I received an email this morning (from WebMD) asking for health care questions to be posed during the October 7 presidential debate. WebMD has been working with the Commission on Presidential Debates to gather questions. They have an area for submissions on their site (in blog format) and many interesting questions have already been put forward.
Here are a couple that I plan to add:
---
First, this great quotation (which I've used before):
βThe market functions wonderfully when we want to sell more cereals, cosmetics, cars, computers, or any other consumer product. Unfortunately, it does not work in health care, where the goal should hardly be selling more heart bypass operations. Instead, the goal should be to prevent disease and illness. But the money is in the treatment β not prevention β so the market and good care are at odds.β
- Donald L. Bartlett and James B. Steele
I would extend that by saying drugs that combat symptoms on a recurring basis bring in money on a recurring basis while those that cure a condition outright simply do not. Now, if you, as a businessman, are going to invest your own cash, which drugs do you invest in? The answer is obvious and as such, so is the problem.
I would like to hear both candidates address this issue...
---
Let's talk about health insurance, the lack of which has been a major topic of late. We have a situation where many of us cannot afford insurance. Why? The insurance is too expensive. Why is the insurance so expensive? To pay for the spiraling cost of the care.
Now, if you have a bunch of people who can't afford insurance. Well, how do you go about making it affordable? You will need to lower the price, at least in some segments of the population. If you lower the price, the insurance companies will then have less money to pay for the care, at which point there is not much incentive to be in the insurance business. When this issue is clouded further by doctors who need to protect themselves from lawsuits and the grossly high price of pharmaceuticals, the problem seems almost unmanageable.
My question here is simply how or where do we begin to address this, especially in the wake of this economic meltdown? (for either or both candidates)
---
If you have your own questions you can visit WebMD and add them to their list. (or you can simply leave them here and I'll do it for you :-)




In response to my last post, Palin: McCain's Anti-Women's Selection , criticizing John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as vice president, Matt Urdan responded with the comment below. Matt writes with a great deal of passion. He and I don't agree on everything but we strongly agree that there is a structural problem with the political system in this country. Getting this fixed is more important than any individual elected leader. Regardless, I don't believe that Sarah Palin was a proper selection for Senator McCain to make for vice president and said so. Matt picked it up from here: (click on the image to visit his blog)
In this country, you're either a liberal or a conservative. You're a red state or a blue state. You're rich or poor. Apparently everything is black and white with not a shade of grey to be found.
The thing is, what I believe most Americans want is for our elected leaders to stop acting like children only concerned with their own image, political grandstanding and reelection. Because those things drive politics as usual in America. Americans want our elected leaders to get the job they are elected to do done without all this divisiveness which only serves their own purposes of finger-pointing, mud slinging and reelection.
John Adams, the second president of the United States said that he feared the forming of political parties because it would polarize Americans of their new country, cause divisiveness and make America vulnerable to defeat should the U.S. be attacked--which was a very real probability. Now, our two party system and divisiveness just results in gridlock with our government working against itself to maintain its reason for being rather than accomplishing things that would be in the best interests of the American people.
What Sarah Palin and John McCain represent are a one-term ticket. They would not be reelected. Maybe Sarah Palin would run for President in four years, maybe she wouldn't. But as one-term, lame-duck elected officials, who better would have the chance to try to reach across party lines as Sarah Palin has demonstrated she can do in Alaska and possible unite our people?
Bill Clinton was polarizing. Hillary was polarizing. Barack Obama is polarizing. George Bush was polarizing--both of them. When will the polarization of this country end? When will Americans unite behind a leader and end our dependency on foreign oil. When will we address worldwide climate issues. When will we be a beacon for human rights and for peace and for hope around the world instead of a nation to be feared for its nonsensical aggressive policies towards perceived enemies?
And the thing about McCain/Palin that really intrigues me is that their election would all but guarantee--and make easier--a Hillary Clinton presidency in 2012. A presidency that would absolutely be focused on children and heath care issues.
When we get right down to it. Barack Obama is great at giving speeches. He has no proven track record. Adolph Hitler was great at giving speeches. Because of a speech, it didn't turn out so well for the Jews of Germany and 6 million other europeans who didn't measure up to Aryan ideals. Obama is not Hitler. Let's be clear. But the ability to make a great speech is an inspiring and terrifying double-edged sword. We know he talks a good game. But he's never really delivered anything. And even more frightening, no one is questioning Obama--every democrat is just giving Obama their blind allegiance when Obama's questionable church affiliation, ties of friendship, and ties of family should give everyone else pause for concern--at least as much as the ultra-conservative ideals of Palin have given the democrats cause for concern.