The Sovereign Mind

FreeFoto.com

After nearly two years of campaigning, the 2008 election is almost over. I am looking forward to moving on. I’ve written a few posts defending the undecided, and explaining my own reasons for being undecided. Just to tie up loose ends, I should note that I have decided on McCain. In the end, it comes down to the fact that I just can’t trust Obama with a congress also controlled by liberals. So, I guess I was won over by the “divided government” argument.

But I’m not posting just to tell you how I’m going to vote, as if you cared.

What I hope we all remember is how fortunate we are to have a voice. There is a lot of cynicism about the corruption of government and the flaws of our political system. Our government was built on a system of checks and balances, and it is the people who have the ultimate check. No matter how much money is poured into a campaign, it can’t buy (at least literally) even one vote. It is the people who decide who our leaders will be. I think that we take that for granted. In many countries around the world, the people either don’t have a voice, or the democracy hangs on by a thread, which each election followed by violence. It really is remarkable that after all of this fighting between political factions within our country, after every election the democracy holds together after the dust settles. Why is this so? It is because we understand that above the labels of Republican and Democrat, we are all Americans.

So, whoever wins tomorrow, I look forward to a honest debate about policies, untainted by campaigning. I will not submit to partisan appeals. I will praise him when he is right and criticize when he is wrong. I will be voting for McCain, although he will almost surely lose. I want to believe that Obama will really be a great leader who will unite us and govern with a voice of reason against the political ideologies of both sides. But, in the end, I don’t believe it.

Obama, for the sake of our nation, prove me wrong.

FreeFoto.com

I don’t believe in voting for self-interest. For one thing, it’s selfish. But for another, what’s in my self-interest is not always as simple to figure out as some try to make it. Some people can’t understanding why anyone in the middle class wouldn’t vote for Obama. Don’t they know they will get a tax break (assuming he does as he has promised, and ignoring the fact that he would not unilaterally write the laws)?

No, we don’t all exist in a vacuum. The poor do benefit, to some extent, from cutting taxes on the rich. After all, it does increase the chance of finding work. On the other hand, the rich do benefit from cutting taxes on the poor and middle class, since it gives the rich more customers. Clearly, our economic system is intertwined, so determining what is in my best interest (even if I were to vote that way) is not so easy to figure out and certainly involves more than a simple calculator.

But, as an experiment, I decided to suspend whatever intellectualism I have and determine how I would vote if I truly were to yield to my most primal instincts (give me more money!). I don’t wish to disclose the details of my financial situation to the world, but if is sufficient to say that I am doing pretty well. I am one (of the apparently few) that is actually better off than I was four years ago. But I am still solidly middle-class, and certainly not anywhere close to Obama’s definition of rich (which he says is $250,000).

So, with that in mind, I expected Obama to win my auctioned vote, given that he has championed the cause of the middle class, and has painted McCain as only caring about the rich. I had heard of a tax calculator on Obama’s website, so I checked it out. Sure enough, I would get 9 times more of a tax cut with Obama than McCain. Hmm… maybe there is something to this “vote for my own self-interest” after all.

But then of course, I couldn’t resist yielding to at least a little bit of intelligence in my decisions process. So I decided to see if there were any more independent calculators. I found this one which is promoting Obama, but at least claims to be based on independent numbers. I filled out the form and found out that apparently I will be getting even more with Obama than even Obama’s website claimed! Cha-ching! But…

…I would get even more with McCain.

Apparently I would get 14 times more under McCain than what Obama’s website told me I would. Let me repeat that: Obama misrepresented McCain’s tax cut by 14 times! Of course I shouldn’t be surprised by that, but it is appalling.

It’s bad enough that Obama tries to appeal to my selfish side by putting up a tax calculator. But to make matters worse, he blatantly lies about the tax cut I would see under McCain, in order to make his tax cut appear more appealing. In my opinion, this is more than just a typical politician who misrepresents the facts. He directly lied to me in order to persuade me to vote for him.

Beware, self-interested voters.

(By the way, I already know McCain frequent misrepresents Obama’s tax policy. I had given Obama the advantage in terms of honesty on tax policy. No longer.)

FreeFoto.com

It’s been almost two weeks since my last update, and I am still undecided.  There were a few times in the past few weeks that I thought I might decide, only to be reminded of what I don’t like about the candidate I was about the choose.

I won’t post the chart I used last time that maps out where I stand on all of the issues.  Instead, this time I’ll focus in on the key factors that keep me on the fence.

Why I might vote for Obama:

1) I agree with Colin Powell when he said this:

On the Obama side, I watched Mr. Obama and I watched him during this seven-week period. And he displayed a steadiness, an intellectual curiosity, a depth of knowledge and an approach to looking at problems like this and picking a vice president that, I think, is ready to be president on day one. And also, in not just jumping in and changing every day, but showing intellectual vigor. I think that he has a, a definitive way of doing business that would serve us well.

Republicans have often pointed out how Obama speaks well in front of a teleprompter, but when speaking off the cuff his words don’t come as smoothly. They insinuate that this is a sign of his lack of knowledge on the issues. Listening to him speak in the debates and in other venues, I actually get the opposite impression. He seems like a man who thinks about what he is saying, and tries to get his words in line with his thoughts. That means he doesn’t often come up with zingers off the cuff, but when he speaks I at least hear real ideas. Heaven knows it wouldn’t be a bad thing to have a president that thinks before he speaks.

Incidentally, I have been struck by the level of detail outlined on Obama’s website regarding his positions, in comparison to McCain. He clearly has done a lot of thinking and researching these issues (and has assembled a team that has spent a lot of time doing likewise). If we are to reject the politics of bumper stickers, then I think Obama deserves credit for that.

On the other hand, the McCain campaign has been panicky. They have relied on old politics of culture war (“Obama’s a celebrity”), of misrepresentation (“Obama will raise your taxes”) and of fear (“Obama is a terrorist’s friend” and “Obama is a socialist”). They have not spent much time talking about issues, and when they do it’s mostly bumper sticker slogans (“Drill, Baby, Drill”) that don’t inspire confidence that they’ve done much thinking. Granted, Obama has done his fair share of spin (“McCain wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years”, and “McCain can’t use a computer”). I don’t think either candidate has lived up to his promise to run a “new politics” kind of campaign, but in the balance I think McCain has gone further. For Obama, such moments are the exception to the rule, whereas McCain’s entire campaign seems to be revolved around such tactics lately. Perhaps that’s just because he’s losing, but for a man of integrity that’s no excuse.

2) I don’t think Sarah Palin is qualified to be vice president, and especially not president. McCain claims to have picked her because she is a maverick and a reformer. I agree that she is a maverick, but the reform spin has been mostly nullified in my mind by the finding of the ethics report that she overstepped her authority as governor of Alaska. In addition, being a maverick and a reformer is not enough to be president. You need knowledge and experience, both of which Palin lacks. At first, I defended Palin in the experience category, noting that she has more executive experience than Obama. However, even though both Palin and Obama are relatively inexperienced, Obama has proven he is knowledgeable (see #1) whereas Palin has reinforced her inexperience. It’s true that Obama has made some gaffes, but that is to be expected in a long campaign. Some of Palin’s comments, however, don’t appear to be just gaffes but reveal a fundamental lack of knowledge on the issues and a lack of judgment on where talking points should end and real discussion should begin. If she can’t handle the media, how will she handle foreign leaders?

Palin’s inexperience scares me, but the choice also reflects negatively on McCain. I don’t know if McCain really chose her, or if he was coerced to do it by the Republican party powers that be. But either way does not reflect well on him. If McCain really thought she was the best person for the job, that calls into question his judgment. If the choice was forced upon him, then that’s even worse–that means he is not really a maverick, but is beholden to the old political forces of party politics.

Why I might vote for McCain:

1) Obama is trying to sound like a moderate now, but his legislative record is very liberal, and recent comments regarding “spreading the wealth” hint at this as well. If the congress weren’t also ruled by liberals, this wouldn’t bother me so much given the points I outlined above. However, I have little reason to believe that Obama would stand up for the voice of moderation against Pelosi and Reid. That could spell disaster in terms of running up the deficit and helping our economy recover.

The argument has been made that Republicans have done nothing to help the deficit either. I agree, but McCain has done enough to convince me that he is serious about cutting spending, even though I don’t believe he can live up to his promise to balance the budget in four years. Obama has not done anything to convince me that he is serious about reigning in spending.

2) Looking only at issues in general, I tend to agree with McCain more than Obama. I side more with McCain on taxes, energy, and social issues. That’s not to say that his ideas have no flaws, however, and that Obama’s have no merit in my mind. But on the balance I favor McCain’s policies. If the campaigns and candidates were just the sum of their policy proposals, I would have decided for McCain a long time ago. But it’s not, nor should it be. It’s also about the candidates and how they run their campaigns, which can be viewed as the ultimate job interview.

Why I might (probably not) vote for Barr:

I’d like to stick it to both parties. I’ve written before about why third parties can be important to our political process, even without winning. So I would have no problem voting for a third party, even if I knew the candidate wouldn’t win, if I truly believed that the candidate was the best choice. But I can’t bring myself to vote for someone I don’t think would be a good president. I have some libertarian in me, the libertarian party is just a bit too libertarian for my taste. I would welcome them to have a role in our political system, but not as president.

So how will I make up my mind

The main question I will need to answer is which side of the candidate is real and which is fake. If I vote for Obama, will he be the liberal that he was as a senator, or the uniting post-politician he claims to be now? If I vote for McCain, will he be the maverick that I’ve admired in the past, or the same-old politician I’m seeing now? So, in the end, the policy positions have been laid out and nothing new is likely to come around on that front. So for the candidates, it’s all about convincing me that I can trust them. The candidates have one week to convince me one way or the other. Let’s hear the closing arguments.

Just when I start thinking I’m deciding to vote for McCain, Palin says something like this:

Just say “Yes”. Please.

My simple definition of a terrorist: Anyone who attempts or threatens to cause death or bodily harm in order to promote their own ideology.

Ayers, check.
Abortion clinic bombers, check.

I am an unashamed undecided voter. However, I am leaning toward McCain. The main reason I remain uncommitted is that I don’t really like either candidate. I think they are both great people, but I don’t like how they have run their campaigns, and I don’t agree with many of their positions.

As I’ve pondered who I might vote for, I’ve noticed an unsettling idea creeping into my head. Psychologically, it seems like it will be easier for me to pull the lever for the candidate I think will lose, because by doing so I won’t have any responsibility for what the new president might do. Now, don’t get be wrong. I’m not saying this is a valid reason to support a candidate, and I will be fighting this inclination in myself. But just saying that it is not right does not make it not real.

So am I alone in this? Could this be part of the explanation for why election polls tend to tighten as the race gets closer to election day, including this one? Will undecides (the majority of whom probably aren’t thrilled about either candidate) break toward the underdog?

I don’t know, but I came across this recounting of history that was interesting to this discussion:

There is a precedent for this kind of thinking in presidential politics. The most famous example came in the fall of 1976, when Gerald Ford battled his way back from a mammoth 33-point deficit against Jimmy Carter. Ford capped his methodical comeback the weekend before the election when polls showed him – for the first time in the entire campaign–pulling ahead of Carter. The prospect of Ford actually winning the election sparked some widespread second-guessing among his softest supporters. Hang on, they seemed to say, are we really going to give four more years to the guy who pardoned Nixon? After two months of steady gains, Ford’s support dropped that final weekend and Carter won the race by two points.

So electors increasing supported Ford, until it got to the point where he might win, and then backed off, allowing Carter to win instead. This seems to support my argument: it’s psychologically easier to support the underdog.

But if I’m right, it’s not all good news for McCain. After all, the underdog is only the underdog while he is behind, of course. If McCain is able to catch up to Obama, and there is not a clear expected loser, the psychological tendency to “wash my hands” will be nullified. So I still think Obama will win, but McCain could make it close.

I am always impressed with independent thinkers, which is what I strive to be, if you haven’t figured that out by the title of my blog.  This is probably why I was very impressed with Colin Powell’s endorsement of Barack Obama.  It wasn’t just the fact that Powell endorsed a Democrat, but I thought his explanation was extremely well thought-out, and showed that he had made the decision for the right reasons, without relying on any partisan talking-points (although some disagree with me on that).

Today my attention was drawn to an article by another independent thinker: Orson Scott Card. Although a Democrat, he has written articles before criticizing his own party. But this one’s a doozy:

This housing crisis didn’t come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

What is a risky loan? It’s a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.

The goal of this rule change was to help the poor — which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can’t repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can’t make the payments, they lose the house — along with their credit rating.

They end up worse off than before.

This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.

He goes on in his scathing criticism of both the Democratic party, as well as the media for failing to report on the facts of the story.

I believe he is right as far as the media goes. Journalists have, for the most part, gotten lazy. It seems most prefer to regurgitate what some other news story said, rather than do real research. That’s no more apparent than in the current election, where the news only reports the horse race, rather than talking about real issues.

However, as far as the Democratic party goes, I think he goes a bit too far. I do agree with him that McCain and Bush did try to pass stricter regulation on Fannie and Freddie. But I don’t think it’s 100% accurate to say that the failure to do so was all the Democrats’ fault. After all, Republicans were in charge of Congress at the time. The bill passed the committee vote 9 to 11 (down party lines, with Republicans favoring the bill to add more regulation), but the Republican leadership did not bring it up for a full vote, despite McCain’s attempt to revive it by becoming a co-sponsor. You could argue that Republicans didn’t because they knew it would fail since no Democrats supported it. So there’s room for debate, but at least I don’t think it’s as cut-and-dry and Card suggests.

Additionally, his column points out that all of this started under Clinton. That is true, but Republicans had six years to correct it, and failed to do so. It seems there is plenty of blame to go around.

Still, I credit him for at least thinking for himself and holding his own party accountable. We could use a lot more of that.

FreeFoto.com

The rhetoric has heated up recently in the debate over tax policy. Should we tax the rich in order to reduce taxes on the poor (or even write them a check, in some cases)? Or should we cut taxes on the rich? I think it’s a very interesting debate, but I’m disturbed by some extreme comments I’ve heard from supporters of both candidates, and echoed by the candidates themselves.

“The rich can afford to pay more taxes”

True. One simple but reasonable definition of rich might be “someone who can afford more than they need.” In other words, someone is rich if he has excess wealth. Therefore, rich people, by definition, can afford a lot of things, including paying more taxes. However, by that logic we should always increase taxes on the rich, as long as there are rich people to tax. As long as there is a rich person, that person can afford more taxes, so we should tax him more. People who perpetuate this logic don’t intend it, but the logical conclusion of the argument is that there would be no rich people left, because they would have all been taxed to the point where they could not afford more taxes (which, be definition, means they are no longer rich).

“The rich should pay their fair share”

I agree. No one is arguing that anyone should pay more or less than their fair share. But to those who espouse this argument, I ask: How much is their fair share? Obama wants to change the tax highest tax bracket to 39% instead of 36%, as well as increase the capital gains tax. So I ask, Is that their fair share? Can you honestly tell me that if that were the current tax rate, you wouldn’t be arguing for higher taxes on the rich right now? How am I supposed to believe that after Obama implements his tax policy, there won’t be calls for more “fairness” in the tax system? After all, there will still be CEOs that make many times more than their mail-room workers. Are tax increases on the rich always fair, and tax decreases on the rich always unfair?

“Obama’s tax cut is socialism and/or income redistribution”

If any proposed tax policy that favors the poor is considered socialism, then any tax policy that favors the rich should be considered feudalism. Clearly, those are two extremes. Yes, perhaps it could be considered a step toward socialism, in the same way that a step down a mountain can be considered a step toward falling off a cliff. Clearly, if we label any tax policy proposal that cuts taxes to the non-rich at the expense of the rich as “socialism”, we have gone too far.

But many would point to the fact that Obama’s tax cut is really a tax credit which can go to people who don’t even pay taxes, or who pay very little. That is true, but that is really not that exceptional. Many people receive more from the government than they contribute to it, not only in the form of tax credits, but also public services. We would never adopt a system where a person is limited to getting no more benefit from the government than the amount of taxes they pay. That would defeat the purpose of government providing services (for the common good). Imagine if your house caught on fire and the fire department told you they could only fight the fire for a half hour, because you only paid enough taxes for that amount.

What really matters

So let’s get down to what really matters. To me, that means what tax policy is most likely to help our economy recover.

Conservatives argue (in addition to the rhetoric described above) that cutting taxes on the wealthy helps create jobs as rich people have more money to expand businesses and invest in other businesses. Liberals argue (in addition to the rhetoric above), that cutting taxes on the poor and middle class allows them more money to buy goods and services, which also helps grow business. So who’s right? They both are.

The key to both arguments is that money flows. The flaw of so called “class warfare” is that it does not recognize that wealth does not exist in a vacuum. Money is only worth something because it can be transferred, and most money is immediately transferred when it is acquired. When you get paid, you will use that money to spend (transferring to businesses), or save and invest (which again makes that money available to businesses and other individuals). How much money do you have just sitting around in a checking account or your wallet? That is the only real money you hold. The rest of your wealth you’ve either spent or loaned to others.

So wealth flows both from rich to poor and from poor to rich. So both trickle-down and bubble-up are valid economic philosophies. But which one is best for us now? Well, the answer to that question is above my pay grade. You didn’t really think I was going to solve that question in this post, did you? If I could do that… well… I’d be rich.

But one thing I do know: We can debate who to cut taxes on, but raising taxes on anyone during a recession is a bad idea. Obama, to his credit, has said that he will delay raising taxes on the rich until the economy recovers. But it doesn’t seem like a much better idea to raise taxes just as we are recovering. And, since he will not delay his massive tax credit to the poor and middle-class, that will run up the deficit greatly, which somewhat negates his argument that his tax plan is more fiscally responsible.

McCain proposes to cut taxes across the board, with a more modest tax cut to the middle-class than Obama is proposing. This seems more reasonable during a recession. However, my problem with McCain is that he has promised to balance the budget in four years, which seems like wishful thinking. Cutting taxes combined with a slowing economy mean much less revenue for the government, and as much as I like McCain’s commitment to lower government spending, I just don’t think it’s possible to cut that much so fast.

So there’s our choice, rhetoric free. I hope we choose well.

Issue	Obama	McCain	Barr
Economy
Taxes
Spending
Iraq War
National Security
Foreign Policy
Experience
Leadership
Politics As Usual
Abortion
Other Social Issues
VP Pick
Health care
Energy
Totals	+2	+4	+1

According to some in the media, I must be stupid, or at least uninformed, and maybe a little irresponsible, or worse. I still have not decided for sure who I’m going to vote for. I guess I need someone smarter than me to explain some things slowly without using big words. I’m sure once I know a little more about the candidates, the right choice will suddenly become clear.

Yeah right. I’ve been following the election for over a year. I’ve researched as best I could, considering I’m not an expert in any particular topic. But I remain undecided. Political pundits think that we are all what I call “spherical voters” (that’s a geek joke–look up spherical cow). What I mean by that is a voter who is a stereotypical Republican or Democrat, or rural vs. urban, or black vs. white. These are the same pundits who can’t believe any Hillary supporter would support McCain. I even heard one caller to a radio show suggest that we don’t need a general election–just count the Democratic and Republican primary votes up and whichever party got the most voters should win. Briliant. Surely there isn’t any voter fickle enough to support candidates from different parties, right?

But sarcasm aside, there are less than three weeks to go until election day, and I still haven’t made up my mind. Maybe some of you would be interested in a snapshot of my opinion at this point. Of course, the chart on the right is a simplification of the extremely complex and advanced (there goes the sarcasm again) thought processes going on in my brain, but I think it generally depicts where I am at the moment.

Checks are good. Xs are bad. Everything else is mixed. It’s interesting to note that I give more positives and negatives to McCain, and I’m pretty luke-warm on the other candidates. I’m not sure what that says about me or them.

So that gives a small edge to McCain, but the total number of checks available is 14, so McCain leading with a net 4 is pretty sad. Also, this is just a snapshot; this is not set in stone by far. I can see several of my thoughts on these issues changing if the candidates would just shift slightly. For example, I would probably give Obama a check on energy if he would at least give some mention for the need for nuclear power in his official energy proposal, which doesn’t even mention the word “nuclear”. I know he’s talked about it in other places (specifically how it needs to be safe, and how McCain makes fun of him for it, and so Obama makes fun of McCain making fun of it, yada yada yada), but if it’s not in his official proposal, I’m not betting on him supporting it under any circumstances.

Of course, we could discuss any one of these issues forever, and there are many other important issues that aren’t much on the radar this election cycle (ie. education, crime). I’ll try to post more specifics between now in the election. In the meantime, if you feel you can convince me to change my view on any of these issues, feel free to try. I’ll post the updated chart if and when it changes.

I hesitate to post a picture of my son for all the world to see, but I thought it was important that you see my inspiration for this topic. Too often we talk of politics as if it’s some cold theoretical science. Once in a while, politics and real life collide and we understand why the policy debates matters at more than just a cerebral level.

On my son’s first birthday, he enjoyed his first–and probably last–birthday cake. Since he was born he has had severe reflux. After being told a hundred times that he would grow out of it, he was diagnosed with Eosinophilic Esophagitis (EE) shortly after his first birthday. The disease causes him to be allergic to many foods. The hardest part is that we don’t know which foods he is allergic to, since traditional allergy testing is not as effective for kids with EE. After his diagnosis we removed some foods we thought bothered him the most, but we didn’t see any significant improvement. Finally, as many EE patients eventually do, we took away all foods and fed him a complete-nutrition hypo-allergenic formula. The taste of the formula is horrible, which is why he needs the NG-tube so that he can get enough. After that we saw improvement in his condition. We finally got to see the little boy inside of him–the one who is not screaming all of the time. We are now trying to introduce foods one at a time, to see which ones he reacts to. So far, the only food that he can eat is pear (precious, blessed pear). My son will probably deal with this for the rest of the life, unless some miracle cure is found.

My point in sharing this is not to make you feel sorry for me or my son. I would not trade out trials for anyone else’s. Firstly, there are many kids worse off than he is. His condition is chronic, but not fatal. Secondly, as parents, it is our responsibility to teach our kids how to deal with life, with the challenges it brings. We will teach him to be strong, and not to be a victim. Lastly, I am fortunate enough to have a good job where I bring home enough to support my family so my wife can stay home with him and our daughter, and I have good health benefits. Sure, there have been times when we have disagreed with our insurance company on what is best for my son, but in general they’ve been good. For example, they agreed to cover his expensive formula, which we’re told most insurance plans will not. They would not, however, cover his portable feeding pump, insisting that we instead feed him manually (a process that requires him to sit stationary for a half hour, six times a day). So we had to turn to our secondary insurance for that: eBay.

Had my family been in less fortunate circumstances, I might have had to find a way to pay for my son’s health-care, or a costly insurance plan that would agree to pay for his needs. Saying we are “high risk” doesn’t seem adequate, since there is nothing unsure about it: my son requires expensive health care, and he probably will for the rest of his life. Doctor’s visits every-other week, expensive testing and supplies, not to mention his formula. If not for my employer-sponsored pool, what insurance company would cover us? They’d be foolish to.

With this in mind, how the presidential candidates deal with pre-existing conditions is not just one part of their health care proposal. To me, it is the foundation on which the plan either succeeds or fails. So, let’s look at each of their plans on this issue. I would love to have enough time to analyze each of their plans in full, but here is just a brief overview of how I view their plans.

John McCain

McCain’s health care plan tries to encourage a more market-based approach to health care, where individuals would be more able to choose their own coverage instead of relying on their employer. The thought is that this would make individuals more cost-conscious about their health care, which in turn would lower costs overall. The problem, though, is without the protection of a employer-sponsored pool, how is it possible that high risk patients could possibly get affordable plans on the free market. This is an example of one of the problems with the free market that I outlined in my previous post. McCain’s solution:

As President, John McCain will work with governors to develop a best practice model that states can follow – a Guaranteed Access Plan or GAP – that would reflect the best experience of the states to ensure these patients have access to health coverage. One approach would establish a nonprofit corporation that would contract with insurers to cover patients who have been denied insurance and could join with other state plans to enlarge pools and lower overhead costs. There would be reasonable limits on premiums, and assistance would be available for Americans below a certain income level.

So, high risk people would be pooled with other high-risk people and those pools would be sold to the insurance companies? Nothing about that says “affordable” to me. I appreciate the “reasonable limits on premiums”, but he does not mention how that would be accomplished. The bottom line is that I’m sure to get worse coverage at a higher rate than I am now if my employer decides to drop their plan due to McCain’s plan.

Bob Barr

Barr’s health care plan is vague, but basically amounts to having the government get our of health care and let the people buy their own. He doesn’t mention anything about pre-existing conditions, but another part of his website hints at how he would handle the problem:

Government should stop acting as the welfare agency of first resort under the guise of providing social insurance. In general, private charity should be the first resort for anyone in need. The process of welfare reform begun by Congress in 1996 should be continued to reduce even further people’s dependence on Washington. In 2007, for example, Americans gave more than $300 billion to charity, an increase over 2006 despite growing economic uncertainty. Government should eliminate regulatory barriers that inhibit private philanthropy, and expand tax deductions to encourage charitable giving.

Personally, I love the idea of expanding tax deductions for charitable giving, and I agree that Americans are very generous. I would love to believe that Americans would be willing to take care of each other, without the need for government. That sounds like the ideal solution, but unfortunately I can’t believe it just yet. The fact is, even with the government health programs we have today, there are still many people suffering because they can’t get affordable, quality insurance because of pre-existing health problems. Clearly, the charitable organizations are not fully up to the task today. So why should I believe that we, as a community, would all step up, if we are not already doing it?

Barack Obama

If McCain and Barr don’t do enough to help high risk individuals get affordable health coverage, Obama’s plan goes too far the other way:

The Obama-Biden plan will create a National Health Insurance Exchange to help individuals purchase new affordable health care options if they are uninsured or want new health insurance. Through the Exchange, any American will have the opportunity to enroll in the new public plan or an approved private plan, and income-based sliding scale tax credits will be AFFORDABLE, ACCESSIBLE COVERAGE OPTIONS FOR ALL provided for people and families who need it. Insurers would have to issue every applicant a policy and charge fair and stable premiums that will not depend upon health status. The Exchange will require that all the plans offered are at least as generous as the new public plan and meet the same standards for quality and efficiency. Insurers would be required to justify an above-average premium increase to the Exchange. The Exchange would evaluate plans and make the differences among the plans, including cost of services, transparent.

I credit the Obama campaign for at least recognizing that something needs to be done about this issue, and not treating it as an after-thought, as it feels the other campaigns have. However, I feel he has gone too far in the other direction. Under his plan, patients would pay only according to what they make, regardless of their health status. This basically takes all decision making out of the hands of the free market regarding who insurance companies can cover and at what price.

The problem I have with this is that some pre-existing conditions are not preventable, but some are. Should I really be charged more to compensate for those who make poor decisions, have illegal habits, or have dangerous lifestyles? Obama loves to criticize McCain for using a hachet instead of a scalpel when it comes to the economy. To me, Obama’s plan feels like a hachet.

Conclusion

Clearly, this is not a problem that will be solved by any of the candidates. Whoever gets elected, I hope that the conversation on this issue doesn’t end. I don’t have the solution. My instincts always favor a free market solution, but on this issue I simply don’t see how the free market alone can make this work. If anyone can show me why I’m wrong, I’m all ears.

But here are some guiding principles I’d like to see discussed:

1. A fair system would penalize people for their choices, not their health status. It’s fair for a smoker to be charged more for health coverage than a non-smoker, for example. I’d be in favor of regulation that requires insurance companies to come up with formulas to determine premiums based only on choices, and to publish their formulas so it can be independently verified that customers are being charged according to the formula. I admit though, that this is easier said than done. How would you, without bring an end to freedom as we know it, charge people who eat big-macs more than those who don’t? And how do you implement this without over-simplifying the formulas so much that they disproportionally punish only the choices that are easily measured (ie. smoking)?
2. Insurance companies should be given a limit for how long after an application is accepted before it can be denied because of errors on the application, with the exception of lies about behavior. Insurance companies should not be allowed to deny coverage to a person after that person falls sick, just because they forgot some minor detail on their insurance application years earlier. It should be the insurance company’s responsibility to investigate the application before accepting the application.
3. There needs to be more transparency. In the industry I work in, there are several well-respected companies who’s sole business is rating our type of service. This is an essential service to potential customers. Why aren’t there more private entities who can rate the insurance plans offered to us? They could rate them based on how well they treat those with rare conditions? What is the level of customer satisfaction? They could present their finding in easy to read reports, so customers can have confidence in what they are getting. Such transparency go a long way, in my opinion, to inspire the insurance companies to make sure they are treating their customers fairly.

I hope we can get beyond talking points and start talking about the real issues. Unfortunately, real discussion will probably have to wait until after the election, when the pressure is off and people can start thinking with a clear mind. I’ll be ready.