GREAT_AMERICAN asked:


Presidential Commitments
What you’ll get from a President Giuliani.

By Rudy Giuliani

I am making 12 Commitments to the American People. They are intended to lift our vision from the rearview mirror to the road ahead. If I am elected president, I want to be held accountable for the progress we make as a nation.

1) I will keep America on offense in the Terrorists’ War on Us.

Winning the terrorists’ war on us is the greatest responsibility of the 9/11 Generation. We need to continue taking the fight to the Islamic fundamentalist terrorists by increasing the size, strength, and support of our military — beginning with ten new Army combat brigades.

2) I will end illegal immigration, secure our borders and identify every non-citizen in our nation.

We can end illegal immigration with tough but realistic laws that put security first. We need to secure the border with a physical fence and a technological fence. We need to require a tamper-proof I.D. card for all non-citizens coming into the United States and tracking their entry and exit. And we need to encourage Americanization by requiring new citizens to read, write, and speak English.

3) I will restore fiscal discipline and cut wasteful Washington spending.

Over the next two presidential terms, 42 percent of the federal civilian workforce is due to retire. We should only hire back half, replacing non-essential workers with technology. I’ll ask agency heads to identify annual budget cuts of 5 to 20 percent. With entitlement costs scheduled to explode, we need fiscal discipline to avoid passing an unsupportable burden on to the next generation.

4) I will cut taxes and reform the tax code.

Pro-growth policies lead to broader prosperity. The next president needs to simplify the tax code and keep taxes low — including the personal income tax, the capital-gains tax and the corporate tax. And we can eliminate double taxation and protect family businesses by giving the Death Tax the death penalty.

5) I will impose accountability on Washington.

We need to restore Americans’ faith that government can work again. That’s why we’ll implement the first constant measurement of government effectiveness, known as “FedStat,” and put the results online so the public can hold agencies accountable.

6) I will lead America towards energy independence.

We must decrease America’s dangerous dependence on foreign oil. We can meet this challenge through diversification of our energy portfolio, innovation, and conservation. We must increase public and private investment in nuclear power, clean coal, and alternative-energy sources across the board. America must lead the world in energy-efficient, environmentally responsible, commercially viable innovation, including wind, solar, geo-thermal, ethanol, and biofuel technologies.

7) I will give Americans more control over their health care with affordable and portable free-market solutions.

We can improve the quality of health care while decreasing costs through increased competition. Solutions can include reforming the tax treatment of health care, expanding portable health-savings accounts, encouraging state-by-state innovations, and reforming the legal system.
I will increase adoptions, decrease abortions, and protect the quality of life for our children.
We need to take advantage of the common ground in America to reduce abortions by increasing adoptions and assuring that individual choice is well informed. We need to measure our progress toward these goals. We need to reduce the high costs of adoption. And we need to protect our children against sexual predators and online pornography.

9) I will reform the legal system and appoint strict constructionist judges.

America must reform its legal system. We need to eliminate nuisance lawsuits through “loser-pays” provisions. Tort reform can help us reduce costs passed on to the consumer, such as higher insurance premiums. Activist judges threaten to expand the power of the courts beyond the bounds established by the Constitution; we must reassert the proper balance.

10) I will ensure that every community in America is prepared for terrorist attacks and natural disasters.

Homeland security and national security are now inseparable. We need to ensure that local first responders are trained to meet natural disasters as well as terrorist attacks. We must improve information-sharing between local, state, and federal authorities. And we need to repair vulnerable infrastructure to minimize the impact of terrorist attacks and natural disasters.

11) I will provide access to a quality education to every child in America by giving real school choice to parents.

Education reform is a civil-rights struggle and the key to improving America’s competitiveness in the global economy. We need to empower parents and children by expanding school choice. We need to promote math and science, while ending the digital divide.

12) I will expand America’s involvement in the global economy and strengthen our reputation around the world.

We need to strengthen our country by engaging aggressively the global economy. The mission of the State Department needs to be focused on acting first and foremost as an advocate for America. Fostering trade and educational and cultural exchange will promote the expansion of freedom.

These 12 Commitments offer an action plan to focus America on the future. Over the course of this campaign, I’m going to present each policy in greater detail. And when we get to Washington, we’re going to put these ideas into action. Guided by these 12 Commitments, we will hand our nation over to the next generation far better than it was handed to us.

Sharon

ervin_parker asked:


How do you feel about McCain continuing Bush’s war on the middle class and working poor?

A New Tax on Working Families. McCain wants to shift the burden from employers to workers. He will make health care premiums part of taxable income, essentially creating a new tax for working families.

McCAIN’S HEALTH CARE PROPOSAL Will Increase Costs and Reduce Benefits. John McCain’s health care proposal is similar to President Bush’s failed plan. Like Bush’s, McCain’s plan undermines existing employer-based health care and pushes workers into the private market to fight big insurance companies on their own. It will reduce benefits, increase costs and leave many with no health care at all.

The Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting has proposed that everyone buying health insurance get a refundable tax credit, $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families. At the same time, he would treat employer contributions toward health insurance like income, meaning workers would have to pay income, but not payroll, taxes on it.

The modest tax credit McCain wants to give people to cover his new tax would cover less than half the average health premium, leaving workers to pick up the difference. Also, by promoting high-deductible Health Savings Account (HSA) plans, which provide fewer benefits at higher costs, he will make the high costs of individual insurance even worse.

As much as Americans complain about the cost of health care, they like the fact that employers pick up most of their health insurance expenses. They also like that their share is taken from their paychecks on a pretax basis, and fear anything that could jeopardize that prized benefit.

A poll of employer-insured voters conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that nearly two-thirds thought it would be harder to find a plan that matches their needs and handle administrative issues if they were buying insurance on their own. Eight in 10 said they thought it would be harder to get a good price for insurance or get coverage if they were sick.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/McCain_health_plan_Let_taxpayers_not_0706.html
http://www.aflcio.org/issues/politics/mccain_healthcare.cfm
Who Benefits from ta breaks
The Laffer Curve
http://www.lcurve.org/

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5297476348213155147&hl=en

Paula

netjr asked:


Democrats and republicans both have “solutions” to health care. The democrats are more far reaching wanting to extend health insurance to everyone and the republicans want to make health care less expensive with savings accounts and tort reform. But neither of them is addressing the real problem - there is a shortage of health care professionals and facilities in this country. People are already waiting for health care services and now were suppose to extend services to the millions of people who are uninsured too? Why won’t they fix the supply before increasing the demand?

Bruce

suthrngal asked:


The Washington Post has called him the most conservative Minnesota governor since Governor Theodore Christianson in the 1920s.

Some excerpts:

TIM PAWLENTY is regarded as one of the nation’s most innovative, energetic, reform-minded and accomplished governors. Now serving his second term as the 39th governor of Minnesota, Governor Pawlenty has brought increased accountability to state government, held the line on taxes, improved K-12 education standards and made Minnesota a leader in energy reform.
Governor Pawlenty grew up in South St. Paul, Minnesota. The only child in his family to graduate from college, he attended the University of Minnesota (B.A., J.D.) and practiced law in the private sector. His public service career includes serving as a city councilmember and ten-year member of the Minnesota House of Representatives, including four years as House Majority Leader.

As Governor, he has balanced Minnesota’s budget three times without raising taxes, despite facing record budget deficits. Governor Pawlenty’s most notable accomplishments include proposing and signing into law significant new benefits for veterans and members of the military; enacting a property tax cap, eliminating the marriage penalty and cutting taxes; toughening the state’s education standards; reforming the way teachers are paid through a nation-leading performance pay plan; instituting free-market health care reforms that increase accountability and provide tax credits to encourage the use of health savings accounts; and implementing a plan to Americanize our energy sources by generating 25% of the state’s electricity from renewable sources by 2025.

http://www.governor.state.mn.us/welcome/aboutgovernorpawlenty/index.htm

He’s very conservative, not entrenched in DC politics and appears as though he’s done an excellent job for his state.

What are your thoughts?

Dennis

. asked:


1) On the war, he/she would pull troops out of 50 countries within 2 years. He would reduce the effort in Iraq and proportionally pull out from the middle east by at least 50% in the first term of office.

2) On debt & taxes, he would absolutely swear to have a fully balanced budget within 2 years, including war costs and of course not raise taxes.

3) On health care, he would encourage health savings accounts and prevent insurance companies from rejecting patients.

4) Spending saved on overseas troop pullout would be used to strengthen national security and prevent border crossings.

5) On illegal immigration, he would deport illegals that have committed crimes and fine the rest. People with US born children would not be deported.

6) Privacy and personal liberties would be like Ron Paul.

7) The candidate would be pro-choice.
Social security would be guaranteed to existing users, but new entrants would have the choice to invest privately.

9) Federal Education dept would be dismantled with all proceeds and staff going to the states. Same for dept of energy except for research.

10) EPA would be mostly dismantled except for research and setting guidelines.

11) NASA would be cut back to encourage private space ventures.
Those arnt really ron pauls views, i tried to make them apply to the democratic party as much as i could.

Melissa

Global warming ain’t cool asked:


The health savings account, or HSA, was created recently by federal legislation. An HSA lets you set aside pre-tax dollars for future medical, retirement, or long-term care premium expenses. Invest these funds as you wish within a broad range of choices, then use them for qualified expenses. The funds can roll over from year to year. You take them with you when you change jobs.

High-Deductible Requirements
To open an HSA, you must be enrolled in a qualified high-deductible health plan, as defined by the US Treasury. For 2007, the minimum annual deductibles are $1,100 for a self-only plan the maximum is $5,250 There is no minimum annual contribution limit, although most financial institutions will require a minimum deposit to create your account.
For 2007, the maximum contribution amount is $2,850 for single coverage.
It seems one would have to pay $1100-5250 til they could dip into the HSA. If one is living pay check to pay check are they going to be able to afford this plan?

Sam

Enigma asked:


I was told this is is plan for healthcare…………..It is time to take back our health care. This is why I support:

Making all medical expenses tax deductible.
Eliminating federal regulations that discourage small businesses from providing coverage.
Giving doctors the freedom to collectively negotiate with insurance companies and drive down the cost of medical care.
Making every American eligible for a Health Savings Account (HSA), and removing the requirement that individuals must obtain a high-deductible insurance policy before opening an HSA.
Reform licensure requirements so that pharmacists and nurses can perform some basic functions to increase access to care and lower costs.

Additional bills he sponsored:
(They reduce health care costs)

HR 3075 provides truly comprehensive health care reform by allowing families to claim a tax credit for the rising cost of health insurance premiums. With many families now spending close to $1000 or even more for their monthly premiums, they need real tax relief– including a dollar-for-dollar credit for every cent they spend on health care premiums– to make medical care more affordable.

HR 3076 is specifically designed to address the medical malpractice crisis that threatens to drive thousands of American doctors- especially obstetricians- out of business. The bill provides a dollar-for-dollar tax credit that permits consumers to purchase “negative outcomes” insurance prior to undergoing surgery or other serious medical treatments. Negative outcomes insurance is a novel approach that guarantees those harmed receive fair compensation, while reducing the burden of costly malpractice litigation on the health care system. Patients receive this insurance payout without having to endure lengthy lawsuits, and without having to give away a large portion of their award to a trial lawyer. This also drastically reduces the costs imposed on physicians and hospitals by malpractice litigation. Under HR 3076, individuals can purchase negative outcomes insurance at essentially no cost.

HR 3077 makes it more affordable for parents to provide health care for their children. It creates a $500 per child tax credit for medical expenses and prescription drugs that are not reimbursed by insurance. It also creates a $3,000 tax credit for dependent children with terminal illnesses, cancer, or disabilities. Parents who are struggling to pay for their children’s medical care, especially when those children have serious health problems or special needs, need every extra dollar.

HR 3078 is commonsense, compassionate legislation for those suffering from cancer or other terminal illnesses. The sad reality is that many patients battling serious illnesses will never collect Social Security benefits– yet they continue to pay into the Social Security system. When facing a medical crisis, those patients need every extra dollar to pay for medical care, travel, and family matters. HR 3078 waives the employee portion of Social Security payroll taxes (or self-employment taxes) for individuals with documented serious illnesses or cancer. It also suspends Social Security taxes for primary caregivers with a sick spouse or child. There is no justification or excuse for collecting Social Security taxes from sick individuals who literally are fighting for their lives.
So in other words he has no healthcare plan or else he is lying through his teeth.

Jackie

Lonestar asked:


Health Savings Accounts -
This is where you can set aside up to $2,900 every year in a special tax-free savings account. The money is allowed to cumulate year after year. This is before tax money. Then, with this money sitting in your HSA you can go out and buy a high-deductible health insurance policy that will be much less expensive than the policy you have today. You can then use the HSA money for your medical care and let the high-deductible health insurance policy kick in much later.

Sounds like a good idea right? Well … here come the Democrats. Democrats have made affordable health care a mainstay of their election agenda, but apparently only if you’re willing to get insurance through the government.

Democrats don’t like Health Savings Accounts. And why not? Because when you have that money stashed away for medical expenses, and when you can afford to buy a high-deductible health insurance policy, you won’t be standing around screaming for the government to do something …

Hector

GREAT_AMERICAN asked:


Insurance Fraud
Let’s not base policy on inflated statistics.

By David Hogberg

Anyone who pays even the slightest attention to the health-care debate in this country probably knows that there are “44 million uninsured Americans.” The figure was all but shouted from the rooftops during the recent Cover the Uninsured Week. It is standard boilerplate for John Kerry’s stump speeches. Hillary Clinton, in her recent screed, was unwilling to round off the number: “Some 43.6 million Americans are uninsured, and the vast majority of them are in working families.”

The existence of the 44-million figure is a tribute to Benjamin Disraeli’s quip that “there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” If one accepts the Current Population Survey’s numbers (the source for the 44-million statistic), there are in fact closer to 35 million uninsured Americans. Over 20 percent of the uninsured in this country are not citizens.

Yet there is good reason to be skeptical of the CPS’s numbers. The CPS is intended to measure the number of people who have been uninsured for an entire year. One problem with the CPS statistic is that it includes both those who are insured for a short time and those who are chronically uninsured (defined as being uninsured for at least a year). Many people go without insurance for a few months often as the result of being between jobs. The CPS statistic of 44 million does not make that distinction.

Another drawback is that CPS asks respondents to recall their insurance status over the last twelve months, increasing the probability of sampling error due to respondents’ memory lapses. Last year a paper from the Congressional Budget Office contrasted the CPS with two other surveys, the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) and the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP). MEPS and SIPP track their respondents every few months, so the error due to memory lapse should be minimized. Interestingly, MEPS reported 31 million chronically uninsured, while SIPP reported only 21 million.

Yet even the numbers reported by the MEPS and SIPP surveys overstate the number of uninsured. Some respondents who receive Medicaid may say they are uninsured because of the stigma associated with the Medicaid program. Studies suggest that this may result in an undercounting of the insured by 12 to 15 percent. According to the CBO, “the number of non-elderly people who are enrolled in Medicaid at any time during the year could be undercounted in population surveys by about 4 to 5 million.”

Another wrinkle occurs in the definition of the uninsured. There are many people who are eligible for Medicaid but are not enrolled in the program. Some argue that they should be counted as uninsured, while others argue that they should not. The latter group seems to have the stronger case, since such people can receive Medicaid coverage retroactively for health-care expenses. At present, there is no exact data on the number of people who are eligible for Medicaid but not enrolled. The most recent study, from 1994, estimated that about 2.9 million children who were uninsured were eligible for Medicaid.

Finally, it is important to note that, according to the SIPP survey, over 18 percent of the chronically uninsured say that they have gone without insurance because either they have not needed it or do not believe in it. When the various factors are accounted for, it is possible that the true number of the chronically uninsured is 12 to15 million.

Does the actual number matter? Either way, one might object, there are still millions who lack health insurance. Actually, it matters a great deal, because those who are most likely to tout the 44-million-uninsured statistic also tend to be the advocates of wholesale reform of the health-care system, usually of the government-run variety. A larger number gives their arguments more weight.

Second, understanding the actual magnitude of the problem gives us better direction in terms of policy. Of those chronically uninsured, the vast majority are poor, but over 60 percent are under the age of 35. Thus, the uninsured may be a largely healthy population that could afford to purchase health-care in a more consumer-driven system. Indeed, many of those currently purchasing insurance with health-savings accounts were previously uninsured.

Whatever the solution, we should not let inflated statistics lead us into adopting misguided health-care policies.

Joy

GREAT_AMERICAN asked:


Anyone who pays even the slightest attention to the health-care debate in this country probably knows that there are “44 million uninsured Americans.” The figure was all but shouted from the rooftops during the recent Cover the Uninsured Week. It is standard boilerplate for John Kerry’s stump speeches. Hillary Clinton, in her recent screed, was unwilling to round off the number: “Some 43.6 million Americans are uninsured, and the vast majority of them are in working families.”

The existence of the 44-million figure is a tribute to Benjamin Disraeli’s quip that “there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” If one accepts the Current Population Survey’s numbers (the source for the 44-million statistic), there are in fact closer to 35 million uninsured Americans. Over 20 percent of the uninsured in this country are not citizens.

Yet there is good reason to be skeptical of the CPS’s numbers. The CPS is intended to measure the number of people who have been uninsured for an entire year. One problem with the CPS statistic is that it includes both those who are insured for a short time and those who are chronically uninsured (defined as being uninsured for at least a year). Many people go without insurance for a few months often as the result of being between jobs. The CPS statistic of 44 million does not make that distinction.

Another drawback is that CPS asks respondents to recall their insurance status over the last twelve months, increasing the probability of sampling error due to respondents’ memory lapses. Last year a paper from the Congressional Budget Office contrasted the CPS with two other surveys, the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) and the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP). MEPS and SIPP track their respondents every few months, so the error due to memory lapse should be minimized. Interestingly, MEPS reported 31 million chronically uninsured, while SIPP reported only 21 million.

Yet even the numbers reported by the MEPS and SIPP surveys overstate the number of uninsured. Some respondents who receive Medicaid may say they are uninsured because of the stigma associated with the Medicaid program. Studies suggest that this may result in an undercounting of the insured by 12 to 15 percent. According to the CBO, “the number of non-elderly people who are enrolled in Medicaid at any time during the year could be undercounted in population surveys by about 4 to 5 million.”

Another wrinkle occurs in the definition of the uninsured. There are many people who are eligible for Medicaid but are not enrolled in the program. Some argue that they should be counted as uninsured, while others argue that they should not. The latter group seems to have the stronger case, since such people can receive Medicaid coverage retroactively for health-care expenses. At present, there is no exact data on the number of people who are eligible for Medicaid but not enrolled. The most recent study, from 1994, estimated that about 2.9 million children who were uninsured were eligible for Medicaid.

Finally, it is important to note that, according to the SIPP survey, over 18 percent of the chronically uninsured say that they have gone without insurance because either they have not needed it or do not believe in it. When the various factors are accounted for, it is possible that the true number of the chronically uninsured is 12 to15 million.

Does the actual number matter? Either way, one might object, there are still millions who lack health insurance. Actually, it matters a great deal, because those who are most likely to tout the 44-million-uninsured statistic also tend to be the advocates of wholesale reform of the health-care system, usually of the government-run variety. A larger number gives their arguments more weight.

Second, understanding the actual magnitude of the problem gives us better direction in terms of policy. Of those chronically uninsured, the vast majority are poor, but over 60 percent are under the age of 35. Thus, the uninsured may be a largely healthy population that could afford to purchase health-care in a more consumer-driven system. Indeed, many of those currently purchasing insurance with health-savings accounts were previously uninsured.

Whatever the solution, we should not let inflated statistics lead us into adopting misguided health-care policies.

Virginia