Health Benefits Inspire a Rush to the Altar, or to Divorce Court

Let's just say this very clearly: Access to basic health services should NOT be based upon whether you're married or divorced.

The divorce rate for American marriages is over 50 percent these days, and the problem of how difficult it is for people to access affordable health care is making things worse. Kevin Sack wrote the story "Health Benefits Inspire a Rush to the Altar, or to Divorce Court" for the New York Times. Read it here.

Overall, it's a pretty sad state of affairs that getting good health care depends on whether you've got a spouse that has it, or for that matter, that you have to divorce your spouse in order to be poor enough to get assistance with your medical bills. This said, it brings us to some key differences regarding what the two leading presidential candidates (presumptive nominees) have to say about health care. We credit National Journal -- not the campaigns, for these differences, noting that National Journal frames the key difference as "over the scope of government involvement in America's health care system."

To put this another way, Senator McCain's plan depends primarily on tax incentives to individuals, while Senator Obama's plan pays for his proposed program by allowing President Bush's tax breaks to expire for people who earn over $250,000.

There are differences in their voting records, including:

• State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
  
• McCain voted NO; Obama voted YES .. for reauthorization and expansion in 2007
  
• Stem Cell Research
• Obama SPONSORED 2006-07 legislation -- VETOED by President Bush & OPPOSED by McCain -- that would have expanded federal funding of embryonic-stem-cell research
  

National Journal lists SEIU, the American Hospital Association, Families USA and America's Health Insurance Plan as key supporters of Obama. National Journal does not list any organizations as advocates for McCain.

SEIU made its endorsement of Obama based upon his work in support of universal coverage, with employers, individuals and government sharing the financial burdon.

LA TMES tells the story -- McCain Gambles on Drilling

The LA Times tells the story in detail: "McCain Gambling on Off Shore Drilling ... He thinks the nation's high gas price will trump concerns about protecting the environment, especially in key Midwest States".

The McCain gamble is that voters will care more about high gas prices than they do any environmental risks involved in off shore drilling. To emphasize his point, he gave his speech supporting off-shore drilling in Santa Barbara, CA which was the site of a big oil spill in 1969 that many voters still remember.

In short, the McCain gamble, as described by writers Cathleen Decker and Michael Finnegan, is intended as a campaign tactic to reach out to independent voters. As these voters make their decisions, we expect them to consider a series of facts.

1. How much oil is already open to leasing? ANSWER: 79%
2. How much natural gas is open to leasing? ANSWER: 82%
3. How many total federal acres are leased and in production now? ANSWER: 91.5% leased but only 23.7% of these acres are producing.

According to a study done by the U.S. Committee on Natural Resources, the reality is that drilling does not lower gas prices.

So what's the McCain tactic about? ANSWER -- it's a "fool ya" game. "Fool ya Midwest" is a very specific kind of dirty political game tactics that seeks to blame a "straw man" while ignoring all the facts ... in this case, facts like worldwide demand, the industrialization of China and more factors, all of which have come together to create more demand for oil products. Essentially, McCain is playing the "fool ya Midwest" in the hopes that he can scare voters into believing that this off-shore drilling is the only answer to $5 gas.

In a way, it's the same sort of game he played recently when he went to Iowa to urge the President to veto the Farm Bill, i.e., McCain was hoping to trick some city people into believing the Farm Bill was all bad, when in reality, the Farm Bill had many sections important to urban citizens ... sections like school lunch, WIC, farmers' markets, food safety and food security. That was a "fool ya" game, too .. just like now with off-shore drilling ... "fool ya" by pretending that more off-shore drilling will actually lower oil and gas prices.

Bush Vetoes Farm Bill

George Bush vetoed the Farm Bill today ... just like John McCain wanted. Bush -- McCain ... always the same. Meanwhile, we've been getting some comments that skipped our usual blog system, so this is to share one whose perspective by "MRA Reader, Nelson" seems particularly relevant since it makes clear the difficulties of trying to talk budget sense with the White House.

"President Bush's threat to veto the Farm Bill because it is too expensive is ironic.

"Why ironic ? Well, not just because the President's motives are really political. After seven-and-one-half years, no one is going to buy the argument that this President is concerned about the cost of anything that he sticks the taxpayers with. Compare, for example, the cost of this Farm Bill to the price that Americans are paying for the Iraq War.

"Rather it is ironic because the threat of a veto actually raised the price tag that the Farm Bill must carry.

"Quite a few months ago a Congressional majority (mostly democrats, but plenty of Republicans, also) more or less had the outline of a Farm Bill that they believed the country needed. But, plenty of Republicans (and more than a few Democrats) were denied goodies for their constituents. So, these "exclude-niks" sent their constituents' lobbyists to the White House to ask the President to please, please, pretty-please threaten a veto. The effect that a veto threat would have would be to force the Bill's managers to go back to the excluded Members and
agree to add costly goodies, thus "buying" those Members' votes.

"How many votes did they have to buy ? Why, the difference between a ordinary majority (50% plus 1 vote) and a super majority (two- thirds). That's a lot of votes -- and a lot of dollars. But, what's a few billion more or less to this President.

"So, after successfully jacking up the cost of the Farm Bill by a bag full o'billions (by issuing the threat during the negotiations), why did this President actually go ahead and veto the porker of a Farm Bill that he prodded Congress into creating when he knew that they would override the veto in a heart beat?

"Who knows ? Maybe the boy just wanted to have some fun!"

Nelson