The Candidate's Health Insurance Plans

• The Candidate's Health Insurance Plans - Polly Cystic
  • indiana has insurance for children - why can't every state? obama doesn't have a
    • Vermont has a similar program. nm - oldtimer
  • Neither will be passed so they can say - Kiki
    • I agree....cost and insurance practices DO... - sam
  • McCain's plan... - sam
  • That's just one of many reasons why I'm - voting for Obama in November.
  • Obama's universal plan failed miserably in other - countries. Why do you think it will work here?nm
    • Because the health care plan we have does not work at all. - Yeah, that's it!
      • universal health care - DNH
      • Canada's health plan does not work... - sam
        • Sure right, if you believe him when he says that - Kiki
          • I do believe him. What is the difference in.... - sam
            • I did say in my post that Obama was no - Kiki
              • The reason I believe McCain is that he has... - sam
              • All politicians lie to get elected. - Chele
                • It is, unfortunately, about picking the lesser of the 2 - Kiki
                  • And I'm just the opposite.... - Chele
      • Universal healthcare NOT the answer!! - Chele
        • Post Office, Social Security - MLK
    • Right. and MORE govt involvement is just asking for - trouble every time. -should privatize. nm

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

I figure either one of two things will happen. Either the US will go to a single payer system, i.e., national health care covering all through federal taxes and cost control by the government, or therre will be an implosion of the private system in x number of years with something different emerging from the ashes.

With the exhorbitant cost of health insurance, mandating coverage is not an answer. Anything can be mandated. The question is how does one pay for it?Massachusetts mandated individual coverage, and already has had to exclude 20% due to the cost of a policy, anywhere from $1,200 to $1,400 a month for family coverage.  Employers cannot afford to cover employees either due to the cost of health insurance.  The current system? Well, insurance companies can charge $3,000 a month for a health insurance policy, health care providers can charge $800,000 for a 3-day hospital stay, etc.  In the end no one, businesses or otherwise, will be able to keep "feeding the beast" and the current system will implode.

I think the proposal of being able to buy into Medicare is a noble one, but president Clinton pushed that years ago, and with much opposition and to no avail at that time.

I don't mean to sound so pessiimistic. Actually I'm not. There are 300 million people in this country, they have the ability to change anything, and hopefully they will take the initial steps to do that in November.

how can you ever vote for the RIGHT candidate?

we are all driving basically the same model and we are insuring it for what could possibly happen, not what will or actually does. 

Way back in the 1960s when I first started working, my company's health insurance did not cover single women for most 'female' issues, especially birth control and/or pregnancy-related issues, which has since been deemed discriminatory.  Now you must cover everyone equally for every contingency. 

The only way to individually ajust coverage costs would to be to exclude coverage based on genetic testing and/or family history, or maybe lifestyle issues such as alcohol or tobacco use or risky behavior like sky diving, which consumers have been fighting for years.  This would probably also be deemed discriminatory.

cost $1,000 or more a month?

Health insurance premiums, plus their refusal to insure people with preexisting conditions, are becoming prohibitive costwise for many (millions of Americans) to afford.

Though the example you gave may be true for some younger folks, I believe that's the exception and not the rule.

There is a huge crisis in healthcare in this country today.  Good for you that you can afford it and just blame everyone else who can't.  Maybe someday soon you'll be in the same boat with the 50-odd million Americans who simply can't afford it.  Who will you blame then?

I agree with some of what you said about the state representatives being held accountable.  I did vote for Senate candidates in the last election based on their stances on healthcare.  One of them has been working tirelessly (with many others) to expand CHIP health insurance to kids to more middle-income children in the state, and he was successful!  Now that the income bracket was raised, my 6-year-old has healthcare again, and I am so grateful! (Bush is threatening to veto the legislation that expanded CHIP to more families, though, so I'm praying he does not do that).

I am relatively young (26) and so many of my friends do not vote.  I am always encouraging them to do just that (whether they vote Democrat or Republican), and I think if Senate recall (I think that's what you called it) was in place, more of them might vote.  For now, we just have to hope they keep their campaign promises in hopes of being re-elected.

I know Congress needs to pass the bills on health insurance, and I know many of the Congressmen (on both sides of the aisle) have been bought and paid for by the insurance companies, and that is very disturbing to me.  That's one of the reasons I like Obama so much - I think he is a good man who has not been "bought and paid for" by any big corporations.

I think America needs to cover all medical costs for our children and our elderly, and I hope more Republicans candidates will address that issue.  We need to take better care of our most helpless citizens.

That's fine you don't care about the fact that many families are working their fingers to the bone just to pay for necessities, including health insurance, but I do.  I care very much and am very sad that so many people in this country only seem to care about children that come from upper middle class and rich families.  I guess they deserve better health care than the middle-class kids.  I don't know how people that feel that way can go to bed with a clear conscience.

People in Congress that we took the time to elect put a lot of effort into negotiating this bill to make both parties relatively happy.  YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE TAXED FOR IT.  THE CIGARETTE TAX WOULD HAVE GONE UP.  Keep telling yourself what you need to tell yourself to sleep at night, but the fact is kids with diabetes from a lower-middle-class income family have less of a chance of surviving than a child from an upper class income family.  That is a sad, sad, fact.

I never believed that BO's plans would work to benefit our country, but now he can't even start his plans if he is elected.  This economy is too out of wack and the government has NO money.  So how does Barry expect to keep his promises he has made during his campaign?  We can't afford more government programs.  It just is not possible.  So much for that hope he keeps talking about.

I admit that the promise of change is an attractive idea, but I have yet to hear any "plan" of Barry's that will actually bring change worth voting for.  Voting for him initially would have raised government spending and taxes.  Now that the country is in deep financial crisis....what does he propose now?  I haven't heard much of significance out of him to suggest he really will bring about change....or I should say change for the better.

CHANGE WE CAN FEAR.....Barrack Hussein Obama

Congress has looked at the Big 3's plans to cut costs in order to "qualify" for a bailout, the amount of which has now grown to $34B.  Nancy Pelosi seems to be in favor, so my bet is they will get it. 

Some of the concessions the auto makers are ready to make is slashing the executive pay, getting rid of executive bonuses, postponing employee merit raises for next year, suspending health care payments into a union health care plan, and possibly getting rid of the controversial job banks. 

Ford said they only wanted a standby line of credit with the government in case the other two go belly up.  GM seems to be the one hurting the most. 

I really have to wonder, will a bailout REALLY help or will it just postpone the inevitable with the rest of the economy dying the way it is???? 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97737508&ft=1&f=1001

I've been researching other candidates and their plans.

On the Dem side - Kucinich has a plan for only one insurance provider to everyone.  Sends all the bloodsucking insurance companies and their "preexisting conditions" and "not medically necessary" straight out of business.  I kinda like that plan, as I used to do billing and it would sure cut through a ton of red tape for doctors, hospitals, their staff and the patients.

On the Rep side - Huckabee has a plan that does away with employers providing insurance.  That's kind of scary, as "pooling" to get better insurance rates has always been the cheaper way to go.

But any plan I've seen doesn't worry me as much as Hillary's!

Anybody else who has heard of a candidate with a good plan, please chime in!

will be the one to further hurt our country.  However, if I am wrong (and if O wins I hope I am wrong), I will give Obama credit if and when it is due.  Until then, I stand by what I believe.  Raising taxes during a financial crisis like this will ruin us.  Taxing businesses more will only make our products and services cost more which WE will pay for.  And as much money as Obama is wanting the government to spend on his programs, he will have to tax more than the rich to cover his expenses.

Cut taxes and cut government spending!!!!  Not the other way around.

Address poverty?  Restore the every diminishing quality of life for the middle class?  Mortgage industry?  Predatory lending/credit card practices?  Balanced budget?  Reduced debt?  Tax reform?  Create jobs?  Outsourcing?  Minimum wage?  Protect Social Security?  Workers' unions?  Small busineses?  Corporate corruption?  Free trade?  Clean up the environment?  Alternative energies?  Fuel efficiency?  Clean elections?  Special interests?  Federal contract earmarks?  Patriot Act?  Ending the War?  Restoring alliances?  Global diplomacy?  Separation of church and state?  Just curious. 

The Federal Reserve (Fed) has gone beyond playing with fire, and may have indeed set the house on fire. It’s one thing to push interest rates to near zero to stimulate the economy; it’s another to “monetize the debt” by printing money to buy government debt. In recent weeks, the Fed has broken outside even those boundaries and become actively engaged in managing the private sector beyond the core banking system. Worse still, the steps taken may be difficult to reverse and as such may shape the U.S. economy for a long time. These steps are taken with the best of intentions, to “save” the economy. The only trouble is that we may be on a slippery slope to destroying capitalism on the way. In “doing whatever it takes” to get the economy back on its feet, the Fed risks destroying the foundation of why the U.S. has been able to establish itself as the world’s leading economic force. Actively participating in credit allocation within the private sector, the Federal Reserve (Fed) jeopardizes the capitalist foundation the U.S. economy is built on. As a result of these actions, the U.S. may be on its way to becoming a modern incarnation of a planned economy.

Why these harsh words? To understand what is so frightening with recent Fed activity, consider that most central banks focus on interest rates, inflation and money supply to promote price stability (and maximum employment in the Fed’s case). Generally, they all influence credit creation by managing the cost of borrowing. Central banks may employ slightly different levers and targets; and while some central banks are better than others at achieving their goals, what they have in common is that they traditionally focus on government debt, mostly short-term Treasuries, to achieve their goals. This is very much by design as good central bank policy leads to an environment of price stability fostering long-term economic prosperity. On the other hand, bad central bank policy may lead to inflation, wide swings in economic activity or unnecessarily high unemployment. However, free market forces will push the private sector to make the best of it. It’s when policy makers start subsidizing ailing sectors of the economy that distortions are created that will come back to haunt us. Traditionally, for better or worse, elected officials decide on the socio-economic fabric of society. Now, the Fed decides which areas of the economy need to be propped up.

Creating Hysteria To Pursue Policies

The hysteria that has been created by policy makers and the media has allowed the Fed to pursue its recent unorthodox policies. In late September, the world financial system looked rather dire; the government was able to play a role to avoid a disorderly collapse; but the government’s role should have been limited to allowing an orderly adjustment of the excesses of the credit bubble. Instead, the latest salvo to promote the bailouts is that payrolls have dropped by the largest amount since World War II. This may be the case in absolute numbers as the population has grown, but more jobs were lost as a percentage of the workforce in a twelve month period in each of 1982, 1961, 1958, 1954, 1948/49; in many of the cases more than twice as many. Recessions are no fun, neither are personal or corporate bankruptcies; but they may be the cure needed to weed out the excesses of the boom. In contrast, today, hedge fund managers that ran their funds into the ground are raising hundreds of millions of dollars to start anew. Some of the folks that ran Long Term Capital Management into the ground in 1998 started fresh only to have another massive failure in the current credit crisis. We don’t expect the new breed of second chances to be any better. And while the blame lies with the managers, excessively low interest rates contribute to irrational risk taking: all of the bailouts focus on those who have been over-leveraged. What about the group of responsible savers that rely on income? With interest rates near zero, many are tempted to engage in highly leveraged strategies to meet their required income objectives. Pension funds “must” return 6% per year, leaving them little leeway but to give money to hedge fund managers to magically turn 1% yields into 20% returns; the way to achieve this is with leverage. Actually, there is another way: the Swiss public pension fund system just announced that it will scale down its long-term return objective to 4% from its current 6% per annum.

Giving Credit Where No Credit is Due

In late December, the Fed Board of Governors approved GMAC’s application to become a bank. The vote was 4-1, and the one board member with experience as a bank regulator, Elizabeth Duke, dissented. There was another hurdle: GMAC, General Motors’ finance arm, did not have sufficient capital to be a bank. That problem was solved, too, in early January, as the Treasury injected $5 billion into GMAC; the Treasury also GM $1 billion, so that GM could inject that money into GMAC. Equipped now with a minimum capital base, GMAC is able to operate as a bank, go to the Fed to access the TARP program, as well as other regular and emergency Fed windows.

In December, car sales fell off the cliff. But it wasn’t only GM that had problems; even Toyota that had access to credit and introduced zero percent financing, recorded a 37% plunge in sales (unlike other car makers, Toyota has traditionally not offered zero percent financing). Shell-shocked consumers are worried about their jobs and have lost a substantial amount of their net worth in 2008; further, incentive programs prior to the bursting of the credit bubble lured consumers into 6-year loans with zero percent financing. Consumers simply don’t want or need a car right now. Policy makers take this as a reason to provide money to GMAC that pursues a business model proven to be ruinous: it simply doesn’t make sense to offer cars at 0% if interest rates are above that, even if they are “close to zero” as they are now. GMAC takes money from the Treasury to be able to request more from the Fed. And the first course of business for GMAC is to extend zero percent financing to consumers with lower credit ratings than had traditionally qualified.

Difficult to Unwind: Long Term Inflation Likely

The Fed is only ramping up its mission to allocate credit where the Fed – rather than the free market - deems it appropriate. A major program announced in the fourth quarter, but rolled out in early January consists of a $500 billion program to buy mortgage-backed securities (MBS). The perceived positive is the plummeting of mortgage rates. Consumers with superb credit now qualify for 30-year mortgages at less than 5%. One problem with such programs is that the Fed intentionally inflates prices (lowers the yields) on these securities; in turn, rational market participants may abstain from buying them. As a result the Fed risks replacing private sector activity, rather than encouraging it. Furthermore, the Fed jeopardizes the dollar as foreigners may be discouraged from buying U.S. government and agency security debt; given that the U.S. has become dependent on foreigners to finance its spending needs as well as the unprecedented debt that will be financed in 2009. This is a very dangerous road to be on.

The Fed may be able to phase out its commercial paper subsidy program or drain liquidity from the TARP program over time; however, the $500 billion MBS program may be difficult, if not impossible to unwind. Indeed, the design of the MBS program calls for holding of the securities until maturity. For practical purposes, this means that the Fed’s balance sheet is not just “temporarily” inflated, but that the Fed will permanently keep more money in the economy. Traditionally, the Fed’s balance sheet is $900 billion. Therefore, even if one gives the Fed the benefit of the doubt that the current escalation to over $2 trillion is temporary, there will be a significant hangover as not all additions can easily be removed. This doesn’t even consider that, quite likely, the MBS purchase program may need to be extended beyond the 6-month period it was put in place for. Watch for bond manager Bill Gross this June, calling for the Fed to continue buying MBS, preferably the ones he has on the books, to save the economy from collapse. Incidentally, his firm, PIMCO, is one of the firms managing the Fed program.

To counter the effects of this added money in the economy, the Fed would need to keep interest rates permanently higher. One realistic alternative, however, is that the additional money will stay in the economy as draining it would cause too much economic hardship. This may well embed inflation into the U.S. economy for years to come. Importantly, note that there is little, if any, accountability at the Fed monitoring its actions; no one is there to ensure that the Fed will, at some point, phase out its programs or added powers.

Live Free Or Die

By engaging in credit allocation to specific sectors of the economy, the U.S. is stepping into a territory traditionally left to governments with a socialist or communist brand. Communism has shown us that planned economies don’t work. New Hampshire in 1945 added the slogan “Live Free or Die” to its state emblem, a quote stemming from a general in the Revolutionary war. Translated to the economic crisis, this should mean that a severe recession ought to be the lesser evil than a planned economy. And to continue the parallel, when communism swept Eastern Europe, the standard of living for everyone dropped. In today’s world, we already see that the “re-failure” rate of those who defaulted, then renegotiated their teaser rate loans, is above 50%. Yet all taxpayers have to pay the price for the bailouts.

To be sure, we are a far cry from communism. But we must keep our eyes open and not be blinded by the perceived “help” of money printed by the Fed. Debt is the origin, not the solution to the problems we face. The Declaration of Independence’s “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” may be difficult to achieve when drowned in debt; building sustainable wealth without the shackles of debt may be the more appropriate path. It’s not by mistake that the Founding Fathers be backed by a precious metal that cannot be inflated to give in to the temptation of the day.

I just heard a little speech on the news at a rally made by the O. All of a sudden, he seems to be mirroring McC's ideas about regulation, the bail out, etc. I noticed him saying things before (and after the debate) that McC had first campaigned for, but didn't say anything because I really thought I was hearing things.

Now I'm flipping channels to see if I can hear this again.

Barack Obama And Joe Biden Have Consistently Lied To Americans About John McCain's Plan. Their claims have failed every fact-check - from CBS to the Washington Post. John McCain is not going to raise taxes on middle class families. Barack Obama and Joe Biden are the only ones in this race that plan to raise taxes.

OBAMA FICTION
John McCain Will Tax Health Care Benefits For The First Time And Will Be the Largest Middle Class Tax Increase In History.