Barack Obama's Health Care Plan is simply this... Better than McCains!!!

"a. Barack Obama does not hand out anything for free. People are all legitimatly paying for their own healthcare from a legitimate healthcare provider. The government will literally act as a business by managing an independent insurance enterprise." This would be legitimate... IF it were profitable, and wholly decoupled from ANY financial gurantee by taxpayers. This is not the history of government projects however, with the possible exception of the postal service, and even then it didn't start that way. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were supposed to make their own profits too.... except one problem. When they didn't, the government decided it was high time to save their butts, at enormous cost. Do you doubt a government run health agency would work the same way? " b. This costs the government no money. It earns its management costs through its profits." I wanna see a business plan that proves such profits. Especially since Barack Obama has no background whatsover earning profits anywhere (neither does Mccain, but Mccain doesn't claim it will be profitable). And it has to do it on it's own right for your notion to be true, i.e., it can't get interest free or otherwise lower than usual interest loans from the government, startup capital would have to be private, or it's still a handout, and an anticompetitive one at that. "c. The plan will cover birth control, pregnancy costs, and mental healthcare, so no one is getting a half deal. This will be better than a lot of privately owned insurance companies." A lot of private insurance companies do not offer those, because, they are not PROFITABLE to offer in an affordable plan. Just putting a government, run by people with no background in business, in charge of a thing, will not suddenly make it profitable, as you have now burdened yourself to demonstrate. Indeed, it makes it less likely to. "Sen. Obama will create what will be called the National Health Insurance Exchange. The purpose of this organization will be to indirectly manage the cost of healthcare by spurring competition. The NHIE will lay down a set of requirements to earn its "thumbs-up" or "stamp of approval". These requirements would include things like premium maximums, coverage for all ailments both mental and physical, perhaps coverage for birth control; almost replicating the governments own provided insurance. With the creation of the new NHIE, the American demand for NHIE approved insurance companies will be very high!" That's not competition, that's oligopoly by way of subsidized approval mechanisms. Since the NHIE is taxpayer funded, it will have a negative effect on competition by non NHIE things. You don't seem to understand what competition means- it does not mean a race for subsidized approval mechanisms, it means a race for customers with no government involvement. You are, essentially, proposing an FDIC like agency, except for insurance agencies, not banking agencies. This does not have the effect of increasing free market competition. Instead, it has the effect of all "approved" companies being essentially government controlled entities, increasingly over time. That is, ultimately, the result of Obama's plan is not competition, it's the ability to choose between apples and apples. " Barack Obama will not be handing out government hand-outs. The closest thing to what you are describing is Obama's tax plan that cuts taxes on 95% of the middle class signifigantly." Giving out tax credits that are higher than the amount of taxes people pay, one, is a handout. Two, it's primary effect is on the poor, the effect on the middle class is slightly less dramatic. Three, since he's not reducing spending, it's an outright expropriation from anyone not defined as the middle class, and therefore constitutes a handout because the middle class still gets the same services, without paying anything for them. "Thats not a hand-out" You have a very superficial understanding of economics. "And it is unrelated to Obama's healthcare plan." And this proves it. EVERYTHING in economics is related to everything else. For crying out loud, the housing crisis had the effect of increasing our exports of high-quality metal kitchen supplies. Bet ya wouldn't think that's related either. :D " Barack Obama's plan is not socialism. Its completely based on the free-market" Creating a taxpayer subsidized approval agency, that implicitly guarantees all the underwritten policies, and having the government sell things which are impossible to make a profit off of (unless the government doesn't have to play by the same rules as private entities, which has the effect of a monopoly), does not constitute a free market. The term "free market" means Barack Obama does not have his hands on it. And neither does John Mccain. "ohn McCain on the other hand, just wants to hand out $2500-$5000 checks to everybody in the country to help pay for their inusrance. This does not manage healthcare costs! This just feeds the monster!" The government regulations created the current health care costs. Obama's plan, as a government regulation, will make them worse. Mccain's plan does not "manage" (i.e. make worse) health care costs- but it is OPEN, HONEST, TEMPORARY and TELLS YOU WHAT IT COSTS. Obama's plan tells us things that anyone with the slightest understanding of economics knows are just plain lies, does not apparently tell us what it costs, pretends to be a free market plan while contradicting everything that word means, and most importantly, would be a pain in the arse to get rid of. " I stand by my point that Obama's plan costs less than McCain's. Obama's universal coverage plan pays for itself.' Again, this is wishful thinking of the highest sort, precisely what Obama is famous for. There is a reason the things he offers are not presently offered. THEY ARE NOT PROFITABLE TO OFFER. The only reason they might appear to be is if the government agency is immune to taxes... but guess what? That's another cost, because that's a monopolistic business practice, and puts competition out of business, therefore reducing overall revenues because there will be no taxes collected on that industry! Which would be fine- if it were not tantamount to legally forbidding any private entities from competing by the same rules.