I think I go with Forest Gump and say "...it's both"

I think it's starts off as free will, but what does man do with free will? He or she finds what make them happy and in that search for happiness he or she creates their destiny.

Mind you I also believe in reincarnation so that search goes on until you reach that happiness.

Could it be that as the universe expands time acclerates just as fast?

I don't claim to understand but is this time acclerating It feels that it was the year 2000 just last year. lol I mean when was 9 the year took forever to past but now that I'm older time seems to fly, children grow up so fast.

A green sea slug appears to be part animal, part plant. It's the first critter discovered to produce the plant pigment chlorophyll.

The sneaky slugs seem to have stolen the genes that enable this skill from algae that they've eaten. With their contraband genes, the slugs can carry out photosynthesis — the process plants use to convert sunlight into energy.

"They can make their energy-containing molecules without having to eat anything," said Sidney Pierce, a biologist at the University of South Florida in Tampa.

Pierce has been studying the unique creatures, officially called Elysia chlorotica, for about 20 years. He presented his most recent findings Jan. 7 at the annual meeting of the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology in Seattle. The finding was first reported by Science News.

"This is the first time that multicellar animals have been able to produce chlorophyll," Pierce told LiveScience.

The sea slugs live in salt marshes in New England and Canada. In addition to burglarizing the genes needed to make the green pigment chlorophyll, the slugs also steal tiny cell parts called chloroplasts, which they use to conduct photosynthesis. The chloroplasts use the chlorophyl to convert sunlight into energy, just as plants do, eliminating the need to eat food to gain energy.


"We collect them and we keep them in aquaria for months," Pierce said. "As long as we shine a light on them for 12 hours a day, they can survive [without food]."

The researchers used a radioactive tracer to be sure that the slugs are actually producing the chlorophyll themselves, as opposed to just stealing the ready-made pigment from algae. In fact, the slugs incorporate the genetic material so well, they pass it on to further generations of slugs.

The babies of thieving slugs retain the ability to produce their own chlorophyll, though they can't carry out photosynthesis until they've eaten enough algae to steal the necessary chloroplasts, which they can't yet produce on their own.

The slugs accomplishment is quite a feat, and scientists aren't yet sure how the animals actually appropriate the genes they need.

"It certainly is possible that DNA from one species can get into another species, as these slugs have clearly shown," Pierce said. "But the mechanisms are still unknown."

WASHINGTON -- Government efforts to funnel hundreds of billions of dollars into the U.S. economy appear to be helping the U.S. climb out of the worst recession in decades.

But there's little agreement about which programs are having the biggest impact. Some economists argue that efforts such as the Federal Reserve's aggressive buying of Treasury debt and mortgage-backed securities, as well as government efforts to shore up banks, are providing a bigger boost than the administration's $787 billion stimulus package.

The U.S. economy is beginning to show signs of improvement, with many economists asserting the worst is past and data pointing to stronger-than-expected growth. On Tuesday, data showed manufacturing grew in August for the first time in more than a year. "There's a method to the madness. We're getting out of this," said Brian Bethune, chief U.S. financial economist at IHS Global Insight.

Much of the stimulus spending is just beginning to trickle through the economy, with spending expected to peak sometime later this year or in early 2010. The government has funneled about $60 billion of the $288 billion in promised tax cuts to U.S. households, while about $84 billion of the $499 billion in spending has been paid. About $200 billion has been promised to certain projects, such as infrastructure and energy projects.

Many forecasters say stimulus spending is adding two to three percentage points to economic growth in the second and third quarters, when measured at an annual rate. The impact in the second quarter, calculated by analyzing how the extra funds flowing into the economy boost consumption, investment and spending, helped slow the rate of decline and will lay the groundwork for positive growth in the third quarter -- something that seemed almost implausible just a few months ago. Some economists say the 1% contraction in the second quarter would have been far worse, possibly as much as 3.2%, if not for the stimulus.

For the third quarter, economists at Goldman Sachs & Co. predict the U.S. economy will grow by 3.3%. "Without that extra stimulus, we would be somewhere around zero," said Jan Hatzius, chief U.S. economist for Goldman.

Dave Anderson, chief financial officer of Honeywell International Inc., said the stimulus package actually froze business activity at first as firms tried to figure out how they could benefit from the government spending. The $787 billion package "created actually a slowdown in order activity in terms of the flow that we would normally have anticipated," Mr. Anderson said at a conference sponsored by Morgan Stanley. "We anticipate that that's going to actually pick up in the second half of the year. I think it's not unreasonable to see several hundred million dollars of orders.

Opinion, however, remains split about which program has had the biggest impact. "I don't think the stimulus was necessarily as effective as people claimed it to be or claim it will be," said Joseph LaVorgna, chief U.S. economist with Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. He credits the government's "stress tests" of banks, which helped boost confidence on Wall Street and allow banks to raise capital and resume lending.

Economists say other programs are having an impact, including an $8,000 tax credit for first-time home-buyers that has spurred home sales. The cash-for-clunkers program, which provided financial incentives for consumers to trade in older vehicles, did the same for cars.

One big question: Will the boost evaporate once the programs end?

Stuart Hoffman, chief U.S. economist for PNC Financial Services Group, said the stimulus package "caused this bit of a concentrated burst [that] probably will exaggerate the pace of economic growth," since some areas, such as auto sales, could fall back to low levels

Ok here is a site reguarding the myths and truths of Healthcare Reform.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/


On the other side of the coin are you a or were you on a private insurance but your insurance denied you coverage for treatment or medicine because it was not in you plan. Post your story here.

If your a small business owner and you are not financiallyable to cover your workers because of high cost of healthcare post your story here. If you are a small business owner and fear of a mandate to cover your workers by the Fed then go to http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/ and check with your congressman or senator about the bill and have then read you the section on small business exception.

If you had a love one incapacitated and unable to communicate his/her decisions of healthcare and you were left with uncomfortable position of decision maker because of a lack of a Living Will, post your story here. (Think Teri Schivo)



I'll go first.

I was working for a year as an temporary accouting clerk and receiving Medicare due to my disability. My supervisior at the firm loved me he offered to hire me at the same pay of $10.00 an hour at the temp agency paid, and with medical benifits that they agency didn't. Unfortunately their medical plan didn't cover my medications or Dr. It was also the around the time of year of medical review for disability benefits and I feared my earning may make illedgible for continued medical coverage. I had to decide betweeen medical care for work. I could only funtion at work if I had medicine so I logically chose medical care.

Tax Cuts yester year, in debit today


WASHINGTON, March 30 ? House Republican leaders avoided an embarrassing setback on Tuesday, barely defeating a nonbinding resolution favoring new restrictions on future tax cuts that are the centerpiece of President Bush's economic program.

The major budget fight between the House and Senate this year is not over provisions of the budget itself, as both Republican-controlled chambers have passed $2.4 trillion spending blueprints for next year that largely track Mr. Bush's proposal. Instead, it is over rules that would make it more difficult for Congress to pass new tax cuts that are not paid for by increases in other taxes or spending cuts. The Senate has approved such a "pay as you go" measure that covers taxes, but Mr. Bush and Republican Congressional leaders strenuously oppose it.

In a vote reflecting the apprehension of many lawmakers that the $478 billion budget deficit is becoming a major election-year concern for voters, the House split 209 to 209 on Tuesday on a measure urging members negotiating a budget deal with the Senate to accept Senate tax-cut restrictions. At one point, 212 members had voted for the measure, but House leaders kept the vote open for more than 20 extra minutes to pressure a handful of members to change their votes. The tie meant that the measure was defeated.

With House leaders able to maintain their chamber's opposition to the "pay as you go" rule, attention is turning to two senators who may hold the budget's fate in their hands: Olympia J. Snowe and Susan Collins, both Republicans from Maine.

Earlier this month, both women joined with two other Republican senators, John McCain of Arizona and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, and all but one Democrat to approve, 51 to 48, an amendment to require 60 votes for the Senate to approve any new tax cuts in the next five years that are not offset by spending cuts or increases in other taxes. White House officials acknowledge that the provision could make it difficult for Mr. Bush, if he is re-elected, to win extensions of tax cuts passed in the last three years that expire by the end of the decade.

Mr. McCain and Mr. Chafee say they will vote for a final budget only if it includes the provision. On Tuesday, Ms. Collins said she was open to a compromise, perhaps a provision of shorter duration.

"It might be possible to have something that was more limited in time," she said. "I am open to discussing any reasonable alternative."

Ms. Snowe indicated she was less inclined to compromise. "I'm not likely to vote for a conference report without pay-go that treats tax cuts and spending equally," Ms. Snowe said Tuesday, referring to the legislative shorthand for "pay as you go."

If the provision is stripped in House-Senate negotiations, and the budget fails to win Senate approval as a result, Congress would be forced to operate without a budget, making it more difficult to control spending.

Reflecting the high stakes of this debate, the White House has been leaning on both Ms. Snowe and Ms. Collins. After the vote in the Senate earlier this month, Ms. Collins said a White House official called "to protest my vote." And Ms. Snowe said that she recently talked to Mr. Bush about the issue.

"The president wants to make sure that these tax cuts are extended," Ms. Snowe said.

House Republican leaders say they still oppose applying "pay as you go" to taxes. On Tuesday, the majority leader, Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, restated a view that has been cited by other Republican House leaders: tax cuts pay for themselves by generating economic growth that more than makes up for lost revenue.

"We, as a matter of philosophy, understand that when you cut taxes the economy grows, and revenues to the government grow," Mr. DeLay said. "The whole notion that you have to cut spending in order to cut taxes negates that philosophy, and so I'm not interested in something that would negate our philosophy."







OK during the Bush year House Republicans hated PAYGO in favor of tax cuts that was supposed to the grow the economy which would then in grow government revenue. ??????? FAIL!


Now Republicans are whining about Obama and his plans for PAYGO.

Obama pitches pay-as-you-go plan for Congress
The president is seeking binding legislation for the House and Senate
Video


Obama endorses 'Pay as you go'
June 9: President Obama proposes turning the "Pay as you go" rule into law, requiring Congress to save a dollar to spend a dollar in the federal budget.
MSNBC


Video: White House
The Cairo effect
June 9: In Middle East politics, having the United States in your corner during the Bush years was a bad thing but judging by the results in last week’s elections in Lebanon, having President Barack Obama on your side seems to be a good thing. The Washington Note’s Steve Clemons discusses.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Storm knocks down White House tree
Dems MIA in health care reform fight
Obama: TARP payback a 'positive sign'

Interactive

Explore a 3-D White House
Check out historical info, photos, and panoramic images.

Slideshow

The White House revealed
An exclusive peek into Obama's world.
more photos


updated 3:18 p.m. ET, Tues., June 9, 2009
WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama on Tuesday challenged Congress to pay for new increases in federal benefit programs as it goes rather than sink the nation deeper into a debt, calling it a matter of public responsibility.

Republicans lashed back that Obama is no voice of fiscal restraint as the deficit soars.

The president's plan would require Congress to pay for new entitlement spending, such as health care, by raising taxes or coming up with budget cuts — a "pay-as-you-go" system that would have the force of law. Under the proposal, if new spending or tax reductions are not offset, there would be automatic cuts in so-called mandatory programs — although Social Security payments and some other programs would be exempt.

Not noted by the president: Tuesday's plan is a watered-down version of the so-called "PAYGO" rules proposed just last month in his own budget plan.

That version would have required, on average, all affected legislation to be paid for in the very first year. The new plan only requires such legislation to be financed over the coming decade. That mirrors congressional rules and reflects the likelihood that health care reform will add to the deficit in the early years.

Spend a dollar, save a dollar
Obama said the principle is simple: Congress can only spend a dollar if it saves a dollar somewhere else.

"It is no coincidence that this rule was in place when we moved from record deficits to record surpluses in the 1990s — and that when this rule was abandoned, we returned to record deficits that doubled the national debt," Obama said, flanked at the White House by supportive Democratic lawmakers.

"Entitlement increases and tax cuts need to be paid for," he said. "They're not free, and borrowing to finance them is not a sustainable long-term policy."

Republican leaders, critical of the Obama-championed $787 billion stimulus package and other deficit spending, called the president disingenuous.

"It's as if the administration and these Democrat leaders are living in an alternate universe," said House Republican Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia. "The quickest way to save money is to stop recklessly spending it."

The pay-as-you-go rules would not apply to discretionary spending — the portion that Congress decides how to spend each year — which accounts for almost 40 percent of the budget, said Peter Orszag, the administration's budget director.

Obama's call for binding legislation comes as a reward to moderate-to-conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats who are big believers in pay-as-you go. Their votes were crucial to passing a congressional budget blueprint that generally follows Obama's budget.

Existing PAYGO rules
The House and Senate already have their own PAYGO rules, but have routinely found ways around them. For example, a bill to effectively double GI Bill education benefits was enacted last year because of a loophole in congressional rules.

Obama's "PAYGO" plan would also require future tax cuts to be financed by tax increases elsewhere in the code, though exceptions are made for extending President George W. Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, as well as other tax cuts that are scheduled to expire.

The federal deficit is on pace to explode past $1.8 trillion this year, more than four times last year's all-time high.

The deficit figures flow from the deep recession, the Wall Street bailout and the cost of the economic stimulus bill. Obama has defended the massive stimulus plan as essential to helping pump some life back in the economy, one that is still shedding jobs but showing more signs of life in recent weeks.

"The fact is, there are few who aren't distressed by deficits," Obama said. He said restoring a pay-as-you-go method under law would force lawmakers to deal not just with the politics and crises of the day, but also remain fixed on the nation's long-term financial health.

There are many to look at the issue but the state had the right to step in to save the kid's life.

On the religous front, yeah there freedom of religion but there a limit of religion if the belief does harm to people or if it infringes on the rights of others. In this case the right to life of the child.

On parents rights there the argument of parental negliect. As a upstanding parent your responsibility is to do everything to preserve the life of your child. If the parent is negliectiful in those duties then the state steps on behave of the child.

The right to privacy was mainly to protect the right of a woman right to consult a Dr. over abortion with out the state obstructing. I believe the Dr in this case, in keeping in the hipocratic oath, contacted the state with concern over the child health. The Dr, in good conscience, would not be responsible if the child died unless he neglected in reporting the child health to the state.

Which ever way you put it the persevation of the child's life is the ultimate goal in each of the 3 arugments.

Amid recession, oldest profession gets ‘creative’
German prostitutes resort to rebates and gimmicks to boost falling demand
BERLIN - It did not take long for the world financial crisis to affect the world's oldest profession in Germany.

In one of the few countries where prostitution is legal, and unusually transparent, the industry has responded with an economic stimulus package of its own: modern marketing tools, rebates and gimmicks to boost falling demand.

Some brothels have cut prices or added free promotions while others have introduced all-inclusive flat-rate fees. Free shuttle buses, discounts for seniors and taxi drivers, as well as "day passes" are among marketing strategies designed to keep business going.

"Times are tough for us too," said Karin Ahrens, who manages the "Yes, Sir" brothel in Hanover. She told Reuters revenue had dropped by 30 percent at her establishment while turnover had fallen by as much as 50 percent at other clubs.

"We're definitely feeling the crisis. Clients are being tight with their money. They're afraid. You can't charge for the extras any more and there is pressure to cut prices. Everyone wants a deal. Special promotions are essential these days."

Germany has about 400,000 professional prostitutes. Official figures do not distinguish between the sexes and the number of male prostitutes is not known, but they account for a small fraction of the total and are treated the same under the law.

In 2002, new legislation allowed prostitutes to advertise and to enter into formal labor contracts. It opened the way for them to obtain health insurance, previously refused if they listed their true profession.

Annual revenues are about 14 billion euros ($18 billion), according to an estimate by the Verdi services union. Taxes on prostitution are an important source of income for some cities.

Prostitution is also legal and regulated in the Netherlands, Austria, Switzerland, Hungary, Greece, Turkey and in some parts of Australia, and the U.S. state of Nevada.

In other countries, such as Luxembourg, Latvia, Denmark, Belgium and Finland, it is legal but brothels and pimping are not.

Berlin's "***** Club" has attracted media attention with its headline-grabbing "flat rate" -- a 70-euro admission charge for unlimited food, drink and sex between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m.

"You've got to come up with creative solutions these days," said club manager Stefan, who requested his surname not be published. "We're feeling the economic crisis, too, even though business has fortunately been more or less okay for us so far.

"Our offer might sound like it's too good to be true, but it's real. You can eat as much as you want, drink as much as you want and have as much sex as you want."

Stefan, who runs other establishments in Heidelberg and Wuppertal besides the Berlin club, said the flat rate had helped keep the 30 women working in each location fully employed.

Other novel ideas used by brothels and prostitutes include loyalty cards, group sex parties and rebates for golf players. Hamburg's "GeizHaus" is especially proud of its discount 38.50 euro price. The city has Germany's most famous red-light district, the Reeperbahn, in the notorious St. Pauli district.

Anke Christiansen, manager of the "GeizHaus," said the effects of the economic crisis were clear. "The regular customers who used to come by two or three times a week are only coming by once or twice a week now."

A "GeizHaus" client, who gave his name as Pascal, said: "Naturally we're all feeling the effects of the crisis." He added that he could no longer afford his usual two or three visits a week.
Guenter Krull, manager of the "FKK Villa" in Hanover, concurred. "The girls are complaining, too, because business is bad and I worry that it's all going to get even worse.

Ecki Krumeich, manager of upmarket Artemis Club in Berlin, said he resisted pressure to cut prices, although senior citizens and taxi drivers get a 50-percent discount on the 80-euro admission fee on Sundays and Mondays.

"Naturally, we're keeping an eye on the overall economic situation and making contingency plans," said Krumeich, who said his "wellness club" is one of the largest in Europe with about 70 prostitutes.

"Our philosophy is: we provide an important service and even in a recession there are some things people won't do without. Other downmarket places might cut prices but we decided we won't do that. In fact, we raised prices by 10 euros in January."

Stephanie Klee, a prostitute in Berlin and former leader of the German association of sex workers, said even if a few luxury brothels were weathering the storm because of their wealthy regular clientele, many were struggling.

"Just about everyone's turning to advertising in one form or another," she said. "If the consumer electronics shop and the optician come out with rebates and special promotions, why shouldn't we try the same thing?"

While she and her colleagues might have had five or six clients per day a year ago that had fallen to one or even none.

Klee worries, however, that the crisis has led to "price dumping" in some cities -- fees have fallen as low as 30 euros in some parts of Berlin and elsewhere, she said.

"You'll find a lot of customers trying to negotiate prices down now," said Klee. "A 30-year-old came up to me and said 'I lost my job so will you give me a discount?'."

She and others said they were alarmed that amateur prostitutes -- mostly women with low-paid careers -- were increasingly turning to prostitution to make ends meet.

"More and more women are moonlighting on the weekends," said Ahrens. "They're not able to get by with their main job and are in pretty dire straits. For some it works out okay but it's tough for some others and they often don't stay very long

These tea party protests are joke. What are the saying "No Taxation even with representation?" But wait taxes haven't increased under Obama yet.

Oh their complaining about the spending, but that make no sense. To get out of a recession you have to spend your way out of a recession like with FDR and the New Deal.

Oh they say it's socialisim, nonsense. Without TARP the major banks with go bust and then the economy would even more worst off and it already is now. Not to mention that Bush sign TARP not Obama. Now that can't be socialism can it?

Consevatives are whinning that a Democrat is in office with the job of saving capitalism...again. History repeats it's self, the market crash of of 1929 had a republican president in office. The people vote FDR, a democrat, to the white house to fix the nation. He is so popular he is elected 3 more times. Fast forward to the 2008. An unpopular republican president is in office, there is a housing market crash, months later a stock market crash and a banking collapse. The nation looking for leadership elects a popular democrat to fix the nation.

Hubristic group pride may indicate insecurity

From screaming baseball fans to political rally-goers, groups that engage in boastful self-aggrandizing may be trying to mask insecurity and low social status.

"Our results suggest that hubristic, pompous displays of group pride might actually be a sign of group insecurity as opposed to a sign of strength," said researcher Cynthia Pickett, associate professor of psychology at the University of California, Davis.

The new study reveals how two types of pride are related to a person's good feelings about one social group or another to which they belong. These good feelings could come from being a Los Angeles Lakers fan (when they win), a war veteran, a member of a particular ethnic group or a sorority gal or fraternity brother. But while authentic pride is linked with real confidence in your group, hubristic pride is a false arrogance that belies insecurities about one's group.

These results build on past research showing similar pride characteristics in individuals.

"It turns out, people who have the hubristic collective pride in their group, underlying it all is an insecurity about whether the group is good enough, really," said researcher Jessica Tracy, a psychologist at the University of British Columbia.

The research was presented last week at a meeting of the Society for Experimental Social Psychology in Sacramento.

Team spirit
In three studies, Pickett, Tracy and their colleagues surveyed more than 300 undergraduate students, first asking each participant to write about an experience when they felt proud of their group. In one of these studies, students had to recall the UC Davis football win over Stanford. In another, Asian American students were asked to write about a proud experience tied with their ethnic background. Other experiences ranged from sports team wins to achievements by sororities, say raising a big chunk of money for a charity.

Each participant then rated to what extent they would use certain words to describe themselves at the time of the event or achievement. Some of the descriptors indicated hubristic pride, such as "snobbish," "pompous" and "smug," while others were linked with authentic pride, such as "accomplished," "successful" and "confident."

Students also answered questions about the status of the group, including whether the group was valued by non-members, whether they themselves thought highly of the group, whether the group was under threat or in competition with another group, and other group-related questions.

False pride
The results showed that groups in which individuals boasted and gloated — a sign of hubristic pride — tended to have low social status or they were vulnerable to threats from other groups. So the worse the person felt about their group's status as well as how badly they thought the public viewed the group, the more likely that member would experience that empty, boastful pride.

In contrast, those groups that expressed pride by humbly focusing on members' efforts and hard work tended to have high social standing in both the public and personal eyes.

Hubristic pride can rear its ugly head in both small groups like sports teams and larger groups like citizens of a country.

"A lot of this has real-world implications," Tracy told LiveScience. "There are some kinds of collective pride where people get really angry and hostile and feel like 'it's not just that my group is great but my group is better.'"

She added, "You can think of it as the distinction between nationalism and patriotism, with nationalism being the sense of it's not just that I love my country, it's that my country is best."

When group members show signs of hubristic pride, such as making grandiose statements about their country, that could be a sign of underlying insecurity, the researchers said.

"When you hear groups starting to get into that type of rhetoric it may be because they're starting to realize they're in a losing position and that they need to do something to try to drum up respect, to drum up the kind of status that they feel they're lacking," Pickett said.

Next, the researchers hope to figure out whether or not the boasting and false pride works to make others perceive the group as having higher power and status.

Per the Tax Policy Center, here is how Obama's tax plan breaks down for individuals:
$0-$18,891 = $567 tax cut
$18,982-$37,595 = $892 tax cut
$37,596-$66,354 = $1,118 tax cut
$66,355-$111,645 = $1,264 tax cut
$111,646-$160,972 = $2,135 tax cut
$160,973-$226,918 = $2,796 tax cut
$226,919-$603,402 = $121 tax increase
$603,403-$2.87 million = $93,709 tax increase
$2.87 million-plus = $542,882 tax increase

McCain and Obama each make false claims about the other's health care plan. We sort through the misinformation.
Summary
McCain and Obama have sharply different health care plans, and each has made sharply worded attacks that are either false or misleading. McCain proposes a market-based system that relies on tax incentives, which one Obama ad falsely characterizes as the "largest middle-class tax increase in history." Obama proposes new subsidies to expand private insurance coverage and some expansion of government insurance, which McCain falsely claims "will rob 50 million employees of their health coverage."

Neither candidate has offered enough specifics about his plan to allow experts to assess the cost or impact without making various assumptions. Studies agree generally, however, that Obama’s plan would cover more of the uninsured than McCain’s would.

Here we lay out a brief explanation of both plans, what the experts are saying about them, and some of the ways each campaign is trying to fool the voters about the other.

Analysis
The Obama-Biden campaign is running half a dozen TV ads attacking Sen. John McCain's health care plan, while the McCain-Palin campaign is countering with a radio ad of its own. Together they give a distorted and confusing picture of what each man proposes, how it would affect workers and families, and how much it would cost.

This is our attempt to lay out clearly what each candidate actually proposes, what the experts say the plans might accomplish, and how each candidate tries to confuse voters about this issue.


The Details


Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain have sharply different plans. Obama focuses on requiring health insurance plans to meet certain standards and expanding government offerings and subsidies. McCain favors a market-based approach that aims to move more individuals into the private insurance market and foster competition.

McCain's plan would:

Give a health insurance tax credit of up to $5,000 for couples and families and $2,500 for individuals. Those who choose to buy insurance on their own would be able to use the credit to pay for their health coverage, with payment going directly from the government to the insurance company. Nobody would be required to buy insurance for themselves or their children, and employers large or small would not be required to offer health insurance as a benefit.


Tax the value of employer-provided health benefits. Employees would pay federal income taxes (but not Social Security or Medicare payroll taxes) on the value of those benefits. The tax credit would offset those taxes. Companies would not be taxed.


Expand health savings accounts so that any money left over from the tax credit could be put into such an account, where it could be used for approved medical expenses.


Allow the sale and purchase of insurance across state lines. No federal standards would be imposed, and insurance companies would not be required to cover preexisting conditions.


Expand high-risk pools that exist in many states to cover those who have been denied coverage or have high-cost health issues. Some financial assistance would be given to low-income people in such pools.

Obama's plan would:

Create a national system of competing, federally approved private insurance policies and a public plan that offers coverage similar to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, which provides coverage to federal employees and members of Congress. Individuals and small businesses could purchase coverage through this national exchange.


Set national standards for private plans and forbid insurance companies from denying coverage because of preexisting conditions.


Require that children have insurance, offer tax credits to low-income families, and expand coverage under Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Obama has not specified what penalty parents would face if they don't have health coverage for their kids.


Impose a "pay-or-play" requirement under which large companies would either have to offer coverage or pay a portion of premiums for workers, or pay a percentage of payroll into the national public plan. Small businesses would be exempt from the requirement, but could qualify for a refundable tax credit of up to 50 percent of premiums paid for their employees, to encourage them to offer coverage directly. Obama also wants to cover some of the costs of expensive health coverage businesses face for some employees.

Both candidates say they'll push for measures that would lower health care costs, such as greater use of electronic health records, coordinated care and prevention efforts.


What Experts Say


Independent studies generally agree on one thing – Obama's plan would cover more people. But they differ widely on how much each plan would cost, and particularly on how McCain's plan to change the tax rules on all existing employer-provided coverage would work out. One study estimated that McCain's plan would cut the number of uninsured Americans by 21 million, while another put the number at only 1 million.

The Lewin Group released an analysis last week concluding that McCain's plan would cover somewhat fewer people than Obama's, but at a much higher cost. An earlier study by the Urban Institute-Brookings Tax Policy Center predicted that Obama’s plan would cover far more people than McCain's, at a moderately higher cost. And two dueling studies published in the journal Health Affairs found flaws in both plans and concluded that neither would do much to reduce the number of the uninsured.

The estimates may vary so widely because both candidates are vague about important details, such as the income levels at which subsidies would be offered or, in Obama's case, the penalty parents would pay for not insuring children. Analysts have had to make guesses about such details, and they also must make assumptions about what would induce individuals to buy coverage, or drive employers to drop it.

Lewin Group study: There are currently 45.7 million Americans without health insurance, according to the Census. The Lewin Group, a private health care consulting group whose studies have been used in the past by both Republicans and Democrats, projected current trends would lead to 48.9 million uninsured Americans by 2010. The study predicted that Obama's plan would reduce that number by 26.6 million, McCain's by 21.1 million. By 2018, when the uninsured would number 59.2 million under current law, Obama's plan would reduce that number by 32.3 million and McCain's would drop it by 21.1 million. It also found that McCain's plan would result in a net cost of $2.05 trillion over 10 years and that Obama's net cost would be $1.17 trillion over the same time period.

Tax Policy Center study: The TPC, a nonpartisan group headed by Len Burman, former head of tax policy in the Clinton administration, said Obama's plan would reduce the number of uninsured by about 18 million in 2009 and by 34 million by 2018, an estimate close to the Lewin Group's. But it found that McCain's plan would reduce the number of uninsured by about 1 million in 2009 and by 5 million in 2013, at which point the number of the uninsured would start to rise because the tax credits don't grow as quickly as premium costs. The Obama plan would cost about $1.6 trillion over 10 years, according to the report, and the McCain plan would cost about $1.3 trillion.

The Tax Policy Center study goes into greater detail on how the plans affect the tax bills of Americans. The Lewin report includes breakdowns of coverage of the uninsured by age, income and for those with chronic conditions — the latter group fares better under Obama's plan, as half are projected to gain coverage, and 24 percent would be covered under McCain's.

Analyses published in September in Health Affairs cast critical eyes on both plans. Those critiquing McCain's plan said it initially would result in a net decrease of the uninsured of 1 million, though there would be a net increase of the uninsured within five years; they added that "the decline of job-based coverage would force millions of Americans into the weakest segment of the private insurance system – the nongroup market – where cost sharing is high and covered services are limited." The authors said the plan "would diminish the security of coverage for most Americans," especially those in less-than-perfect health.

Those reviewing Obama's plan – two unpaid advisers to the McCain campaign and a scholar with the conservative American Enterprise Institute – raised questions about the cost of the plan and said the number of the uninsured "will not materially decline." They concluded that "[h]eavy regulation coupled with a fallback National Health Plan and a play-or-pay financing choice also raise questions about the future of the employer insurance market."

Another set of studies by a group called Health Systems Innovations was prepared specifically for the McCain campaign and says his plan would cover more of the uninsured than Obama's.

Obama-Biden Ad:

"One Word"




Obama: I’m Barack Obama and I approve this message.

Announcer: On health care, John McCain promises a tax credit. But here’s what he won’t tell you: McCain would impose a new tax on health benefits, taxing your health care for the first time ever.

It’s a multi-trillion dollar tax hike. The largest middle-class tax increase in history. You won’t find one word about it on his Web site. But the McCain tax could cost your family thousands. Can you afford it?
What the Ads Say


The candidates' ads only add to the confusion – each side straining to paint the other as risky and disruptive. Each side has made false statements about the other.

One Obama ad charges that McCain's plan would be "the largest middle-class tax increase in history." That's simply not true. The ad, titled "One Word," cites a New York Times article from May 1 that says nothing of the sort.

The Obama campaign's calculations look only at the tax that workers would pay on the value of employer-sponsored health benefits without accounting for the tax credit workers would receive. The Times article said that "the elimination of the [income tax] exclusion would generate $3.6 trillion over 10 years, according to the McCain campaign." The $3.6 trillion, the Obama camp reasons, would be the largest tax increase in history. But for most Americans, the increased tax bill would be more than offset by McCain's tax credits.

Only those in high tax brackets or with very high-priced plans would pay more in taxes than they'll get with McCain's credit. The Times article says some middle-income workers "conceivably" could pay more if they live in regions where insurance costs are unusually high. But most would come out winners.

It's true that experts say over time, as health premium costs rise — and they've done so faster than inflation, to which the credit is indexed — the credit won't be sufficient to cover health care taxes some workers will face. But those are workers in higher income brackets. The Tax Policy Center report shows that by 2018, the top 40 percent of income earners would see their taxes increase on average.

For 2008, the average cost for a family’s employer-sponsored health care plan is $12,680. A $5,000 credit would be enough to cover the added federal income taxes a family would face on that plan, no matter what tax bracket the family is in. If the average were to rise to $13,300 next year, a typical middle-income family in the 25 percent tax bracket would still face an added tax bill of only $3,325, and after getting their tax credit would still have $1,675 left over to put into a health savings account to pay for such things as deductibles, co-payments and prescriptions. Describing that as "the largest middle-class tax increase in history" is a gross deception.

McCain-Palin and RNC Radio Ad


First announcer: Who is Barack Obama? His health care plan shows us the truth. Obama’s plan costs taxpayers hundreds of billions; it limits patient choice and rations care. Experts predict Obama’s expensive employer mandates’ added costs will rob 50 million employees of their health coverage. That’s not a health care plan. That’s an economic disaster.

Second announcer: Congressional liberals support government-run healthcare; congressional liberals want bureaucrats, not doctors, to control your care. Bureaucrats will decide what health procedure you can get and when you get it. Congressional liberals pay for it with new income taxes, payroll taxes, a tax on your stock transactions. That’s a plan for tragedy. With Barack Obama and Congressional liberals, big government health care is on its way.
Paid for by McCain-Palin 2008 and the Republican National Committee.

McCain: I’m John McCain and I approved this message.The Republicans are no better. The McCain-Palin campaign and the Republican National Committee are running a 60-second radio spot that says Obama's plan would "rob 50 million employees of their health care." That's false. It's a complete misrepresentation of a Lewin Group study of another health care plan entirely, one put forth by the liberal Economic Policy Institute, not by Obama.

Even so, the ad grossly mischaracterizes the analysis. What the study actually says is that nearly 52 million people would shift from private coverage through their employers to being covered by a national insurance pool, with employers still contributing to the cost through a payroll tax, which would be cheaper for some employers than paying premiums directly. The study actually shows that not a single person would be "rob[bed] … of their health care." Far from it. The plan "would reduce the number of uninsured by about 97.3 percent, leaving 1.3 million people uninsured." But again, that's not Obama's plan.

The Lewin Group's study of Obama's plan projects that 1.5 million of those who now have employer-provided benefits would become uninsured in 2010, while a greater number – 4.3 million – would be uninsured under McCain's. Both the Lewin Group study and the Tax Policy Center's find there would be a net increase in the number of those with benefits at their jobs under Obama's plan, and a net decrease under McCain's.

The radio ad goes on to say that "Congressional liberals" want "government-run health care" in which "bureaucrats will decide what health procedures you can get and when you get it." That might have been a valid criticism of the Canadian-style national health plan supported by Rep. Dennis Kucinich and a few others. But Obama got the Democratic nomination, and his plan isn't anything like that.

The ad also charges that Obama's plan "costs taxpayers hundreds of billions." It's worth noting that the Lewin Group analysis found the net cost of McCain's plan to be $880 billion higher than Obama's over 10 years.


More Misleading Claims


In ads and on the stump, McCain and Obama have put forth other incorrect statements on their health care plans:

Another Obama-Biden ad tells viewers that "McCain’s own Web site said [the tax credit] goes straight to the insurance companies, not to you. Leaving you on your own to pay McCain’s health insurance tax." Technically, that is what the Web site says, and voters who visit the site may be confused on this point. (In fact, McCain's main health care page doesn't tell voters that they'll pay income taxes on job-provided health benefits.) Still, this line of attack from the Obama camp makes no sense whatsoever for those who keep their insurance at their jobs. McCain spokesman Brian Rogers told us that the exact mechanics haven't been determined, but a McCain administration would work with the IRS and the Treasury Department to make sure the credit paid for income taxes in such cases.


The McCain campaign has claimed its plan pays for itself, but both the Lewin Group and TPC studies say it comes nowhere close to doing that. McCain economic adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin had said this spring that the proposal would bring in $3.6 trillion over 10 years, making the plan "budget neutral." However, a March 2007 report by the Joint Committee on Taxation found that government revenue would increase by that much if employees had to pay both income taxes and the FICA (payroll taxes) on their health benefits. The McCain campaign says it won't touch payroll taxes. Last week the Wall Street Journal reported that Holtz-Eakin now says McCain would cut Medicare and Medicaid by an unspecified amount to make the plan "budget neutral."

Update, Oct. 20: In a conference call with reporters on Oct. 17, Holtz-Eakin made clear that the campaign planned on getting "savings" from Medicare and Medicaid through such measures as reducing fraud and abuse, expanding the use of information technology in health care, and more quickly adopting generic drugs. He said, "No service is being reduced. Every beneficiary will in the future receive exactly the benefits that they have been promised from the beginning."


Yet another Obama TV ad, titled "Unravel," misleadingly highlights McCain's tax on health benefits but leaves out completely the part about the tax credit. It then says that McCain's plan "would raise costs for employers offering health care, so your coverage could be reduced or even dropped completely." The McCain plan doesn't impose added costs directly on employers, as that claim implies. It is true that health experts say costs could rise for some businesses, primarily smaller companies, if young and healthy employees buy their own plans on the private market, leaving older, less-healthy and expensive-to-insure workers in company health plans.


McCain has repeatedly claimed that "small businesses" would be fined if they failed to provide coverage for their employees under Obama's plan: "If you're a small business person and you don't insure your employees, Sen. Obama will fine you. Will fine you," he charged at the Oct. 7 debate. That's not true. Obama's plan says small businesses would be exempt from the pay-or-play requirement and could receive a tax credit to help pay for premiums, if they choose to cover workers.

– by Lori Robertson

Sources
McCain, John. “Straight Talk on Health System Reform.” JohnMcCain.com, accessed 10 Oct. 2008.

McCain, John. “The Facts about the McCain-Palin Health Care Plan.” JohnMcCain.com, accessed 10 Oct. 2008.

Sack, Kevin and Michael Cooper. “McCain Health Plan Could Mean Higher Tax.” New York Times, 1 May 2008.

Burman, Leonard E., et.al. “An Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates’ Tax Plans: Updated September 12, 2008.” Tax Policy Center, 12 Sept. 2008.

“McCain’s Middle Class Tax Hike.” Center for American Progress Action Fund, 25 Aug. 2008.

Estimating the Revenue Effects of the Administration’s Fiscal Year 2008 Proposal Providing a Standard Deduction for Health Insurance: Modeling and Assumptions, JCX-17-07. Joint Committee on Taxation, 20 March 2007.
Sheils, John. “McCain and Obama Health Policies: Costs and Coverage Compared.” The Lewin Group, 8 Oct. 2008.

Health Insurance Coverage of the Total Population, states (2006-2007), U.S. (2007). Kaiser Family Foundation, statehealthfacts.org, accessed 10 Oct. 2008.

Obama, Barack. "Plan for a Healthy America." BarackObama.com, accessed 10 Oct. 2008.

Meckler, Laura. "McCain Plans Federal Health Cuts." Wall Street Journal, 6 Oct. 2008.

"I will give you one... the one about the Social security being 'taxed' or some such nonsense."

Actually Obama say McCain would tax Medicare not Social Security but being "some such nonsense" for you to be sure can you post a link perferrable for fact check or NYT to discredit Obama's attack ad?

Economics professor say that to get out of a depression you have to spend to out of one, but you have to spend it in the right way, like government spending in the infrastructure, instead of say personal spending like gas guzzling hummers, breast implants, or personal vanity items. By the way when you build and maintain infrasture you put people work and create jobs.

Adventure which of Obama's ads have been misleading?
Negative ads are nothing new but who's been telling lies about the other.

When you build and operate infrastructure; i.e. roadways, pipelines, powerlines, schools, police stations, fire stations, sewage systems and others you are redistributing wealth. Items like these are needed and are paid by taxes. Coincedently if you did the opposite of "redistribution of wealth" which is horde the wealth not only will you be called Mr. Scrooge but, as any ecomonics professor will tell you, you'll only create a depression.