So how many Obamacans do we have in here?

[101A]

But that doesn't mean you have to drop your current insurance plan.

My current plan will no longer be legal.

[101A]

Well put.

In another thread, I tried to find numbers to back up US oil demands and where we buy it from...while looking for those numbers, I stumbled upon what our government spends its money on in totality (btw, I was dead wrong about the oil...its not as severe as people claim it be and I admitted as much in the thread).

But I never found those cool graphs.

Speaking only for myself, there isnt a candidate in the field that is going to address the problems I have with our government.

But I will not relinquish my vote this year, or any other, for that reason.

Im going to vote, I just dont know for whom yet. Like I said, the Dem primary needs to shake itself out first (Rep primary has been decided). If Obama wins, then he needs to start fleshing out his plans for office in much greater detail in contrast with McCain's.

Afterword, I will sift thru the various details of each candidates "promises", weigh the financial impact of both, and base my decision wholly on that fact.

Whott has Iraq. I have domestic fiscal policy. Anything that advances our debt, increases our taxes and has a financial projection that says our spending on the program will eventually outspend its revenue stream, I'll vote against.

Unfortunately, thats politics, here and abroad. Youre not going to agree with one candidate on everything. If you do, then youre a stark minority anyway and your candidate probably doesnt have a chance in or reality.

Me personally, my voting pattern has always been adversarial. That is, Im not necessarily voting FOR someone (ie McCain), I am voting against someone (ie Hillary if she gets the nod).

If Obama takes the nomination, this will be the first time in my life that I might not have to vote that way. I said might...if Obama is serious about HealthCare, I am damn interested in his method of paying for it. If its anything short of radical reform, Im back to square one...voting against someone (Obama) instead of for someone (McCain).

But that is a bridge I will cross when we get there.

In some recent thread I did a point by point critique of Obama's plan from his website, and I did a damn fine job (if I do say so myself). Unfortunately "search" is turned off...can't find it.

[atxrocker]

I'm voting Democrat no matter who's the candidate. But all Obama says it that he stands for "change". That's pretty vague. I would like to know exactly what his plans for change are.

apparently since the great black hope has brainwashed just about everybody into voting for him, his actual plans don't matter.

[Holt's Cat]

The rising cost of healthcare is something amazing to behold, from someone who makes his living in the industry, paying the bills from hospitals and doctors.


To a large degree, the increases are coming from success. Our healthcare system is getting better and better at keeping unhealthy, and elderly people alive. We can re-plumb you circulatory system; remove tumors, throw chemical tails at 'ya; change damn near any organ in your body (multiple times). Problem is? That is EXPENSIVE - VERY EXPENSIVE!

Heart Disease used to be the #1 killer; now it's cancer - Cancer is $$$$$$ more than Heart Disease; kills slower, more treatment options, multiple specialists, etc. etc....and there are examples like that all over the place. Premature babies survival rate not that long ago, at 27 weeks gestation was iffy at best. Now? 24 weeks, and we can nurse them along - (what's 750,000,000 vs. the life of a baby?). Worth it, if you ask me - but those kinds of numbers aren't what is talked about in the media when they talk about the healthcare "crisis", are they?

, look at how much more we, as a nation, spend on IT than we did a quarter century ago. Does anyone call that a crisis? It's cost increase have outpaced healthcare, but nobody is talking about nationalizing it. I would argue the advances in healthcare have been as dramatic as the advances in PC's since the '70s. That advancement has a cost.

True, but what is screwy is that we pay for a large amount of our health care purchases with insurance and that it is so tied to our employment. A big part of the reason is that those benefits are pre-tax. If the government opted to make those taxable I think you'd see a move away from that.

Anyways, if you pay for your purchases with health care then you are paying a fraction of their true cost. What incentive does one have to economize when someone else is picking up a huge part of its true cost?

But this is the American way, government screws something up and then compounds the proper with even greater involvement.

[DarkReign]

Here is my National Healtcare Plan, without even thinking about it...

Blow up the Federal tax system as we know it. Its all dead, no more FICA (SS and Med), no more Withholding. Finito.

Blow up all en lement programs. Social Security, Welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, Single Mothers Who Dont Want to Work Program, all of them. Finito.

All non essential goods (essential goods being food, housing, electricity, natural gas, etc...I would include Media in essential as well, no tax on local papers, tv or internet, but thats just me) purchased would have a N% sales tax attached to it from now until forever.

You want that Xbox360 that costs $399.99? Add N% + state sales tax.
Car? Boat? New table? Furniture? Lawn service? Computer? Coffee mug? New tires? Gas? Wagon? you get the idea....Add N% + state sales tax

I left the percentage as "N%" on purpose. I dont know what that % would be, and I dont care. It could be 20% and I wouldnt bat an eye (although, I would downsize government to make a more equitable tax percentage, but thats half my point, Im not there yet....)

I would encourage State's to do the same, but I am The Dictator and I still believe in State's Rights. They want to tax your income? Whatever. They want to just add another Y%? Cool, too. Not my business.

Healthcare could be afforded two ways (maybe more, Im not thinking about it enough).

1) Either add the cost as another +% on the existing sales tax, or...
2) Take it from income (healthcare would be an apportioned tax, seeing as it is given back to the People) plus a contribution from employers of Z% (minimal at best).

Obviously, the aggregate amount of HealthCare revenue would need to exceed our current total spending on health care nationwide. The excess revenue would be refunded at years end based on amoutn paid into the program. If youre not contributing, you dont get a refund. If you contributed $5,000 this year, and another person contributed only $2500, obviously the former person gets more of a refund.

Now, there is obviously the shortfall of those who wouldnt normally go to a hospital/doctor under the current system because they lack insurance, who would now go to a hospital/doctor much more often under a global program where everyone is insured.

This could be hedged two ways. For those people not paying into the system, the following rules apply:

1) Only preventative care will be provided under the condition that the prevention tactics laid out by the doctor/physician are met by the patient.
2) No repeated visits for frivilous ailments. (your back hurts and there isnt a surgery in the known world that can make it better, heres some vicodin, deal with it like every other person who works for a living).

The point of my non-thought out system is the direct financial evidence the People would have over the government.

If the % Tax is too high, people will demand it to be lowered. In droves. As it is, the tax system is hard and complicated on purpose. Its designed to hide its ever-expanding tentacles through back-door taxes like Estate, Death, Inheritance, Investments, etc all the while still taking from your income.

If everyone is subject to the same +% on non-essential goods, everyone rich and poor, in unison will have a vested interest in its status. And it will be incredibly easy to understand.

After Healthcare is sorted out and implemented, it will render older social programs obsolete right off the bat (medicare and medicaid specifically). The only BIG social program left would be welfare.

That could be accounted for on a state level, IMO. Let the individual states figure out how theyre going to pay for their poor.

----------------

Im going to stop there. Im sure this "plan" is full of holes and will be junk by the time the first response has hit the "Submit Reply" button. I realize that.

But it can be done...only with a complete overhaul of our tax system.

To me, an even simpler solution is that of no Federal Tax at all, with a very small % on all non-essential goods.

Everyone would get a raise of (lower income groups) ~10-20% and (higher income groups) ~30-40%.

That extra money can buy you a very hearty health insurance plan. A damn fine one indeed.

I dont know the Total Income Earned by all Americans for year 2007 (nor does the government yet, I think). But the Federal government and its entire sphere should be able to operate itself (including the military) with less than 10% of that figure.

If it cant, then programs need to be slashed. Period. Whether it be welfare, SS, Medicare/Medicaid or all of them.

I'd be interested to see that figure. If right now all this crap is costing even less than 10%, than the figure should be reduced even further.

Bare bones, baby. Bare bones.

[101A]

True, but what is screwy is that we pay for a large amount of our health care purchases with insurance and that it is so tied to our employment. A big part of the reason is that those benefits are pre-tax. If the government opted to make those taxable I think you'd see a move away from that.

Anyways, if you pay for your purchases with health care then you are paying a fraction of their true cost. What incentive does one have to economize when someone else is picking up a huge part of its true cost?

But this is the American way, government screws something up and then compounds the proper with even greater involvement.

You ever wonder why the government makes employer funded health plans tax free, but not individual ones?

Because the Federal government can regulate group plans via the interstate commerce clause in the cons ution; they CANNOT do the same with individual plans; those are the sole dominion of the state's DOI.

Congressmen like POWER; by getting people into group plans, they have the power.

Your points are spot-on.

Bring the market into play; make people better consumers, and you can control (somewhat) the costs.

[101A]

Here is my National Healtcare Plan, without even thinking about it...

Blow up the Federal tax system as we know it. Its all dead, no more FICA (SS and Med), no more Withholding. Finito.

Blow up all en lement programs. Social Security, Welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, Single Mothers Who Dont Want to Work Program, all of them. Finito.

All non essential goods (essential goods being food, housing, electricity, natural gas, etc...I would include Media in essential as well, no tax on local papers, tv or internet, but thats just me) purchased would have a N% sales tax attached to it from now until forever.

You want that Xbox360 that costs $399.99? Add N% + state sales tax.
Car? Boat? New table? Furniture? Lawn service? Computer? Coffee mug? New tires? Gas? Wagon? you get the idea....Add N% + state sales tax

I left the percentage as "N%" on purpose. I dont know what that % would be, and I dont care. It could be 20% and I wouldnt bat an eye (although, I would downsize government to make a more equitable tax percentage, but thats half my point, Im not there yet....)

I would encourage State's to do the same, but I am The Dictator and I still believe in State's Rights. They want to tax your income? Whatever. They want to just add another Y%? Cool, too. Not my business.

Healthcare could be afforded two ways (maybe more, Im not thinking about it enough).

1) Either add the cost as another +% on the existing sales tax, or...
2) Take it from income (healthcare would be an apportioned tax, seeing as it is given back to the People) plus a contribution from employers of Z% (minimal at best).

Obviously, the aggregate amount of HealthCare revenue would need to exceed our current total spending on health care nationwide. The excess revenue would be refunded at years end based on amoutn paid into the program. If youre not contributing, you dont get a refund. If you contributed $5,000 this year, and another person contributed only $2500, obviously the former person gets more of a refund.

Now, there is obviously the shortfall of those who wouldnt normally go to a hospital/doctor under the current system because they lack insurance, who would now go to a hospital/doctor much more often under a global program where everyone is insured.

This could be hedged two ways. For those people not paying into the system, the following rules apply:

1) Only preventative care will be provided under the condition that the prevention tactics laid out by the doctor/physician are met by the patient.
2) No repeated visits for frivilous ailments. (your back hurts and there isnt a surgery in the known world that can make it better, heres some vicodin, deal with it like every other person who works for a living).

The point of my non-thought out system is the direct financial evidence the People would have over the government.

If the % Tax is too high, people will demand it to be lowered. In droves. As it is, the tax system is hard and complicated on purpose. Its designed to hide its ever-expanding tentacles through back-door taxes like Estate, Death, Inheritance, Investments, etc all the while still taking from your income.

If everyone is subject to the same +% on non-essential goods, everyone rich and poor, in unison will have a vested interest in its status. And it will be incredibly easy to understand.

After Healthcare is sorted out and implemented, it will render older social programs obsolete right off the bat (medicare and medicaid specifically). The only BIG social program left would be welfare.

That could be accounted for on a state level, IMO. Let the individual states figure out how theyre going to pay for their poor.

----------------

Im going to stop there. Im sure this "plan" is full of holes and will be junk by the time the first response has hit the "Submit Reply" button. I realize that.

But it can be done...only with a complete overhaul of our tax system.

To me, an even simpler solution is that of no Federal Tax at all, with a very small % on all non-essential goods.

Everyone would get a raise of (lower income groups) ~10-20% and (higher income groups) ~30-40%.

That extra money can buy you a very hearty health insurance plan. A damn fine one indeed.

I dont know the Total Income Earned by all Americans for year 2007 (nor does the government yet, I think). But the Federal government and its entire sphere should be able to operate itself (including the military) with less than 10% of that figure.

If it cant, then programs need to be slashed. Period. Whether it be welfare, SS, Medicare/Medicaid or all of them.

I'd be interested to see that figure. If right now all this crap is costing even less than 10%, than the figure should be reduced even further.

Bare bones, baby. Bare bones.

There will be no cost control.

This country will never abandon the progressive tax; therefore, the majority will alway be on the take (taking more of the service than they are paying for) - they won't give two s about what the higher rates are - it WILL spiral out of control.

You want universal coverage?

Have a national pool that the non-insured sign up for (they must meet certain income/family criteria to qualify).

Then individuals/churches/businesses go to the pool, and choose the number of people they will directly provide health insurance for. Those en ies get a tax CREDIT for that expenditure.

There.

[Wild Cobra]

Bought the Limbaugh Kool-Aid, have you?
That doesn't even touch the Supreme Court.

I don't listen to Rush. I never have those hours free. I'm sorry if I agree with him. It's not because he says so. My thoughts are my own.

Get a ing clue, and stop listening to the idiots on talk radio.

Those so called idiots are less biased than you might think. I seldom hear any of them these days. They are said to support the republicans, but to speak out against them... what does that say?

The ones I listen to seem real reasonable to me.

I agree with the supreme court aspect. If nominees come up, we really need a president who won't elect activists. Still, I don't think McCain's word on this is any good. I think he would appoint liberal activists anyway.

[Holt's Cat]

You ever wonder why the government makes employer funded health plans tax free, but not individual ones?

Because the Federal government can regulate group plans via the interstate commerce clause in the cons ution; they CANNOT do the same with individual plans; those are the sole dominion of the state's DOI.

Congressmen like POWER; by getting people into group plans, they have the power.

Your points are spot-on.

Bring the market into play; make people better consumers, and you can control (somewhat) the costs.

Sure, businesses get to offer pre-tax health insurance benefits that their workers like as part of their compensation and then deduct it. Then, of course, when the premiums begin to become too expensive then there's a "crisis"...

I believe Romney advocated making individual health care plan premiums deductible. Of course, that makes too much sense.

[Holt's Cat]

It's odd how somehow the health care industry is that different. "It's vital to one's life"...Well, so are a host of other items we leave to the vagaries of the market. Does that mean we will start socializing grocery stores? Perhaps a single payer model for grocery store purchases is the way to go. Americans are spending far too much at grocery stores. Not all can afford to buy everything in the store. We need to rationalize the cost, impose controls, & wring out the inefficiencies. After all, Uncle Sam knows better.

[DarkReign]

It's odd how somehow the health care industry is that different. "It's vital to one's life"...Well, so are a host of other items we leave to the vagaries of the market. Does that mean we will start socializing grocery stores? Perhaps a single payer model for grocery store purchases is the way to go. Americans are spending far too much at grocery stores. Not all can afford to buy everything in the store. We need to rationalize the cost, impose controls, & wring out the inefficiencies. After all, Uncle Sam knows better.

Hmmm, good points. Something for me to consider...

[101A]

Sure, businesses get to offer pre-tax health insurance benefits that their workers like as part of their compensation and then deduct it. Then, of course, when the premiums begin to become too expensive then there's a "crisis"...

I believe Romney advocated making individual health care plan premiums deductible. Of course, that makes too much sense.

It's not that the employees deduct it; it's that the businesses get to (they fund the vast majority of premium cost)


It does make a great deal of sense t make individual health care premiums deductible; McCain supports this as well.

BTW: If Romney is so conservative:

1. How did he get elected governor of Massachusettes?
2. Why is he endorsing McCain?

[Holt's Cat]

It's not that the employees deduct it; it's that the businesses get to (they fund the vast majority of premium cost)

Right, but I think what makes sense is to move away from insurance being tied to employment as well as using insurance to pay for routine, relatively small, health care expenses by individuals. Make health care benefits taxable for employees. You can bet that would change things.

It does make a great deal of sense t make individual health care premiums deductible; McCain supports this as well.

Well, that's a start.

BTW: If Romney is so conservative:

1. How did he get elected governor of Massachusettes?

Feigning liberal social positions.

2. Why is he endorsing McCain?

Good question.

[2Blonde]

I will vote for Hillary Clinton in the primary. As for the genreal election it will either be Clinton or Obama (whoever wins the democratic nomination.

[PixelPusher]

BTW: If Romney is so conservative:

1. How did he get elected governor of Massachusettes?
2. Why is he endorsing McCain?

Romneybot 2008 Election Ed. with Conservative SP3 is neither liberal nor conservative; he is an android constructed by a team of political and cybernetic scientists from the future as part of an anthropology experiment.

[Nbadan]

It's odd how somehow the health care industry is that different. "It's vital to one's life"...Well, so are a host of other items we leave to the vagaries of the market. Does that mean we will start socializing grocery stores? Perhaps a single payer model for grocery store purchases is the way to go. Americans are spending far too much at grocery stores. Not all can afford to buy everything in the store. We need to rationalize the cost, impose controls, & wring out the inefficiencies. After all, Uncle Sam knows better.

What's the avg. profit margin of your typical grocery store? 1%....also, your comparison would be more realistic if there were no legal alternatives to shopping in a grocery store, like Sam's or wholesalers, no matter what price they charged for their products....

[Nbadan]

If everyone is subject to the same +% on non-essential goods, everyone rich and poor, in unison will have a vested interest in its status. And it will be incredibly easy to understand.

I like your idea of simplification, but realistically your plan is unworkable....the % tax on non-essential goods would have to be so expensive that people would do without those goods and that would throw the economy into a deep depression...

[Nbadan]

It's odd how somehow the health care industry is that different. "It's vital to one's life"...Well, so are a host of other items we leave to the vagaries of the market. Does that mean we will start socializing grocery stores? Perhaps a single payer model for grocery store purchases is the way to go. Americans are spending far too much at grocery stores. Not all can afford to buy everything in the store. We need to rationalize the cost, impose controls, & wring out the inefficiencies. After all, Uncle Sam knows better.

it's time for you folks who worship at the Goddess of Globalization's alter that there are some things that the government does better than the free economy...for instance...fight wars...just think the trillions in dollars we could have have been over-charged by war profiteers had our Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines been Halliburtoned.....you think $200-300 billion per year is a lot, that could have easily been $500-750 billion per year, or more....

[Holt's Cat]

What's the avg. profit margin of your typical grocery store? 1%....also, your comparison would be more realistic if there were no legal alternatives to shopping in a grocery store, like Sam's or wholesalers, no matter what price they charged for their products....

You see the trees, but not the forest.

[Holt's Cat]

when private companies and public monies intersect, that's where you get problems

govt may be inefficient, but they are accountable to the voters (as long as there's transparency)

Good luck with that.

private companies are more efficient and are not accountable to anyone but their wallets

when private companies get an infinite supply of wealth with no accountability....

Firms are accountable to various agents in various markets, which, if government doesn't cons ute favors upon certain firms and/or industries, are a superior method of holding larger enterprises accountable as opposed to the electorate. Consumers and shareholders are able to vote every day on a particular firm. For politicians, it's once every two years if we're lucky.

[Doc Jerome]

Obama is indeed the chosen one.

[spurster]

A new poll. [Edit: for Texas]

http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/st...1/daily34.html

Hillary Clinton has a slight lead over Barack Obama, 49 percent to 41 percent statewide. Eight percent of Democrats are undecided.

[spurster]

One for Ohio, too.

http://www.bizjournals.com/dayton/st...1/daily28.html

A Quinnipiac University Poll, which surveyed 1,748 Ohio voters, found that Clinton is favored by 55 percent of Ohio Democratic voters, versus Barack Obama's 34 percent. Hypothetically paired with likely Republican contender McCain, however, Clinton would lose with 43 percent support from voters along both party lines, versus 44 percent for McCain. Obama trailed McCain with 40 percent support, versus the Republican's 42 percent, in a similar pairing.

[Holt's Cat]

Will Texas and Ohio Democrats vote for a black man? Hillary will make the yellow dogs happy.

[JoeChalupa]

So how many of you have jumped off the straight talk express and are ready to jump aboard the Change express and ride it to a brighter future for America!!!!


YES WE CAN!!!!!