Thought: Wow, the democrats actually answered (most of) the questions put to them in today's debate at Drexel! Based only on answers to tonight's debate questions, the following is the rough order of who is closest to my positions, and thus, who is most likely to get my vote in the primary:

Dodd
Biden/Richardson/Clinton
Senator Barack "Freshman" Obama
Senator John "Populist" Edwards
That Random Guy Shouting On the Street Corner
Senator Dennis "Impeach the President" Kucinich

Seriously, is Kucinich insane? Drop out already! And Edwards is just getting on my nerves. His only points from me came in education and medical policy. Grrr. Obama seems listless, and only began to smile when he dropped that line about caring more about life on earth than life beyond earth, minutes from the end. Although Dodd will probably get minimal press which will be focused on either attacks on the frontrunners or legalization of marijuana, these two issues cost him points with me while still winning overall. Issue number one: support of a carbon tax, even if it is only for corporations, because (unstated) it will also be passed along to consumers, helping adjust the market into taking into account the negative externalities of carbon consumption. Biden still gets points for his federalism-in-Iraq plan, but loses points for stating he would stop imports from China. Come on -- you know as well as I do that that would lead to an enormous economic downturn.

I wonder: if all I had to go by for my opinions of the candidates were this debate, coupled with recent poll results, would it be smarter to vote for Dodd, the "highest rank," or to choose the highest rank of the frontrunners, namely Clinton?

Sorry that this post contains mounds of what I despise in political commentary, and lacks issues, but I have homework. i will return to the issues at a later date.

Thought: Should States Mandate Universal Healthcare?
Answer: No!!!

Universal Healthcare is a wonderful idea, right? But what happens when it is mandated? What happens when states REQUIRE everyone to purchase healthcare?
Mandates require enforcement. Non-compliance with said mandates leads to punishment. These punishments could take the form of a fine, or maybe denial of a tax deduction, or even jail time.

Rising public subsidies will be hard to fund-
Example of Massachusetts-
Healthcare costs rose by 199% from 1998 to 2005, however the state’s own revenues only rose by 131%... So the government needs to raise taxes in order to support providing healthcare to people at lower costs. And taxes would need to raised substantially because they would have to cover costs for every person rather than just those that opt for government subsidized healthcare.

Increased abuse of the system-
Mandating healthcare eliminates patient responsibility-
For example- Take a person who smokes… this person develops high blood pressure and is rushed to the ER. Because of state-mandated healthcare, he is given a bypass operation, which costs him next to nothing. Soon after the operation, he begins smoking again. Is it fair for your tax dollars to pay for his second operation?

Alternative Medicine-
Government-mandated healthcare would create a coverage plan that excludes certain types of treatment. Under the mandate, if a person did not comply with the healthcare plan’s treatment methods, the government could legally punish them (with a fine, jail, or forced medical treatment) because they would enforcing the law.

Ex. Cancer treatment- Suppose a person is diagnosed with cancer and the government healthcare professional or the healthcare plan calls for intensive surgery or chemotherapy. If the patient decided against those methods and opted for holistic treatments, they would be punished. Where’s free will?

Higher Premiums-
If the government has to offer everyone insurance at the same price, the premiums would be raised to compensate for people who would take more out of the systems. Should a healthy 20-something be forced to pay the same premium as a sick 50-something who needs medical attention regularly? Mandated healthcare would end up taking away specialized coverage and prevent people from opting not to purchase healthcare, especially if they cannot afford to pay for it.

Familiarity-
If people were forced to switch to the government plan because of work, people who have long-standing relationships with their doctors, specialized health plans, or special needs, could suddenly find themselves in the scary situation of having to find new doctors, hospitals and other medical facilities that participate with the state plan.

Who REALLY pays for state-mandated healthcare??
The government alone cannot foot the bill to provide healthcare to all of the 46 million currently uninsured Americans. Businesses will have to foot part of the bill for all of their employees. This plan would devastate small business.
Take for example, the California Senate Bill: SB 2 would require every California employer with 20 or more employees to foot 80 percent of the bill for health insurance. Employers with 200 or more employees will have to pay for family coverage. Employees, by law, will be required to pay 20 percent of the cost of health insurance, even if they pay less than that now. Employees earning less than 200 percent of the federal poverty level cannot be required to pay a fee of more than 5 percent of their wages for insurance--state or employer sponsored. According to the 2004 federal poverty guidelines, this means a family of four making less than $36,800 cannot be required to pay more than 5 percent of its wages for its coverage under SB 2. Which means, the employer pays the rest of that bill. I haven't found out what happened to the bill at the end... I'm still looking up that, but seriously!


Relevant Links-
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=38163
http://www.epionline.org/studies/yelowitz_09-2004.pdf
http://www.epionline.org/study_detail.cfm?sid=77
http://www.allbusiness.com/government/employment-regulations/165205-1.html
http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=3094