quote:Originally posted by katharina: He was being sarcastic.
It really didn't register.
How could it possibly not have? It's an utterly absurd assertion, intended to underscore the ridiculousness of the post it was written in response to.
Maybe I was jetlagged ok? What's the problem, I understand now that it was sarcasm, so leave me alone.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
I love 'solutions' like that. We're throwing money at the system to keep it buoyed, but in order to prevent the appearance of leftist nationalism from being too prevalent, we're socializing it in the least efficient ways possible.
This is my single most fundamental objection to our current system of government. This is the kind of crap that will go on forever if you choose to let it. When did government start working to preserve itself, rather than for us? Or did it ever work for us at all?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:When we had to pay the full amount of our health insurance coverage for two months this summer (in between end of job and start of school) it cost $1300 a month for our family of four. And it was adequate, but not great, insurance. $5000 a year isn't going to cut it.
For a single guy, it's a fine start. It still sounds like a win/win. Employee benefits packages will change markedly, and it'll still ease the burden off of mid-sized businesses.
But a single guy wouldn't get $5000. That's the family level, a single guy gets $2500. That's $208/month, which I believe is less than my monthly premium, although I admit I'm not sure. I'll check when I get to work. Regardless, it would pay for a nice chunk of my premium, but it's not enough for a single person without employer-provided insurance to buy it.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:When we had to pay the full amount of our health insurance coverage for two months this summer (in between end of job and start of school) it cost $1300 a month for our family of four. And it was adequate, but not great, insurance. $5000 a year isn't going to cut it.
For a single guy, it's a fine start. It still sounds like a win/win. Employee benefits packages will change markedly, and it'll still ease the burden off of mid-sized businesses.
Factcheck.org says that McCain was wrong about this -- it's not 5,000 for an individual. It's 2,500 for an individual, 5,000 for a family. Both numbers are woefully short, especially when you toss in the fact that he's taxing employer health benefits. Plus, it adds needless complication to an already fundamentally complicated system. The left hand giveth and the right taketh away.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Factcheck also says "Obama said his health care plan would lower insurance premiums by up to $2,500 a year. Experts we’ve consulted see little evidence such savings would materialize."
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Well, I didn't feel like McCain did himself any favors last night. He didn't come across as smooth and as sure of himself as I expected from him.
Of course, if voters made up their mind on personality alone, then obviously Obama would win handily - he has that charisma and charm and is very articulate in presenting his ideas. (but so are cult leaders).
That's why I try to read most all the policies and bios and facts and information I can get online (without "personality" into it) about both candidates so a decision can be made on issues and values, etc. without putting "hey, he sounds great" emotion into the decision.
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Factcheck also says "Obama said his health care plan would lower insurance premiums by up to $2,500 a year. Experts we’ve consulted see little evidence such savings would materialize."
I noticed that but am not sure what to do with it. There seems to be a difference of opinion on how much his plan would save the country. On the other hand, many experts are saying that far from saving us money, McCain's plan would cost us money.
quote:Originally posted by Farmgirl: That's why I try to read most all the policies and bios and facts and information I can get online (without "personality" into it) about both candidates so a decision can be made on issues and values, etc. without putting "hey, he sounds great" emotion into the decision.
I see what you're saying and agree to a point, but I have to say that I think personality and charisma are huge in a president. One of his primary roles is as a diplomat, after all, so I think it is very relevant that he comes across well in a debate. Also, their ideas and values aren't meaningful if they don't have what it takes to get others to believe in them and pass the legislation. The president is just one man, after all -- a visible and important man -- but he must work with others in order to get his agenda pushed through.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are so many inequities in the way health benefits are taxed today that it would be hard for McCain's plan to be worse than the current system.
If you get health benefits from your employer now, the part your employer pays is exempt from both payroll taxes (FICA) and income taxes and the part you pay is exempt from income tax (It may also be exempt from payroll taxes but I haven't been able to determine this). This is inequitable in two ways. First, those people in the highest tax brackets and with the best insurance plans are getting the biggest government subsidy on their health care. Second, those people who have to pay their insurance premiums out of pocket don't get any tax break unless they can itemize deductions and then they only get to deduct the portion of the medical care costs that exceed 10% of their income.
McCain's plan will effectively eliminate both of these inequities in the current system, which could be a good thing. But for people who are currently getting employee health benefits, it will likely be a break even deal. On the average the amount their tax burden will increase from the loss of the tax exemption for their benefits will cancel out the amount they get from McCain's tax credit. People in the highest tax brackets with the best health insurance will end up paying more People in the lowest tax brackets with the worst (or no) health insurance will end up ahead.
Unfortunately, there won't be many people who end up far enough ahead that they will be able buy insurance if they don't have it now so its not likely to reduce the large number of uninsured or solve any of the other problems with the US health care system.
Two big problems I see with McCain's system are as follows.
1. Inflation in health care is very high. Unless the tax credit is indexed to inflation, it will effectively drop year after year until it covers no more than an annual physical. It will have the same problem we we see with the AMT.
2. Since people won't be required to have health insurance to get the benefit, it could actually encourage more people to make the gamble of going without health insurance or to get extremely minimal coverage. I have to admit that option could be really tempting. For example, My husband and I have never come close to spending $5000/year on medical expenses let alone the roughly $10,000/year that we and our employers have paid for health insurance. We've only met our deductable once in the 18 years we've been married. If we had put that money in a medical savings account with 5% interest instead of paying for insurance, we'd now have $280,000 we could spend on a medical emergency. While I recognize that this amount could be wiped out virtually overnight in an intensive care unit, it would still go a lot further than the insurance which I lost when I left my previous job. I'm not a gambler so I'm not going to take that option and I'll keep paying for insurance, but I know a lot of people who wouldn't and most of them would probably end up spending the difference rather than saving it for emergency medical care.
Ultimately, that would mean more people doing with out routine health care which would exacerbate the poor outcomes of the US health care system. It would also mean more people declaring bankruptcy because of medical problems, more defaults on emergency medical cost and more of everything that is currently wrong with the system.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've paid health insurance for the last 15 years.
I went to the doctor once. He told me I was healthy, but I should quit smoking.
So I paid $17,000 to learn something I already know?
I totally feel like I got screwed.
And if Mccain does do the $5000 credit thing, the health industry is going to speed up their already 20-30% price increase rates.
It reminds me of in Texas a few months ago, right when gas was almost at $4.00 and purtians were swearing loudly as they filled up their gas tanks, the Texas insurance companies said they were raising prices by about 7% across the board because wrecks were up.
uh.....DRIVING is down 20%. Fatalities on Highways down 30% but wrecks are up? Yeah. sure. right.
posted
"2. Since people won't be required to have health insurance to get the benefit, it could actually encourage more people to make the gamble of going without health insurance or to get extremely minimal coverage. I have to admit that option could be really tempting." You don't have to join Obama's plan either. Plus Obama is after the employer and forcing them to participate in his idea of health care and how much it should cost. Even if you would elect not to take Obama's health care plan, Obama will still be deducting the money from your employer's payroll. He has yet to clearly define what a 'small business' is.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: "2. Since people won't be required to have health insurance to get the benefit, it could actually encourage more people to make the gamble of going without health insurance or to get extremely minimal coverage. I have to admit that option could be really tempting." You don't have to join Obama's plan either. Plus Obama is after the employer and forcing them to participate in his idea of health care and how much it should cost. Even if you would elect not to take Obama's health care plan, Obama will still be deducting the money from your employer's payroll. He has yet to clearly define what a 'small business' is.
I'm assuming Obama will stick to the SBA definitions which varies the definition of a small business by industry.
Posts: 21 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: If electronic medical records can save $77 billion a year (and no one knows for sure), it won’t happen during an Obama presidency, even in a second term, according to the RAND study itself. The $77 billion figure represents savings that could occur once 90 percent of doctors and hospitals have adopted and are effectively using electronic medical records, a process RAND estimates will last through the end of 2018. The study assumed a 15-year adoption period, from 2004 through 2018, a span based on the implementation of complex technology in other industries. Savings are substantially less during this period.
RAND study: At 90 percent adoption, we estimate that the potential HIT-enabled efficiency savings for both inpatient and outpatient care could average more than $77 billion per year (an average annual savings of $42 billion during the adoption period).
quote: I'm assuming Obama will stick to the SBA definitions which vary the definition of a small business by industry.
That is a dangerous assumption. From the SBA website
quote: A small business is an concern that is organized for profit, with a place of business in the United States, and which operates primarily within the United States or makes a significant contribution to the U.S. economy through payment of taxes or use of American products, materials or labor. Further, the concern cannot be dominant in its field, on a national basis. Finally, the concern must meet the numerical small business size standard for its industry. SBA has established a size standard for most industries in the U.S. economy. The most common size standards are as follow:
500 employees for most manufacturing and mining industries 100 employees for all wholesale trade industries $6.5 million for most retail and service industries $31 million for most general & heavy construction industries $13 million for all special trade contractors $0.75 million for most agricultural industries About one-fourth of industries have a size standard that is different from these levels. They vary from $0.75 million to $32.5 million for size standards based on average annual revenues and from 100 to 1500 employees for size standards based on number of employees. Several SBA programs have either alternative or unique size standards, such as the Small Business Investment Company Program.
quote: To pay for the plan, Obama would force all but the "smallest businesses" that do not offer health insurance to pay a new tax. While the Obama campaign has not defined "smallest," it has indicated that the plan would cap the number of employees and apply a revenue threshold so that small, high-income businesses such as law firms would not be exempt.
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: "2. Since people won't be required to have health insurance to get the benefit, it could actually encourage more people to make the gamble of going without health insurance or to get extremely minimal coverage. I have to admit that option could be really tempting." You don't have to join Obama's plan either. Plus Obama is after the employer and forcing them to participate in his idea of health care and how much it should cost. Even if you would elect not to take Obama's health care plan, Obama will still be deducting the money from your employer's payroll. He has yet to clearly define what a 'small business' is.
You are missing the point. Under the current system and (Obama's proposal), you don't get the tax benefit unless you spend the money on medical care which gives people an incentive to get medical insurance. Under McCain's plan, that incentive goes away since you get the tax benefit whether you spend the money on medical care or not. If you remove the tax incentive for having health insurance, more people will choose to be uninsured.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Electronic Medical Records could be adopted much more quickly by the industry if: 1. The private sector didn't charge an obscene amount of money for a bad product. Sorry, there are a LOT of crappy EMRs out there. 2. People would adopt the Veterans Affairs' EMR system. I actually prefer it to all the different versions I've seen. Anyone else have familiarity with the various EMRs out there? The VA's system is integrated, simple, responsive, thorough (consent forms, prescriptions, notes, labs), and stable.
Worcester State Hospital uses an absolute utter piece of crap for an EMR. I asked why they use it. I was told (and this is unverified) that they were offered the VA system but turned it down to purchase a program because so-and-so was friends with the software company. Grr.
Edit: PS: Bad EMRs waste a lot of medical staff time.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: You are missing the point. Under the current system and (Obama's proposal), you don't get the tax benefit unless you spend the money on medical care which gives people an incentive to get medical insurance. Under McCain's plan, that incentive goes away since you get the tax benefit whether you spend the money on medical care or not. If you remove the tax incentive for having health insurance, more people will choose to be uninsured.
I don't know if you can make that claim that people will choose to be uninsured. If people are choosing to be uninsured then there must be very little reason to have insurance so it must not be a problem. I think you are missing the point as well. Obama's proposal doesn't care if you take health insurance or not as he is going after the company's payroll to pay for his idea of healthcare.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
" I don't know if you can make that claim that people will choose to be uninsured. If people are choosing to be uninsured then there must be very little reason to have insurance so it must not be a problem." I can. I've posted this before, but one of our Unions insist on an insurance buyout provision in their collective bargaining agreement. The "in-lieu-of' payment is aproximately equal to the cost to the company for the package of benefits that is provided to employees represented by other unions. It is an excelent package, probably the best in the states 16 central counties. Less than 10% of the employees take it, including some couples with children, where both parents opt out. After all, the County will step in if things get too bad and the wage differential will make the payments on a new F-350.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: I don't know if you can make that claim that people will choose to be uninsured. If people are choosing to be uninsured then there must be very little reason to have insurance so it must not be a problem.
I'm not sure if you were joking when you said this, so if you were, just ignore what I'm about to say, because I'm going to take you seriously on that.
There are numerous expenses that weigh down a person, especially in this economy. With car payments, mortgage/rent, gas money, increased food costs, and others, there are many people who have to choose what are the biggest priorities in their life. If a person is only making enough to cover food and rent, some of the luxuries in life have to go. They often have to sell their car and take public transportation.
Such is the same with health insurance. People choose to remain uninsured because they can't feasibly pay for it and pay for other necessities in life. There is a great amount of reason to have insurance, but because of priorities, some simply can't take it.
That said, I don't intend for this post to be an advocation of either candidate's health care proposal. People will argue about who makes health-care more accessible. My point is that there is a reason people are choosing to be uninsured, and that we should try to help them get the insurance they need.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have any faith that the healthcare industry will pass on the savings generated by electronic records to the general population instead of just giving itself a higher profit margin.
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
As the sponser of an excelent employeer provided plan, I am convinced that this problem (and it is a major problem) will not be solved until/ unless we switch to a single payer system. No one will propose that however, as they have to be elected to do anything and the din from the big talk radio echo chamber would sufice to resolve the energy shortfall, could it be harnessed.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
We rarely hear any of the political ads some of you are bombarded with (unless we choose to seek them out on the internet) and we don't have pollsters and recruiters and everyone else bugging us day and night.
In years like this, it is good to be an ignored state.
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: his idea of healthcare.
I might be nit picking here, but this isn't the first time you've used this phrase so I'm curious what the insinuation is. What do you think his idea of healthcare is. What is your idea of healthcare?
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: I don't know if you can make that claim that people will choose to be uninsured. If people are choosing to be uninsured then there must be very little reason to have insurance so it must not be a problem.
I want to ask you if you are joking but you most emphatically are not.
Yes, you can make the claim that people will choose to be uninsured. The cost of health insurance is rapidly increasing and the coverage is getting poorer. Between invalidation for coverage of pre-existing conditions and the profitability structure of providers (deny expensive coverage whenever possible, and use byzantine coverage policy to make this available under most circumstances) a lot of people in the middle and working class have to sacrifice the health coverage, because it's extremely taxing to start forking over hundreds of bucks a month to a company that will provide minimal coverage that won't even take off the thousand dollar sting of most hospital visits.
System broken, system failing, news at 11.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Reference is everything. My post was in response to Rabbit's post and not as a standalone statement.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know! People will make that gamble. The $5000 could get absorbed fast with no benefit, or go towards covering a single hospital bill, because of what I'm talking about.
Because our health care coverage options largely suck when you're poor.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So you're going to identify what his idea of healthcare is only for the purpose of accusing him of something, but you aren't going to define what that conceptualization of yours is.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In my opinion, I don't like how routine health care is rolled into health insurance. Here are the aspects I'd like to see in health care: 1. A health insurance that primarily covers out of the ordinary expenses like hospitalizations and surgeries. Also should probably cover any medical expenses over X amount per year where X has some correlation to income/assets. This should cost a great deal less than the current system. 2. Something like a pre-tax health care allowance that covers specialty office visits, outpatient lab work, and prescriptions. The reason I want it to cover lab work and prescriptions is that I want to put more emphasis on considering which labs or pills to prescribe your patient. Pharmaceutical companies have gotten too good at convincing docs that their patients need a very expensive pill when many others would do the same job. Newer is not better. 3. Primary care could be handled even separately from health care allowance. There are some offices that work under a subscription style policy that I think has a lot going for it. Right now if you don't have health insurance you can belong to one of these local systems. You pay a small monthly fee to belong to that practice(Hillside Health Alliance is one). It's kind of like a cheap boutique. The benefit is low cost with less middle-man, encouraging preventative care, and incentive for primary care docs to retain their patients with higher quality care.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: So you're going to identify what his idea of healthcare is only for the purpose of accusing him of something,
Other than restating information I obtained and linked to from FactCheck, what have I accused him of? Or is any critiscm of Obama forbidden by you?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are accusing him of plenty, like how you think it is a dangerous assumption that Obama would stick to the typical industry definition of small business, etc.
quote:Or is any critiscm of Obama forbidden by you?
Nope, but way to be a tool, champ!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: You are accusing him of plenty, like how you think it is a dangerous assumption that Obama would stick to the typical industry definition of small business, etc.
I did respond to this...with links...
quote: That is a dangerous assumption. From the SBA website
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A small business is an concern that is organized for profit, with a place of business in the United States, and which operates primarily within the United States or makes a significant contribution to the U.S. economy through payment of taxes or use of American products, materials or labor. Further, the concern cannot be dominant in its field, on a national basis. Finally, the concern must meet the numerical small business size standard for its industry. SBA has established a size standard for most industries in the U.S. economy. The most common size standards are as follow:
500 employees for most manufacturing and mining industries 100 employees for all wholesale trade industries $6.5 million for most retail and service industries $31 million for most general & heavy construction industries $13 million for all special trade contractors $0.75 million for most agricultural industries About one-fourth of industries have a size standard that is different from these levels. They vary from $0.75 million to $32.5 million for size standards based on average annual revenues and from 100 to 1500 employees for size standards based on number of employees. Several SBA programs have either alternative or unique size standards, such as the Small Business Investment Company Program. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrepreneurs look to candidates for health care reform quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To pay for the plan, Obama would force all but the "smallest businesses" that do not offer health insurance to pay a new tax. While the Obama campaign has not defined "smallest," it has indicated that the plan would cap the number of employees and apply a revenue threshold so that small, high-income businesses such as law firms would not be exempt. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does it make more sense to you now how Obama's definition differs from the SBA's definition?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
KMB, I have read his plan a few times and I still want much more information about:
quote: TAX CREDITS FOR FAMILIES AND SMALL BUSINESSES. Barack Obama and Joe Biden understand that too many families that do not qualify for public health programs like Medicaid and SCHIP have trouble finding affordable health insurance. They know from talking to small business owners across the nation that the skyrocketing cost of healthcare poses a serious competitive threat to America’s small businesses. The Obama- Biden health care plan will provide tax credits to all individuals who need it for their premiums. They will also create a new Small Business Health Tax Credit to provide small businesses with a refundable tax credit of up to 50 percent on premiums paid by small businesses on behalf of their employees. To be eligible for the credit, small businesses will have to offer a quality health plan to all of their employees and cover a meaningful share of the cost of employee health premiums. (4) EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION. Large 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. Small businesses will be exempt from this requirement.
As I have posted before, what does meaningful coverage mean, or meaningful contribution? How high of a percent of payroll (in other words how much of your pay) will Obama take? Small businesses will be exempt but according to the CNN article I linked he is not using the SBA definition of small business and is applying his own.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't know if you can make that claim that people will choose to be uninsured. If people are choosing to be uninsured then there must be very little reason to have insurance so it must not be a problem.
DK, Right now. under the current system there are many people who could afford health insurance but choose not to so I think its hardly a stretch to project that if the tax incentives are taken away more people will choose to opt out of insurance.
I hope you noted that I started by pointing out that McCain's system would be more equitable than the current system. I hope you might also note that my two big objections to his plan could be fairly easily fixed. You could fix the first one by indexing the tax benefit to inflation in health care (although this might create a positive feed back loop that would drive prices even higher). The second one could be fixed by giving the tax credit only to people who bought insurance.
As for your assessment that if a lot of people don't get insurance, it probably isn't worth it. You seem to be missing the underlying premise of "insurance" or you would understand why the current system is so badly broken.
I'm sure you understand that all forms of insurance are based on shared risk, they are in essence a lottery. Everyone pays into the pot and those who need it, get paid out of the pot. Which means that for any kind of health insurance scheme you can devise, there will be people who have excellent health their entire lives and those people will end up subsidizing health care for those who have unusually poor health and high medical bills. If there wasn't a big insurance company skimming profits off the top, the average person would break even, paying in while they were young and healthy and get paid when they got sick and elderly.
There are multiple problems with this under the US system. First off, a shared risk scheme can only work if you have to pay into it to get benefits out and that isn't the case in our medical system. If you don't have medical insurance and you have a major illness, hospitals are required to treat you. Of course you will get sent the bill, but if you don't have many assets you can declare bankruptcy and walk away from the bill. What happens then is that the rates go up for everyone who is insured. It doesn't take an IQ of 150 to see that under this system if you are young and healthy and/or don't own any assets, paying into the health insurance pool isn't in your self interest, at least in the short term.
The second problem with the US system is that those who don't have good medical coverage, generally don't get routine health care. That means that treatable conditions like high blood pressure are less likely to be detected and controlled early which means bigger more expensive health care problems when you are older. You add to that the tendency for Americans to have no insurance or bad insurance when they are young, and then be covered by insurance when they are established adults and finally covered by the tax payers (Medicaid) when they are retired, and the end results is that the society as a whole ends up paying a high cost for allowing people to go uninsured for some periods of their lives.
The bottom line is that if you are young and healthy, the advantages of going uninsured come right now and they go solely to you. The advantages to you of being insured, may not come until 50 years down the road. The odds are strongly in your favor for going uninsured. And you can rest soundly at night knowing that society will bale you out if you loose the lottery and have a major illness or accident while you are uninsured. You probably don't even think about the fact that society will bale you out again when you are older and have a host of medical problems you could have avoided by have regular check ups now. So yeah, if you are self-centered and short sighted, which a lot of people are, there isn't much benefit to having health insurance.
[ October 08, 2008, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
I would just add this to the mix: There is also cost to uninsured or poorly insured people choosing not to get the preventative medical care that could keep them from getting sick and costing the system lots of money in the future. Also, it may keep them from getting treatment soon enough for odd complaints that turn out to be serious.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Christine: Well said, Rabbit!
I would just add this to the mix: There is also cost to uninsured or poorly insured people choosing not to get the preventative medical care that could keep them from getting sick and costing the system lots of money in the future. Also, it may keep them from getting treatment soon enough for odd complaints that turn out to be serious.
I agree Christine. That's what I was trying to get at with my second point and my high blood pressure example but you said it better.
I'd just like to add one more thing. The system is further complicated by the fact that few people stay with the same employer cradle to grave. In the modern economy, people change jobs frequently and so they change medical plans frequently too. It isn't like we have only two classes, insured and uninsured. We have people who may have excellent insurance now, but went through period in their life when they had no insurance or emergency coverage only. That gives insurers very little incentive to support good preventative medicine because by the time the benefit of prevention comes through, people have very likely moved on to some other insurance pool. It makes short sightedness a virtue if someone else will pay the long term penalty.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Although I disagree with the take the person writing this blog entry had on some of the particular moments in the clip embedded on the page, I found this incredibly interesting, and agree with the blogger that this does say something about the candidates (though it's possible that what he and I think that it says, particularly about McCain, are two different things).
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
what do you think it says about McCain? It seemed to me that he was rushing through that minute and a half to get out there. He seemed to go from handshake to handshake quickly, while Obama slowly made his way around chit chatting with the audience.
I don't think the pat on the back was patronizing at all, but I do think snubbing his handshake was nonsensical.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
One thing I had not considered until it was pointed out was that McCain's war injuries put him at a disadvantage in anything that requires a lot of walking. So, him leaving immediately could easily have been related to that.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure what it says. Did he leave because he just didn't want to be there? That's at odds with a forum that he's generally considered more comfortable in. Did he have somewhere to be, like a plane taking off or a bus leaving? I'm not even convinced that he snubbed Obama there. It looked like Obama's hand kept shooting out automatically to shake someone's hand, and what they were saying to each other easily could have been "Oh hey here's my wife" and it was perfectly fine.
The fact that Obama hung around even after McCain left, when he was perfectly I would think within his rights to take off as well without anyone saying anything is probably somewhat telling. It was a closed, secure venue, which meant he could walk around freely and talk to whoever he wanted about whatever anyone wanted, without anyone else really listening in.
McCain leaving wasn't necessarily a negative, but Obama staying and doing what he did was a positive I think.
PS, the part where the woman hugs Obama and then dances a little bit is adorable and funny.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not even convinced that he snubbed Obama there. It looked like Obama's hand kept shooting out automatically to shake someone's hand, and what they were saying to each other easily could have been "Oh hey here's my wife" and it was perfectly fine.
i think you may be right there. i watched it again, and it looks like Obama's hand shoots out automatically. he realizes what he's done, McCain says something along the lines of what you suggested, then makes a joke about all the hands they've been shaking, and they both laugh.
I agree it says something positive about Obama, but not necessarily anything negative about McCain.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for the link, Cerridwen. Basically, I don't like either plan. They both have some good goals, they both have some dumb goals, but I don't care for either implmentation.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Strider: what do you think it says about McCain?
Well, my thought when I wrote that was that in the clips I've seen of the debate (I listened to it on NPR when it was happening, so I haven't seen the whole thing yet) McCain seemed stiffer (physically) than usual. I felt like that, combined with his leaving early, probably meant that he wasn't doing well physically, and needed to get out of the public eye and collapse into a comfortable chair or something (in light of that I wondered if Cindy McCain's weird "follow McCain as though on a tether" thing was her essentially spotting him or something). In other words, more or less what scholarette said.
I thought that the blogger seemed hostile enough to have attributed something silly like "McCain can't stand to be in the same room with Obama" or "McCain has distain for the public" to his early exit.
Now that I've thought about it more, though, it seems entirely likely that Lyrhawn's suggestion is correct, and he just had a schedule to keep. I'd be curious to know where he went after the debate.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, my thought when I wrote that was that in the clips I've seen of the debate (I listened to it on NPR when it was happening, so I haven't seen the whole thing yet) McCain seemed stiffer (physically) than usual.
In his demeanor or his delivery? I only make the distinction because I thought his delivery was pretty much equal to what he did in the first debate, but the physical contrast between him and Obama in this debate was far more pronounced than in the first. Obama, when not answering a question, sat on his stool and thoughtfully kept his attention locked on McCain as he answered. When Obama was answering, McCain was wandering around the stage like he was looking for his car keys. I think part of his problem might have been that, while he IS good in town hall formats, he's really not used to town hall DEBATES, and I think people underestimate that factor when they automatically credit him with a natural advantage in that setting.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
