Obama-Romma wk. 7: The One-Sheet on Health care, Taxes, and the Environment

 So after the final debate last night, all we've got left is a couple weeks of stump speeches, a bunch of emails and articles, some heated Facebook discussions and then BOOM, November 6th we will elect the man we deem most fit to lead our nation through the next 4 years. By now you should have a decent idea what each man stands for, what each one believes, and what each will do going forward - or at least as good of an idea as you might be able to glean from whichever of the two politicos you support. Since last night was all about their foreign policy, here's a little cheat sheet comparing their policies on important issues affecting our citizenry at home (health care determines most directly whether individual people live or die; taxes determine what we give to our country; the environment determines how we can breathe, drink, and, even more important, how our children can).

TAXES

OBAMA
Their tax plans have been the most discussed parts of their positions. Obama wants to raise taxes on all people making more than $250k a year to a maximum rate of 39.6% and raising capital gains taxes to 28% while cutting corporate taxes to 32% from 35%. Interestingly enough, mostly what this is doing is letting Bush-era tax drops put in place between 2001 and 2003 expire. He will also start throwing out deductions, both corporate and private and closing various tax loopholes. The idea is that any moves executed by W. Bush obviously were horrible for the economy. And, on the other side, America has often been at its most productive and content when top tax rates were over 50%, with our WWII / post-depression recovery fueled by top taxes of 85%.

ROMNEY
Romney wants to continue the low tax rates we currently have - actually he wants to lower taxes for everybody. No, wait, he just said he wants to keep them the same for the top 5%. Yeah, eat that, richers. So how will he cut the deficit? By putting in a lot of deductions, though he still hasn't said which deductions. He did balance the deficit in Boston, though that was with the help of a big Federal grant and spending cuts which, among other things, raised the price of local colleges by 60-some percent.

Something I'm worried about with both is whether limiting the deductions individuals can get for donations will cut back donations to charities which will be getting gutted by Romney for sure and possibly Obama. But since nobody has said what deductions and loopholes they're cutting, it's hard to say.

Here's the summary:

Obama wants to return taxes to what they were during the Clinton Golden Years to pay down the deficit - and analysts have said it could cut it down by half to two-thirds - but continue taxes at the same level for Middle class and below.

Romney wants to cut taxes for everybody. And somehow make it up by closing these magical loopholes.

ENVIRONMENT

As I got into this I realized it isn't even fair. Romney specifically said he doesn't give a fuck about the environment, doesn't care about tomorrow's floods and melting ice caps and the reduction of national parks which, at least for me, are some of the only life-affirmingly-beautiful places left in the world. He figures tomorrow can take care of itself. That this is a problem better pushed aside for the more important issues of economics and whatnot. I don't agree with that but I can understand the idea of it. Shortsighted, yes. Dangerous for our future - almost surely. But there's an old saying, when you're in a street fight you gotta fight each person 1 at a time and take the beating from the others as you slowly work your way through - if you try to Jackie Chan them all, you'll most likely lose. So if you think paying less in taxes is worth sacrificing Federal Lands, the health of rural water supplies, and the cleanness of the air we breathe, then you're in agreement with Mr. Romney. If you believe in the government investing in solar and other alternative energies, including some really radical guys who are turning algae into crude using cutting edge biochemistry (not kidding you, met one of their scientists last week), and if you don't think we have to sacrifice the health of our lands, water, and air to improve the current state of the economy and our national well-being, Obama's your man.

HEALTH CARE

Last year I fucked up my AC joint - basically, a mushy labrum allowed my shoulder to pop so far out of joint that it snapped the tendon anchoring my collar bone to my arm. I went to the ER and they sais it was a simple sprain and when I asked for more information the doctor just, like, sneered and walked away. It took a few months of constant pain for me to realize that something was seriously wrong. So I went to my primary care physician, who sent me to get an X-Ray. Then I had to come back to him and he referred me to a shoulder doctor. He said it would probably be one surgery, then sent me to get an MRI. I came back and he said it needed to be another surgery so I set up a last pre-meeting before the surgery. One more visit and another $30 copay, homeboy says simply that my insurance doesn't cover the hospital where he does surgery so he needs to refer me to somewhere else. Repeat the process with another shoulder doctor. 3 more visits and, finally, I get my torn labrum sewn up. It was a simple, somewhat basic outpatient surgery and yet it took about 6 months from injury to final surgery to actually get it taken care of, not to mention the countless wasted hours and dollars. It's no secret that America's health care system is fucked up. And I have some ideas on how to fix it which I won't get into here because they're drastically different from both plans and, honestly, I haven't had all the time to run the numbers.

So here we are - of all these issues, this is the one that will affect the most people. Everybody gets sick, everybody gets hurt. And even more, should Romney win he has said the first thing he does will be to repeal Obamacare. 

So here are the two candidates' Healthcare Plans, side by side:

What it affects?	ObamaCare	RomneyCare (2012, not RomneyCare 2004, which is basically ObamaCare)
Price of Insurance	Obamacare has put in place regulations (MLR or Medical Loss Regulation) and measuring sticks for Insurance premiums and requires Insurance companies to spend the money most efficiently	Leave insurance as it is, the market is the ultimate corrector.
What that Means	Insurance companies are forced to show how the insurance money is spent. If it's revealed too much goes to administrative costs or top-heavy power structures, sales bonuses and such - basically anything but patient care - rates are dropped and refunds issued. In some cases that means rate drops of as much as 20% and in others it means preventing increases of as much as 80% (California)	Insurance companies will compete against each other and surely that will lead to greater efficiency and cost savings. The whole idea of laissez faire economics is that the market will always correct itself.
Problems	If you don't trust government, you don't trust them telling your insurance agency what to do. Even more, if you have insurance you pay for, isn't it unfair to have your taxes go to paying for regulations that benefit other people?	The market doesn't correct itself, especially not for HMO patients. Every year America's health care costs rise while our world ranking for quality of care drops because insurance companies go for the most profits, not for what benefits the most people.
Pre-Existing Conditions	Insurance companies can't deny you for pre-existing conditions or charge you higher rates, nor can they drop you upon growing sick. Lifted from RomneyCare '04	If you have insurance they can't drop you. Which passed in 1996. Otherwise, what insurance companies do is up to the individual states. So if you're uninsured and find out you have cancer - and your state's Red - well, good luck with that.
Universal Healthcare?	Not exactly - Obamacare makes a declaration that all Americans must be insured and so everybody is required to buy insurance.	Your healthcare is your choice - if you don't want to sacrifice all that money you spend on your 40's and copies of SCARFACE and whatnot, you don't gotta get insured. Just don't get sick.
What that Means	Another 22M people will be covered. It also keeps people from waiting until they're sick to get insurance which WOULD raise premiums unnaturally. This was lifted from Romneycare '04.	A government shouldn't require its people to protect themselves and, even more, everybody should be responsible for himself and his own family.
Problems	The Republicans say this requirement that all people pay for insurance is the very nanny state George Orwell warned us about. And if you can't afford private insurance, you can get Obamacare insurance for about $95 a year or 1% of income, whichever is more. Which will most likely mean people making more money will pick up the difference.	A very fervent right-winger once told me in his opinion a government's role is solely to protect its people. He of course meant having a big army but what about other threats, enemies like Cancer or AIDS? What if a terrorist set off a dirty bomb or put anthrax in the water supply - would uninsured people be able to get treatment then since it's technically protecting the citizens?
Business/ Corporate Insurance	Employers with more than 50 employees must either offer its employees a health care option or pay $2k per employee who uses one of the government exchanges instead of an employer plan	They can do what they want.
What that Means	This will extend insurance to another few million people. Also, since this is a deduction for companies it can be written off as an expense and, even more, Obama's plan provides insurance tax subsidies and cuts for small businesses.	Nothing changes.
Problems	Makes it even more expensive for companies to hire new employees, though it might be offset by premiums dropping thanks to the MLR - though that's not likely. Also tough on seasonal businesses.	It doesn't help anybody else get insured but on the other side it doesn't cost more. Profits are all a business is responsible; the wellbeing of its employees isn't really important.
Medicaid	Extends Medicaid to about 17M people who previously would not have qualified	Not only cuts the Medicaid extensions, also cuts Federal Funding by about $1.7T by turning Medicaid funding and management over to the states. Each state would get a set block grant to distribute however they wish.
Problems	Will cost more government money	Could lead to as many as 20M people losing their Medicaid eligibility who for all intents and purposes can't afford to buy private insurance.
Medicare	Will cut Medicare by $716B over the next 10 years by using the large amount of government spending and influence to limit payments to hospitals and push for greater efficiency and visibility in where those expenditures are going.	Under Romney's plan, Medicare is distributed as a voucher  - essentially, every recipient gets a set amount from the government they can apply to getting their own health care plan. Should their plan exceed their alottment, they have to pay the difference.
Problems	It could limit what hospitals will accept Medicare goiong forward. Also, things like dropping the prices of expensive prescriptions will be accomplished by raising taxes on people making over $250k a year.	While Romney argues that this will promote competition among insurance plans which should make it self-regulating, a Kaiser study based on a similar Ryan plan says it could cost 7 our of 10 people more. However, Romney's camp claims there will be no out-of-pocket expenses or increases.

So there it is. Draw your own conclusions. Do your own research. And
	decide what you think will better help you and your family - and even more, what will ensure your nation is healthy and strong, the top key to making sure our nation can defend itself.
		- Ryan