Second Presidential Debate

[DaemonSeid]

My last point before I go to bed...McCain said out of his own mouth that he is not in favor of taxing the rich (I believe that includes himself and Cindy too)

"I've got some news, Sen. Obama, the news is bad. So let's not raise anybody's taxes, my friends, and make it be very clear to you I am not in favor of tax cuts for the wealthy. I am in favor of leaving the tax rates alone and reducing the tax burden on middle-income Americans by doubling your tax exemption for every child from $3,500 to $7,000."

and that $7000 is a spit in the bucket Senator McCain and where are you going to get that money from and what about us without kids...how much do we get back because for some God forsaken reason, I wind up owing the gov't annually (not alot but enough to make me hate tax time) and there are some rich bastids out there who don't pay at all.


and ummm what about those fools in AIG that just got bailed out of the financial mess and ran off 400G?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081008/...RKrKCsvaes0NUE


Way off the topic....why is there a storm out there called Norbert? Sheesh....

Good night all

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

I don't get why we attach health insurance in this country to employers. The two have nothing to do with each other.

I agree completely, this is exactly (one of) the key problem(s) with modern health insurance, and it's a bastardization of market conditions that has led to awful unintended consequences.

However, the solution to fixing this issue isn't necessarily nationalization or "forcing" insurance on people. Indeed, this sort of nationalization would seem to play exactly into the current problems with health insurance - namely, that the insurance companies themselves are the policymaker (pun completely intended).

If you want affordable medical care for every American, this is a completely different issue than nationwide health insurance for every American. The entire concept of insurance is pooling risk - simply handing out insurance without additional intake in premiums would be a disaster, and would force the insurance companies themselves to round up more income. Guess how that would happen?

Again - health insurance is a commodity. Medical care is, as well, to a certain extent - but one that can be subsidized by the State. Why do we focus on the former instead of the latter? Why allow the insurance cabal to affect the cost of the latter, period, in a misguided attempt to "have it both ways" and prop up a crappy system?

For the record, neither candidate's plan seems to address this fundamental disconnect in a substantive fashion.

[CrackerBarrel]

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

CrackerBarrel (love your rocking chairs, btw), what do you pay each month for health insurance?

I don't get why we attach health insurance in this country to employers. The two have nothing to do with each other.

I've got grad student health insurance through my school, so it's pretty low.

I think that insurance attached to employers for reasons that are two-fold: one is that companies with highly skilled workforces need to keep their workers healthy because they are hard to replace, so it was in their interest to insure them. Then unskilled workers saw what was going on and collective bargaining led to a lot of union workers getting health insurance, and it kind of spread from there.

[pinksirfidel]

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

I don't get why we attach health insurance in this country to employers. The two have nothing to do with each other.

I never thought of that... you bring up a valid point!

Originally Posted by CrackerBarrel

I think that insurance attached to employers for reasons that are two-fold: one is that companies with highly skilled workforces need to keep their workers healthy because they are hard to replace, so it was in their interest to insure them. Then unskilled workers saw what was going on and collective bargaining led to a lot of union workers getting health insurance, and it kind of spread from there.

That makes a lot of sense.

[AGDee]

"The Straight Talk Express lost a wheel on that one".. lol. They just played that clip of Obama on tv this morning. I must've missed that line when I was getting home and had to go from car to home. I think it trumps "Say it ain't so, Joe" as a one liner (and it's grammatically correct).

Mortgage bailouts: It seems to me that McCain's plan would be doing exactly what he argues against in most instances.. nationalizing our mortgage system rather than leaving it to the private sector. I don't think I want the government being our primary mortgage lender. I think regulation of the private sector's practices makes more sense than creating yet another large government agency.

Health care: I've been working in health care for 21 years now so I feel like I know a bit about it. There are so many facets to this. Some facets are commodities (pharmaceuticals, durable medical equipment, etc), some are not. In Michigan, all hospitals are required to be non-profit. As a non-profit, I don't think you can argue that it is a commodity. However, all the vendors that a hospital must use are commodities. It's just not cut and dried. *If* we don't see health care as a right, then why must hospitals treat anybody who walks into the ER and eat the cost? They should be able to require payment immediately. Physicians in our medical group earn approximately $150K a year. This is NOTHING compared to what the top earners in "commodity" businesses make. They aren't getting $47 million severance packages, that's for sure. They are saving lives, keeping us alive, making us healthy and that's what they make. They also spend significantly more than the rest of us on their educations and pay extraordinary amounts of money in malpractice insurance (another commodity that feeds off of the health care industry). Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Michigan is non-profit. Other health insurances in Michigan are not.

Dictionary.com's first definition of commodity is: 1. an article of trade or commerce, esp. a product as distinguished from a service.

Health care is a service that needs to utilize commodities to provide that service. I wouldn't call it a commodity in and of itself. I believe it is a right as in "The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Without health care, the right to live and pursuit of happiness is pretty near impossible for many. Personally, I put it in the same category as Education. Education is also a service that utilizes commodities to provide the service. We have a right to equal opportunity to education and it is my personal belief that health care should be treated the same way. I don't think the agencies (hospitals) that provide the service should be the ones who bear the burden when the people don't have a way to pay for it. Car mechanics aren't required to fix your car if you can't pay for the service and parts. Why are hospitals required to fix people if they can't pay? Because we (society) recognize that human life is valuable.

People will always say "well there's a free clinic in my neighborhood" and that's great to hear. It's not true in many neighborhoods. In many neighborhoods, the only way people get free care is for the hospitals to eat the cost of ER visits for things like strep throat, sinus infections and indigestion.

And yes, this credit crisis is also hitting the health care industry. If the credit market doesn't open up soon, health systems may not have cash flow to purchase the needed commodities to provide their service. The health care system that I work for had much invested in the Reserve Primary Fund (money market), which is where our Pensions were. If you haven't heard of this fund, you can read more about it here: http://www.usnews.com/blogs/new-mone...-may-lose.html
But it fell below $1 because it was holding bonds from Lehman Brothers. What a mess. They have to guarantee our pensions so that money has to come from other sources now. Add that to the extra millions of dollars of free care we're providing now that the unemployment rate in Michigan has been over 7% for months on end...

My basic point is that health care is not nearly as cut and dried as "is it a commodity, right, privilege or responsibility?"

[ajuhdg]

Wow many points to comment on. I think CrackerBarrel said that 'you saw what you wanted to see'. My husband and I watched it and he kept saying, 'I don't know how ANYONE could want to vote for that idiot! He's making absolutely NO sense.' (referring to Obama). I explained that Obama supporters are probably saying the same thing about McCain. I don't expect to see ONE person on here or anywhere else who supports either candidate to say that the other one took it. Just won't happen.

My favorite part: Obama saying 'Tal-EEE-ban'. Everytime he said it we broke into 'Come Mr. Tal-ee-ban, Tal-e-me-ba-na-na'. I also wish that he could find another buzz word than 'fundamental'. VERY overused.

BO seemed like a robot. He would wait his turn, and then someone would flip his switch, and it was time to go back to work. HE reminds me of George Bush in his appearance and demeanor...he's smooth. Everytime he opened his mouth, I felt like I was in a high school auditorium listening to a speech for Senior Class President. 'You want Guns-N-roses blasted on the loud speakers every morning? SURE! You want pizza for lunch everyday? No problem! Elect me, and it will happen!' He just has NO passion to me. The more I see him, the more I think he's just playing the people.

For McCain, I felt bad watching him not sit down. Didn't think about the 'excitement' factor someone else mentioned. More that the effects of war on a person. All of you know my hubby's a disabled vet, he can't sit still to save his life....and he's more than half JM's age. I think with all he's been through it's really unfortunate opposers degrade his appearance.

Health care....wow...I hope that anyone who believes in a blanket government health care plan could visit another country that has it. I lived in Germany, and seeing some of the army wives go in and have babies scared me enough to come home and do it here. You get what you pay for, most definitely. While I don't think that health care is a privledge, I just don't see a logical way of being fair to everyone without SEVERELY sacrificing the quality of care, or driving the economy further in debt.

The comment about freddie and fannie, I didn't know who they were either until we bought our first house a couple of years ago. And, it wasn't even a thorough study of them. Just the first time I really noticed the name. Thank god they have nothing to do with my mortgage. I think it's funny that BO was bragging about proposing more crackdown on the two a year ago, like doing something a year ago would have really made a difference! But, it was probably when he decided he was going to run for office.

Just a few of my own observations...

Edited because I just read AGD's statement "My basic point is that health care is not nearly as cut and dried as "is it a commodity, right, privilege or responsibility?" SO TRUE!!!

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by pbear19

Across the blogs the one consistent thing I'm seeing mentioned is the "That One" remark. In fact, I've seen the youtube clip of it about 4 times now. Funny how a little thing like that gets legs.

Same with the pundits I was watching. I'll admit I barely noticed it when McCain said it.

Originally Posted by CrackerBarrel

The only interesting thing to see will be if the media runs with McCain's mortgage bailout plan, it was the only new thing in the debate tonight and if it gets significant press time he wins for grabbing the headlines. If not, tie, which obviously favors Obama now.

Not sure it's that new. As I understand, the Treasurer already has the authority McCain was talking about -- it was in the bailout bill passed last week. The only thing McCain added was that he would direct his Treasurer to exercise the authority he already has.

Originally Posted by Nanners52674

Yawnnnn. . . . With the exception of one question, when asked first to McCain if health care is a privilege, right or responsibility? McCain responded that it is a responsibility which i completely agree with but he offered no real follow up at to who is responsible.

I would have liked to see one of the candidates -- either one -- turn this question around a little. First, I would have said it's not a commodity, at least not as that term is usually understood. And I agree with AGDee that it's a right in the sense of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." That's a government protected/enabled right, which is different from a right to have the government provide it. I would have like to see someone say "it's a right and a responsibility." Every human being should have access to adequate health care (right) and in a country like ours, we have a responsibility to make sure that adequate, affordable health care is available to everyone; then people (parents especially) have a responsibility to avail themselves of it.

Originally Posted by BetteDavisEyes

I have to admit that watching McCain shuffle around the floor was painful to watch. He looked every bit his 72 years of age. Scary!

I wanted to ask about that. I was tired when I watched the debate, so I couldn't decide if he was really looking (and sometimes sounding) that old or if it was just my fatigue that was projecting Sarah Palin doomsday scenarios onto his appearance.

I was interesting to watch it on CNN, with their Ohio undecided voters focus group and their dial meters. Granted, it was only 25 people -- hardly any kind of scientific sample -- but it was fascinating how often when McCain was talking, especially about the economy, he was literally "flatlining." He was getting no response at all. Even when he was getting positive responses, they usually were not as positive as Obama's.

[AOII Angel]

I have to disagree about having employers insure their employees. This is one of the best ways to assure that everyone- whether sick or well has access to good insurance. It is much harder to find insurance as a person with medical issues when you go into it alone. The lovely thing about group insurance policies is that it evens out the risk. The insurance company can give a decent rate because they can lump healthy and sick patients together. Also, insurance companies cannot then dump a single employee who may be using a lot of health care resources because the group policy doesn't allow them to exclude one patient.

I actually couldn't watch to entire debate...both parties ignored the questions frequently and went on their talking point tangents. One thing I did notice before turning off the tv, however, is that John McCain looked like a nursing home patient shuffling around the stage, especially against a healthy looking Barak Obama.

P.S. McCain's tax plan does call for an increase in taxes. He wants us to pay taxes on the health insurance benefits given to us by our employers, a benefit that is currently tax exempt.

[agzg]

I do have to say, Obama did a really good job at not showing any emotion while McCain was talking.

However, that may have cut some of the passion out when he was answering.

Boyfriend asked me "WTH, so they're not doing podiums anymore?" I explained to him that that was what McCain wanted - he said "Why? McCain looks OLDER when he's not behind a podium."

Has anyone else noticed that Obama seems to have aged a little bit through this campaign? If he's elected, his hair is going to be completely white after his first term.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by alphagamzetagam

I do have to say, Obama did a really good job at not showing any emotion while McCain was talking.

However, that may have cut some of the passion out when he was answering.

Boyfriend asked me "WTH, so they're not doing podiums anymore?" I explained to him that that was what McCain wanted - he said "Why? McCain looks OLDER when he's not behind a podium."

Has anyone else noticed that Obama seems to have aged a little bit through this campaign? If he's elected, his hair is going to be completely white after his first term.

have you seen clinton and bush?


LOL

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Health care: I've been working in health care for 21 years now so I feel like I know a bit about it. There are so many facets to this. Some facets are commodities (pharmaceuticals, durable medical equipment, etc), some are not. In Michigan, all hospitals are required to be non-profit. As a non-profit, I don't think you can argue that it is a commodity. However, all the vendors that a hospital must use are commodities. It's just not cut and dried. *If* we don't see health care as a right, then why must hospitals treat anybody who walks into the ER and eat the cost? They should be able to require payment immediately. Physicians in our medical group earn approximately $150K a year. This is NOTHING compared to what the top earners in "commodity" businesses make. They aren't getting $47 million severance packages, that's for sure. They are saving lives, keeping us alive, making us healthy and that's what they make. They also spend significantly more than the rest of us on their educations and pay extraordinary amounts of money in malpractice insurance (another commodity that feeds off of the health care industry). Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Michigan is non-profit. Other health insurances in Michigan are not.

To be clear - I'm not saying that medical care is a commodity, but rather than pooled insurance risk is a commodity. Under the definition below, this is clear:

Originally Posted by AGDee

Dictionary.com's first definition of commodity is: 1. an article of trade or commerce, esp. a product as distinguished from a service.

Insurance is not a service - it's a product. You're paying for the ability to pool risk with others.

Originally Posted by AGDee

Health care is a service that needs to utilize commodities to provide that service. I wouldn't call it a commodity in and of itself.

Remember that when these two specific politicians talk about "health care" they are NOT talking about "medical care" - each of their plans calls for nationwide health insurance coverage. That's why I'm using the commodity angle - otherwise, I agree that medical care is a service and separate. That's my entire frustration.

Originally Posted by AGDee

I believe it is a right as in "The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Without health care, the right to live and pursuit of happiness is pretty near impossible for many.

This is kind of a strawman - remember that the original ideals of the frames were "life, liberty and the pursuit of property" . . . and 'life' refers to the ability to live without impediment from others or murder at the hands of the state or individuals, not the ability to live until you're 80.

Originally Posted by AGDee

Personally, I put it in the same category as Education. Education is also a service that utilizes commodities to provide the service. We have a right to equal opportunity to education and it is my personal belief that health care should be treated the same way. I don't think the agencies (hospitals) that provide the service should be the ones who bear the burden when the people don't have a way to pay for it. Car mechanics aren't required to fix your car if you can't pay for the service and parts. Why are hospitals required to fix people if they can't pay? Because we (society) recognize that human life is valuable.

I think this paragraph kind of argues against itself - there is a key difference between education and health care, as well: people are far more willing to pay high-end prices for high-end health care, and the individuals who practice are much more specialized and highly trained.

Teachers don't get paid nearly what they're worth, and I think most of us agree that we suffer for it. What would happen if doctors suddenly became (de facto or literal) government employees, too? Will people move to the suburbs to live near the good schools and hospitals? Does the inner city get screwed again (and I realize they already are in this regard, but the point remains)?

Again, I think there are dozens of unintended consequences that we miss when we argue for the idyllic 'forest' of universal health care and don't examine the 'trees' of "how on Earth did this system get so screwed up, and why aren't we simply tearing it down instead of applying a Band-Aid?"

I agree completely that the burden should never be on the hospital itself - the rise of "mandatory-care" ER policies and the like is probably just as detrimental to the average person as the conduct of insurance carriers to drive up costs and reduce coverage.

Originally Posted by AGDee

My basic point is that health care is not nearly as cut and dried as "is it a commodity, right, privilege or responsibility?"

Agreed completely - great post, Dee. Thanks!

[LeslieAGD]

Except for a few questions, last night's debate was a snore for me. If I had to listen to McCain say "my friends," "I know how to fix it," or hear either candidate say "look here" one more time, I would have been ready to stab myself in the eye.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by ajuhdg

Health care....wow...I hope that anyone who believes in a blanket government health care plan could visit another country that has it. I lived in Germany, and seeing some of the army wives go in and have babies scared me enough to come home and do it here. You get what you pay for, most definitely.

THANK YOU for mentioning this! I hear a lot of people say that Canada's health care is so much better because it's free. Well, the Canadians I know prefer their American health care. Apparently the emergency care is a little better, meaning that you're not going to go into hock for a broken arm, but the preventive care sucks.

Health care shouldn't be a privilege in this country, but it is and I'm not sure how to make that better.

[CrackerBarrel]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Not sure it's that new. As I understand, the Treasurer already has the authority McCain was talking about -- it was in the bailout bill passed last week. The only thing McCain added was that he would direct his Treasurer to exercise the authority he already has.

I just watched a forum on the financial bailout, and apparently the bailout bill allows the Treasury Secretary to "do what is necessary" to fix the credit crunch. So what needs to happen is that banks need to be able to sell their mortgage-backed securities to raise capital to make loans. Right now no one is willing to buy them because there is the perception that because banks have complex pricing models they have access to better information than do potential buyers about which securities are worth more and which are worthless, so there's the fear that if anyone tries to buy mortgage-backed securities that the banks will only sell the low value, highest risk ones. Because of this no one is willing to buy the securities off the banks for fear of getting worthless securities packages for prices much higher than they would be fairly valued. So there are two ways to address the problem. One is to authorize the government to buy securities, in which case the bank will sell the low-value ones to the government, giving the banks some money to loan and reassuring buyers that the securities the banks still hold are worth more. This is the plan that everyone has been focusing on and the one the government is likely to do. The other is the plan McCain mentioned last night, to authorize the government to buy and renegotiate mortgages so that people can start paying again and the highest-risk securities packages become worth more so that people are more comfortable buying securities from the banks. This idea hasn't gotten a lot of play in Washington, but a lot of business school professors and economists think that it would work better. So hopefully McCain's proposal to take that route will give it some traction in Washington.

[MysticCat]

^^^ Thanks for the info. I haven't had a chance (time?!) to delve into it all too deeply yet, so I appreciate any education I can get.