Recently in Presidential Race Category
So it's John McCain. It's not official, but there seems to be no way the remaining candidates (Huckabee) can overcome the momentum that McCain has attained.
Now that McCain has come out on top, we'll be looking at his positions on retirement issues to see what if anything changes as the message is tuned to beat the Democratic nominee.
At the point where Mitt Romney withdrew his candidacy, he had no votes in our poll. It was curious. For as much visibility he had as a top contender and the money spent on his campaign, no votes at all indicated little interest in his message, from our point of view.
A story in the NYT is the basis of a post that discusses President Bush's proposed cuts in payments to hospitals. They are pretty serious cuts in future funding, and the logic of the proposal is suspect, because it appears that private insurance is expected to make up the shortfall. We, and others, doubt that will happen.
The writer goes on to use this as an example of how bad it would be if Hillary Clinton's, or what he refers to as "Beltway Idiots" plans for health care succeed. We get the connection, but using a Bush plan as an example of how it's bad for the government to be responsible for anything would potentially have us take all responsibility for everything away from government. When an administration has low approval ratings like Bush-Cheney, and a track record for being wrong on predicting the outcome of their actions, one can forget that it doesn't have to be that way. In our history, we have had governments from both parties that, however briefly, had our best interests at heart, acted accordingly and gave us government that worked.
We hope the candidates from both parties remember that, during the campaign, and after.
From healthcarebs.com
Health Care BS - BUSH BOMBS AMERICA'S HOSPITALS
"Nationwide, well over half of the people who require hospital care are on Medicare and/or Medicaid. And, because hospitals lose money on these patients, they are in financial distress all across the country."
Wow, you go away for a minute and look what happens. Four players have left the field.
Edwards, Giuliani, Kucinich and Hunter are gone. We have a two person race to the finish on the Democratic side and what looks to be a battle between McCain and Romney, with Huckabee and Paul trying to be heard.
Time to catch up. We have fewer plans to evaluate for their positions on retirement issues, hopefully it will be easier to see the differences between their positions.
The Candidate Poll has been revised. If you voted for any of the candidates that have withdrawn, please vote again.
More later...
A post on the DMI blog about Monday's Democratic Debate in South Carolina, points out that the term "universal" when applied to the candidate's health care plans is not to be construed to mean that everyone will be covered. Universal does not equate to everyone, and does not mean that everyone has a "right" to health care. The post points out that only Dennis Kucinich proposes that health care be a right. The other plans attempt to make it "more available," if you can pay for it, or find someone else (employer) to pay for it. Estimates are that 15 million people in the US will remain uninsured.
From a retirement perspective, health care costs can rapidly deplete retirement savings, and access to good health care coverage becomes more difficult as one ages. Medicare is there, but many retired persons augment Medicare with additional coverage obtained from private insurers.
The next administration will face big challenges in the health care arena. How effective they will be in changing the status-quo will depend on where they are coming from.
http://www.dmiblog.com/archives/2008/01/presidential_candidates_are_no.html
Presidential Candidates Are Not Serious About Protecting
Our Health | DMI Blog
Our Health | DMI Blog
AP is reporting Fred Thompson's withdrawal from the 2008 Presidential race. No Endorsement at this time.
Note: The Fred Thompson votes in our informal poll on the candidates will be removed from the results. If you voted for Fred Thompson, you may cast your vote for one of the remaining candidates.
The Democratic Candidate debate in South Carolina pushed the subject of health care reform to the point where the differences in the three major candidates proposals become more evident. It's easy to think they are all basically the same in sound bites, but there are differences, and the opportunity for the candidates to explain that to the public, even if the discussion becomes combative, is welcomed.
Much is being made of the confrontation that took place between Clinton and Obama in the debate last night, and perhaps we saw something of the character and tenacity of all three of the participants. Beyond that, the real education was in the subject of the discussions and the health care plans were part of it.
Here's a brief article from Rolling Stone on the subject, as we find more detailed arcticles on the debate and the issues, they will be posted.
Here's an older article from the Washington Post Blog on the differences between the Clinton and Obama plans.
We've put a new Google search box on the sidebar that lets you search the individual candidate sites for your keywords or phrases. Find out what their positions are, or what they've said about the issues that concern you.
This search will include every page on the candidate's site, including issues pages, press releases, blog entries and news articles.
Just enter your word or phrase in the search box, click the radio button preceding the name of the candidate's web site and then click "Search." You can also search the whole Web (the default), so don't forget to pick a candidate's site if that's what you're after.
We hope you find it useful.
It's hard to find anyone that says the system will remain as it is now with no changes. The question is what changes are being advocated, who is behind the proposals, what segment of the population is going to be compromised and why.
The article on whether the benefits of boomers are at risk is an interesting read in itself, but so are the comments.
In an article on NationalReview.com, James Capretta says all of the Democratic candidates health care plans would eventually lead to government controlled health care, regardless of the differences in their individual proposals, citing a Robert Reich article from the Wall Street Journal.
It does appear that the health care issue aspect of the campaign is split on partisan lines, with the Democrats advocating universal coverage plans that involve government and private insurance, and the Republicans advocating private insurance for those that can afford it. Easily lost in the discussion are questions of affordability, the cost and consequences to our society of those that are uninsured, and the impact of either solution on the practice of medicine, healing and raising our standard of living.
Take a look at the article. Though Capretta is writing from a particular point of view, it does point out that much of what we will hear during the campaign, from candidates of both parties, when we hear the words "health care" is really about politics and political expediency in terms of satisfying constituents, and not so much about our health and well being.
Medical News Today reports that a study done by the American Institutes for Research indicates that policy changes are required to bolster the security of programs which aid lower income seniors. Policy changes that don't rely on reduction of benefits or reliance on privatization are recommended. The article points out that even seniors with the benefit of 401k plans can be at risk of decline should market conditions reduce the value of their securities and that a health crisis can overwhelm the finances of those with modest means.
The arguments for and against privatization as a solution to both Social Security and Health Care issues has many facets, and one of the most serious questions is whether individuals have the means to take advantage of plans that propose to provide incentives for private solutions. For many, and especially those who do not have employer provided health insurance, the cost of private plans is greater than their income will allow, even with incentives and subsidies. When they can afford them, the deductibles and limited coverage leaves them with bills they can ill afford if even the most minor of health issues arise. And remember, the lowest cost policies provide only the most basic coverage. Many services and fees are not covered.
Many studies cite health care issues as the primary cause of financial breakdown. The costs of modern health care can be staggering. Any plan, government or private, must take into account the ability of those covered to stay covered, or it's not adequate, and not really a plan at all.
