If Obama were to win...would it be time for savy Boomers to go underground?

Say they had money to pay for their health insurance and an Obama coattails effect swept Democrats into control (60+% of Senate) resulting in a National Health Insurance bill to pass...and he signed it.

Then it would be savy to reduce taxable income to drop below the level of those who have to antee up payroll deductions for said insurance...right?

Y'all really don't think people are gonna work when programs provide...do ya?

Said simply...if Obama wins and carries the Senate with him...I wait until national health insurance is about to pass...and retire...if it takes two years...I'll be 61 and one year from Social Security...all I'll have to do is hustle a year's income and skate.

Y'all don't think mature folks are gonna get took do ya? Young folks and the neophiles may carry an election, but they won't fool the mathamatical. We'll bail and leave it with y'all. Happy Trails.

Don't think it is about which age category you fit into - people have been voting AGAINST their self-interest for years. How about the poor working stiff Repubs who voted for BushCo tax cuts for the rich?

I think it is about uniting this country on the basis of FAIRNESS, and moving past the distractions of gay marriage and abortion. Those two items grab the headlines and while people are watching the morons on TV rant about them, BushCo is cutting taxes for his buddies.

High Crimes and Felonies.

IH - I think reading the details could benefit you and others need to be better informed also.. Here's a link:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

After reading through - not stopping at the intro - there are even links at the bottom to further info, and Q&A's.


And I do not share your opinion of the average citizen wanting and waiting to freeload. There are a few but I have lived in poverty areas like Appalachia and my impression is that 99.9% would prefer decent jobs, independence and have more self-respect than you give credit for.There needs to be a demand that corporations not chose where to base new operations on how much freeloading they can get out of the legislatures; tax concessions, utilities cost breaks, land deals, and on and on. Concentrated and continued urbanization is unhealthy both economically and environmentally.



lenal

Thanks lenal...I'd headed there now...
this is a reson I subscribe quick references...

Another defamatory post

All Clintonites here are so negative

This is the most #1 inane thing I have ever seen or heard in my life

Although I would give FREE insurance to all those kind gentle souls from below the border and maybe 1 million dollars a piece to every single one
They have a hard life, and it pains me to see them suffer so.

I personally think all human beings should hide if Hillary comes into office.
After all, she voted YES YES YES on the war and now 3900plus are dead.

You are only counting American Soldiers.

Not human beings

okay here's the official health care web site:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/HealthCareFullPlan.pdf

Unfortunately it has no actuarial tables (which is what any insurance company
uses to determine how many people, how many procedures and what the probabilities
are of each being in need/needed , to determine health care premiums required of customers).

Admitedly I'm showing the parts I have questions about, but it is 15 pages and probably
would be closer to 1,500 if details were attempted...here goes:

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

His plan promises:

(1) OBAMA’S PLAN TO COVER THE UNINSURED. Obama will make available a new national health plan which will give individuals the choice to buy affordable health coverage that is similar to the plan available to federal employees. The new public plan will be open to individuals without access to group coverage through their workplace or current public programs. It will also be available to people who are self-employed and small businesses that want to offer insurance to their employees.

The plan will have the following features:

�� Guaranteed eligibility. No American will be turned away FROM ANY
INSURANCE PLAN because of illness or pre-existing conditions.
(bump those rates the first time)

...

�� Affordable premiums, co-pays and deductibles. Participants will be charged
fair premiums and minimal co-pays for deductibles for preventive services.
(what is afforable? say you make $25,000 a year what would premiums be for a man
of a particular age group? is that Chicago-affordable? )

�� Subsidies. Individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need assistance will
receive income-related federal subsidies to keep health insurance premiums affordable. They can
use the subsidy to buy into the new public plan or purchase a private health care plan.
(how much will subsidies be? who pays for them? how much is required for that guy
making $25,000 a year?)

�� Quality and efficiency. Participating hospitals and providers that participate in the new public plan will be
required to collect and report data to ensure that standards for health care quality, health information technology
and administration are being met.
(wait a minute, what happened to confidentiality of health records?)
...

(2) NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE. To provide Americans with additional
options, the Obama plan will make available a National Health Insurance Exchange to help individuals
who wish to purchase a private insurance plan. The Exchange will act as a watchdog and help reform
the private insurance market by creating rules and standards for participating insurance plans to ensure
fairness and to make individual coverage more affordable and accessible. Through the Exchange, any
American will have the opportunity to enroll in the new public plan or purchase an approved private plan, and
income-based sliding scale subsidies will be provided for people and families who need it.
Insurers would have to issue every applicant a policy, and charge fair and stable premiums
that will not depend upon health status. The Exchange will require that all the plans offered are at least
as generous as the new public plan and meet the same standards for quality and efficiency.
Insurers would be required to justify an above-average premium increase to the Exchange.
The Exchange would evaluate plans and make the differences among the plans, including cost of services, transparent.

(3) EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION. Employers that do not offer meaningful coverage or
make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees will be required to contribute
a percentage of payroll toward the costs of the national plan.

(4) MANDATORY COVERAGE OF CHILDREN. Obama will require that all children have
health care coverage. Obama will expand the number of options for young adults to get coverage by allowing
young people up to age 25 to continue coverage through their parents’ plans.

(5) EXPANSION OF MEDICAID AND SCHIP. Obama will expand eligibility for the
Medicaid and SCHIP programs and ensure that these programs continue to serve their critical safety net function.
(how much and to whom...at what cost?)

(6) FLEXIBILITY FOR STATE PLANS. Due to federal inaction, some states have taken the lead in health care reform.
These efforts are laudable and are helping to lead the way toward meaningful health care reform. The Obama plan
is a national one that builds on these efforts, and it will not replace what states are doing. Indeed, states can continue
to experiment, provided they meet the minimum standards of the national plan.
(doesn't this leave a loophole for rich states to opt out of the group, reducing the savings to poorer folks?)

...

Barack Obama believes we must dramatically redesign our health system to reduce inefficiency and waste and improve health care quality, which will drive down costs for families and individuals. The Obama plan will improve efficiency and lower costs in the health care system by: (1) offering federal reinsurance to employers to help ensure that unexpected or catastrophic illnesses do not make health insurance unaffordable or out of reach for businesses and their employees (2) ensuring that patients receive and providers deliver the best possible care; (3) adopting state-of-the-art health information technology systems; and (4) reforming our market structure to increase competition.
(#1 sounds good. #2 how? #3 there's that data bank again #4 - like top line in paragraph - who redesigns and reforms?)

...One of the
keys to eliminating waste and missed opportunities is to increase our investment in comparative effectiveness reviews and research. Comparative effectiveness studies provide crucial information about which drugs, devices and procedures are the best diagnostic and treatment options for individual patients. This information is developed by reviewing existing literature, analyzing electronic health care data, and conducting simple, real world studies of new technologies. Obama will establish an independent institute to guide reviews and research on comparative effectiveness, so that Americans and their doctors will have accurate and objective information to make the best decisions for their health and well-being.
(this sounds like the guidelines on procedures and costs of reviews developed by HMOs. how much payroll, how many square feet of office, how much in monthly utilities, hardware and software makes an "institute"?)

...Obama will tackle the root causes of health disparities by addressing differences in access to health coverage
and promoting prevention and public health (see below), both of which play a major role in addressing disparities.
He will also challenge the medical system to eliminate inequities in health care by requiring hospitals and health plans
to collect, analyze and report health care quality for disparity populations and holding them accountable for any differences found;
diversifying the workforce to ensure culturally effective care;
(health disparities? I thought that was income-based, which subsidies would address, is something else included? another set of
reports and data for health care quality for disparity populations? oh that won't cost anything... and tell me this how the
heck do you diversify the workforce to ensure culturally effective care? Is this a new affirmative action program nestled
in the national health insurance bureaucracy?)
...

Obama will also promote new models for addressing
physician errors that improve patient safety, strengthen the doctor-patient
relationship, and reduce the need for malpractice suits.
(explain how you do this...to me and the trial lawyers...please.)

Obama will invest $10 billion a year over the next five years to move the U.S. health care system to broad
adoption of standards-based electronic health information systems, including electronic health records.
(a figure! but it's removing confidentiality again.)

...his plan will force insurers to pay out a reasonable share of their premiums for patient care instead of keeping
exorbitant amounts for profits and administration.
("reasonable", "exorbitant"...figures please!)

...a quarter of schools adhere to nutritional standards for fat content in school lunches.
Obama will work with schools to create more healthful environments for children, including assistance with contract policy
development for local vendors, grant support for school-based health screening programs and clinical services, increased financial support for physical education, and educational programs for students.
(new school programs in the national health insurance program...spreading out funding further...)

...the existing workforce is further challenged by inadequate training about new health threats such as bioterrorism and avian flu, antiquated funding and reimbursement mechanisms, and limited access to real-time information and technical support. Barack Obama will expand funding—including loan repayment,adequate reimbursement, grants for training curricula, and infrastructure support to improve working conditions— to ensure a strong workforce that will champion prevention and public health activities.
(more programs...this time for terrorism and infrastructure. )

...Preventive care only works if Americans take personal responsibility for their health and make the right decisions in their own lives – if they eat the right foods, stay active, and stop smoking.
(explain to me how this works...no white sauce? duck fat? get off the couch and walk 10 miles a day mandatory? quit smoking a must? just tobacco?)

And finally, the government must examine its own policies, including agricultural, educational, environmental and health policies, to assess and improve their effect on public health in this nation. As President,Barack Obama will prioritize all of these activities, to ensure a 21st century public health system and healthy America.
(now national health insurance stretches into agriculture and enviroment as well as education?)

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

Don't get me wrong I haven't read much about Hillary's plan yet...but dam*n! Can you see the general election debate?

Commentator: "Senator Obama what will that cost for the guy making $25,000 a year? How many jobs, machines and office space will
it require and at what cost? Must you weigh a certain amount, have a certain fat percentage, stop smoking to get the
no-prior conditions status? Do we all have to be as slim and healthy as you?"

What if I like my health, dental and vision insurance even though I have to pay co-pays through the nose...because
I can go to whom I want to, when I can schedule individually? This stuff is just a bit polyanna to me...I think I understand
Ron Paul...and John McCain's hands-off approaches more than I do these vast plans on a national scale...after all, remember I
work for local government and we still deliver the joke line: "I'm from the government and I'm hear to help you."

Prejudiced perhaps...defamatory of course not.
And Sir, you are the most negative poster on this board...so save ya breath.
You can't give free nothin' unless you have Warren Buffet's money, which of course
you (nor I) do not. So save the B.S. and the bleeding heart stuff. Attempt to be a gentleman,
that's enough.

kind gentle souls are many on this site and support both Obama and Hillary........!
I resent the fact that because I weigh and balance with intelligent conversation that I am negative!

Who called you negative?

...here's a taste of what's coming from the right-wing:

http://www.frc.org/

Today's Family Research Council (very conservative non-profit headed up by former La. State Rep. Tony Perkins)
Email Bulletin was plunking liberals on the back of the head (like the TV show NCIS):

Under H.R. 1424, employers who offer group health plans would be required to provide "substance-related disorder benefits"
and mental health care coverage that includes treatment for, among other things, jet lag, sibling rivalry, caffeine "intoxication,"
cross-dressing "fetishism," pedophilia, necrophilia, and gender identity disorders. Using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual
of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) as its guide, H.R. 1424 would force employers to provide employees who have psycho-sexual
"conditions" the same level of treatment benefits as patients with medical diagnoses...Beware. This bill is just the tip of the
iceberg in liberals' plans for government-mandated universal health care. Do your part to preserve employers' rights.
Contact your congressman today and tell him or her to put an end to this insanity by voting "no" on H.R. 1424!

They may not be exactly accurate all the time, but they are usually close when it comes to legislation details on
ultra-conservative issues...can you see this initial attack coming on the National Health Insurrance issue? It's just the first volley.

so admit it indianhead

You will vote for McCain

He's a vet
AND a hero
AND a POW

marine too.

Why wouldn't you vote for McCain?
Being that Hillary and McCain are clones of each other, and both could be each other's running mate.

and indianhead-
if you think I am negative and don't like it, why the last months have you then resorted to going to my level?
(not that I agree with you, but just telling your words back)...

Do 2 wrongs all of a sudden=1 right
Same with dgg, same with others.

Either health plan will face extreme opposition and any pretense of knowing what either would morph into is absurd (with the exception of they would be toned down to garner support). Actually the amount of money spent precluding preexisting conditions is probably close to what covering everyone would cost the insurance companies and when you add in the extra costs to the system of these refusals it's likely we'd save money or at least break even on that aspect.

G4A...

Pretzel Logic 101:

1. Call someone defamatory and negative
2. When they respond that you are more negative, ask why they stoop to your level
3. Make an incomprehensible statement and claim opponent as source
4. Spread accusation to a broad group of differing people

Since board statements are public domain, I reserve the right to quote
any or all in my up-coming screen-play: "One Blew Over the CooCoo's Nest: Part Deux ".

Tom:

I have no idea what they might morph into, just what I think would be do-able.
You are probably right on pre-exisiting conditions our group allows them and it's smaller.
I have been absurd from time-to-time...according to my wife.

I've been told my problem isn't that I have multiple personalities, the problem is they all suck.

We keep trying to read the tea leaves based on what "experts" write about things they can't possibly guess about.

I think about all we know is disallowing exclusions and more prevention will save money but the overall program will be very expensive.

Tom, why does it cost money to preclude pre-existing conditions??

If an insurance carrier accepted pre-existing conditions, wouldn't people tend to just wait until they get sick to sign up?

1) They normally don't admit the reason so it takes lots of staff time to keep finding delays until the application needs to start again from scratch

2)They expend effort without getting any income.

3)Some pre-existing conditions are cheap under long term treatment and only expensive if untreated.

4) They have to advertise more to offset bad word of mouth.

5) Sometimes it leads to lawsuits.

6) Normally there's a waiting period when a pre existing condition isn't covered, often 2 years. They get money up front even if they don't have to pay for the treatment.

Beware of Propoganga from the Dark Side.

Any health plan should offer free and unlimited abortions to every single person who wants one in all 50 states

And free and over the counter RU486 to everyone

If people carried it around with them, abortions itself never would be needed

Also Plan B, they should have free vials for everyone

This bullspit about pharmacists/doctors letting people die because they are part of some freaky cults is ridiculous

Doctors are suppose to cure every single person who asks for their help, regardless of race,creed, religion

Free insurance should then mean free for any type of need whatsoever INCLUDING ABORTIONS

And free to anyone in the US, whether tourist or citizen or non-citizen.
Because anyone who gets sick in France or Canada gets cared for.
Anyone who wants should be allowed to come here and get healed.

Thanks for the explanation....makes sense.

Will 2009 be the year to retire?

I’ve had a relative in the hospital for the past
five days…nothing life threatening…but it
could have been. Stomach pains and an inability to
keep anything down…so before they could run
all the tests (MRI, X-ray, CAT-scan, blood work etc.)
she had to be put on an IV for hydration, pain killer
and anti-nausea meds. She’s doing much better and should
go home tonight or tomorrow…since no tests have found
anything major.

In discussion with my work partner I learned what
Universal health care will probably bring. He lives in
A mid-sized town about 45 miles northeast of here, which
has a hospital that went half-and-half…private and
public (charity) when the Big Charity Hospital in new Orleans
was ruined by Hurricane Katrina.

His family and mine are covered by large group health plans
(with Blue Cross - Blue Shield, which is tip-top in La.). He told me that
when his wife needed an EKG she was sent to the hospital with
a prescription from her doctor…and she was given a day to report. Since
she had to work that day, she got there at 3 p.m. and the test
didn’t happen for six and on-half hours later. Needless to say
they now drive to another parish to a private hospital (35 miles away).

That’s the problem…if everyone gets the same treatment,
whether they have government support or private insurance…
it takes the services way, way down for those busting their butts
for major medical insurance (and the price that goes with it).
So, if you all get treated the same why have private insurance?
You won’t…you’ll all have to opt into a slower, and far more overtaxed system.
Oh you’ll have to pay probably close to the same thing into a universal health
care plan, since you work to make enough for private insurance.
(The only folks that will have additional private insurance will be those with more
money or fewer expenses...see below)

The cost of services will be controlled to meet government approved costs
based on government approved fee schedules that can be supported by a
new huge bureaucracy it will take to handle the new plan. So health care
providers will have to cut corners and get paid less (or certainly not expect
raises) to meet the limitations of approved costs.

If people who make $101,000 will have to face an increase in taxes of
say 15-20% (I think that was batted around on Meet the Press when it was
pointed out proposed tax increases on those making $250,000 wouldn’t
support the plan) then people able to retire probably would - to drop
below the income threshold. My partner certainly will and I would
have to reassess the benefits vs. the costs.

So, if anyone thinks you can bean count what can be expected to be
raised to support such a plan – think again. Remember the Medicare
drug plan? I don’t care how smart people are…when you completely
overhaul a system…people react individually. This is why
some Canadians come to the US for hospital services, and Americans
go to Canada for prescription medicines that don’t have to have
immediately…or can plan ahead for with the help of their private doctor.

You’ll find you can’t pull out of Iraq as quickly as was first said, you
can’t just cut consumption and drop the price of oil, and you can’t raise
the money for Universal Heath Care from the pool of “rich folks” that
you think you can.

So, if we have a White House and Congress in concert on all these
liberal ideas…you will see Baby Boomers retire, health care workers
changing professions and small businesses shutting their doors…by the droves, IMO.

Not to mention that capital amassed by insurance companies and invested
to cover claims and costs of operation will shrink…and they are among the largest
investment pools in the nation. I guess the US government will take over
that position…and we all know how well government invests.

While I just took a three minute break our CPA came through. I asked
him about the situation and he offered this:

“Doctors will group in private practices and invest in the equipment hospitals have and you can go to them, but you will have to take a premium health insurancecoverage over and above whatever Universal Health Care costs you.”

In other words to get the same coverage I’ll probably have to double my health insurance costs. So…I asked him what about all the people that work in hospitals and for home health care companies? The changes they will see in volume, types of illnesses and the people that have them will be discouraging professionally, I suggested. All he could say was:

“I have no answer for you on that.”

Yeah, maybe 2009 might be a good year to retire. More time in the garden,
less need for gasoline and less exposure to masses of people who may be
carrying no telling what…while they await their appointment day with a doctor.

I agree that the US government can not afford to buy everyone a high quality Health Care Insurance
Policy. We can, however, afford to extend Medicare (with prescription coverage) to everyone. In
fact we can't afford not to.

Eliminate the word "Insurance". We can provide everyone with high quality Health Care. Forget the Insurance Policy - the agents get 25 % off the top, and the docs have to spend another 25 % filling out the forms.

Right On...

Y'all believe all y'all like I just talked with a friend who will be in Canada July 4
for an international military band celebration. His long-time friend in the RCMP
has suffered for years with a back (nerve) injury he got during a drug raid.
His physician told him a few months ago he had to have an operation of he
would end up paralyized in another few years. They set his operation July 10.
When my friend called his friend yesterday to affirm their meeting date, he learned
the RCMP buddy had been called by the Canadian Health Care System and told
his operation has been postponed...and he will be called in August about when his
new schedule date will be set. Good luck.

I'm an honorably-discharged American Viet Nam military combat veteran who is rated 100% SERVICE-CONNECTED disabled HERE IN AMERICA, which is supposed to GUARANTEE me PRIORITY CARE at the VA Hospital up here where I am ...

However, the IRAQINAM veterans have a much better political lobby, and so, they have managed to SQUEEZE older veterans like myself right out of the VA Health care system to make room for themselves FIRST ...

Put us right out on the curb like TRASH, they did ...

So I still get priority ...

It's just that my priority is way down the list after their priority ....

SO GOOD ******* LUCK TO ALL YOU OTHER OLDER VETERANS OUT THERE WHO DIDN'T HAVE PRIORITY LIKE I DID ...

I'm now at the back of the bus, while you poor slobs will have to gimp and hobble and crawl along behind it ...

And so ...

With Real Universal Health and Wellness Programs, that are person-centered, community-based,
nationally guaranteed and internationally sanctioned, Persons will learn that they don't need to
arrange their Lives arround loop-holes. Not even the loop-hole, called Earned Income Credit, which is better than nothing.We can elliminate some of the Hyprocrosy. Just add Real Support Systems
for Real Small Business (under 10 employees) and we can really get this Economy to Rock and Roll!

Believe what ya like...others see it differently...

http://www.examiner.com/a-1507516~A_fight_...ealth_care.html

Commentary - A fight to the finish: McCain vs. Obama on health care

Jul 27, 2008 2:00 AM (7 hrs ago)
by Sally Pipes, The Examiner


WASHINGTON (Map, News) - If you’re a member of Congress, you get exceptional health care coverage. In fact, Barack Obama likes his Senate plan so much he’d like everyone to have it.

The only catch is, if we all had the generous coverage Congress enjoys, the American economy would have an instant heart attack. So before this critical presidential election, it’s high time we understand the difference between Obama’s easy-on-the-ears “universal coverage” and the pragmatic plan John McCain has brought forward.

Obama’s plan, which he predicts will cost about $65 billion, would mandate that all but the smallest employers offer government-approved health coverage or pay a tax to finance government-sponsored insurance. This is called “play or pay.” He’d also mandate that all children have health coverage. To achieve government approval, private insurers would have to accept all applicants regardless of physical condition or lifestyle and would have limited pricing flexibility. They’d also be forced to cover an extremely broad range of conditions and procedures.

Obama would bring consumers and insurers together in a new National Health Insurance Exchange, which would serve as the regulated health insurance marketplace. Consumers would have the option of purchasing approved private insurance or enrolling in a new public plan. Under such constraints, costs for private insurers and employers would skyrocket and ultimately “crowd out” private insurers.

By requiring employers to provide coverage, ObamaCare could easily add up to $12,000 to the cost of hiring a worker with a family. Facing such high costs, employers would think twice about hiring a new employee. Meanwhile, existing workers would likely see their take-home pay slashed to compensate for higher insurance premiums.

Indeed, Katherine Baicker of the Harvard School of Public Health and Helen Levy of the University of Michigan calculated that an employer health insurance mandate like the one championed by Obama would eliminate about 224,000 low-wage jobs — jobs held disproportionately by non-whites, high school drop-outs and women.

The mandate will harm low-skilled workers. Think about it. If you’re an employer who wants to hire a $300,000-a-year lawyer, then paying an extra $12,000 in health insurance isn’t such a big deal. It’s just a 4 percent premium. But if you’re thinking about hiring a $24,000-a-year receptionist, the same health insurance policy is now a 50 percent premium. You might decide it’s not worth it.

In a free market, lower-skilled workers compete with higher-skilled workers by charging less. ObamaCare dampens this competitive advantage by making it more expensive, relatively speaking, to hire low-skilled workers — which, in turn, makes them less attractive to potential employers.

Further, individuals who wish to purchase their own insurance policies would see prices go through the roof. By requiring insurers to accept all comers, Obama guarantees that prices for everyone will be higher. The young and healthy will be forced to subsidize the old and sick, and many in the former group will opt out of the insurance market altogether. Such restrictions ironically undermine Obama’s universal coverage goals.

These prohibitively high costs would cause many employers and individual consumers to rely on highly subsidized government programs for health insurance. But those government plans wouldn’t be free. They’d be paid for by tax dollars and would feature the hundreds of thousands of pages of regulations that currently govern Medicare.

As with programs like Medicare, doctors and other health care providers would be paid below-market rates for their services. Many physicians would be unenthusiastic about the forced pay cut and would refuse to treat patients insured under a government plan, leading to a shortage of doctors.

Meanwhile, many private insurers would be forced to exit the market, unable to compete with price-controlled government options. Such controls would not usher in an era of low health care costs; they’d simply bring about a newfound scarcity of health services.

Unlike Obama, McCain recognizes that true reform of the health care system requires less government interference, not more. Instead of diverting the vast river of health care premiums into a government swamp to be doled out by bureaucrats, McCain supports reforming the tax code by offering tax credits — $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families — that could be used to buy private health insurance. Government-administered programs would be reserved for the truly needy and those who are unable to obtain private insurance.

What impact would these tax credits have? For a middle-class family making $60,000 a year, an employer-provided insurance policy would typically cost $12,100 over the course of a year, which translates into a $3,400 tax subsidy. Under McCain’s proposal, the family’s tax subsidy would almost double, to $6,700.

Further, McCain’s tax credits would restore fairness to the provision of health insurance. Historically speaking, those with high-paying jobs received generous health benefits because such expenses were tax-deductible for employers and tax-free to the employees. McCain would extend those tax benefits to all Americans, regardless of where they are on the income scale.

By returning health dollars to consumers through tax credits, McCain’s plan would allow patients to freely choose the care or provider they desired, empowering consumers. His plan would also allow people to shop around for the best value in the health care marketplace. Such reforms are the first steps in getting away from our broken system of payment by unaccountable third parties.

McCain’s plan would also increase competition among insurance providers by allowing people to purchase health insurance across state lines. Because state regulations vary so widely, a standard insurance policy in one state can be over five times more expensive than a standard policy in another state. This state-by-state price differential is usually created by burdensome — and expensive — benefit mandates that many states have imposed.

Benefit mandates are laws that require health plans to pay for, or at least offer, specified treatments or types of providers. Some of these mandates are defensible, but most aren’t. Some states require providers to cover massage therapy, breast reduction, in-vitro fertilization and hair prostheses, which can hardly be considered critical components of a good health insurance policy.

In 1979 there were only 252 mandate laws in force — an average of five per state. By 2007, there were 1,594 such mandates, for an average of 32 mandates per state. The result is that costs are driven up for everybody. According to the Council for Affordable Health Insurance, mandated benefits can increase the cost of health insurance by up to 50 percent.

Take the case of a hypothetical 25-year old man from New Jersey. According to the Commonwealth Fund, he would have to shell out roughly $5,580 each year for a standard health insurance policy. A similar policy in Kentucky — which has far fewer mandated coverage benefits than New Jersey — would run him just $960 annually. If he could purchase a policy across state lines, our 25-year old could save over $4,600 a year.

Obama and McCain offer starkly different choices on health care reform. One puts government first, the other puts patients and consumers first. Voters would be wise to keep this in mind come November.

Sally C. Pipes is president and CEO of the Pacific Research Institute. Her next book, “The Ten Myths of American Health Care,” will be released this fall.

This is the exact thing that keeps me an unbeliever...with the economy in a slide...another government gaurantee
(like Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac) seems exactly the wrong way to go. You stabilize a patient before you can start
intense surgery. And such a huge econmic entitlement extension would be major systematic surgury. It made more
sense under the Clinton-years economy...but now? I don't believe.

There's that word again - - INSURANCE - -

The insurance "industry" (hey- I always thought industries MADE something useful. Maybe the correct term is RACKET) takes 20 percent off the top of your premiums to pay agent commissions. Then, they need another 25 percent to process the 500 different forms they make you fill out (for free) while you sit in the waiting room.

Get RID OF INSURANCE and HIGH QUALITY health care becomes affordable for all of us.

I agree and I know Obama is intelligent enough to see this. Personally, I believe that his consultants
convinced him that with the resistance he would get from the Insurance and Drug industries, he wouldn't be able to sell the concept to the public, sufficient to get elected. If we USAians are smarter than this then we public needs to let the Obama campaign and members of Congress know this.

We be stupid. We watch TV and believe the propaganda we get fed.

Until we get smart, we get hosed.