|
|
| Next: I seem to have a lot of spyware infecting my Comp.. |
| Author |
Message |
mommabear
Joined: Feb 20, 2003
Posts: 6185
|
 Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 6:50 pm Post subject: John McCain's Health Care Plan |
|
|
|
| Slightly better than GW's "just go to an emergency room."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfxjL-YjT6U
(I wouldn't bet on too many women lining up for their yearly PAP smears though. Or the men for their prostate exams.  ) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
xavierx
Joined: Nov 06, 2004
Posts: 3871
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 7:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Warning: VERY graphic text commentary on the video. Not family friendly.
As usual, this is an out of context clip. I Googled for "McCain Walmart Health Care" and the first link is to a MUCH more complete video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ry7ScRcLnm8
It looks like it's from a town hall, and this is just part of a much larger answer. Even in this part, he's not talking about a "health care plan", he's talking about eliminating the ridiculous wait in emergency rooms, and cutting the costs that are associated with them. Perhaps you don't have that where you are, but I've been to the ER twice with chest pains in the last few years, and both times spent 8 hours waiting to be seen. Why? Because people treat the ER like it's a doctor. Got a cold, flu, ear infection? Go to the ER!
Many places are doing exactly what he's talking about. My Hospital when I was in PA had a clinic right next to the ER. That does exactly what he said - decreases the costs, and decreases the wait for all. Makes perfect sense, and notice he says "a Walmart or another large place that has a walk in clinic".
This is a great recycled attack, too. That video was uploaded on 10 September, but the one I linked to was uploaded 02 March. I guess it took that long to figure out how to add the disgusting text, and clip the video to make it look as bad as possible? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ejward
Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Posts: 6521
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I never took the video to mean more than just more walk-in clinics. And honestly, if Wal-mart could do it, I'd have no problem going there. For colds, flu, sprained ankle, sore throat, etc, you go to a clinic. For chest pains or a car accident or to have a baby, you go to a hospital. Maybe better education is needed to let people know when to go where but, I think it could work. I've had chest pains before (twice actually) at two different hospitials and I was fortunate to be taken in right away (Both incidents amounted to nothing). I've also had kidney stones and went to 3 different hospitals. One was in Buffalo and the other 2 were in RI and I didn't have to wait more than 30 minutes. It seemes like 3 hours but, it really was about 30 minutes. Once I got in well, that's another story but my waiting has never been that long here in RI. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mommabear
Joined: Feb 20, 2003
Posts: 6185
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 6:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Walmart already has the clinics. Although I've read that some have already closed down. Drug store chains are doing it too. And yes, I know it was a short clip from a town hall meeting or something like that. And yes, it's better than nothing for the uninsured when they get the flu or have minor health problems.
But it does nothing to provide for affordable ongoing preventive health care, which in the long run saves money (not to mention lives), and helps all of us down the economic chain.
Little side story. My daughter (married, mother of two) had a job a few months ago. A good job. Decent pay. Full-time. International company. She took the job mainly because after the 6 month waiting period she could finally get health benefits. Six months went by. She signed up. After taxes and the deductible for her health care, she brought home exactly $84 a week. Gas to get to the job cost her $40-$50 a week, and that was last year's gas prices.
She's now got another job, no benefits, but she's at least bringing home some decent money since her husband's job is iffy...painting contractor and running out of work.
So those of you who are against a National Health Care Plan, try to tell her and others like her, why the system we have in place now is just fine and dandy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xavierx
Joined: Nov 06, 2004
Posts: 3871
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mommabear, you're changing the debate again. You said that this clip was McCain's health care plan. It isn't, and you know it. You know this was part of an answer about a specific question, and badly clipped and disgustingly annotated. It doesn't address affordable health care as a whole because that wasn't what he was addressing.
However, getting barely sick people out of the ER and into clinics would decrease costs. It would decrease insurance expenditures and decrease unreimbursed Hospital charges.
As for your daughter, I feel for her, and I don't have any problem helping her or people like her pay for health care. I don't like taxes but I'm more than willing to pay my share for such a cause. And I don't know anyone who isn't.
But that doesn't mean National Health Care is the answer. That doesn't mean having the government take over and provide for everyone is the answer. There are many things broken in our health care system that contribute to costs, malpractice insurance and frivolous law suits among them. National Health Care doesn't solve any of those problems. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ejward
Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Posts: 6521
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 8:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Medical lawsuites make up less than 2% of healthcare costs yet, it seems like we're focusing 90% of the blame there.
Medicare and Medicaide is one of the few things that the government seems to do reasonably well. Essentially expanding it to include everyone doesn't seem like such a bad idea.
With my health insurance like many, benifits keep going down and costs are going up. When i started, they covered 100$ with no deductable and a $10 co-pay. Now, copy is $25, they only cover 90%, and there's a $1,600 per family deductable. Which, I don't mind. What I do mind is that NOW, I'm getting bills from everyone. One night in the hospital and I got bills from 10 different places ranging from $2.00 to $400 and I have no idea which I need to pay and which I don't. I would GLADLY pay more in premiums to go back to 100% coverage and no deductable just to have them handle all the billing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xavierx
Joined: Nov 06, 2004
Posts: 3871
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 4:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm not trying to blame lawsuits by themselves - it's the medical malpractice insurance that has resulted from them. My dad is a doctor, and had to turn down a job offer because $100K wasn't even enough to cover the malpractice insurance! I know one doctor friend of his who had to pay over $200K for malpractice insurance before he could even open his doors for business! And as insurance rates skyrocket, so must medical prices. And that means either our co-pays and/or premiums go up, or coverage goes down, or both. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
micker377
Joined: May 27, 2005
Posts: 869
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 3:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| One of McCain's comments in the video is "$5,000 for everyone in the country for health benefits". That would be $1,505,699,735,000 based on 2007 population figures! Where does he plan to get this money? From "Fantasyland" - like the rest of his programs? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xavierx
Joined: Nov 06, 2004
Posts: 3871
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You've got bad math.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/29/mccain.healthcare/index.html
| Quote: |
| Under McCain's heath care plan, individuals would be eligible for a $2,500 credit and families a $5,000 credit to help pay for health insurance if they do not subscribe to, or do not have access to, employer-provided health care coverage |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mommabear
Joined: Feb 20, 2003
Posts: 6185
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 6:04 am Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| xavierx wrote: |
You've got bad math.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/29/mccain.healthcare/index.html
| Quote: |
| Under McCain's heath care plan, individuals would be eligible for a $2,500 credit and families a $5,000 credit to help pay for health insurance if they do not subscribe to, or do not have access to, employer-provided health care coverage |
|
From your link:
| Quote: |
McCain's plan would cost $3.6 trillion over 10 years, the campaign said. McCain would pay for the program by eliminating the tax break employers get for offering insurance. ...
Critics also said encouraging individuals to buy health insurance could undermine the system of employee-based health insurance, with no guarantee a new system would emerge to replace it.
|
And McCain also pays for that employer tax break (or other corporate tax breaks) by supporting taxing the portion the employee pays as income.
| Quote: |
Clinton picked up that argument while criticizing McCain, saying in a statement, "John McCain is proposing a radical plan that would mean millions of Americans would lose their job-based coverage."
"So while people might have a 'choice' of getting such coverage, employers would have no incentive to provide it," she said. |
Do you really think they'll keep providing health insurance if they get no tax break for it?
| Quote: |
Fiorina, however, said McCain's plan would not undermine the employee-based health insurance system because employers would continue to offer health coverage to attract and keep quality employees.
|
BS! Employers are already dropping insurance altogether or increasing the employee deduction to un-affordable rates, unless the deductions and co-pays are so high that whatever plan the employee can afford will never kick in until they're already broke.
You're seeing it all the time now. Companies are buying out the "quality employees" and replacing them with entry-level people and offering NO benefits to them.
My husband works part time at Hertz, here in Indianapolis. With their move to the new airport, they have forced the all the senior employees with retirement and health benefits to take a buyout now. If they stay because they still must work, then they forfeit everything. They will replace those full time positions with mostly part time people and no benefits. And there's talk that they will actually make the employees pay for their own parking at work! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xavierx
Joined: Nov 06, 2004
Posts: 3871
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 6:39 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| You may be right, Mommabear. I actually think that a combination of Obama's and McCain's plans (and throwing out parts of both as well) would be the "best" option, as I've posted before. My point was only that it isn't going to cost trillions of dollars per year (as in, it's not going to be a simple as giving $5K to every person in the US). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ejward
Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Posts: 6521
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 1:52 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| xavierx wrote: |
| You may be right, Mommabear. I actually think that a combination of Obama's and McCain's plans (and throwing out parts of both as well) would be the "best" option, as I've posted before. My point was only that it isn't going to cost trillions of dollars per year (as in, it's not going to be a simple as giving $5K to every person in the US). |
And just giving $5k to everyone in the US on it's own is going to cost more than a trillion dollars. I'm very suprised that Obama doesn't bring that up every time McCain mentions the $800 million in new programs that Obama has. I'm not saying I'm for it or against it. I'm just saying it's odd that it's never mentioned.
In my opinion, if everyone was given $5,000 for heathcare, employers would have another excuse to cut benifits. I know mine would. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xavierx
Joined: Nov 06, 2004
Posts: 3871
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:21 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
Ejward, the link I posted explained it - it will NOT cost $1 trillion per year. McCain isn't proposing giving $5000 to "every person". It's $2500 for a single person, or $5000 for a family. And even at that it wouldn't cost $5000 per family - part of the deal (and the only part that Obama mentions) is that your health insurance premiums would no longer be tax deductable. That's why McCain want's to give the tax credit, to offset (in most cases by far) the taxes paid on those premiums. <incorrect data edited out>
And the best part of this plan? It is totally progressive. The more you make, the higher you tax bracket, the less the credit offsets of income tax.
For example, even assuming the highest tax bracket and the highest tax state, the total income tax would be 44.5%. At that rate, the $5000 credit would offset $11,235 of income taxes. Obama's campaign itself says that the average health care cost for a family of 4 is $12,000. So, even the richest of the rich would almost break even.
Now, in reality the average tax rate (including federal and state taxes) is 28.36%. So, for the average family, the $5000 credit would offset $17,630 of income taxes.
And for the 45% of people who pay no income taxes? This is $5000 free and clear.
Sources:
http://www.nber.org/~taxsim/marginal-tax-rates/plusstate.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States
http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/ind_inc.html
http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm
Edit: I don't know where the "$3.6 trillion dollar cost" that Mommabear quoted came from (that is, where the article got that. From the NY Times of all places:
| Quote: |
| To end the disadvantage to those who do not buy insurance through employers, Mr. McCain proposes to eliminate the exclusion of health benefits from taxable income. In exchange, he would provide refundable tax credits of $2,500 to single people and of $5,000 to families, with the goal of stoking competition in the individual insurance market. The elimination of the exclusion would generate $3.6 trillion over 10 years, according to the McCain campaign, and that money would pay for the tax credits. |
So, it won't cost anything. And, why is everyone upset that non-employer funded health care will finally benefit from a tax credit for the first time ever? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mommabear
Joined: Feb 20, 2003
Posts: 6185
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:39 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
Just throwing this out there.
| Quote: |
| This is $5000 free and clear. |
No it's not. The $5000 goes directly to the insurance companies, and we all know $5000 won't buy coverage for a full year.
If you're still getting your portion of the employee provided health benefits deducted from your paycheck per week (or month, whatever), you'll be bringing home less each paycheck because it's now taxed on a higher income level.
Or, if there is no employee provided insurance then you're still paying out the difference after that $5000 goes to the insurance company for a private plan.
The tax credits...you don't get until you file.
So you know what's gonna happen? Many families can't afford to wait for that refund once a year. They're gonna drop their health insurance.
As more employees drop their insurance, the costs will rise for everyone else. The remaining employees in the plan will be paying more, because the shared risk pool of members is shrinking. When the numbers go down, the price the insurance companies charge will go up. Companies will decide it costs them to much to help provide it, so they'll drop it too.
Eventually the only way to get health insurance will be through private plans, which is exactly what the insurance companies want. They can set the rates with impunity, exclude whoever they want for cost control, etc, etc.
Nothing will change except the number of the uninsured. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xavierx
Joined: Nov 06, 2004
Posts: 3871
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 10:44 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
Mommabear, if the families "can't wait" then how can they wait now? They're still paying it out.
And like I said, there are good and bad parts of both candidates plans. I support a mixture of the two, as I've also stated before.
You're also ignoring one of the major parts of McCain's plans - increasing competition by letting you buy insurance across state lines. That's something you can't do now - and in fact, in some states (like VA where I am) some plans aren't available even to the entire state. And that has a HUGE impact to insurance costs.
Up until a few years ago I lived in PA. I (and my employer) paid more for my health insurance for just myself and my daughter than I do now for myself, my wife, and my 2 kids. Insurance in PA is expensive, in large part because there are a lot of elderly there. Opening up competition means that the companies in PA can offset their costs by picking up younger, healthier people in other states, and on top of that they'd have more competition, which would drive down prices.
So insurance <edit> prices, despite the Obama talking points, won't automatically go up under McCain's plan.
Last edited by xavierx on Sun Oct 05, 2008 1:01 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ejward
Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Posts: 6521
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:22 am Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| I do like the idea of competition. The company I work for basically has to administor 6 different plans (2 for easch state) because people in the corporate office live in 3 different states. If I had to guess, it's pretty close to a 50 50 split between Mass and RI. If they could pick a single plan, there would be more people in it and there would be less overhead to manage it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xavierx
Joined: Nov 06, 2004
Posts: 3871
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:48 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
Here's some "unbiased" information, related to Obama's claim that McCain is going to "leave you on your own"
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/774/
| Quote: |
...
Most Americans who have health insurance -- about 71 percent -- get it through their employer. Usually, the premiums are split so that the employer pays part and the employee pays part. Strictly speaking, the part that the employer pays is considered compensation and workers would owe taxes on it if there wasn't a tax exemption in federal law. The exemption makes employer-provided health insurance more attractive to both workers and employers.
McCain wants to improve the health care system by encouraging greater competition for health insurance. His idea is that people should be able to go out on the open market and buy their own health insurance, and not be pushed into an employer-provided insurance plan by tax incentives. So under McCain's plan, the tax exemption for employer provided health insurance would disappear, and people would get a tax credit of $2,500 per person ($5,000 for couples) to spend on any health insurance they wish. They might choose to use their employer's plan and use the tax credit to offset the new tax on the benefit, or they might go off and buy insurance on their own.
...
The ad reminds viewers -- fairly, in our view -- about the end of the tax exemption, an important part of the overall McCain plan. But then the ad says, "McCain’s own Web site said it goes straight to the insurance companies, not to you, leaving you on your own to pay McCain’s health insurance tax."
McCain's Web site does say that, but there's an excellent reason that the credit goes to the insurance companies. It's so people don't blow the tax credit on cigarettes and beer (or whatever else they'd like) instead of health insurance. Under McCain's plan, workers would pay taxes on the health exemption, but they would get $2,500 knocked off their health insurance bill. If workers come out ahead and there's money left over, that would go into a health spending account for them to spend on health-related incidentals.
It's a complex switcheroo, but there's ample evidence to show that the plan would be a wash for most workers. The McCain campaign says only workers with "gold-plated" health programs would do worse. An independent analysis from the nonpartisan Urban Institute confirms that: "In general, lower-income people with health insurance would receive benefits from the credit that would be well in excess of the value that they receive from today’s tax exemption. The gains are much smaller for higher-income people."
... |
So they don't have to wait until they file their taxes to get the credit, and as I said earlier this disproportionally benefits the poor - which I thought was supposed to be a good thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mommabear
Joined: Feb 20, 2003
Posts: 6185
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 05, 2008 8:38 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
@ xavierx:
| Quote: |
| An independent analysis from the nonpartisan Urban Institute confirms that.... |
Let's look a little deeper into the Urban Institute Report, shall we?
| Quote: |
Obama health plan outperforms McCain plan in coverage and efficiency
Senators John McCain and Barack Obama have presented very different plans to reform health care in the United States. Last week, the Urban Institute/Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center (TPC) provided what appears to be the first evaluation of each plan's effect on costs and coverage outcomes.1 While the TPC findings are preliminary, there is a wealth of information contained in them; some of their implications, however, may not be immediately apparent even to those relatively well-versed in the U.S. health care debates. The punch lines of the TPC analysis can be stated relatively simply:
* Efficiency. Over the 10-year period analyzed by the TPC, Senator Obama's plan provides far greater "bang-for-the-buck," spending far less per capita for its coverage of the uninsured population (see Figure A below).
* Cost. The costs of the plans over the 10-year period are in the same ballpark: the Obama plan costs roughly $1.6 trillion, while the McCain plan costs $1.3 trillion (the Obama plan spends roughly 20% more than McCain’s) (see Figure B).
* Coverage. The Obama plan makes a much bigger dent in covering the uninsured population. On average over the 10-year period, the Obama plan covers over 47% of the forecasted uninsured population, while the McCain plan covers less than 5% (see Figure C).
McCain’s plan would eliminate the existing income tax exclusion for health insurance premiums paid through employers and would replace it with a direct, refundable tax credit. This change sets off a cascade of decision-making by firms and employees, the net effect of which would be to erode some of the incentives that employers and employees have to tie health care benefits to job-based compensation and encourage health care purchase through the individual market. It would also provide incentives for people to buy less comprehensive insurance coverage.
Changes in sources of coverage
In both plans, net changes in the overall uninsured population are accompanied by substantial shifts in the sources of coverage, both for the forecast uninsured and for those who already have coverage.
Coverage sources and the McCain plan
Under McCain’s plan, the relatively small net effect on the uninsurance rate results from large gross losses in employer-sponsored insurance and large gross gains in the individual market. In fact, roughly 20 million fewer people are projected to have employer-sponsored insurance by 2018 under McCain’s proposal, while the number of people purchasing in the individual market will have grown by a corresponding amount. The reason for this shift is that McCain’s plan changes the incentives for purchasing in the employer market as compared to the individual market. This change will lead to destabilized employer pools and fewer employers offering insurance.
First, some workers—likely those who are young and healthy—will decide to decline their employer’s insurance to seek out plans in the individual market. The remaining workers in the ESI pool will thus have higher average health costs, causing their premiums to rise. When premiums rise, other workers may leave the pool, worsening the problem.
Second, employers may decide to stop offering insurance as it becomes more expensive and less valuable to their entire workforces. Additionally, small employers who were offering insurance to their workers to gain the tax advantage themselves will no longer see a benefit to offering and might stop sponsoring coverage.
Some of the people who lose coverage through their employer will simply lose coverage altogether. The individual market subjects individuals to the whims of the insurance industry: poor information about policies, discriminatory pricing, coverage waivers, refusal to pay for pre-existing conditions, and denial of policy renewal. To make matters worse, other parts of the McCain plan remove many of the (already insufficient) consumer protections that currently exist in state regulations—such as mental-health parity and "guaranteed issue" (the requirement that insurance companies offer insurance to all comers).2
Coverage sources and the Obama plan
The Obama plan’s large net increase in coverage is the result of small increases in employer-sponsored and public insurance, and large enrollment (almost 30 million) in the new national insurance pool. This pool would offer insurance at “community-rated” prices, that is, prices that do not discriminate based on health status. This large pool would have substantial administrative and marketing cost-savings relative to the existing non-group market, creating potential savings not just for those judged to be bad risks by insurance companies, but for all purchasers who do not currently have access to employer or public programs.
http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/pm126
|
This pretty much confirms what I said before about McCain's plan.
As people buy more private insurance (if they can) companies will no longer offer it because it will get too expensive at the employee/employer level because the risk pool is too small.
Then there's the fact that the worker will be bringing home less money than he was because the employer portion of his health insurance is now figured as income, taxed, and the higher tax is deducted from his net take home pay. Many will simply not be able to afford insurance...period. Because the biggest no-brainer is that nobody can get health insurance for $5000. Not a decent plan anyway, with deductibles and co-pays that they can afford.
IMO, that so-called competition between insurance companies for the private plan is pie in the sky. They'll stick together to keep rates and coverage roughly the same. (See the highlights about McCain's intent to remove consumer protections at the state level and the quote below.)
| Quote: |
| ...the value of the tax credit to buy health insurance will erode over time, as the pace of health insurance premium growth exceeds the rate at which the credit will rise. Thus, the value of the tax benefit will eventually be overwhelmed by higher costs for insurance premiums. |
So for those of you who think you'll be okay with the McCain plan...well, after awhile... maybe not. Prices for anything never stay down in the long run.
Sorry, xavierx. Based on the long history of the Republican ideology of a free market and deregulation, there is no way in h*ll his plan will benefit anyone but the insurance industry. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mommabear
Joined: Feb 20, 2003
Posts: 6185
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:10 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
Well, well. After I posted I decided to go look up the Urban Institute Report, which was quoted in your article, xavierx. I think you're going to be surprised by what I found.
| Quote: |
Abstract
The McCain health care plan represents a philosophical advance over many proposals, principally in its commitment to redistributing the current tax exemption for employer-based health insurance. However, the plan raises more concerns than it addresses. McCain’s proposal would dramatically change how many obtain insurance, make coverage less accessible for those with health problems, have a high budget cost, but have little effect on the number uninsured. These problems could be addressed by providing a guaranteed source of adequate, affordable coverage; phasing-out the tax exemption slowly; larger subsidies to the low-income; spreading health risk broadly; and a significant commitment to cost-containment.
|
And here's the entire paragraph from the out of context quote in that truth-o-meter article. It's on page 9 of the pdf.
| Quote: |
In general, lower-income people with health
insurance would receive benefits from the credit
that would be well in excess of the value that they
receive from today’s tax exemption. The gains are
much smaller for higher-income people. Even
still, these credits would have to be increased for
low-income people if coverage is to be made
widely affordable. If the credits were increased
for the low income, the value of the credit could
be phased out as incomes increase to keep the
budget consistent with the original proposal.
However, such a change to the McCain proposal
would lead to a substantial increase in taxes for
the high income, due to the loss of the current law
tax exclusion and the credit phase-out as incomes
increase. |
So, while whoever wrote that at the St. Petersburg Times may have dissected the ad more or less correctly, he didn't do any further research. So that leaves the reader with the impression that the McCain plan is somehow better than Obama's, which it is not.
So, I suggest that you go to my link and you can read the summaries and full reports for both plans there. I think you're getting snookered, xavierx. You and a lot of Republicans.
http://www.urban.org/health_policy/url.cfm?ID=411755 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xavierx
Joined: Nov 06, 2004
Posts: 3871
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:28 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| Mommabear, why are you intent on bringing me personally into this? Did I not say that I prefer a combination of both plans, that neither one is good on it's own? You're the only one I've seen here saying that one plan is perfect while the other is crap (paraphrasing). I'm getting really sick of you telling me what I think. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
| |
|
|
General