Healthcare and Oil's effect on RE Prices

petrfitz, I don't think healthcare will have much of an effect on real estate in the US. The two are unrelated. Yes, healthcare costs will continue to rise, but I don't see this having any impact on housing prices.

If people are willing to spend millions on an apartment than health care costs will have no effect on them.

bjw - there are major differences in Healthcare policies between McCain and Obama. One plan will essentially wipe out employer paid health insurance, and the other builds on it.

do you think that Americans can afford to have to pay for thier own health insurance and still pay what the currently pay for mnortgages?

If Americans lost employer paid health insurance they would be faced to pay at least $1500 per month for individual coverage. This is money that can not go to mortgages. $1500 per month is about a $400K mortgage. That means families paying for their own health insurance would have to buy a house that is $400K less than what they currently afford.

If you think that the credit crisis wioed out the RE, think about what a growing health care crisis will do to sales prices.

How can anyone say that rising oil and healthcare costs will have no effect on RE prices? The more money that goes to heating/cooling your house, driving your car, and paying for health insurance is less money that can go to paying a mortgage.

Healthcare and Oil are the greatest potential threats to home values in the US.

petrfitz, it will take an act of God to "wipe out" employer-sponsored coverage. I work in this field, and the lobbying that goes on is unlike anything I've ever seen. Regardless, if employers no longer paid for healthcare, they would almost certainly raise wages/salaries a bit to compensate and compete for the top talent out there.

Why do you pose a question if you are so damned sure of the answer already? Do you just want to hear people agree with you?

This has been discussed many times online... especially with regards to oil:

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/06/13/business/NA-FIN-US-High-Oil-Homebuilders.php

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8348136/

http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/2008/06/24/rising-gas-prices-crushing-housing-recovery-in-inland-empire/

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_44/b4056049.htm

even over at econbrowser:

http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2008/06/housing_and_the.html

how is 1500/month a 400k mortgage?

bjw - you are hilarious! You say "if employers no longer paid for healthcare, they would almost certainly raise wages/salaries a bit to compensate and compete for the top talent out there."

In a horrible economy where jobs are being cut, earnings are crashing your answer is that employers will pay ALL their employees more? Too funny.

and as for an act of god wiping out healthcare - one candidate is proposing a plan to get rid of the employer-based insurance that most of us rely on presently. Thi splan would eliminate the tax deductibility of employer-provided insurance, in effect requiring employers who offer insurance to take money out of workers' paychecks for their tax liability on their health insurance.

Needless to say, this will make dealing with insurers even less attractive to businesses. Most employers will soon get out of the health insurance business and leave it to workers to buy their own plan. Toward this end, this candidiates plan would give every worker a $2,500 tax credit, or $5,000 for a family.

This amount will not be sufficient to cover the cost of insurance for many families (currently approx $1500 per month,) especially those with serious health problems. Insurance companies don't like to insure people in bad health.

MMAfia - funny your msnbc article talks about $60 per barrel. I wish oil was at $60 per barrel.

The greatest threat to RE prices is oil prices and healthcare costs. This upcoming election has two candidates who have very different plans. 1 candidate seeks to make america less dependent on oil, and seeks to decrease healthcare costs dramatically. the other candidate seeks to wipe out employer funded healthcare, and has a foreign policy tath could dramatically increase the costs of oil.

petrfitz - thanks for the tongue-in-cheek compliment, but you're the funny one here. I am well aware of the healthcare proposals out there as, once again, I work in the healthcare industry. If you think a proposal is tantamount to implementation, you have never followed an election before. Will there be some kind of reform? Sure. Will be it drastic and sweeping? I wouldn't bet on it. And yes, if you clear a huge bill such as health insurance off the table for employers, that's a huge boost to their bottom lines. Where do you think that money goes? Connect the dots.

"1 candidate seeks to make america less dependent on oil, and seeks to decrease healthcare costs dramatically. the other candidate seeks to wipe out employer funded healthcare, and has a foreign policy tath could dramatically increase the costs of oil."

Right, and one candidate wants to fund a bankrupt social security system on the backs of schmucks making 300,000-500,000 a year. Guys over 500,000 a year I have no sympathy for. I read from other posts that you "made million" off the internet boom. Maybe you don't care that Obama wants to squeeze guys like me who came from nothing and now are fortunate enough to make a decent salary (barring layoffs). IMHO, its downright unAmerican what this guy stands for.

Petrfitz, it's not meant to be humorous.

I pieced those links purposely together so that readers here will understand the analysis and how it is affected or is not affected over time given the tremendous rise in Oil. There is also an article from late 2007 there for reference.

totallyanonymous - i think that guys like you and myself who came from nothing were only able to do that because we live in this country. Social security funding wont dent your living at all.

What we should be talking about is the current deficit spending adminstration that wont tax americans at the rate it spends therefore sticking our kids with the bill. I plan to leave my kid a really nice truct fund and not the bill for my excesses.

what is American about fighting wars that are not funded and leaves the bill to our children?

petrifitz — every generation leaves some manure to the incoming generation ("children", as you cal them) to sort out. Fine by me.

"totallyanonymous - i think that guys like you and myself who came from nothing were only able to do that because we live in this country. Social security funding wont dent your living at all."

Truly naive. What you should know is Barack O-tax-a's arbitrary 250K applies to marrieds and singles alike. 250K is not a lot for a married couple. And if you make 499,999, thats an extra 15K in tax you have to foot. Not to mention the increased burden on employer-side contributions. As an illustration, between me and my wife, we made about 385,000 last year (an extra 8370 we'd have to foot). That 8370 will "dent" my living because I made it. Its mine. I have given enough to the social security fund. This attitude that awww shucks, we live in the US and are lucky to do so so just shut up and pay them whatever they want you to pay is equally unAmerican. This system was based in tax revolt. Americans as a people abhor taxes. If Obama wants to be like Europe so much, tell him to move over there. Bette ryet, let Exxon drill Alaska like the Norwegians do (in their Alaska).

Add to that his increase in marginal tax rates, dividend taxes, capital gains, etc., and the guy is all around bad news.

"What we should be talking about is the current deficit spending adminstration that wont tax americans ..."

WSJ today said Bill Gross advised Obama to double deficit spending.

Feel free to parce out my rant as you see fit. I speak better than I write. ; )

also, pertifitz, YOU are the one who should care for your children's money, not me.

TA "8370 we'd have to foot" as compared to the extra $15000 you would have to foot under McCains healthcare plan?

"TA "8370 we'd have to foot" as compared to the extra $15000 you would have to foot under McCains healthcare plan?"

Haven't read his plan. How would I have to foot an extra 15K?

Also TA you know very well that the richer you are, the more accountants you have and the more write offs you create. So any actual direct calculation you cite is then discounted dramtacially from write offs etc.

The wealthier I become the less tax I pay (as a percentage). Stop your crying that the wealty are getting hit harder.

TA you would foot an extra $15K in healthcare costs as your employer paid insurance goes away. Insurance in NY metro for a couple currently costs a minimun $1500 per month and can go to $2K per month. Under McCains plan you would get $5K in tax incentives. So you will have to pay an extra $15-20K out of pocket and in return you get only $5K in offset tax incentives.

"Also TA you know very well that the richer you are, the more accountants you have and the more write offs you create. So any actual direct calculation you cite is then discounted dramtacially from write offs etc. The wealthier I become the less tax I pay (as a percentage). Stop your crying that the wealty are getting hit harder."

I am not "wealthy". How does making 250 a year make one "wealthy" exactly. This guy keeps running around referring to the "wealthiest" Americans. Income has zero to do with wealth. This guy does a real disservice to folks calling someone "wealthy" just because he and his wife make 250K + 1 a year.

Wealth is retained income, amassed over years and years of saving and investing. Some schmuck graduates Harvard Business and makes 250K his first year is not "wealthy", is he? I'm not crying about the "wealthy" like you (apparently) I'm "crying" over me. I'm not a millionaire. I'm an average W2 schmuck right now.

By the way, do you have any stock picks right now or are you out of the market entirely.

thebelltollsforthy - why shoul dmy children have to pay for you? Why shouldnt you pay your own way. Its not just your children that pay for your excess but mine as well. I dont want my kids tax dollars to pay for your stupidity.

totallyanonymous - $250K per year puts you in the top 2-3% of the country and therefore considered wealthy. As faras your "retained income, amassed over years and years of saving and investing" - it is your problem if you are making over $250K per year and not saving or investing properly. If you make in the top 2-3% and not saving in the top 2-3% then you are hurting yourself and why should I bail you out?

your last point I am in the market and very diversified. I dont claim to be good at picking stocks. I am invested heavily in alternative energy stocks and socially conscious stocks as well. I would rather invest in something that helps or doesnt hurt the world and get less of a return. But I have found that many of these stocks are returning quite well.

petrifitz - why should I pay for your children? Why don't they pay for your stupidity?
You're way too combative and unreasonable to be really successful. Every post of yours peels off another layer of your lies. Or is it role-playing?

"$250K per year puts you in the top 2-3% of the country and therefore considered wealthy. As faras your "retained income, amassed over years and years of saving and investing" - it is your problem if you are making over $250K per year and not saving or investing properly. If you make in the top 2-3% and not saving in the top 2-3% then you are hurting yourself and why should I bail you out?"

That is truly an uninformed and ridicuolous statement. Before I bought and sold my last apartment I saved well over 60% of my take home. I have been making this amount for only 2-3 years. I now "save" outside mortgage maybe 20-30% of my take home. Income has absolutely nothing to do with wealth. If the guy truly wanted to soak the rich, he'd increase taxes on investment income and hard assets, not on W2 income.

thebelltollsforthy you didnt answer the question. Why should my children pay for your excesses? Name calling doesnt justify you not paying your own way.

totallyanonymous why shoul dsocial security payments stop at $90K? I see no reason that all income shouldnt contribute. Why give the wealthy a huge benefit and soak the poor?

petrfitz - I made my real estate choices recently based on the devastating effect of annual 17% increases in my (self-employed individual) healthcare insurance premium.

I don't drive, but altho people have snorted derisively at my comments about gas prices having an effect, I can tell you that yesterday I was in cabs out to JFK and back at 10:00 am and 9:00 pm and the traffic on NYC highways was as light as you'd expect it to be at 3:30 am. I asked my cab driver and he said yes, it's true, traffic is way, way, way down.

My situation is somewhat unique, being self-employed, but if I were a dad with an employer plan I'd have car(s) to contend with.

I think those CA suburbs most devastated now are the ones furthest away from jobs - people thought they could commute out to affordable homes.

I have to believe that life in the inner city looks a lot different if gas prices stay where they are.

"totallyanonymous why shoul dsocial security payments stop at $90K? I see no reason that all income shouldnt contribute. Why give the wealthy a huge benefit and soak the poor?"

Because employers have to match that 6.2%, thus a lift on the cap, amounts to an increase in the corporate tax rate, which Saint Obama is purportedly against. And if you think that 90K + 1 is "wealthy" then you are truly gone, brother. You know, I think that all those who feel that they don't pay enough income, et. al., taxes should simply voluntarily pay more. Barring that, Saint Obama should tax the real wealthy, like you, not me.

"I can tell you that yesterday I was in cabs out to JFK and back at 10:00 am and 9:00 pm and the traffic on NYC highways was as light as you'd expect it to be at 3:30 am. I asked my cab driver and he said yes, it's true, traffic is way, way, way down."

It is a big vacation week, though.

"Because employers have to match that 6.2%, thus a lift on the cap, amounts to an increase in the corporate tax rate,"

Not to mention the downward pressure on wages a cap increase would produce. Moreover, the cap is now 102 not 90 and its inflation indexed so it goes up every year anyway, regardless.

There is a simple reason why social security taxes are capped at 102K of income, it's because the benefits are calculated on that very same basis. To the extent the cap is raised, you essentially transform a social insurance program into a welfare program. FDR would do cannon balls in his grave. I have never voted for a Republican in my life, but this year I might just do it.....

Totallyanonymous - so you are saying that a minor tax increase on corporations is worse than millions of Americans losing their safety net and possibly going into poverty?

petrifitz - your children do not have to pay for anything. I'll live the way I see fit and they can live the way they see fit. BTW, you're the one who said "your stupidity" I was just quoting you. But knowing your obsessive ways, you'll pluck a comma from a sentence and gnaw on it till it's taken away from you. Pity.

if you dont want to pay taxes to cover your expenditures then someone has to pay. Who pays Santa?

I pay my taxes. Plus that school tax for your children. What's wrong with you.

Wasnt this you? "thebelltollsforthy - about 1 hour ago - every generation leaves some manure to the incoming generation ("children", as you cal them) to sort out. Fine by me."

Yep. Does NOT MEAN I DON"T PAY TAXES. Means: life is more than what you make it look to be.

ok bell either way it seems you are flip floping on your own words.

But my point is the greatest threat to the RE market is healthcare costs and oil costs. Republicans have giverned over a 400% increase in both. Can we afford another 400%?

petrfitz, half of your posts are about how terrible stevejhx is, but here you are, posing a question, then supplying the answer and combatting everyone who disagrees even slightly. What the hell is your MO here? Couldn't you have done this on Curbed?

bjw - please point to a post where you added value? is the value that you add the comment "ah that could never happen... i know i work inthe industry?"

Very valuable. This post was started because all the other posts focus on naysayers saying how bad the market is and not really getting to the root of the problem. I believe that the market is stabilizing but if healthcare costs sky rocket, or oil prices double then we are in for a HUGe world of hurt.

This post was to examine that politics could have a bigger impact on our economy than any current macro economic force such as the credit crisis.

An attack on Iran or more years of disasterous health care policies will crush a fragile economy that is on the verge of recovering.

Please feel free to add some value bjw. Or you can just attack me.

petrfitz, I "added value" when I posited that wages would increase if employers stopped paying for health insurance, which you laughed off, then ignored. My point was why ask the question if you think you know the answer and then bash anyone who disagrees? Is this your sad way of having a good time? Make a convicing argument that rising healthcare costs will affect real estate, then this will return to a healthy debate. Otherwise, you're as guilty of clogging this board as stevejhx is.

Also, in case you still think my opinion is laughable (whole article from: http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/10/news/economy/tully_healthcare.fortune/).

"Here's where it gets interesting. Employers would no longer be able to buy more health care with $9,000 of their employees' money than the workers could buy on their own. The raison d'être for corporate health benefits would vanish. Employers have another compelling reason to pass the ball to the employee: While wages are rising around 3% ayear, their health-care costs are growing at three times that rate. "I predict that most companies would stop paying for health care in three to four years," says Robert Laszewski, a consultant who works with corporate benefits managers. Hence, an employer that pays $9,000 for your benefits would simply pack an extra $9,000 a year into your paycheck. (Why? Because in a competitive labor market, companies would have to hand over that cash to employees or risk losing them.) So you'd have $6,000 after tax, plus the $5,000 family credit, to buy insurance. That's $11,000 in new cash that employees can set aside for health care."

bjw says "Because in a competitive labor market, companies would have to hand over that cash to employees or risk losing them"

competitive labor market? Tell that to the 65,000 people who just got laid off from Wall Street banks. Also if you havent noticed unemployment rates are rising signaling that labor market is not competitive people are worried about losing their jobs.

The above argument works in a growing economy not a shrinking one. Employers are not going to "give" their employees $9K more a year. employers are laying people off and cutting salaries. Even more example of the disaster of the McCain health care plan. It kicks you while you down.

That $5K tax incentive does do squat to you if you dont have income.

bjw your argument that employers will give money to their employees is the same argument that "industries will regulate themselves"

where did the credit markets regulating themselves get us?

petrifitz, you'll have a huge relief if/when you admit to your real station in life. Does wonders for one's psyche.

"Totallyanonymous - so you are saying that a minor tax increase on corporations is worse than millions of Americans losing their safety net and possibly going into poverty?"

Again, you call 6.2% "minor". To me thats "major". I know its fashionable to rail against greedy corporations but they along with small business pay all the w2 salaries in this country. Hit them too hard and you'll put people into "poverty" for sure.

petrfitz, Wall St is obviously hurting, but that does NOT mean every other industry is. Are you saying that employers will just pocket all their savings? Would be fun to see the reaction to that one. Most of that money would have to be passed on to the employees - and this is also coming from a benefit consultant, who's working for the employers, remember. Furthermore, I don't think I've ever seen someone getting their salary cut. Losing a job, yes, but cutting salary? And do not equate my argument to "industries regulating themselves." That's dishonest and just plain wrong. Sometimes market forces do work. I think you're in over your head on this one.

bjw to be clear your argument is that industries faced with newly found money will give that money to employees and not keep it for themselves.

I dont believe that will happen in todays market and even in a highly competitive market.

Also - how does the situation effect the people who lose thier jobs? If you are not employed, your employer is not giving you a salary or the extra cash you speak of, and if you have no income tax incentives dont help you at all but you still need to pay that $1500 - 2K a month for your health insurance.

Just admit it the McCain healthcare plan is a disaster waiting to happen.

petrfitz, here's the funny part - I don't even like McCain's plan. Once again, my point from the beginning (and to answer your perfectly valid question), was that healthcare costs are property values are not related. You seem to think they are and are worried that if (huge if) McCain's plan goes through as defined, people won't be able to pay mortgages because they'll have to spend so much on health insurance. It's your right to think that, but I explained why I (and at least one prominent benefits consultant) think that's not the likely scenario.

"healthcare costs AND property values", sorry.

ok bjw - to clarify you are saying that if McCains healthcare plan goes through, all employers in the US will give all their employees a $9K per year raise. With the average salary in the US being around $40K that is a huge raise to Americans.

The average healthcare costs are about $16 - 20K per year. So even with the extra $9K raise of which they will then pay at least 30% taxes leaving around $6K, the individual is then left with spending an extra $9-15K per year out of pocket based on a average $49K per year income.

You are also saying that the incuring a new cost that is almost 25% of their income wil lnot in any way effec the amount a person can afford to pay on their insurance.

sorry effect the amount they pay for their mortgage - not insurance.

bjw - you are a fool. You are arguing that Americans have unlimited wallets and they can incur new costs that are a major percentage of their income and those new costs will not efffect the amount that they can then pay for their homes.

Ok petrfitz, I can't hold back any longer. You're either an instigator getting your kicks on Streeteasy or a complete idiot. I never said all American employees will get $9k back. What I said was, if all employers no longer pay for health insurance, the money your company pays for that insurance will be redistributed back to your company's employees. How you understood $9k to every employee is beyond me. Insurance is part of your benefit package, and thus, your pay, and believe me, most employees would be quite vocal about losing it and not seeing a commensurate raise in wages due to a policy shift.

The average healthcare costs you cite are for a family of 4, and most likely in the most expensive cities (Miami and New York). Look, I don't know everything about healthcare, but I've been in this field long enough to know this much. You seem to have no grasp on benefits or pretty basic economic principles. Quit your shenanigans and name-calling, or go back to Curbed.

I think/hope he meant "fool" in the friendly sense. If not, he'd have called you an idiot I think. I think he's a fool for not thinking Obamanomics will hurt the economy.

totallyanonymous, maybe, but not holding my breath on that one. As for Obamanomics, the arbitrary $250k is a tough pill to swallow. A couple making that in NYC really shouldn't be paying additional taxes at this point. A couple making that amount in farm country somewhere? Different story. But I believe that's your point.

Of course thats my point. Hell, 400K is Manhattan is not "wealthy". Regardless of how you feel about guns, gays and God, this guy's a tax and spender pure and simple. I vote socially locally and vote fiscally nationally.

totallyanonymous says "I think he's a fool for not thinking Obamanomics will hurt the economy."

Are you saying that Obama's economics will hurt the economy more than the devastation caused by the Bush Economic Policies.

"Are you saying that Obama's economics will hurt the economy more than the devastation caused by the Bush Economic Policies."

At this point, yes.

TA says "this guy's a tax and spender pure and simple" as compared to Bush's cut taxes, increase spending and sending the bill to our kids, and their kids?

I dont know about you but I believe in paying my own way and not passing the bill onto others.

the more "moral" position is to pay your own way. Cutting taxes and spending more than you can pay for is simply immoral.

Obama's tax proposals are offensively punitive to middle class professionals living in high tax / high cost of living states -- I really can't understand how any moderately educated person would support that.

I'll make it even more direct: if you live in NY/NJ/CT and are a mid-level white collar worker, voting for the Obama platform is as good as handing over 10-15% of your income. McCain can eat puppies and wear a thong for all I care - he still gets my vote simply becuase the he's not openly planning to compromise my family's financial situation.

east cider - would having to pay for your own health insurance comprimise your family's situation? What about $8 per gallon gas and truple the bill of your home heating and cooling? That s what will happen under McCain.

I guess you partisan Republicans are happy hearing the same drivel and happy to continue to vote agisnt your own interests.

I seem to remember more prosperity under Clinton than we had under Bush.

petrfitz, love how you just ignore any post that you can't ably refute - very self-serving. You're clearly an instigator for just blindly labeling people partisan Republicans. You remember more prosperity under Clinton? Didn't you make most of your money just after the internet boom?

I do pay for my own health insurance, but it is subsidized by my employer who gets a much better group rate than I would get on my own.

If energy prices go up further, I certainly wouldn't blame an incoming president. To make such an argument is laughably simplistic and betrays a lack of understanding of the issues.

I never said I was a Republican, and in fact, I'm not. And as far as voting against my interests, you seem to have it backwards. Confiscatory, redistributive income taxes are not my interests. Therefore, I'm voting against that platform.

I agree that the Clinton years were okay, and you can thank legislative/executive gridlock for that.

no i made my money under Clinton, and grew it under Bush. But under Clinton I was swimming with the current, under Bush it was swimming against the current trying to keep my head above water. Under Clinton many were building and creating, under Bush it was just a few who already had money.

why shoul dsocial security payments stop at $90K?

Because social security is intended to fund a benefit. And the benefit stops based on that level of income (or whatever it is now $90+).

Social security was not intended as a tax. If we want to tax, we should tax, not do so under another program.

"Confiscatory, redistributive income taxes are not my interests. Therefore, I'm voting against that platform"

Well said. Too bad the Obamatized media doesn't pick up on this simple truth.

And Petrofitz. Were you lauding the Bush economy lo around 2003-2007 or do you choose only to equate bad times with republicans and democrats with good? If so, then you're the "partisan". I'm just a guy trying to keep what I've worked for.

I never lauded the Bush economy and never saw it as good times. The money I made in RE during his term was completely recognized as a false bubble that was built to mask the underlying flaws with his economic policies. Now the rosters have come home to roost.

I was a registered Republican at a time, and have actually been appointed to a civilian military baord by Bush. I have never seen any good from him or his diasaterous policies.

I am not so consumed by partisanship that I cant see through the bullshit even after the country has been desimated.

hmm yeah Obama's tax plan is going to ruin our economy:

"The National Employment Report from Automatic Data Processing showed a 76,000-job drop for goods-producing businesses, the 19th monthly decline in a row, coupled with a 3,000 job decline in the services sector."

I don't think that Obama's massive tax hikes on the productive class (notably including small business proprietors) are the right formula to get the economy's job creation engine going again.

So the policies that stopped the engines and broke the turbines are the right formula to get the job creation engine going again? Just trying to understand?

How about small government, open trade and lower personal/corporate tax burdens? Sounds like a good formula to me. I'll let you decide for yourself which candidate is more likely to embrace that sort of formula.

how do we support 2 soon to be 3 wars on lower taxes?

Lower taxes would move us up and to the left on ye olde Laffer Curve. Lower taxes = higher revenue.

Obviously, I'd prefer we eventually withdraw from the engagements in the Middle East, but I'm not overly concerned about our ability to fund them if we have the right fiscal policies.

east cider - that is the white whale of your position "Lower taxes = higher revenue." It hasnt happened. Actually under Clinton the opposite happened.

Also - lower federal taxes without major spending restraints means higher local taxes. I just got wacked with HUGE tax increases from NYC on all my properties. They are raising taxes locally because Federal dollars went away. So any tax savings I got from the Bush tax cut were just wiped away and my net tax burden is now higher.

If lower taxes, higher revenue, and responsible spending cuts could actually happen I would be supportive. But as it currently is it is a shell game that only rasies taqxes in the end and hurts services.

east cider says "but I'm not overly concerned about our ability to fund them if we have the right fiscal policies" But we dont have the right fiscal policies and we are leaving the bill to the unborn. Is that moral?

This is getting a bit too "tin foil hat" for me. Have a nice holiday and try to get away from the keyboard for a while.

sorry to interrupt but I was wondering if anyone could tell me how much of a discount off asking price one can expect if they are paying cash?
Thank you

east cider sys "i am covering my ears whenever i hear anything that contradicts what I am told by the RNC. None of the results that were promised actually happened, it was actually the opposite but I am going to continue believing what I was told and not listen to any other point of view even if they cite actual outcomes"

petrfitz, please stop being such a complete jack@ss.

I'm willing to listen to all points of view. It's just that your particular brand of pessimism and paranoia masquarading as progressivism doesn't really appeal to me as fertile ground for a debate.

I already told you I'm not a Republican, and therefore the RNC agenda has little bearing on my own.

Good luck.

abject liberals seem to view any dissent with their views as part of the "talking points" of the vast right-wing conspiracy.

ok you guys win - I am willing to listen - what is it about McCains healthcare or tax policies that are different than Bush's? And why are those differences going to improve the economy greatly?

anyone?

well for one, he's not going to raise taxes on folks like me making over 250,000 a year. Thats enough for me. And I asked you to post a link to this health care policy you keep harping about but you didn't. please do so.

here you go:

Barack Care Versus John Care: Health Care Under the Next President

There is a sharp difference between Barack Obama and John McCain on health care.

By far the most important domestic policy issue facing the next president will be fixing the health care system. The United States stands out among wealthy countries in not guaranteeing health insurance to its citizens.

Yet, even though many people cannot get access to care, we still pay more than twice as much per person as the average in other wealthy countries. And we have the worst outcomes. Only a severely over-medicated politician would claim we have the best health care system in the world.

As bad as the current system is, it keeps getting worse. The number of people who are uninsured year round is at 47 million and rising. The costs also keep rising. Companies are increasingly dropping insurance for their workers, or forcing workers to pick up a larger share of the bill. The explosion of health care costs is the basis for all the scare stories that budget hawks use to cut "entitlements." Since half of the country's health care costs are paid by the government, if we don't fix the health care system, it will eventually destroy the economy - and also lead to very scary budget deficits.

So, what do the candidates offer? Following in the Republican tradition of referring to health care plans by the first name of their principle backer, let's see what the candidates propose.

John-Care is a plan to get rid of the employer-based insurance that most of us rely on presently. Senator McCain would eliminate the tax deductibility of employer-provided insurance, in effect requiring employers who offer insurance to take money out of workers' paychecks for their tax liability on their health insurance.

Needless to say, this will make dealing with insurers even less attractive to businesses. Most employers will soon get out of the health insurance business and leave it to workers to buy their own plan. Toward this end, John-Care would give every worker a $2,500 tax credit, or $5,000 for a family.

This will not be sufficient to cover the cost of insurance for many families, especially those with serious health problems. Insurance companies don't like to insure people in bad health. While John-Care does provide a modest pool (at $7 billion to $10 billion) to help people with health problems to get insurance, this is a tiny fraction of what would be needed. Essentially, the McCain plan would undermine the current employer-provided system, and leave millions of people with health problems unable to buy insurance.

By contrast, Barack-Care would build on the current system. It would create a publicly run Medicare-type plan that any employer or individual can buy into. This would provide an additional option for people unhappy with their current insurance. However, those who are pleased with their current insurance would be able to stay with their plan under Barack-Care.

Barack-Care would also reform the private market, prohibiting insurers from charging more to people with health conditions, a rule that is already in place in several states. This would mean workers need not fear being unable to get insurance if they develop a serious illness and lose their job.

Barack-Care would also have subsidies for low- and moderate-income families to ensure they can afford to buy insurance. These subsidies would be financed by a fee assessed on employers who don't provide insurance. The basic story is that every employer (with a small business exemption) will have to contribute towards their workers' health care. They can either buy insurance directly, or they can contribute to a general fund to pay for insurance.

So, those are the basic outlines of the two candidates' health care plans. Senator Obama would build on the system that is already in place and offer people an additional option - buying into a Medicare-type public plan. By contrast, Senator McCain wants to get rid of the current system of employer-provided insurance and force everyone to buy insurance as individuals.

In terms of health care policy, this is by far the sharpest difference between presidential nominees the country has ever seen. Hopefully, people will be aware of these distinctions when they cast their votes in November.

1 thing to add - McCain would not have coverage under his own health care policy. He would not be able to get private coverage because of his history of cancer.

Guilani would also not qualify for coverage.

Genius.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/30/10001/

Guy, do you get all your news from left wing bloggers?

please post a comparison by a conservative author. I am interested.

"The number of people who are uninsured year round is at 47 million and rising"

What he fails to mention is that 25% of them are eligible for Medicaid and never bothered applying.

Moreover, the 47 MM figure they throw out includes 15 MM illegal aliens the Dems conveniently throw in their statistics.

please post a link to where you got that fact from. Otherwise it is not a fact.

but it is fine to have 33 million non brown skinned citizens not insured? how moral is that?

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_dick_morris/obama_s_new_strategy

here's a taste

"but it is fine to have 33 million non brown skinned citizens not insured? how moral is that?"

Guy, if you want a national health care system which covers, among others, illegal aliens then you are a true socialist. May I suggest Canada.

petrfitz, you're still harping this tune? Here's that article again (and it's not from a clearly partisan blogger either):

http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/10/news/economy/tully_healthcare.fortune/

And how did this thread devolve into a political debate? Maybe this was your MO from the start. Take the politics elsewhere.

http://www.gop.com/blog/Read.aspx?guid=380beff8-9f9f-46c5-a0dc-57109839ffaf

Here's another. And might I suggest actually visiting McCain's website to corroborate these blogs? I do so for Obama.

i noticed that none of you could summarize McCains plan or why it is good for america. All you did was copy and paste links to GOP and conservative sites.

Before I go and read these do any of you care to demonstrate your knowledge of McCains plan and why it would not cause significant increase costs to Americans?

Helath care costs will have no affect on the market since President Barack Obama is going to give us all socialized, I mean universal health care! YEAH! New York = Toronto