McCain vs. Obama on Healthcare

I don't like either plan. We need HR 676. It is far better and would be actual Universal Health Care. Compare.

http://www.pnhp.org/

SEC. 102. BENEFITS AND PORTABILITY.

(a) In General- The health insurance benefits under this Act cover all medically necessary services, including at least the following:

(1) Primary care and prevention.

(2) Inpatient care.

(3) Outpatient care.

(4) Emergency care.

(5) Prescription drugs.

(6) Durable medical equipment.

(7) Long term care.

(8) Mental health services.

(9) The full scope of dental services (other than cosmetic dentistry).

(10) Substance abuse treatment services.

(11) Chiropractic services.

(12) Basic vision care and vision correction (other than laser vision correction for cosmetic purposes).

(13) Hearing services, including coverage of hearing aids.

(b) Portability- Such benefits are available through any licensed health care clinician anywhere in the United States that is legally qualified to provide the benefits.

(c) No Cost-Sharing- No deductibles, copayments, coinsurance, or other cost-sharing shall be imposed with respect to covered benefits.

http://www.pnhp.org/action/organizations_and_government...

I think it was Nixon who helped lead up to the creation of the modern day HMO back then it was explained as a purely money making venture... and they were right...

McCain's plan really is more of the same and actually benefits the HMOs because of the deregulation piece.

I prefer Obama's plan because for my life it makes sense. I have insurance so there will be no change for me...Help others who dont have insurance get it and that helps some. Mccain could cause me to lose what I have.

no health plan is $5,800 as McCain stated in the debate in regards to his 5,000 tax credit, maybe when he was born it was, but the average health plan cost 12,000
per person

Do people not realize that under McCain's plan it will cost you more than you are being credited for. You will end up spending a lot more on health care and it will not be regulated! DEREGULATION is a bad thing here folks! Just like it was for the banks, wall street and the economy!

I think Obama's plan is, at least, a step in the right direction. I'd love to see universal healthcare, but it's unrealistic to think that we can more from a private industry to universal healthcare in one fell swoop.

The creation of a national healthcare plan, subsidies, and regulation of private insurance could (at least theoretically) lay the groundwork for a program that could expand to be more universal in the future. Changes takes time.

Well both of the options that the candidates propose seem very inefficient. The private insurance idea is completely pointless, that type of health insurance will simply not cover for very serious medical expenses for the working class. The working American does not have enough money lying around for the costs that the private insurance will not cover.

Obama Requires that all children have health insurance. Which i think is crucial in this world where parents dont really attend to their childrens needs.

Obama's plan is really meh and full of holes and McCain's is like a band-aid over a chopped off arm.

I'm all for a single-payer nationalized health insurance plan backed by a private insurance free market system. Essentially like what the U.K. has.

You have national health insurance, paid for by an additional tax and all hospitals are, at least, managed by the government. Then you also have a private system who's existence DEPENDS on providing much better service than the public system.

Simple, private companies get incentives to actually give out care and there's a national health insurance plan for the rest of us.

I don't buy the socialist boogeyman argument.

If you do buy that, you might as well eliminate police, firefighters, mail service, libraries, education, etc. etc. etc. Give me a break man, keeping people alive shouldn't be a fucking private industry.

It's difficult to muddle through...however, I understand the part about children. We need to find a way to insure our children. Poverty plays on an unfair advantage...besides, our infant mortality rate is a crime for a country as rich as ours....

50% of bankrupt due to health problems? We need to provide ins for everyone. If we can bail out corporations...700 BILLION...need I say more?

The problem with private health insurance is that shopping for a plan and understanding the details is far too complex for even the average citizen, healthcare and medicine are topics not for the faint of heart. Letting the market decide something that may cost your life is not a good deal.

The problem with public heath insurance is that government regulated systems tend to be inefficient especially in context of a capitalist society. What happens is it creates a tiered system where the poor get a "budget" plan, the middle get the universal plan, whereas the rich get their private elite care. This is not necessarily a bad thing in this country so-long as 100% of the population get some form of coverage and the cost factors are sustainable.

USA cannot "provide coverage" without either (a) paying the existing costs, or (b) creating government-run hospitals. Option A would break us quickly due to runaway medical greed (which I blame on a price spiral between doctors and insurance, each constantly raising their prices to cover the rising cost of the other). Our current state of debt and deficit is already on the crumbling brink. Option B would be socialized medicine, reflexively hated by many Americans and sure to provoke a Katrina-class sh*tstorm from the whole health-industrial complex.

Our only option appears to be tracking down and suppressing the cause of the rising prices, and squashing anyone who interferes with the investigation (like any other police matter would do). I have a hunch that other nations support the health of their citizens because it is possible to afford, but someone here makes it impossible. Find them.

Some doctors may say they charge so much because college cost them so much; ok then, here's a maverick idea: You want cheaper health, make more doctors. Flood the market with 'em! Subsidize medical education, hell, make Federal medical colleges, just like our public schools, and then make it a federal offense for them to move out of the country. Supply and demand, right? Up the supply, because our demand will not go down. In this light, the medical crisis is like our oil addiction, only non-voluntary. Drill for more doctors! Drill 'em now!

Edit: Another capitalist weapon I don't think we've tried might be to import doctors, upgrade them with new skills, and put them on a 10-year contract with *very* stiff buyout clauses. Isn't that what tech firms do? Even farther: control their costs of living by providing subsidized housing, or even housing itself, with transportation (or so nearby that transportation isn't necessary). The savings could be huge.

Or maybe I'm wrong, I dunno. I'm just sayin', has anyone looked under these rocks yet?

I watched "movies-online" and saw "SICKO" by Michael Moore. It documents the trouble many ill people have with insurance companies who do everything possible to deny claims.
It is an absolute scandal.
Please watch this very long documentary. Worth every second. The film is an indictment on corrupt wealthy insurance companies and the American government - who ever is in power. When its time for sick citizens to make a claim, when they are at their most vulnerable they have to fight to get legitimate claims recognized. Moore gave examples of how the health care system worked in trips to enquire from Canada, France, Cuba, UK and hear from USA citizens as to how unfairly they are treated in comparison. Essential viewing.

both there plans suck. why not make it simple and save money and provide coverage for all Americans.

what a completly useless bag of crap. There is simply a regurgitation of party talking points without independent analysis. To offer simply the subjective opinions of each without some objective (from a number of sources)is further example of the useless wankering that we have come to expect from the main stream media.I would like to see more of the "Armstrong principle": if one candidate says the moon is made of green cheese and the other rock don't say "they disagree", ask Neil Armstrong.One of the main problems with American politics today is that the public and more importantly the media in general do not understand the difference between subjective and objectic=ve and treat them equally.

How about a plan that actually brings down the premiums/costs to begin with? I don't see that in either of their plans. Or would that mean actually having to take on corporations? How many millions of our money do you think it takes to make one ad for some BS medicine that they didn't even spend half that amount on R&D?

My husband pays over 6,000 a year out of his paycheck for coverage, and I can bet most of that money is for administrative costs. Where are the plans that hold these insurance and pharmaceutical companies more accountable in the first place to lower costs? Either way again, people will be stuck with what they have or will have to purchase it.

I think we should be able to take what we don't spend for healthcare in any given year out of that say 6,000 and roll it over to the next year for our healthcare costs which would then adjust what came out of our pay for that successive year so we aren't stuck paying the same or more every year out of our paychecks. Then we could build on it from year to year in case there is a catastrophic or other illness we would need that money for. However, most of us even if we saved for a hundred years still couldn't afford many of the operations. For working class Americans they are out of reach regardless of your coverage, and that is what these candidates should be addressing. Go to the source and cut the fat.

For all the talk of Obama's "radical left-wing government run socialist healthcare" plan, it basically just boils down to buying private insurance.

It basically the same scheme as we have now but restructured in such a way as to better enable everyone to purchase worthless private insurance that won't cover any of your doctor bills in full.

Far from being a radical government-run healthcare system (as the McCain supporters keep insisting) it's just the same old private insurance system we have now. Hardly "radical" in any sense of the word.

I wish Obama really were as radical as McCain keeps claiming he is.

The problem with our healthcare is that this bullshit coupon system doesn't work! It does NOTHING to keep costs down.

Need chemotherapy or a heart bypass? Well with your trusty health coupons (aka private insurance) you're only on the hook for $60,000 of that $125,000 procedure!

Oh joy!

Because we all have 60 grand just sitting around in our bank accounts, right?

And if you don't have 60 grand? Then you slowly die of cancer....but relax, because once your near death then you qualify for "free" ER services to bring you back to life at a mere $250,000! Don't worry, they'll send you a bill. And if you can't pay the $250,000 in ER services? Then the hospital eats the cost, goes deep into debt, and is forced to raise rates on everyone else to compensate.

No wonder all other countries on earth have abandonded these ridiculous healthcare coupons, er, I mean private insurance schemes in favor of a more common sense nationalized system.

I dunno - when the answer to healthcare is simply requiring that you buy insurance, that seems to be simply pandering to the health insurance industry. It seems to me that unless the gov't gets to the root of why health care is so out-of-reach for so many, even though we're the wealthiest nation on earth, there's no way the gov't can keep up with the expense either. I mean, my personal premiums are costing me over $6K a year, and going up double-digit percentages every year, and I've never even been sick. When the president (whoever he is) grows a pair and takes on those very powerful interest groups (insurance and doctors), then maybe we won't need so much help paying for healthcare.