Two Tough Timely Questions for Obama

"It's not a free and fair election if you can't vote as you really feel and the yes only ballot denies the voter that option." If a candidate was unopposed, then your suggestion makes plenty of sense. Some states already have yes-no options for some offices such as judges. BUT if the race has multiple candidates a vote for one candidate is the same as a no vote for all of the other candidates. If you don't like any of the candidates then you have the option of writing in the candidate of your choice. Now it would be nice if there was a "None of the Above" category for those who dislike all of the candidates and don't want to write-in a candidate. That would be better than not voting at all.

The Liberals are using the health care issue as a means to control our lifestyles. The Democrats in Congress are already looking at limiting what children can eat at school. They want a national ban on selling candy, sugary soda and salty, fatty food in school snack bars, vending machines and cafeteria lines -- all in the name of health. At least one local school is now allowed to give out birth control pills to minors without their parents' consent. And some states prohibit schools from notifying parents when children leave campus in order to obtain an abortion, AIDS treatment or even a psychological analysis. As if that isn't enough, now some states are considering banning parents from spanking their children.

We allowed the federal government into our personal finances in 1913 with the passage of the 16th Amendment (which gave the federal government the power to collect an income tax). Now the government already has control over the medical records of millions of citizens through the various existing federal programs. Should a national health care program ever pass, then the federal government will have access to everyone's medical records. The federal government will then be in a position to tell people which procedures they can have, which procedures they must have and which procedures they cannot have. And remember, you cannot sue the federal government for malpractice.

It may sound attractive to rob the wealthy of their hard earned income to pay for medical care of the less fortunate, but read the fine print. The federal government never gives anything away for free without strings. Strings that will enslaven you to the federal government.

I still say we need a no column on ballots and polls and the highest yes wins. Many adamantly oppose a potential nominee of their party. The voter could impact the result, help their party win, without endorsing that nominee. It's not a free and fair election if you can't vote as you really feel and the yes only ballot denies the voter that option.

James, I do not think it would result in layoffs, while it would certainly require better data to implement and refinement of rates of pay, overall the theory of taking the for profit middle man out of the mix is sound. The company I work for has over 500 employees and they pay nearly 7 times what my premiums are in insurance. Under the 10% plan I would save roughly $1400 a year, my company $9800. It is an issue with companies that do not offer insurance. that lack of benefit limits their hiring pool and costs them in lost days for sickness or injury. Again tweaking who pays how much can alleviate much of your concern regarding costs to smaller businesses. Savings to larger employers would be significant, benefits to smaller employers would be significant. I'm sure a solution could be found.
I don't think that you disagree that for profit insurance is a major cause of the explosion of health care costs and lack of actual benefit.

James,
Keep in mind that the 'average' insurance rates include the rates for lower income jobs, the 10% would likely balance, and in the event that it did not, the percentage could be variable based on rate of salary, I used a flat rate for simplification.
thank you for pointing that out and providing stats to support your statement.
I do not think that any worker should be entirely exempt from paying into the fund, though or receive tax credit for it.

Correction to my previous calculations on family coverage. My earlier calculation assumed that the employee's amount would stay the same. But actually I should assumed that the TOTAL average family coverage would remained the same -- $11,480. If that is the case, then for the employer to pay 4 times the rate of the employee the break down would be $2,296 for the employee and $9,184 for the employer. So the employee would see a reduction of $677 and the employer would see an increase of just $676.

JUST make it simple. Although I plan to vote for Hillary; I think the single payer; no insurance companies involved approach of Kucinich is actually the right way to do health care. I watched a video of him; not as wimpy looking or sounding as I thought. But seeing how many of my fellow Americans vote for president like they were voting for a beauty pageant, he probably would never get anywhere.

I say this as someone on SSD after working for 25 years. Twice I've had to give up my apartment; several times I've had to go off meds cold turkey; not enjoyable especially considering the pain and the fact I have LIFE threatening conditions.

I realize looking at the Republican status quo that not being rich and not being able to work I should just fall in the Medicaid Part D doughnut hole and DIE. I try so many different avenues seeking help, and cost you even more than my meds when I land in the hospital. I think the Pope misspoke about atheists' cruelty. I think he meant Neocons' cruelty.

One other point, like FDR's New Deal, a government sponsored health program would circulate money WITHIN the US, paying doctors and nurses. Once the money circulates, Bushites can start to syphon off more wealth because doctors, nurses and healthier citizens will use more oil!

End of rant.

Louis, a 2006 report cites the following:

(1) 40% of employers with fewer than 200 employees Do NOT provide any health care benefits. (Only 2% of employers with 200 or more employees do not provide health care coverage.)

(2) For individual coverage, the average annual cost for job-related coverage was $4,242 -- $627 from the worker and $3,615 from the employer. For family coverage, the average annual cost was $11,480 -- $2,973 from the worker and $8,508 from the employer.

You are correct regarding individual coverage. The employer currently pays 5.766 times that of the employee. HOWEVER, under your plan the individual's rate could go up to a maximum of $1,200. So even with the employer paying just 4 times that amount, that could amount to an increase of $1,185 per employee with individual coverage. For family coverage, if the employer was required to pay 4 times (currently 2.862 times) the rate, IF the family rate remained the same ($2,973) the employer would have to pay an additional $3,384 (for a total of $11,892) per employee with family coverage.

The employers who current offer NO health care benefits, would have to lay off employees in order to afford mandatory health care coverage for their employees. And even those employers who do offer health care coverage would have to lay off employees in order to afford the increase in coverage.

Many refuse to vote for a given candidate no matter who else is running. They could do so directly if the ballot had a no column and the highest yes wins. They could even help their party win without endorsing their candidate in the general election. A way to cast a vote that honestly reflects your view. How refreshing. And effective trashing would not necessarily result in votes for the trasher.

Campaign attacks are not designed or meant to define problems and hone ways to deal with them. They are designed to produce votes for A by attacking B. If voters are convinced B is unworthy they should be able to vote against B directly. A NO column and the highest net yes wins would let them do that, straight forward and honestly. No longer would voters have to say they want parsnips to say they don't want broccoli. How refreshing. And it could force a more positive campaign strategy of selling one's own self rather than trying to gain votes by default from trashing others. More difficult, certainly, but far more honest.

Not to mention; Kucinich has a PROVEN political AND personal history of being TRULY ETHICAL, INTELLIGIENT & COURAGEOUS, along w/the fact that he has LEADERSHIP EXPERIENCE...HOW CAN ANY OF THESE OTHER CANDIDATES BEAT THAT?!?

HEALTH TRULY DOES COMES FIRST, BEFORE we try & fix anything else, such as, crime, education, our economy, etc...know WHY? Because whether you believe it or NOT, ALL these other problems STEM MOSTLY due to the LARGE NUMBER OF CHRONICALLY ILL PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY...IT'S TRUE!!! MOST criminals are mentally disturbed due to a BIOLOGICAL problem, though UN/MISdiagnosed (usually an organism that's in their blood, that's traveled to their brain), &/or due to their own doctor who constantly OVERprescribes some mind-altering prescription-drug or drugs that INTERACT NEGATIVELY w/eachother...students , if chronically ill (whether or not it's diagnosed by a professional), do NOT do good in school, just as teachers cannot teach well if not mentally or physically healthy...same w/ANY kind of employee & employer, not to mention, w/the current COST OF DECENT HEALTHCARE, being as high as it is, how can chronically ill people be expected to KEEP FROM FORECLOSING &/or how can they continue to CONTRIBUTE to the economy by working & shopping on a regular basis, if they simply CAN'T??? NOW, since I've established how HEALTHCARE is our MOST IMPORTANT CRISIS TO FIX...the ONLY candidate running, who has THE ULTIMATE HEALTHCARE PLAN (since it will be affordable to EVERYONE, AND, DRUG & INSURANCE COMPANIES WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PROFIT FROM IT), is DENNIS KUCINICH!!!

Folks:
Please get real. I used to pay for my health insurance. I lost my job and lost my health insurance because I could no longer afford it.

Hillary is offering tax credits to mandate health insurance. Hillary and Krugman are fundamentally missing the point. If you cannot afford it, you cannot afford it! Before you claim tax credit, you should have purchased the insurance first so if you cannot afford it, how do you pay and claim the tax credit later. I know this because I have been preparing my taxes for the last several years. No insurance company would automatically give you coverage just because you can claim a tax credit. They want their premiums paid before you get the coverage.

Hillary and Krugman's proposal would be God-sent to the insurance companies to rain in big bucks.

Hillary is really bought by the health insurance lobbyists and Krugman is living in academia and forgets that people lose their jobs everyday and others just do not have jobs.

Obama says that those who just cannot afford would be asked to sign up in a national health insurance program. Edwards says that when those who cannot afford file their taxes they would be asked to sign up for covergae. The reality is that if you earn below a certain income, you do not need to file tax returns and there are millions of people in this category.

Hillary's supporters should stop backing a hollow health insurance plan.

Off coarse his track records will look good in OBAMA'S website it's his own...crying out loud PACIFIC1...it was proven OBAMA "BARRY" BARACK attended a madrassa in Indonesia... besides no politician can ever pass a cheaper health care plan Obama and the rest knows thats with power grip of the Pharmaceutical company having large influence in the election Obama will never make it in the primary...

Senator Obama never attended a madrassa as a child. He went to a school in Jakarta that had a standard academic curriculum and that attracted students of diverse backgrounds. His mother became a cultural anthropologist and inculcated in her children a tolerance of all faiths and peoples. That is one of his great strengths as a presidential candidate.

As for Iran, don't forget that the CIA helped overthrow a democratically elected government in Iran in 1953, and we then installed the Shah, who was very brutal with his own people...every bit as brutal as Sadam Hussein. Of course, the Iranians are suspicious of our behavior after we interfered with their election. That is why they took hostages in 1979 at our Embassy in Teheran, thinking that we would do it again.

The top foreign policy experts in America are backing Senator Obama, because he has wisdom. Wisdom that HRC doesn't have, as she is mired in 'conventional wisdom' of warmongoring and being more secretive than Nixon.

We are blessed to have Senator Obama as our candidate and the people in Iowa are looking at him closely and realizing that he would be a transformational leader for America, and the world. He would definitely help heal our world.

Please just look at his record and listen to speeches. All his policies are outlined on his website, in detail. So please don't say that he has no substance. He is pure substance. The moment he is inaugurated, the whole world will breathe a sigh of relief and welcome the United States back to the community of nations, again.

James Danley - the 4 times the employee rate for employers is significantly LOWER than what they are paying now for insurance.

Personally I like Clinton but OBAMA represents a new change that our Country desperately needs. People are saying he is inexperience when they know nothing of his 8 years of state legislative service or many years as a civil rights attorney. You guys need to get off the experience tip cause look at BUSH with his running a Government and where did it get the U.S we are more broke today, our dollar is loosing it's power faster than melting butter and 1.8 million jobs have been lost cause of a floozy WORLD TRADE DEAL

Obama: the wannabe Republican disguised as a Democrat.

I simply think that we need to vote someone in that will actually listen to the people. Its funny how Obama says his plans covers everyone when it doesnt then he talked on the live debate on how we need someone that will give us straight answers. Dude, you totally bit yourself in the ass. Like my great Estonian friend said to me: you destroyed a Hussein while you gained a comeplete new Hussein.

The fact is, Obama LIES through his teeth and is an incredible CHEAT. One day, the Obama FANATICS will WAKE UP and see how they were taken in by this ARROGANT professor who already has 2 AUTOBIOGRAPHIES BEFORE HE'S EVEN 45!!! Talk about VAIN!!!

Obama is INEXPERIENCED as has been shown by his NAIVE answers to so many tough questions. But he is determined to win even if it has to be at the EXPENSE OF HIS PARTY.

When he was given the chance to speak by the Democratic Party the last presidential election, what do you think he discussed? You guessed it: OBAMA, HIMSELF AND HIM. When the Democrats were trying to consolidate their strength agains Bush, what did he do? He UNDERMINED the Democratic effort by CRITICIZING DEMOCRATS and presenting HIMSELF as a uniter.

I would not be surprised if he becomes a REPUBLICAN when he doesn't get the nomination. That is how SELFISH this person is. Already, he is positioning himself for this possiblity. Remember, to OBAMA - it's ALL ABOUT HIM - nevermind principles, nevermind the issues. He lies and he cheats but more than anyone else - he is a HYPOCRITE about it by slinging mud to everyone else.

It's high time that the media stop helping his candidacy. The media has been giving him soft balls left and right and given high profile attention to his propaganda.

Even African Americans who supported him just a few weeks back has admitted that he is just ALL HOOPLA. All FORM, all VANITY, NO SUBSTANCE. If you were wise, you would follow their example and vote for someone much more deserving.