Obama '08?

xingu wrote:

Did Obama say he was going to take your guns away?

I haven't heard that one.

It's implied by the "D-IL".

Bill wrote:

He who smokes 3 packs of cigarettes a day, eats nothing but crap and washes it down with a case of beer should pay more for healthcare than the conscientious health-nut next door. I find it ridiculous that anyone thinks this is unfair.

Good, so now we're going to have a new industry, people who monitor other people who have unhealthy life styles. If I catch you eating a bag of potato chips I'll report you. Did I see you eating M&M's. Better call the government. Or maybe we should put a special tax on "unhealthy" food.

Just how do you propose to monitor everyones lifestyle so as to determine who pays what?

He who smokes 3 packs of cigarettes a day, eats nothing but crap and washes it down with a case of beer should pay more for healthcare than the conscientious health-nut next door. I find it ridiculous that anyone thinks this is unfair.

Do you even read before responding? A Tax on Alcohol, Tobacco and Sugar would essentially be an indirect tax on unhealthy lifestyles. No need keep track of anything.

Aren't you saying different things here, though, Bill?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

He who smokes 3 packs of cigarettes a day, eats nothing but crap and washes it down with a case of beer should pay more for healthcare than the conscientious health-nut next door. I find it ridiculous that anyone thinks this is unfair.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Do you even read before responding? A Tax on Alcohol, Tobacco and Sugar would essentially be an indirect tax on unhealthy lifestyles. No need keep track of anything.

(Emphases mine.)

First you're talking about paying more for healthcare, then you're talking about higher taxes on certain items.

And paying more for healthcare -- nothing indirect, just plain healthcare -- is very much what we were talking about at the beginning.

He who smokes 3 packs of cigarettes a day, eats nothing but crap and washes it down with a case of beer should pay more for healthcare than the conscientious health-nut next door. I find it ridiculous that anyone thinks this is unfair.

You can't levy a tax to make people eat healthy.

To my mind; the Private Insurers should be allowed to price their policies based on medical history... which of course provides a good incentive to stay healthy.

Bill wrote:

He who smokes 3 packs of cigarettes a day, eats nothing but crap and washes it down with a case of beer should pay more for healthcare than the conscientious health-nut next door. I find it ridiculous that anyone thinks this is unfair.

Your going to tax sugar, like a special tax on a bag of sugar you buy at the supermarket? Are you going to levy a special tax on all sweeteners at the processing level? So all food containing sugar will cost more?

How about fruits? They have sugar in them. Should they be taxed?

And alcohol? Have you not heard that alcohol, esp. wine, is good for you? Your going to tax something that's good for you?

How about cheese? You know how unhealthy cheese is with all that saturated fat? How about a cheese tax.

And beef. Not only does it contain saturated fat but there is evidence that it can cause colon cancer if eaten in excess. Tell the beef ranchers you want to put a special tax on beef. You'll get the vegetarian vote.

How about a special tax on potato chips and buttered popcorn.

See the point I'm making?

What the hell good is taxing sugar, alcohol and tobacco when there are so many other unhealthy things out there that won't be taxed.

If your not going to tax cheese, chips and butter than why sugar? Your discriminating against one "unhealthy" product and ignoring many others.

You can't levy a tax to make people eat healthy.

MR. SPRADLING: Senator Edwards, a question for you, sir. I was struck by your conversation that you had a moment ago about dishonesty in politics and wanting to make things clear.

It's a health care question for you. And I'm really focusing on price tags here.

Governor Richardson, for example, says that you can fund health care meaningfully without raising taxes. Senator Clinton has said that she's not prepared to say she will raise taxes to reform health care. Your plan does raise some taxes to fund your universal health care program, so I'm wondering, from your perspective, are they being honest about the true cost of universal health care in America?

MR. EDWARDS: Well, let me say first I think it's a very healthy thing that we have Democrats coming out with health care plans. This country's health care system is completely dysfunctional. I'm proud of the fact that I was the first person to come out with a specific, truly universal health care plan.

Senator Obama came out with a plan just a few days ago, which I don't believe is completely universal, but it deserves to be credited because he laid out what the cost is and exactly how he was going to pay for it. And I do believe that -- and, by the way, you didn't say this -- but my plan calls for 90 (billion dollars) to $120 billion a year. I'd pay for it by getting rid of Bush's tax cuts for people who make $200,000 a year. And I believe you cannot cover everybody in America, create a more efficient health care system, cover the cracks -- you know, getting rid of things like pre-existing conditions and making sure that mental health is treated the same as physical health -- I don't think you can do all those things for nothing. That's not the truth. And I think people have been so sick of listening to politicians who come and say, we're going to give you universal health care, we're going to change the way we use energy in America, we're going to strengthen the middle class, have middle-class tax cuts, and in the process, we're going to eliminate the federal deficit.

MR. BLITZER: Thank you.

MR. EDWARDS: That is not the truth.

MR. BLITZER: Thank you, sir.

MR. EDWARDS: And we need to be honest with people about that.

MR. BLITZER: Let me let Senator Obama weigh in, because you did release your plan that Senator Edwards says is not really a universal health care plan because it isn't mandatory on everyone. I wonder if you'd want to respond to him.

SEN. OBAMA: Well, you just identified the basic disagreement with John and I -- and by the way, I think John has a lot of good elements in his plan. And I think that as people release their plans, I think there's going to be a lot of overlap, which is a good thing.

But the main disagreement with John and I is John believes that we have to have mandatory insurance for everyone in order to have universal health care. My belief is that most families want health care but they can't afford it. And so my emphasis is on driving down the costs, taking on the insurance companies, making sure that they are limited in the ability to extract profits and deny coverage -- that we make sure the drug companies have to do what's right by their patience instead of simply hoarding their profits. If we do those things then I believe that we can drive down the costs for families. In fact, we've got very conservative, credible estimates that say we can save families that do have health insurance about a thousand dollars a year, and we can also make sure that we provide coverage for everybody else. And we do provide mandatory health care for children.

MR. BLITZER: Senator Clinton, you've been involved in this issue, as all of us remember --

SEN. CLINTON: (Laughs.)

MR. BLITZER: -- for a long time. What do you think of Senator Obama's plan?

SEN. CLINTON: Well, I'm thrilled that universal health care is back on the national agenda. You know, as we remember back in '93 and '94, we tried to come forward with a plan. We weren't successful -- I have the scars to show for that experience. But I am convinced that now, when the Democrats all are coming forward saying this has to be a national goal, we then can try to get the political will.

The most important thing is not the plan because there are only a few ways to do this, and we're all talking pretty much about the same things.

SEN. : That's not true.

SEN. CLINTON: From my perspective, we have to lower costs, improve quality and cover everybody.

What's important and what I learned in the previous effort is you've got to have the political will -- a broad coalition of business and labor, doctors, nurses, hospitals, everybody -- standing firm when the inevitable attacks come from the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical companies that don't want to change they system because they make so much money out of it.

MR. BLITZER: And -- and Senator Clinton, you can do that without raising taxes?

SEN. CLINTON: Well, Wolf, here's the -- here's the challenge: I have put forth approximately $120 billion in savings from health care changes that can come -- everything from electronic medical records to better management of chronic care. That is about in the ballpark of what all of us believe it will cost to cover everyone.

The challenge that I'm wrestling with is how do we realize the savings? Now, I don't think there is any Democrat that is not going to let the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans expire. We're all going to do that, so that money will be available. How, then, do we set forth the priorities that we want to address, including energy efficiency, dealing with global climate change and so much else?

SEN. RICHARDSON: Wolf? Wolf?

MR. BLITZER: All right.

Governor Richardson, I want you to weigh in, and then I'll let Senator Dodd weigh in.

SEN. RICHARDSON: As governor of New Mexico, this is what we did: We insured every child under five. My wife, Barbara, who sits here, led an effort in the state to increase immunizations.

We got rid of junk food in schools. We brought mandatory phys ed in.

MR. BLITZER: But can you do it national health care --

GOV. RICHARDSON: Yes, yes, you can. Here's how we do it.

MR. BLITZER: -- universal health care without raising taxes?

GOV. RICHARDSON: Yes, this is how we do it.

Number one, my plan is mandatory. You do have everybody sharing -- the employer, the employee, you have the state and the federal government.

Secondly, I believe that we can have a plan where if you were satisfied with your health care plan, you can keep it. No new bureaucracy. But addition to that, you focus on prevention. You allow everybody to get the congressional plan that every member here has.

MR. BLITZER: Thank you.

GOV. RICHARDSON: You bring Medicare 55 and over.

MR. BLITZER: All right.

GOV. RICHARDSON: That's what you do.

MR. BLITZER: Thank you, Governor.

<snipped out Dodd - sorry, Dodd>

MR. BLITZER: I'm going to move on to the next question.

MR. EDWARDS: May I just say just 15 seconds worth.

MR. BLITZER: I'll let Senator Edwards and then Congressman Kucinich. I have a specific question for Congressman Kucinich, but go ahead.

MR. EDWARDS: Okay, I'll be very quick.

I think it is very important, though, to understand -- I think Senator Obama was very honest just now -- we have a threshold question about whether we're going to have truly universal care. The New Republic has estimated that his plan will leave about 15 million people uncovered. He says he will do something about that later.

I believe unless we have a law requiring that every man, woman and child in America be covered, we're going to have millions of people who aren't covered.

MR. BLITZER: All right.

MR. EDWARDS: Secondly -- secondly, all the savings that Senator Clinton just talked about are in my plan and they're in Senator Obama's plan.

MR. BLITZER: All right.

MR. EDWARDS: And both of us have recognized that it's going to cost significant money, and we've talked about how we're going to pay for it.

SEN. OBAMA: Wolf?

MR. BLITZER: Senator Obama.

SEN. OBAMA: Wolf, since John referred to me. I agree with him on the second point, which is we've got these savings and we're still going to have to do a little bit more, partly because you've got to invest up front in, for example, information technology so that rural hospitals that don't have computers are able to buy them. And they're going to need some help.

But on this issue of mandatory versus non-mandatory, (people are ?) not going around trying to avoid buying health care coverage. And in fact, if you look at auto insurance, in California there's mandatory auto insurance. Twenty-five percent of the folks don't have it. The reason is because they can't afford it.

So John and I, we're not that different in this sense; that I'm committed to starting the process. Everybody who wants it can buy it and it's affordable. If we have some gaps remaining, we will work on that. You take it from the opposite direction, but you're still going to have some folks who aren't insured under your plan, John, because some of them will simply not be able to afford to buy the coverage they're offered.

MR. BLITZER: All right.

MR. EDWARDS: But children -- children cannot make that decision.

SEN. OBAMA: Well, and that's why I've got mandatory --

MR. EDWARDS: The decision he's -- excuse me.

MR. BLITZER: All right.

MR. EDWARDS: The decision he's talking about people making cannot be made by children, and that's why you have to require that they be covered.

REP. KUCINICH: I reject this whole approach --

SEN. OBAMA: John, I've got mandatory insurance for children for exactly that reason. [..]

MR. BLITZER: Hold on one second. I promised Congressman Kucinich.

Go ahead.

REP. KUCINICH: I reject this whole approach. And the American people should know that with half the bankruptcies in the country connected to people not being able to pay their doctor bills or hospital bills, premiums, co-pays and deductibles going so far through the roof -- 46 million Americans, no health care; another 50 million underinsured, there is only one way to get health care coverage for all Americans, and that is to have a universal single-payer, not-for- profit healthcare system, Medicare for All. Wolf, I've written the bill -- it's H.R. 676 -- with John Conyers, supported by 14,000 physicians.

MR. BLITZER: All right.

REP. KUCINICH: And you know what? What Senator Clinton, Senator Edwards, Senator Obama are talking about, they're talking about letting the insurance companies stay in charge. They're talking about continuing a for-profit health care system. (Applause.) And I think --

MR. BLITZER: All right. Hold on. No applause.

REP. KUCINICH: -- we need a president who's ready to challenge that. And I'm ready to challenge the insurance companies.

In what I described: Private companies would reward healthy choices via history (hardly perfect, but functional), and the State would reward healthy choices by a smaller tax burden (via targeted taxes)(hardly perfect, but functional).

Now you're demonstrating your ignorance. Studies have shown that cheese is actually very good for you... and when it comes to weigh-in time is actually a free food. (This was discovered in a Massive study about bone strength. Though not the purpose of the study; the researchers were astounded to learn that those who regularly ate cheese faired better weight-wise than those who didn't. Ice Cream, on the hand, is horrendous (on account of the sugar).

Brief Summary of HR 676

The United States National Health Insurance Act establishes an American national health insurance program. The bill would create a publicly financed, privately delivered health care system that uses the already existing Medicare program by expanding and improving it to all U.S. residents, and all residents living in U.S. territories. The goal of the legislation is to ensure that all Americans will have access, guaranteed by law, to the highest quality and most cost effective health care services regardless of their employment, income, or health status.
With over 45-75 million uninsured Americans, and another 50 million who are under- insured, the time has come to change our inefficient and costly fragmented non health care system.

Myths on Universal Health Care

By Dr. Marcia Angell, Past Editor New England Journal of Medicine February 4, 2003. Washington D.C.

Myth #1: We can't afford a national health care system, and if we try it, we will have to ration care. My answer is that we can't afford not to have a national health care system. A single-payer system would be far more efficient, since it would eliminate excess administrative costs, profits, cost-shifting and unnecessary duplication. Furthermore, it would permit the establishment of an overall budget and the fair and rational distribution of resources. We should remember that we now pay for health care in multiple ways - through our paychecks, the prices of goods and services, taxes at all levels of government, and out-of-pocket. It makes more sense to pay just once.

Myth #2: Innovative technologies would be scarce under a single-payer system, we would have long waiting lists for operations and procedures, and in general, medical care would be threadbare and less available. This misconception is based on the fact that there are indeed waits for elective procedures in some countries with national health systems, such as the U. K. and Canada. But that's because they spend far less on health care than we do. (The U. K. spends about a third of what we do per person.) If they were to put the same amount of money as we do into their systems, there would be no waits and all their citizens would have immediate access to all the care they need. For them, the problem is not the system; it's the money. For us, it's not the money; it's the system.


Myth #3: A single-payer system amounts to socialized medicine, which would subject doctors and other providers to onerous, bureaucratic regulations. But in fact, although a national program would be publicly funded, providers would not work for the government. That's currently the case with Medicare, which is publicly funded, but privately delivered. As for onerous regulations, nothing could be more onerous both to patients and providers than the multiple, intrusive regulations imposed on them by the private insurance industry. Indeed, many doctors who once opposed a single-payer system are now coming to see it as a far preferable option.

Myth #4: Claims the government can't do anything right. Some Americans like to say that, without thinking of all the ways in which government functions very well indeed, and without considering the alternatives. I would not want to see, for example, the NIH, the National Park Service, or the IRS privatized. We should remember that the government is elected by the public and we are responsible for it. An investor-owned insurance company reports to its owners, not to the public.

Bill wrote:

Now you're demonstrating your ignorance. Studies have shown that cheese is actually very good for you... and when it comes to weigh-in time is actually a free food. (This was discovered in a Massive study about bone strength. Though not the purpose of the study; the researchers were astounded to learn that those who regularly ate cheese faired better weight-wise than those who didn't. Ice Cream, on the hand, is horrendous (on account of the sugar).

Me demonstrating ignorance? Obesity is one of the leading causes of health problems and your trying to tell me cheese is good for you?