Obama vs McCain - What Will They Do for Healthcare Reform?

[Cleverboy]

In the face of escalating costs, uneven quality of care, and the growth of the uninsured population, there is broad agreement that the U.S. health care system requires reform. However, Democrats and Republicans remain sharply divided over how to reform it, as evidenced by the health care plans offered by the parties' presidential candidates. The ambitious reform agendas of Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Barack Obama (D-IL) would take the U.S. health care system in very different directions.

McCain's plan embraces market forces and promotes individually purchased insurance (see red box). Its centerpiece is a change in the tax treatment of health insurance.

The Obama campaign emphasizes that its plan offers a choice of insurance options. Rather than deciding whether public or private insurance is a better model, the plan would allow people to choose between them.
New England Journal of Medicine
The Partisan Divide — The McCain and Obama
Plans for U.S. Health Care Reform
Jonathan Oberlander, Ph.D.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/359/8/781

Listen to Oberlander's interview on Fresh Air:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93975730

Talk about a huge philosophical divide. If the Democrats keep the majority, I don't see McCain's plans going anywhere, but boy, that would suck to have my healthcare taxed up front. Yikes. The amount of changes Obama's plan would require seem pretty ambitious though.



Oberlander says the McCain and Obama plans would essentially move the system in exactly opposite directions.

"While Sen. Obama wants to build on top of the employer-sponsored insurance system, Sen. McCain wants to build away from it and move more people to the individual insurance market," he said.

In fact, says Oberlander, in many ways the current debate reminds him of the movie Groundhog Day — except he keeps waking up and thinking it's 1992.

"The stock Democratic health reform solution, before Bill Clinton changed it, was a play-or-pay employer mandate, and that's exactly what Barack Obama has," Oberlander says. "And in 1992, the favorite GOP solution was tax credits to buy private health insurance. So, a lot of things have happened in 16 years; the health care system is much worse than it was, but we pretty much have the same solutions that we've always had."

~ CB

[blackfox]

Healthcare reform is such a giant task, I am not confident either candidate will accomplish that much...

That said, I am not sure I understand the logic behind McCain's plan.

It appears that he would like to dismantle employer-based healthplans in favor of plans purchased by individuals. This effectively eliminates any leverage on negotiation that a large organization (such as employers) have by virtue of their size(There are somewhere around 150 million adults covered by workplace insurance.). How individuals can negotiate a lower rate than large groups is a mystery - it runs counter to economies of scale. This dismantling, of course, is in the form of taxing employees health care premiums - which would be a strong incentive for any company to stop providing any.

It would also appear that McCains plan would further deregulate an already pretty unregulated market. Currently, many states have regulations forcing Insurance companies to offer coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, providing inclusive benefits and modulating premiums. States vary widely, however, on their regulations - and McCain would allow people to purchase policies from other states. It doesn't take a rocket-scientist to figure out where these insurance companies will go, if this were to take effect - and where people would be forced to follow...

There is also the cost. McCain would give tax-credits of $2500 and $5000 (single and family) to offset insurance costs. Will this cover premiums? How much would the difference be? Is it more or less than current premiums through workplace insurance? If it is more, well, then what is being accomplished?

Feel free to dispute any of the above, I am no expert - but from what I've read, it seems that the above is likely.

As for Obama's plan - I will deal with that in a separate post.

[atszyman]

In reality both plans suck, but McCain's sucks more. Both are still relying on private, for profit, health insurance companies which are part of the problem to begin with.

McCain's plan will centralize the entire health insurance industry in the states with the least stringent regulation (ever wonder why your credit card bills all go to South Dakota and Delaware?) and put the entire burden on the individual, which would lead to fewer insured individuals and higher premiums for those who have insurance, although after 4 years of that, we'd probably see a massive shift in support for single payer, universal healthcare. As for the $2500/$5000 credit it wouldn't even come close. We've seen what our employers pay for our insurance and it's easily 2x that amount, and how many people will see a pay bump when their employer drops insurance coverage to save money? I highly doubt the saved premiums will find their way back to the workers paychecks.

Obama's plan should increase the coverage rate, in theory, and will at least try to make sure that all children are covered. This might lead to a decrease in medical expenses due to people seeking preventative care rather than waiting until an illness warrants an ER visit. But in leaving the for profit insurance industry alone, most of the uninsured would opt for the cheapest plan they can get which would be coupled with high deductibles and co-pays which would not necessarily help increase preventative care, although at least some of the ER visit would be paid by the insurance which should translate into (slightly) lower premiums for everyone.

I like Obama's plan better, but McCain's would get us to true Universal Healthcare faster.

[Cleverboy]

I like Obama's plan better, but McCain's would get us to true Universal Healthcare faster.Whoa. McCain's healthcare reform get's us to "Universal Healthcare"? Obama hasn't ruled out a mandate that would bring us to universal coverage, but has opted in the meantime for universal access. McCain... actually doesn't support universal healthcare AT ALL.

Maybe you're thinking about Clinton's propsal? There are substantial concerns that even matching it to the rate of inflation, McCain's "credit" would be outstripped by the rate of premium increases.

http://cameron.blogs.foxnews.com/2007/10/31/mccain-no-to-universal-health-care/
John McCain is making it clear — he’s against mandatory health insurance.

He’s said it before, but the Senator emphasized his position Wednesday at a health care forum organized by a hospital trade association in DC.

MCCAIN: “I don’t think that there should be a mandate for every American to have health insurance. I think that one of our goals should be that every American own their own home, but I’m not going to mandate that every American own their own home. I think that every American should have, be available to, an affordable college education. But I’m not going to mandate that every American go to college. I feel the same way about health care. If it’s affordable and available, then it seems to me that again, it’s a matter of choice amongst Americans.”

One highlight of McCain’s health policy is a tax credit of $2500 per individual or $5000 per family to pay for health insurance.

Policy aides clarified details of that proposal Wednesday. They say workers would have to pay taxes on the dollar amount of coverage provided by an employer. But they say the new insurance credit would more than offset the extra taxes for all but the wealthiest Americans. The tax deduction to employers providing insurance would stay in place.

~ CB

[atszyman]

Whoa. McCain's healthcare reform get's us to "Universal Healthcare"? Obama hasn't ruled out a mandate that would bring us to universal coverage, but has opted in the meantime for universal access. McCain... actually doesn't support universal healthcare AT ALL.

Maybe you're thinking about Clinton's propsal? There are substantial concerns that even matching it to the rate of inflation, McCain's "credit" would be outstripped by the rate of premium increases.

http://cameron.blogs.foxnews.com/2007/10/31/mccain-no-to-universal-health-care/


~ CB

No, I meant what I said. Obama's plan will get more people covered and make things slightly more tolerable making the current system hang on for a longer period still holding onto the idea of private for profit heath insurance as the only form of insurance for quite awhile. Where if you take McCain's plan and dump the full expense of health insurance in the lap of the individual without any increase in pay despite their employers saving lots of money, I give it 1-2 elections before we have a president and congress pushing true single payer universal healthcare.

Obama's plan is a bandaid. McCain's ripps off the scab and cuts it open some more to force the reform (albeit an unintended consequence) where Obama's will delay it longer by improving the current system.

McCain's plan would cause the voters enough pain to make it a very high priority in 4-6 years.

[Cleverboy]

Where if you take McCain's plan and dump the full expense of health insurance in the lap of the individual without any increase in pay despite their employers saving lots of money, I give it 1-2 elections before we have a president and congress pushing true single payer universal healthcare.Ok, that was ONE of my other guesses at what you meant. You really need to articulate that more clearly. :D You're saying McCain's plan would be so BAD and PAINFUL to the American public, that the push for Universal Healthcare would be increased to the point where it would be more likely to happen.

If you present it like that, its easier to disagree with it directly. Simply put... McCain's plan is SO BAD that it will NEVER PASS. You might as well call it a "universal gallstone". The American public is so used to employer provided healthcare systems "untaxed", that changing that around as a "credit" would be (and is) reviled as a mere suggestion.

So, what you end up having... is an Obama plan that has the potential to pass in pieces, and to be strengthened and expanded overtime... or a McCain plan, that... much like George Bush's privatized retirement... will be a "non-starter", and healthcare reform will once again be in limbo as it has been. This was Kennedy's contention... this from a man who's been fighting on the issue for decades.
Obama's plan is a bandaid. Or... its a place to start.
McCain's plan would cause the voters enough pain to make it a very high priority in 4-6 years. Or it will be such a weak movement that it will be quickly forgotten as a policy initiative that solely existed so that the candidate had something to talk about on an issue (healthcare) that exists as one of the main planks in the Democratic platform.

I admire "chess" playing, but thinking McCain's plan will do much of anything except die, seems like a bad move. Honestly, one of the reasons I liked Obama's plan, is because it seemed more likely to find bi-partisan support than Clinton's. Clinton's seemed to provide a much more diametrically opposed idea to McCain's... and I gave it the same chance of passing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kica8hmSdAM

~ CB

[killr_b]

You really think either of them can/ will change anything? :rolleyes:

[it5five]

I don't like either of their plans, as neither of them are true attempts at universal single-payer coverage. Both of them still benefit the private profit-driven health"care" industry and don't benefit the average citizen.

Kucinich was the only Democratic candidate that had a reasonable healthcare plan. Nader has it right, which is yet another reason I'd support him before I would Obama.

[Cleverboy]

Kucinich was the only Democratic candidate that had a reasonable healthcare plan. Nader has it right, which is yet another reason I'd support him before I would Obama. Mm. So, you feel Obama's comments on Single-payer amount to what? Empty rhetoric? Flip-flopping? I'm actually curious. I feel there's some clear reasoning going on there, and not simple politicking.

http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/05/fact_check_obama_consistent_in.php
Reality: Obama Has Consistently Said That If We Were Starting From Scratch, He Would Support A Single Payer System, But Now We Need To Build On The System We Have

If Obama Were Starting From Scratch, He Would Support A Single Payer System. The New Yorker wrote, "'If you're starting from scratch,' he [Obama] says, 'then a single-payer system'-a government-managed system like Canada's, which disconnects health insurance from employment-'would probably make sense. But we've got all these legacy systems in place, and managing the transition, as well as adjusting the culture to a different system, would be difficult to pull off. So we may need a system that's not so disruptive that people feel like suddenly what they've known for most of their lives is thrown by the wayside.'"
http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/08/19/obama-says-single-payer-health-care-makes-sense/
Barack Obama said he would consider embracing a single-payer health-care system sometime in the future as his plan for broader health coverage evolves, the WSJ’s Amy Chozick reports from the campaign trail.

“If I were designing a system from scratch, I would probably go ahead with a single-payer system,” Obama told some 1,800 people at a town-hall meeting on the economy in
Albuquerque, New Mexico.

The single-payer approach has its boosters, who say monolithic medicine would cover everyone, take the profit out of health insurance and allow for greater efficiencies. But critics, including every Republican we can think of, cringe at the elimination of competition and deep government involvement in the private sector.
Nader has kind of thrown everyone under the bus on the issue, but not really presented the truth clearly:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Ralph_Nader_Health_Care.htm
All the candidates--McCain, Obama and Clinton--are against single payer health insurance, full Medicare for all. I'm for it, as well as millions of Americans and 59% of physicians in a forthcoming poll this April.
A rather LARGE part of the healthcare question has to do with how one would approach implementing it and getting bi-partisan support so that it actually HAPPENS. Anyone can sell a dream if you've no realistic intention behind it, further than providing a platform to draw attention to the issue (which I admit is a positive).
In case more money is needed to fund such a program, he says, it could come from “the fat cats on Wall Street who buy millions of shares and hundreds of thousands of options every day, and trillions of dollars of transcations every week — they don’t pay any sales tax.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmtIV35gwfA

~ CB

[it5five]

Mm. So, you feel Obama's comments on Single-payer amount to what? Empty rhetoric? Flip-flopping? I'm actually curious. I feel there's some clear reasoning going on there, and not simple politicking.

Until he makes it the most important part of his healthcare plan, then yes, it is simply empty rhetoric to me. When he is working through the very corporations who are responsible for the poor excuse of healthcare we have in this country, it's empty rhetoric.

Nader has kind of thrown everyone under the bus on the issue, but not really presented the truth clearly:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Ralph_Nader_Health_Care.htm

I don't see how he isn't presenting the truth clearly. Obama is against single-payer universal healthcare, or at least that is what his current position on it tells me. Maybe if he would adopt his "ideal situation" position I'd think otherwise. The words "single-payer" don't appear at all on his website right now.

A rather LARGE part of the healthcare question has to do with how one would approach implementing it and getting bi-partisan support so that it actually HAPPENS. Anyone can sell a dream if you've no realistic intention behind it, further than providing a platform to draw attention to the issue (which I admit is a positive).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmtIV35gwfA

~ CB

If American voters weren't so incredibly stupid, it could easily be done if the Democrats framed the issue of universal single-payer healthcare as a basic human right, which it is. But American voters are stupid, and the Democratic party is just as beholden to corporate interests (including the healthcare industry) as the Republican party. We won't see any serious healthcare reform from Obama, despite his talk.

[Cleverboy]

I don't see how he isn't presenting the truth clearly. Obama is against single-payer universal healthcare, or at least that is what his current position on it tells me. Maybe if he would adopt his "ideal situation" position I'd think otherwise.Well, unfortunately I tend to believe that we don't live in a perfect world. Everytime I've ever attacked a large project and tried to make sweeping change, I've never succeeded. Obama isn't against "single-payer". He doesn't think its feasible RIGHT NOW. If you're "against" something, you simply say "no", you don't say, "not at this time". McCain is AGAINST single-payer. Ideologically he feels that it represents the encroachment of big government interference in the free market. Obama's website is exactly where the link in my previous post... clarifying his position on the single-payer issue... is from.

The words "single-payer" don't appear at all on his website right now.
Here is a Google link that searches Obama's website for mentions of "single-payer":
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=single-payer+site:barackobama.com

On page two, you'll see this Utah group that supports Obama for his support of single-payer as an option on where our healthcare system could go:
http://iowa.barackobama.com/page/group/HealthcareforAllwithSinglePayerIns-UT

They further link here:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/bobhealthcareadvocate/CnWZ

It's ALL OVER his site. There's about 2700 mentions noted in Google.

If American voters weren't so incredibly stupid, it could easily be done if the Democrats framed the issue of universal single-payer healthcare as a basic human right, which it is. But American voters are stupid, and the Democratic party is just as beholden to corporate interests (including the healthcare industry) as the Republican party. We won't see any serious healthcare reform from Obama, despite his talk. I don't think American voters are stupid. That's kind of a non-starter. You don't have to be stupid to be misinformed.

The words "single-payer" don't appear at all on his website right now.
Here is a Google link that only searches "www.barackobama.com" for single-payer. There are 19 separate pages discussing the topic.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&rls=en-us&q=single-payer+site%3Awww.barackobama.com

~ CB

[atszyman]

Ok, that was ONE of my other guesses at what you meant. You really need to articulate that more clearly. :D You're saying McCain's plan would be so BAD and PAINFUL to the American public, that the push for Universal Healthcare would be increased to the point where it would be more likely to happen.

If you present it like that, its easier to disagree with it directly. Simply put... McCain's plan is SO BAD that it will NEVER PASS. You might as well call it a "universal gallstone". The American public is so used to employer provided healthcare systems "untaxed", that changing that around as a "credit" would be (and is) reviled as a mere suggestion.

I realize that McCain's plan has little chance of passing especially given a democratic congress, but I worked from the position that both plans pass as is.

I hear a lot of people talk about health savings accounts and catastrophic insurance as a solution. Employer provided healthcare's days are numbered, U.S. companies are spending a lot of money on employee healthcare and it's making it more difficult to compete in a global economy. By the time I retire I think it will be hard to find an employer that still provides subsidized insurance, I just hope we've implemented a good solution by then.

So, what you end up having... is an Obama plan that has the potential to pass in pieces, and to be strengthened and expanded overtime... or a McCain plan, that... much like George Bush's privatized retirement... will be a "non-starter", and healthcare reform will once again be in limbo as it has been. This was Kennedy's contention... this from a man who's been fighting on the issue for decades.

As I said I like Obama's plan more than McCain's.

Or... its a place to start.

Unfortunately just like gas and other things if we provide a fix, the motivation to really fix it will wane for a few years until things start to get bad again. While Obama's plan is a better place to start. McCain's plan, on the big if that it could pass would get us there much faster than the evolution (or maybe it's Inteligent Design) Obama's plan puts into place.

Or it will be such a weak movement that it will be quickly forgotten as a policy initiative that solely existed so that the candidate had something to talk about on an issue (healthcare) that exists as one of the main planks in the Democratic platform.

I admire "chess" playing, but thinking McCain's plan will do much of anything except die, seems like a bad move. Honestly, one of the reasons I liked Obama's plan, is because it seemed more likely to find bi-partisan support than Clinton's. Clinton's seemed to provide a much more diametrically opposed idea to McCain's... and I gave it the same chance of passing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kica8hmSdAM

~ CB

I've actually outlined before how I think healthcare is going to progress in this country and unfortunately I see it getting much worse before it gets better. I used to say we were about 20 years away, I think it might be more like 40, if we can keep the democrats in control for a few terms. I believe that employers will start to drop coverage, and that things will get worse as far as the insurance goes. If the democrats keep in charge we'll end up with single payer, in that taxes will subsidize private, for profit, health insurance for awhile as employers drop coverage and people can't afford it. If the GOP gets control we'll end up with more pain on the voters faster which will push the single payer universal plan into place faster.

[Cleverboy]

I realize that McCain's plan has little chance of passing especially given a democratic congress, but I worked from the position that both plans pass as is. I know... its an interesting perspective, but for me... its FAR too unnervingly like the P.U.M.A. perspective that because their chosen candidate wasn't elected... that they push for McCain, depend on him doing a poor job, and look for Clinton to come back in 2012. The amount of CRAP and damage that can happen won't necessarily work in the country's favor. It's something of a Pyrrhic Victory in the fullest sense of the word... even as a hypothetical projection you don't personally support... its a total wildcard.

You look like you've got a deep view of how things will go. I'm thinking that we have no idea what the country will look like in 10 or 20 years, especially if we don't start fixing the broken things, bit by bit.

~ CB

[atszyman]

I know... its an interesting perspective, but for me... its FAR too unnervingly like the P.U.M.A. perspective that because their chosen candidate wasn't elected... that they push for McCain, depend on him doing a poor job, and look for Clinton to come back in 2012. The amount of CRAP and damage that can happen won't necessarily work in the country's favor. It's something of a Pyrrhic Victory in the fullest sense of the word... even as a hypothetical projection you don't personally support... its a total wildcard.

You look like you've got a deep view of how things will go. I'm thinking that we have no idea what the country will look like in 10 or 20 years, especially if we don't start fixing the broken things, bit by bit.

~ CB

I'm just thinking that in the past it took the Civil War to end slavery, it took the Depression to get social programs to protect us in place, it took Pearl Harbor to get us into WWII, things don't change her until it really hurts. Healthcare is going to be one of our next big challenges and much like most things where we finally make progress things will probably have to fail completely or come damn close before we really get where we need to be. Much like doing things to lower the price of gas only keep us dependent on it.

While I'd like to find a not so painful path to healthcare but making it easier only pushes the issue back as something more dire comes to the forefront.

[EricNau]

You really think either of them can/ will change anything? :rolleyes:
No, I don't. ...They never do.

[Cleverboy]

I'm just thinking that in the past it took the Civil War to end slavery, it took the Depression to get social programs to protect us in place, it took Pearl Harbor to get us into WWII, things don't change her until it really hurts. Healthcare is going to be one of our next big challenges and much like most things where we finally make progress things will probably have to fail completely or come damn close before we really get where we need to be. Much like doing things to lower the price of gas only keep us dependent on it. For what its worth, I totally think you'd play a mean game of SimCity Societies. I just wouldn't want to live there. :)

~ CB

[it5five]

Here is a Google link that only searches "www.barackobama.com" for single-payer. There are 19 separate pages discussing the topic.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&rls=en-us&q=single-payer+site%3Awww.barackobama.com

~ CB

You are right. What I should have said was that in the "Healthcare" section on his issues page, there is no mention of single payer.

[stevento]

McCain will do nothing to reform healthcare. His plan is to manipulate tax laws to give families a $5000 tax cut to buy healthcare.
McCain is more of the same.

[és:]

Socialise it, for goodness sake.

[atszyman]

For what its worth, I totally think you'd play a mean game of SimCity Societies. I just wouldn't want to live there. :)

~ CB

When I'm in charge and can do what I want I'm less apt to do the painful portion. Unfortunately the painful portion is the only way a large subset of the voting public will realize they've been voting against their own self interests.

[Dmac77]

No, I don't. ...They never do.
Correct. They're all politicians, which means that they exist to screw normal people over. Personally I prefer McCain's plain, because I don't like the idea of moving towards a "single-payer" plan. It's to much like the plans that has been implemented across Europe, and in Canada. I personally believe that all of the cost of health care issues can be traced back to trial attorneys. They file frivolous lawsuits against doctors and hospitals, which causes the cost of malpractice insurance to skyrocket, which causes the cost of healthcare to skyrocket, which causes the cost of health insurance to skyrocket. The solution is simple IMO, stop the trial attorneys, put a cap on the price of malpractice insurance, put a cap on the cost of health care/medications, and as a result the cost of health insurance goes down, and if it doesn't put a cap on it.

Don

[Cleverboy]

Personally I prefer McCain's plain, because I don't like the idea of moving towards a "single-payer" plan. It's to much like the plans that has been implemented across Europe, and in Canada. I personally believe that all of the cost of health care issues can be traced back to trial attorneys. They file frivolous lawsuits against doctors and hospitals, which causes the cost of malpractice insurance to skyrocket, which causes the cost of healthcare to skyrocket, which causes the cost of health insurance to skyrocket. The solution is simple IMO, stop the trial attorneys, put a cap on the price of malpractice insurance, put a cap on the cost of health care/medications, and as a result the cost of health insurance goes down, and if it doesn't put a cap on it.Great rebuttal. That's exactly what McCain's trying to combat in his plan.

~ CB

[Dmac77]

Great rebuttal. That's exactly what McCain's trying to combat in his plan.

~ CB

True, but I personally don't like either of their plans. What I suggested will most likely never come to fruition. They both just end up screwing us over in the end IMO. I personally think that they both would fail. I don't like Obama's plan, because what he eventually wants is a fully fledged government owned program, and in almost every implementation of this type of plan it has failed. There needs to be a happy medium, with the companies making profits, and the government making sure that they don't gouge us. Like I said get rid of the trial attorneys, and the problem is solved. Caps might not even be needed.

Don

[Cleverboy]

There needs to be a happy medium, with the companies making profits, and the government making sure that they don't gouge us. Like I said get rid of the trial attorneys, and the problem is solved. Caps might not even be needed.You ever read "The Appeal" by John Grisham? There's an interesting spin at the end where a judge that was against malpractice lawsuits, has his son hit in the head by a ball that that knocked him off the pitchers mound, off of a non-regulation bat. He took him to a doctor that accidentally diagnosed his condition from the wrong x-rays and later discovered his son was suffering silently from untreated cranial swelling. It was a freakish irony, where he immediately felt impotent to deal with the problem of incompetence from his doctor at an extremely crucial point that would determine his son's future. It was a good read. I'm not so sure getting rid of attorneys is so simple a solution. It's on iTunes. Good audiobook.

~ CB

[it5five]

Correct. They're all politicians, which means that they exist to screw normal people over. Personally I prefer McCain's plain, because I don't like the idea of moving towards a "single-payer" plan. It's to much like the plans that has been implemented across Europe, and in Canada.

Don

Oh no! We wouldn't want a cheaper, more effective system that covers everyone. The horror! Poor people with healthcare? It's a disgusting thought.

[stevento]

Socialise it, for goodness sake.

i think the democratic plan is to give socialized healthcare to those who want it and let everyone else buy their own private coverage.
but i think 10 years from now, private companies will die because the socialized care is going to be just as good and far cheaper. and socialized care isn't going to give you crap about "you have to go to the doctor on the other side of town because that doctor is in our network."

[és:]

There needs to be a happy medium, with the companies making profits

Don

I have no idea why people accept this. The profits made by these companies could go back into the pockets of the people paying for the healthcare (that'll be you!) instead of some shareholder's pocket.

New hospitals, more nurses, more doctors... or a slice of the big fat pie for men in suits that have nothing to do with healthcare other than owning a share.

[solvs]

I have no idea why people accept this.
Because the system is already in place, and believe it or not, some people actually have really good insurance that covers them better than universal healthcare would. Some people like having more and better. Or at least, in some cases where it isn't much better, if at all, but it seems so. Plus the insurance companies would fight it tooth and nail, and then nothing would happen.

Like I said get rid of the trial attorneys, and the problem is solved.

They've already tried tort reform, and it didn't do much good at all. While I'm sure almost everyone hates frivolous lawsuits, this is so much more complicated than that. I like the mixed kinda, somewhat like Germany's, where you can have private or employer based healthcare, well regulated preferably, or have something to fall back on if that's not an option. The evils of socialized medicine are greatly exaggerated, though it is not a perfect system, but I wonder if those who are so against it actually know what's going on in the world of healthcare right now. It's a mess, and a nightmare, even if you have insurance. Let alone if you don't.

Someone has to do something. And soon. I don't know exactly what, and I don't know if either of them really can, but whoever is the next Pres needs to get together with Congress, and those in the industry, and figure out a solution. People are suffering now, and this is as important as anything else currently weighing on people's mind's as they vote.

The return of Harry and Louise (http://www.standupforhealthcare.org/)

And for those still wondering if it'll be too expensive:

Saving Money With Universal Healthcare (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/08/26/saving-money-with-universal-healthcare/)

As noted so many times, we already pay more even while we get less.