McCain's HealthCare Plan

John McCain's stated goal for our health care system is: "Remove the favorable tax treatment of employer-sponsored insurance and provide a tax credit to all individuals and families to increase incentives for insurance coverage; promote insurance competition; and contain costs through payment changes to providers, tort reform and other measures."

There are several aspects to any health care reform package that should be considered. Very broadly:
1. Cost of premiums
2. Overall cost (I.E. hospital bills in emergencies)
3. Availability of coverage
4. Quality of care

Senator McCain doesn't address all of these (which is problem one) but I wanted to talk about what he does address. All of the information here is from McCain's website, Kaiser's health care plan's comparison, and factcheck.org.

1. Cost of premiums: Stated goal is to reduce through competition and provide a tax break of $2,500-$5,000 to those with private insurance. However, as Obama tried to point out in the debate (he did a bad job), his plan really screws over 100 million Americans with employee provided health insurance- the only remotely affordable health insurance the "un-insurable" can get in this country.

One of his plan planks on premiums is: "Reform the tax code to eliminate the exclusion of the value of health insurance plans offered by employers from workers’ taxable income." This overwhelmingly outweighs the $2,500-$5,000 rebate because it makes money your employers pay toward your health care taxable income against you. The purpose of this is to discourage you from having health insurance from your employer and get into the market for private insurance, supposedly increasing competition. Unfortunately, beyond this theory of competition, the McCain plan does nothing to actually encourage price drops. Considering that more Americans are insured than ever before (NOT by percentage, by simple volume) and prices go up every year with the cost of health care, without comprehensive reform there is no guarantee, and for that matter, no impetus at all for costs to come down.

On average for a family of four, employers contribute $12,000 per year to the cost of health insurance for those on an employer provided plan. $12,000 minus $5,000 = a $7,000 tax increase per year for almost a third of the country. For individuals it's much less of a punch, for example in my case it would end up being about a $900 increase.

2. As for the cost of care, Obama and McCain have some similarities when it comes to prevention, frivolous lawsuits, and generic drugs. However McCain's overall philosophy on how to bring costs down is still competition. Health insurance companies exist to make money, not to care about people. That isn't a moral fault- as a corporation that's the way it should be- but in this economy that is only serving to eliminate competition and force consolidation we are going to have to enforce price ceilings like any other commodity, a stable of the Obama plan.

3. McCain will leave it up to states to pass laws requiring insurances companies to insure people. This is a horrifically inadequate solution to a downright immoral system where people who went to the doctor for a yeast infection are denied health insurance. Not to mention people who have been CURED of their condition (who ever heard of that right?) being un-insurable.

4. Both McCain and Obama's plans on this seem to be full or jargon; but it basically boils down to new accountibility standards, which is fine with me. I think the biggest issue we have though is emergency room care, particularly in inner cities, which only Obama seems to even (lightly) address with care disparity accountability based on region.

Obama's healthcare plan is far from perfect. But everyone agrees that his priority is getting people health care instead of continuing the trend toward more families not being able to afford it or even qualify for it. The bottom line is that McCain's alternatives won't work- something even writers at the Wall Street Journal agree with.

Jerusalem

I think that Jessica and I have talked about as much as we need to on the part Israel is playing in the 2008 election, so this is going to be my last post on the topic unless something else comes up in a later debate.

Yesterday I posted an Obama quote from the AIPAC conference: "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided,"

Someone pointed out that Obama later retracted this statement, and he should have. As far as I understand it from some basic research and talking to a few Israeli friends, an undivided Jerusalem is a fairly extreme right proposition. Palestinians were horrified by that quote and it would have been unhelpful if he were elected and hadn't retracted it.

I think you could chalk it up to a Biden-esque gaffe, but it doesn't detract from the point of the post- he's on board.

More Obama Israel Quotes

Use labs.google.com/inquotes and find anything Anti-Israel that Obama has ever said. Please judge Obama's stance on Israel onwhat he has done for Israel and what he has said instead of email chains and  fake phone calls.

"You don't protect Israel and deter Iran just by talking tough in Washington."

"I strongly condemn President Ahmadinejad's outrageous remarks at the United Nations, and am disappointed that he had a platform to air his hateful and anti-Semitic views. The threat from Iran's nuclear program is grave. Now is the time for Americans to unite on behalf of the strong sanctions that are needed to increase pressure on the Iranian regime." "...join me in supporting a bipartisan bill to increase pressure on the Iranian regime by allowing states and private companies to divest from companies doing business in Iran. The security of our ally Israel is too important to play partisan politics, and it is deeply disappointing that Senator McCain and a few of his allies in Congress feel otherwise."

"I think that a nuclear-armed Iran is not just a threat to us, it's a threat to Israel. It is a game-changer in the region. It's unacceptable. And that is why I've said that I won't take any option off the table, including military, to prevent them (Iranians) from obtaining a nuclear weapon."

"Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided," 

“throughout my career in the state Legislature, and now in the U.S. Senate, I have been a stalwart friend of Israel. On every single issue related to Israel's security, I have been unwavering, and will continue to be unwavering.”

"I wish Prime Minister Olmert well and have told him how much I admire his pursuit of peace and his staunch defense of Israel's security. I look forward to working closely with Israel's next prime minister to strengthen the U.S.-Israeli partnership, and to advance Israel's security." "...is once again demonstrating that it can handle transition, and we are reminded today that the U.S.-Israeli relationship transcends parties and individual leaders."

Obama will support Israel. Seriously people.

As a Jew, and a passionate supporter of Israel, I understand why Senator McCain appears to be the safer choice for Israel:

1. He says "Israel" in a lot of his speeches.

2. His supporters believe that the second coming of Christ can only occur when Israel, including the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, belongs to the Jews. Of course all the Jews who don't accept Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior will then be damned to Hell, but anyway. . .

3. He is hot-tempered and military-minded. He seems more likely to support aggressive Israeli defense efforts against their enemies.

However, we have another candidate in this race who openly and explicitly supports Israel. Another candidate who may not feel the same religious fervor to keep Israel in Jewish hands for the End of Days, but who understands the situation from a realistic perspective, and has every intention of supporting Israel. Here's why I believe Barack Obama can and will support Israel:

1. Barack Obama expressed his explicit and, what I believe to be his heartfelt support of Israel at the 2008 AIPAC conference. Here is his speech in its entirety:

2. Barack Obama has made his support of Israel clear to the media. He has said that Israel will have an "unwavering ally" in him. Watch him speak about America's "special relationship" with Israel on CNN here:

3. There is this idea that Obama thinks he can just talk his way into peace in the middle east. He understands this isn't the case. Watch that here:

4. Obama is not just talk. On Jan. 22, 2008, he sent the following letter to U.N. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad:









5. I have tried to find evidence of the rumored hypocrtical speech Obama gave to the Palestinian community. Besides evidence that he has some Palestinian and Muslim supporters, I can't find anything to support this idea that Obama is pandering to both sides. And I think Obama's focus on diplomacy alone would make him a more appealing choice to ANYONE in the global community, not just Muslims.

I invite anyone with any real evidence that Obama will not fully support Israel to leave a comment on this post.

America's Mixed Bailout Feelings

One thing is clear from the last week of bailout negotiations: Americans have, at least for the time being, gotten past letting fear control our emotions. In that respect, it should be a proud day for our country. 130 republicans and 95 democrats actually listened to the voices of the American people and rejected what many call "Corporate Socialism". Rather than give the public the full details of the bailout plan and enough time to make up our own minds, the House decided to make a snap vote under the mysterious guise of expediency, and it failed. On the other more pessimistic hand, among 38 incumbent congressmen in races rated as "toss-up" or "lean" by Swing State Project, just 8 voted for the bailout as opposed to 30 against: a batting average of .211. By comparison, the vote among congressmen who don't have as much to worry about was essentially even: 197 for, 198 against.

In any case, it all amounts to the same tactic that got us into Iraq, scare us so fucking stupid that we don't bother to educate ourselves. 

The fact of the matter is that we've been living on the credit card far too long. We are fighting two wars that are being financed entirely by funny money, and are the only conflicts in the history of the country that have not accompanied a tax increase. Pulling 700 billion dollars out of our ass to stabilize the economy in the present is only going to serve to bog us down in the future. I think we have a moral imperative to not scoot by in the present and dump wallstreet's idiocy on our kids in the future just because we could.

Anyway, here are more reasons why the bailout is bad. Take these with a grain of salt and recognize my bias though- I'm 26, make almost enough to buy a condo, and live in freaking Los Angeles. A total collapse of the housing market is the best thing that could ever happen to me.

First of all, a bailout is morally irresponsible. Here is a short list of some moral dilemmas that a bailout poses:

• A bailout sends the wrong message about personal responsibility.  It tells Americans in no uncertain terms that the major financial decisions they've made will have no consequences; the government will pick up the tab.
• A bailout allows banks, mortgage brokers, speculators, and refinancers to benefit from abuse of the system. By doing so, it encourages these people to act irresponsibly in the future. As long as we are ABOUT TO DIE A HORRIBLE DEATH papa bear will fix it.
• A bailout will force Americans who acted responsibly to pay for those who did not.  My wife and I are going to have to save probably 20% to buy a house- but even still might be out of luck because speculators and over-extenders boosted home prices beyond affordability- and now we'll be forced to pay for the homes of those who were less scrupulous.
• A bailout will have a disproportionately negative affect on people under 35. Americans under 35 are disproportionately underrepresented among homeowners; only 42% of Americans under 35 own homes, compared to 80% for Americans 55 and older.   A government bailout will perpetuate this gap by propping-up inflated housing prices, thereby permanently pricing a generation of youth out of the market. And in a Kafkaesque irony, these folks will actually have to pay to prevent themselves from buying homes (i.e., taxes).
  

But a bailout is also fiscally irresponsible:

• A bailout shifts the risks of falling market prices from financially secure banks to the American taxpayer.  As a result, either taxes or the federal deficit will skyrocket.
• See this PDF from Denniger here.
• And another one here.
• Additionally, the methodology of the distribution of the 700 billion dollars is subject to the whims of Henry Paulson. Yes, the failed bill had oversight in it, but how many economics professors are in Congress? Oh yeah.

Finally, I'll close with some pretty hiliarious pre-vote McCain gushing. Oh John, you came and you made it allllll better...

"[T]his bill would not have been agreed to had it not been for John McCain. ... But, you know, this is a bipartisan accomplishment, a bipartisan success. And if people want to get something done in Washington, they just watch John McCain." — Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, 9/29/08

"Earlier in the week, when Senator McCain came back to Washington, there had been no deal reached. ... What Senator McCain was able to do was to help bring all the parties to the table, including the House Republicans." — Senior adviser Steve Schmidt, 9/28/08

"But here are the facts, and I’m not overselling anything. The fact is that the House Republicans were not in the mix at all. John didn’t phone this one in. He came and actually did something. ... You can’t phone something like this in. Thank God John came back." — Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), 9/28/08

The Hack that Wasn't and Why It Matters

First, some brief background on me:

I have two bachelors degrees in Computer Science and Information Systems. I was in IT for about six years before moving into IT management (totally different world!) and for much of my college career was deeply fascinated by hackers, hacking, and all that other immature pointless crap.

Hacking has two motives. First is underground corporate warfare. Until recently, the most damaging computer worms and virii ever to spread through the internet were originally designed specifically to attack another corporation's network, exploit known vulnerabilities, and dash consumer confidence in a bid to wipe out the competition. Second, and this is much more common, is what is commonly known as increasing the size of your "E-Peen". Basically, bragging rights and being funny.

Now that we have that out of the way, I want to definitively tell you that while the motivation to get into Sarah Palin's email account fell into the latter category, it does not fit what we commonly define as a hack. Then I'll tell you what it says about her and the campaign.

Calling what happened to her Yahoo! email account a hack is like calling some guy walking into your open front door breaking and entering. It would be like calling someone who jumped out of a moving car the fastest man on earth. It was not a hack, it was the exploitation of a careless person.

I could have "hacked" Sarah Palin's email account. 

Here's the details. Every free "consumer level" (yahoo, hotmail, aol) email account has a password recovery feature, except gmail, which has a far superior method. Password recovery simply asks you those generic questions you've filled in a hundred times- your favorite pet, the street you grew up on, etc. If you didn't know the details of this before now and are putting two and two together here- yes, your disgust is valid.

Googling is not a hack. All the "hacker" had to do was google basic information about Sarah Palin- her zipcode in Wasila (there are only two zipcodes in Alaska) and where she met Todd Palin. A couple more google searches led him to the answer- Wasila High School. Good times.

We've established that anyone with a little motivation and the idea to do so could have socially engineered this exploit. Now, let's think about what this means.

It was widely known, and controversial, that she even had this email account in the first place. Speculation was brewing that she was using it for official state business to get around any kind of oversight and stay under the radar. That largely turned out to be false- the kid who got into the account admitted he was rifling around for incriminating emails but found none. So, here is the question: You mean to tell me that during the vetting process, during the post-selection hype, during the period of microscopic analysis everyone was heaping on her, even after the email scandal emerged nobody in that campaign thought to make sure that account was secure? Not to mention anyone in the Alaska state government or her cabinet?

It absolutely blows my mind that a campaign of hundreds of expert politicians with secret service oversight, with undoubtedly a small army of IT professionals, web developers, and consultants let that just breeze right over. Or even if someone did point it out, it never got fixed. It is something I would absolutely get fired from my job for.

These people have no idea what they are doing.

I don't expect either Sarah Palin or John McCain to be tech savvy (although you do NOT have to be a pro to know this stuff), but I expect a certain level of professionalism and foresight in a campaign of hundreds. Haven't they seen what happens to celebs and public officials when they aren't careful with their technology? (See: Paris Hilton phone hack) John McCain is going to pick his cabinet largely from the people helping him in his campaign, just like any good old boy.

But, clearly they haven't a clue. 

Heckuva job.

Opinion: Bailout Package

Marcy Kaptur, D-OH, absolutely obliterates the Bush bailout proposal in a youtube video that is going viral. Far be it from me to stop an e-virus!

The implications of having a $700 billion bailout bill that has no oversight are staggering. This is corporate welfare in it's perfect form- naysayers will be ostracized, wafflers blitzed with a campaign of fear and the media absolutely complicit in letting these idiots have their checks.

The facts: The bill gives one man- Paulson, the power to buy up bad mortgages and make investments in struggling companies. HE decides. Does anyone else see 700 billion red flags in their head? If Paulson pays too little for an asset, he won’t stop the business from going under. If he pays too much, he enriches its shareholders. He has to figure out on his own what that perfect dollar amount is, who it goes to, and so on. These companies employ armies of lobbists who will pressure him to pay too much and generate a class of grateful investment bankers while taxpayers get the shaft, in the process avoiding a financial crisis but generating large costs down the line which will ballon the rich-poor gap in this country.

Its almost like Bush and the Treasury want to "deregulate" the bailout. Deregulation doesn't work. It didn't work for the California energy market, it didn't work for the S&Ls in the 80s, and it obviously isn't helping us now. When was the last time what congress does came close to impacting you as much as the five CEOs of these criminally negligent corporations? They were given the tools by Washington to screw up, and they are getting a free pass for it,  paid for by us.

Everyone agrees that the consequences of ignoring the problem outweigh the flaws of the bill. But why is it so horrible to ask for accountibility and oversight? Will that somehow delay the immediate relief the market needs?

Isn't lack of oversight exactly how this happened?

Opinion Topic: Town Hall Meetings

On June 4th, Senator McCain invited Senator Obama to take part in a series of 10 town hall meetings. Since the proposal fell through, Senator McCain has often referenced his plan as a way the negative tone of the campaign could have been avoided, making it seem as if it was Senator Obama's fault the campaign was going in the direction it was. Beyond that fuzzy logic (see: http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/john-mccain-town-hall-stalker-let-us.html for a good analogy) I wanted to know more specifics about why the proposal was flawed and why the Obama campaign rejected it. After all, the idea is certainly intriguing.

Here are excerpts directly from the McCain campaign's formal proposal.

"I propose these town hall meetings be as free from the regimented trappings, rules and spectacle of formal debates as possible" 

This first statement seems to encapsulate the spirit of the entire proposal. But as I'll later underscore, the "deregulated" theme of the proposed town hall meetings is a carefully crafted fish hook that favors Senator McCain.

"and that we pledge to the American people we will not allow the idea to die on the negotiation table as our campaigns work out the details."

While not relevant to the format, I wanted to point out that the Obama campaign's counter-proposal of five meetings with various formats was rejected by the McCain campaign, and then never brought back to the table for discussion again with a counter-counter proposal.

"These town halls should be attended by an audience of between two to four hundred selected by an independent polling agency,"

The devil is in the details. What "independent polling agency"? Why so few people? Why two to four hundred? Analysis below.

"could be sixty to ninety minutes in length, have very limited moderation by an independent local moderator, take blind questions from the audience selected by the moderator and allow for equally proportional time for answers by each of us." 

Say "Independent Local Moderator" to yourself ten times fast. I don't really feel the need to deconstruct that one. Blind questions from the audience? Why not questions on topics that are guaranteed relevant to the American people, carefully crafted and well-thought out?

Here are the bullet point reasons why it would have been a terrible idea:

• At the time of this proposal, Senator Obama hadn't even slept it off after officially declaring victory over Senator Clinton. He had plenty of work to de re-uniting the Democratic Party all over the country before he turned his attention to McCain, while McCain has wrapped up the nomination months previous.

• Regular debates would have helped McCain compensate for Obama's fundraising advantage by providing him with regular, free media exposure. McCain even pseudo-joked about it- "Given our expenses, I know my campaign would agree to it," You would too if you were being outraised 10:1 at the time.

• Given his 50 state strategy, why would Obama want to use his valuable time speaking to 200 when he can easily speak to crowds of 5,000, 10,000, or more?

Further, the Obama counter-proposal of five joint meetings would have actually been the most of any presidential campaign in the modern era. Harkening back to Lincoln-Douglas and the Kennedy debates is a ploy that endears McCain to those wanting to return to a simpler time as the Guardian puts it, "The press sure eats it up, playing it as a charming artifact of pre-modern Americana, an outgrowth of flinty self-governing New England.". 

Unfortunately for him, this is the age of fervent media sensationalism and the internet. Given the state of our culture and media, I don't think it will ever be possible to return to a time where town-hall meetings are a viable presidential vetting process. The ratings for the presidential debates in 2004 weren't much to write home about, and there were only three of them. The Guardian directly follows the quote above with: "There is but one problem: it is nothing of the sort. The town hall meeting that is a staple of the McCain campaign and may well partially replace this fall's debates is instead ersatz and hollow, a grotesque parody of a venerable institution, the New England town meeting." The Brits can really give a zinger. What the article goes on to explain is that an actual town hall meeting (such as those still used in Vermont) is, for the modern politician, absolutely terrifying.

• The mayor is the moderator.

• The entire town is invited.

• Absolutely anyone can ask a question.

Yikes. By contrast, a Rovian-Bush and now McCain "town-hall" meeting is a hand-picked group of supporters where dissidents are forcibly removed:

Not quite the town hall meetings of our forefathers.