Thursday, August 16, 2007

U.S. Presidential Candidates' Healthcare Plans in Detail

Today's Huffington Post published a comprehensive, detailed comparative look at the healthcare proposals of all Presidential candidates; Democrat and Republican. It is compiled and written by healthcare professionals whose intent is that we be fully informed regarding whom we're voting for.

If you read it in full (click on title above) you cannot fail to see the stark differences between the parties, and the substantive disparities between the second tier and first tier Democratic candidates. Further, you will gain insight into the priorities of the candidates and their approach to problem solving, willingness to make real change, and realistic proposals for success.

I doubt that anyone would honestly be able to deny that John Edwards offers the deepest, most detailed proposal with Hillary Clinton a close second and Barrak Obama hot on their heels.

Our healthcare problem is perhaps the most intractable domestic issue we face and, I for one, want to be dead certain that my choice for President gets it. That s/he understands the issues involved and is willing to go outside the box to design a system that will rival those of other industrialized nations. It simply isn't acceptable that we continue spending 18% of our GDP on healthcare and still have 47 million people without healthcare coverage, and are way down the list on infant mortality, and life expectancy.

Susan Blumenthal, M.D. says, "
While many Americans feel uninformed about the views of their elected officials on scientific, medical, and health research, most seem to understand the importance of providing necessary funds for medical studies. A poll conducted by Research!America in February 2007 found that the vast majority of people in the United States believe that science is very important to our health (86%) and competitiveness (78%) as a nation. Sixty-nine percent of Americans believe that scientific research is critical to our economy, 97% of Americans think it is important for the United States to be a global leader in scientific research, and 91% believe that it is essential in eliminating diseases, such as cancer. It is not surprising, then, that 83% of those polled in a 2006 survey indicated that they were more likely to vote for a candidate who supported increased funding "to find cures for and to prevent disease"."

We are losing people every day. Citizens who choose to live in other countries where they have access to full healthcare coverage via a national healthcare plan funded by their taxes.

I urge you to read this article and share it liberally with your e-list. What we do with healthcare in the next five to 10 years is crucial to the longevity of our population and, I believe, our nation. We've lost credibility throughout the world over the last six years as a result of an indescribably bad foreign affairs posture. We can't afford to continue with our heads in the sand on the most important domestic issue we face.

1 comment:

  1. Anonymous3:26 PM

    Health care is a humanitarian effort.
    The idea that the capitalistic profit is necessary prevents the poor from receiving it. When "purchase" is included, the proposal dies. It must be freely given and supported by taxes and the politicians can't digest that fact because "taxes" does not sell at the polls. I would vote for one with a history of being a champion of the poor and hope that he
    or she would continue in office.