fortune - or similar business oriented publications - you will find high praise for McCain's health plan.

I'm saying that as much in the interest of full disclosure as I am saying it with the intent of underscoring the audience that approves of the plan to the fullest extent.

MuckFich06 pointed you to the Obama thread - one post he points to is mine and it has the links to the article from Fortune that has been cross-quoted from there to other pro-McCain sites.

This is the Fortune article link

My take on the plaudits for McCain's plan - and what I perceive as it's shortcomings - are in the earlier linked post from the Obama thread.

You should also know that I view neither Clinton's, nor Obama's plans as ideal. But, they do not suffer from the specific assumptive defects that are faults to McCain's plan. Which, if I were to pare it down to it's nub, would be, really, more of the same thing that has led us to this place.

[BuckeyeMike80]

Originally Posted by sandgk

If you read Fortune - or similar business oriented publications - you will find high praise for McCain's health plan.

I'm saying that as much in the interest of full disclosure as I am saying it with the intent of underscoring the audience that approves of the plan to the fullest extent.

MuckFich06 pointed you to the Obama thread - one post he points to is mine and it has the links to the article from Fortune that has been cross-quoted from there to other pro-McCain sites.

This is the Fortune article link

My take on the plaudits for McCain's plan - and what I perceive as it's shortcomings - are in the earlier linked post from the Obama thread.

You should also know that I view neither Clinton's, nor Obama's plans as ideal. But, they do not suffer from the specific assumptive defects that are faults to McCain's plan. Which, if I were to pare it down to it's nub, would be, really, more of the same thing that has led us to this place.

The bad part is that not a single plan any of these politicians have has a snowball's chance in hell at actually working. Which is bad I do admit, but the moment our government gets into it, especially a couple years down the road into implementation, it's doomed to become another Medicare/Social Security type program....

This should be an easy fix but it won't be because of the way our government has functioned since at least the 60s...

[sandgk]

Remind me Mike80 - did you summarize what that easy fix was in the old health-care thread?

[BuckeyeMike80]

Originally Posted by sandgk

Remind me Mike80 - did you summarize what that easy fix was in the old health-care thread?

Actually yes I did.

I said get the costs under control and use the private insurance companies to accomplish the task (nice pull BTW).....

But that won't happen. That won't pull in votes. Telling people that yeah, sure, Uncle Sam will take care of everyone is what will get votes.

So instead of actually fixing the issue that got us here (meaning the rising cost of healthcare due to the costs associated with it), we are going to collectively [censored] up and create yet another bureaucracy (since we have such a long and storied history of success with those) and screw it up even further.

Can't wait

[ekeen]

Originally Posted by sandgk

Remind me Mike80 - did you summarize what that easy fix was in the old health-care thread?

I forgot about that thread. That was a mighty-fine debate we all had.

[methomps]

McCain to New Orleans: Never again

McCain called the response to Katrina "a perfect storm" of mismanagement by federal, state and local governments.
...
"Never again, never again, will a disaster of this nature be handled in the disgraceful way it was handled," McCain declared.
...
Without mentioning Bush directly, McCain said that when Katrina struck, "If I had been president, I would have ordered the plane landed at the nearest base and I'd of been over here." He repeated that later, saying, "I would've landed my airplane at the nearest Air Force base and come over personally."

McCain said the missteps of the Bush administration were well chronicled and undisputed, citing unqualified leaders, poor communication and a failure to recognize the dimensions of the problem.

[Steve19]

I wonder about an alternative such as we have here in South Africa. I know what that sounds like, but don't forget that we invented heart transplants, the CAT machine, plastic surgery, and a number of world firsts in our public health system.

Poor people, and all children up to age 6 (I think), qualify for free health care through the public health care system. The public hospitals are linked to the university systems and all of the medical schools are operating hospitals. Care is good but there are no frills. It's not India, where you bring your own sheets, but there aren't a lot of private rooms and deluxe accommodation facilities. Also, free doesn't mean quick service always. You might have to go sit in a waiting lobby for an entire day and then come back the next day (not often, but it can happen), depending on how urgent your problem is compared to other folks on the day. The system also does not allow for endless and needless tests just so some doctor can cover their rear for a lawsuit. Doctors are expected to take reasonable steps to make a diagnosis and they are pretty good.

This provides a safety net so that no one can say they are not being served.

The result of this is a two-tier system. You want the best deluxe medical care, say a bit better than Riverside Methodist, then you go to private health care. Your medical aid (i.e., medical insurance) usually will pay for any necessary surgery and more. Elective stuff might even be covered to a certain extent. The medical aid plans also incentivize positive health care interventions. So, your benefits can be much better if you go to gym once a week, get checkups once a year, etc.

I just think that this is a very good model to address some of the issues being raised in America.

[sandgk]

Apparently one of the Bush daughters isn't towing the party line.

Which could lead to this AIM exchange:

[CookyPuss]

An interesting article pointing to some unintended influence of McCain-Feingold:

RealClearPolitics - Articles - The Parker Six Beat McCainism

WASHINGTON -- Ugly locutions often crop up in the promotion of ugly politics. Consider the threat of "scrutinization."

It has been made against some residents of Parker North, Colo., who expressed a political opinion without first getting their state government's permission for political activity. Herewith another example of what is being done around the nation in the name of political hygiene, as that is understood by "campaign finance reformers," those irksome improvers whose animating ideology is McCainism.

Parker North is a cluster of about 300 houses close to the town of Parker. When two residents proposed a vote on annexation of their subdivision to Parker, six others began trying to persuade the rest to oppose annexation. They printed lawn signs and fliers, started an online discussion group and canvassed neighbors, little knowing that they were provoking Colorado's speech police.

(cont.)

I'm not a big fan of George Will, but even a broken clock is right twice a day. He's right on this one.

[CookyPuss]

McCain says Obama insensitive to poor - John McCain News - MSNBC.com

"I noticed again today that Sen. Obama repeated his opposition to giving low-income Americans a tax break, a little bit of relief so they can travel a little further and a little longer, and maybe have a little bit of money left over to enjoy some other things in their lives," McCain said. "Obviously Sen. Obama does not understand that this would be a nice thing for Americans, and the special interests should not be dictating this policy."

This is laughable. There is no guarantee that the tax savings would be passed along to the buyer. Gas price is set by supply and demand and until we have more refineries, the demand will set the price. The oil companies and gas stations are more likely to get the benefit from this measure than the average citizen. But what the hey, McCain and Clinton prefer to pander to the ignorance of the masses than actually doing something to lower the price of gas/dependence of foreign oil.

[sandgk]

Election year pandering at it's most pure - here, have $3 per fill up from your uncle, that'll help you feel so better about spending $50 a tank to commute to your sub $10 an hour job at Wal-Mart.

Oh, I forgot to tell you, this means that opportunity for you to do road construction this fall would be officially shot - but, hey, here's $3, now run along and remember, vote for the old guy, OK.

[CookyPuss]

Now wait, McCain said he'd make up for the highway money some other way... but wouldn't that involve one of those "earmark" thingys he's so against?