COMPARING HEALTHCARE "CHANGE"

There are a lot of politicians talking about change lately. However, there ARE stark differences between the changes that each party is offering in the upcoming election.

John McCain and Sarah Palin are planning radical changes for the nation’s health insurance system. An independent study to be released on Tuesday by scholars at Columbia, Harvard, Purdue and Michigan projects that 20 million Americans who have employment-based health insurance would lose it under the McCain-Palin plan.

The McCain-Palin health plan would treat employer-paid health benefits as income that employees would have to pay taxes on. Your employer will estimate the value of the benefits that you currently receive and this will be reported as income on each paycheck and you will have payroll taxes withheld.

Senator McCain says that he will offset this missing income by offering all taxpayers a refundable tax credit of $2,500 for a single worker and $5,000 per family. (Of course, for those who are barely scraping by already, no tax credit will make up for missing money from a paycheck. And for some, the $2500 will not compensate for the value of the health insurance they will be taxed on.)

The philosophy behind the McCain-Palin plan is that, if families opt out of employer-paid health coverage and enter into the health insurance marketplace, free market forces will fix the problems we are currently facing in healthcare. This free market philosophy underscores all republican platforms and the economic policies that have been in place for the past eight to ten years have all been based on it. Unfortunately, we are seeing (and feeling) the ill-effects of the free-market philosophy in the current mortgage/banking/financial markets crisis.

Some foreseeable results of this plan are that younger, healthier workers will opt out of the employer-based plans — either to buy cheaper insurance on their own or to go without coverage; some older, wealthier workers will opt out for financial reasons; leaving employers with a pool of older, (and poorer) less-healthy workers to cover. Their coverage will then be more expensive, which will encourage more and more employers to give up on the idea of providing coverage at all. This will also force those who can least afford it to pay more or drop their coverage completely, worsening the crisis of the uninsured.

These changes will leave millions more Americans on their own in the bewildering and often treacherous health insurance marketplace, because Senator McCain states that “the key to real reform is to restore control over our health care system to the patients themselves.” Meanwhile the plan also undermines state regulation of the insurance industry because McCain says he is committed to ridding the market of these “needless and costly” insurance regulations.

The McCain-Palin campaign says that by allowing consumers to buy insurance from sellers anywhere in the country, they are offering patients more “choices.” However, current requirements in your state that force insurers to cover vaccinations, annual physicals, regular testing, breast examinations, or prostate examinations would essentially be meaningless. Their offer of "choice" effectively destroys local control and supervision of insurance company policies by state insurance commissioners without replacing it with any kind of control or supervision, leaving us to trust the insurance companies to do the right thing.

The findings of the study being released on Tuesday (9-17-08) are being published on the Web site of the policy journal, Health Affairs. I urge you to read this and decide for yourself.

http://content.healthaffairs.org/index.dtl

Alternatively, the Obama-Biden plan moves in a different direction. Their plan aims to modernize and increase the efficiency of our current system of employer- and government-provided health care by use of technological advances that will identify the best providers, treatments and patient management strategies.

The Obama-Biden plan retains the current income-tax exclusion on benefits for those currently receiving employer-paid benefits and offers households (including those still unable to afford private coverage) a refundable tax credit.

Employers not offering coverage or making ‘meaningful’ contribution to the cost of insurance for their employees would be required to pay a 4 percent payroll tax to help subsidize coverage for low- and moderate-income families. However, the plan would also give small firms the option of joining large insurance pools, decreasing the cost for them to provide coverage. Larger patient pools spread risk over a larger group, keeping premiums can be kept down and controlling cost volatility.

The Obama-Biden plan would offer individuals the option to buy in to the federal government's benefits system, ensuring that all individuals have access to an affordable, portable alternative at a price they can afford. SCHIP and Medicaid would be expanded and insurance coverage would be mandated for children.

Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements to hospitals and doctors will be based on patient outcomes (lower cholesterol readings, made and kept follow-up appointments) in order to focus the entire payment system around better health, not just more care. Their plan will also guarantee patient access to preventive services, improving overall health and in turn saving money.

The reforms included in the Obama-Biden plan are intended to lower premiums by $2,500 for the typical family, allowing millions previously priced out of the market to afford insurance, motivate employers to provide affordable coverage, extend coverage to the working poor, alleviate the current cost burden on employers, and eliminate the crisis of uninsured and underinsured patients in the current system.

Sphere: Related Content

Obama Tries To Rise Above Farcical “Debate”

Wednesday night’s ABC News debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama was laughable. The two hosts, George Stephanopoulis and Charlie Gibson, asked the worst questions that I have ever heard asked in a televised debate. Their questions seemed designed to draw the candidates into petty feuding. And while Hillary Clinton certainly seemed eager to roll in the muck, Barack Obama tried to rise above the circus act to talk about the issues.

Gibson and Stephanopoulis revisited every non-issue that the media has attempted to cook up in the past three weeks on either of the two candidates. They rehashed the Reverend Wright non-story, they rehashed the Bosnia tall-tale non-story, and they even revisited the bitter nation non-story. After this fiasco, hopefully Obama will see that it is not in his best interest to involve himself in any further debate with Clinton. It may serve Clinton’s interests and it certainly serves the media’s salacious interests, but it does not serve the best interest of the people, our country or the Democratic Party.

As the hosts repeatedly attempted to put Obama on the hot seat, Barack Obama, to his credit, firmly but politely put them on notice that these kinds of questions don’t serve any positive or productive purpose. He rightly pointed out that these manufactured “issues” serve only to distract the country from solving the real problems that confront us. He even gallantly side-stepped his opportunity to heap it on Clinton. And he did it without appearing defensive, though perhaps occasionally annoyed. And viewers could not fault him because they were getting annoyed too.

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, joined the attempted attack on Obama with relish. She sounded like a broken record, repeating the same smug, tired lines about people choosing their Pastors and how out-of-touch Obama is with the “little people.” She took every opportunity to pile it on and then defended her actions by saying that Obama had to be prepared for the dirty tricks that the Republicans would throw at him. Well, with friends like this, who needs enemies, eh Hill?

Clinton also went on about how her daddy was raised in Scranton and tried real hard to feed into this whole Citizen Clinton shtick she has invented. How many times has she been to little Scranton, PA in, say, her whole, entire life? It's the same way that she pretends to have some connection to the state of New York. What is her connection, other than that she moved there to take a political seat in possibly the only district in the country that she thought she could win? So now she waxes poetic about Scranton.

Whatever Hillary! Sip another shot of whiskey and nurse that warm beer. I‘m not buying your good old gal crap. And neither are most people. You look ridiculous. And puh-leeze spare us the guns and ammo talk. When is the last time you went hunting? Do you own any guns? If so, do you even know where they are right now? Bet not.

This whole bit with her running around posing as a working-class citizen is political theatre at it’s most absurd and despicable. Working-class people have real jobs; they can’t pack up and move to another state to run for a Senate seat; they don’t have wealthy friends to finance their campaigns; and they can’t pull the funds from their private accounts when the campaign donations slow down. Not all working class people spend all their free time in church, or hunting, or throwing back boilermakers. And they are not stupid enough to believe that she knows what their lives are really like. Someone should tell Clinton that this posturing is more insulting than it is endearing to most of us working class citizens. And it reminds of a certain George W. Bush running for President as the guy you’d like to drink some beers with. Well, how well did that work for us, America?

Obama took a lot of crap off the hosts and Clinton at this debate. He handled it mostly by trying to politely put the rascals in their places. He declined to join in when the hosts confronted Clinton on some of the non-issues that they have tried to cook up. While gallantly side-stepping most of the opportunities the hosts gave him to Clinton-Bash (he even appeared to be defending her at one point), he DID get in one well-deserved dig when he said that Clinton had learned the wrong message from all of her years taking it on the chin from the likes of Karl Rove.

Obama showed that he possesses patience, intelligence, maturity, diplomacy, logical and analytical thinking skills, courtesy and tact. Now we just have to see if that is what the American people want in their leader or if they are going to go back to the same two-faced, manipulative, shallow leadership that they have fallen for in the last several elections.

Sphere: Related Content

Bitter? You Bet Your Ass I Am.

This is what I read about Barack Obama on Yahoo News:

…trying to explain his troubles winning over some working-class voters, saying
they have become frustrated with economic conditions:
‘It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.’

And I think, well, at least someone is paying attention.

It’s a fair way to sum up the situation, except that I would add that, historically, these sorts of resentments are strategically inflamed by the corporate media and power-mongers who use the working class’ bitterness to rise to power or fatten their wallets. [Against the Communist menace, the Black menace, the Welfare menace, the Liberal menace, the Mexican menace.] We have seen this over and over again, especially when the nation is in the throes of economic hardship (usually in the waning days of a Republican presidential administration).

Oh, but I forgot AGAIN…public people are not supposed to tell the truth. They are supposed to dance around it like The Lord of the Dance, but never rest upon it lest the citizenry glimpse the web of lies at the foundation of the system under which we allow ourselves to be governed (and manipulated and used).

Americans have good reasons and a RIGHT to be bitter and angry.

We have been lied to by our leaders; lied into a war in Iraq, our young men and women carelessly and callously thrown into an impossible situation that has only wrought more riches for multinational corporations and their stockholders while destroying lives and families both here and in Iraq.

We have been used and thrown away by our corporate leaders, sidelined by “outsourcing,” undermined by their use of illegal workers to drive down the wage, destroying our quality of life. These same corporations that built their wealth and power on the backs of workers in the ’60’s through ‘80’s, then turned around and spit on us all when they went global.

The news media, “The Fourth Estate” that we had always considered our advocates and our protection against dishonesty and double-dealing in government, has been taken over by corporate fascists and the denizens of “journalism” have become prostitutes for a New Propagandism. So intertwined are these “journalists” and our criminal government leaders that they wind up wrapped up in scandal together.

This current administration has broken our democracy with its reckless disregard of the law and its denial of the rights and powers of the citizenry. It has broken our military with its reckless war-mongering for profit and political power and its reckless disregard for the lives of our brave soldiers. It has broken our economy by allowing corporations to rule, unfettered by oversight or regulation, over the rights and powers of the people. The trickle-down theories of those in power have rained poverty and hopelessness on the working classes that make up the foundation of our society. But it has not broken our spirit.

So, Obama rightly observes that the citizens of this nation are fed-up, they are angry and they are bitter. Of course you expect the Republican party, who feeds its members on lies, denials, half-truths, propaganda and intolerance to cry out in protest. They must deny that we are angry or bitter because if they acknowledge our anger, they must acknowledge both the cause and their complicity in it.

But you might expect more honesty from a fellow Democrat. You would be woefully mistaken:

Clinton supporters were eagerly hoping (to use this to their advantage)...They handed out "I'm not bitter" stickers in North Carolina, and held a conference call of Pennsylvania mayors to denounce the Illinois senator. In Indiana, Clinton did the work herself, telling plant workers in Indianapolis that Obama's comments were "elitist and out of touch."…Clinton attacked Obama's remarks much more harshly Saturday than she had the night before, calling them "demeaning."…The Clinton campaign is parsing every word, focusing on what Obama said about religion, guns, immigration and trade. Clinton hit all those themes…"The people of faith I know don't 'cling' to religion because they're bitter. People embrace faith not because they are materially poor, but because they are spiritually rich," she said. "I also disagree with Senator Obama's assertion that people in this country 'cling to guns' and have certain attitudes about immigration or trade simply out of frustration," Clinton added. "People don't need a president who looks down on them," she said. "They need a president who stands up for them."

We should not be surprised that Hillary is feeding into Republican lies and denials. She who recently began a desperate attack to paint Obama as a “liberal” (ooooh, doesn’t it give you shivers?) the same way that Rush Limbaugh successfully labeled her years ago. She has begun to pull plays straight out of the Immoral Karl Rove PlayBook.

The truth is, Hillary is no liberal and Obama isn’t liberal enough to solve all the problems that have been created by a decade of conservative rule in this country. The true liberal candidates were weeded out by the media before most of the public ever got a chance to hear their ideas.

The truth is Hillary may as well BE a Republican, except that they wouldn't have her because they can't stand her. And like the girl that never could make the cheerleading squad, she just keeps hanging around trying to worm her way in by wearing the right clothes, listening to the right music, saying the right thing. Bill Clinton was never the liberal that he was painted to be and Hillary has proven herself to be even more conservative than her husband.

The truth is, Americans are bitter, but the media and Republicans like to deny that we are or try to make us feel ashamed of our anger. They employ all sorts of excuses for the woes of the citizenry and manipulate us into turning our anger on illegal immigrants, lazy welfare recipients, elite liberal intellectuals, and anywhere else but where it actually belongs. This perpetuates our problems, keeps them in power and allows corporations to continue manipulating laws and workers to feed their incessant greedy lust for an ever-higher percentage of profit.

The truth is, Hillary wouldn’t tell you the truth, even if she knew what the truth was, because all she cares about is getting into the White House. Her lust for power rivals that of any Republican leader and any corporate bigwig.

And who is it, do you think, that is backing her, that is pulling for her to win? It’s not the rank-and-file members of the Democratic Party, the majority of whom have cast their votes for Obama already. And although she has a lot of the Unions behind her, it's not the rank-and-file union member. It’s not the party leaders, most of who have stated that they will vote to nominate the candidate that the people choose.

Who stands to gain from another Clinton presidency? Who gained last time there was a Clinton in the Whitehouse? Remember NAFTA? Did that help the working man? Did it help the Mexican economy? Who benefits from unemployed Mexicans? Remember welfare reform? Did that help the working poor? Did it reduce the burden on society? Remember the scandals? Did those help the Democratic Party? Did they help the Evangelical zealots to gain power over government? Did they help the Republican party to gain power and sell it to the highest corporate bidder?

Conservatives must be drooling already if they think Hillary has Obama on the run. To the corporate sector, there is not much difference between a Clinton presidency and a McCain presidency. They don’t have to fear regulation from either of these two. What they worry about more is an Obama presidency, now that they have effectively filtered out John Edwards, the one candidate that might have brought meaningful change.

I AM bitter, Hillary.

I AM angry.

If you believed half the things that you profess to believe, if you cared about democracy, freedom, our military, the poor, YOU would be angry, too.

Declaring that she ISN'T angry or bitter (at least about anything besides her husband's philandering), and wagging a finger at those who ARE, just goes to prove that she is CLUELESS. When she says Obama is "elitist" and "out of touch" she more accurately describes herself. And when she says that the people need a president that will stand up for them, she can't possibly be describing herself.

Sphere: Related Content