Interview from Doug Richardson, Lakewood Mayor on the the Iraq war
1. Do you think the troops should be pulled from Iraq?
No, I don’t believe that our troops should be pulled from Iraq without establishing conditions on the ground that permit a withdrawal. Those conditions include Iraqi Security Forces able to successfully conduct counter-insurgency operations in Iraq and establish order in the neighborhoods. Additionally, the Iraqi government must overcome the factional (Sunni/Shia/Kurdish) fighting and establish a stable government.
2. Which of the Presidential candidates (one democrat and one republican) do you think would be the best at dealing with Iraq and why?
Senator McCain has consistently called for more troops on the ground in Iraq since the war began in 2003. He supported the change in strategy which resulted in “the surge” to place additional forces in neighborhoods to work with Iraqi citizens to defeat Al Qaeda in Iraq. The result has been a reduction in sectarian violence and a reduction on the number of attacks on Coalition Forces. Senator McCain has consistently told people that Iraq may be bad but a defeat there would be far worse.
Nearly all of the Democratic candidates for President have taken a position in opposition to the war because it is essential for them to retain their base of support, which disproportionately supports immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Their calls for withdrawal of American Forces have signaled the government in Baghdad that the U.S. will not stay there indefinitely. Should one of these candidates be elected they will have to deal with the reality that our departure from Iraq will most likely take 36 months to be accomplished.
3. What do you think are the main reasons why Iraq's independence from the US is going so slowly? Or, if you disagree with this statement, why?
The weakness of the central government is probably the single greatest challenge to be overcome. Many of the milestones that have been established, such as agreement on the sharing of oil revenue, have not been met. Mr. Malaki really does not have a power base in Iraq that is loyal to him and the people doubt whether their government can bring and end to the violence and provide essential services.
Interview from Former Deputy Garrison Commander of Ft. Lewis (retired), William F. Crane
1. Do you think the troops should be pulled from Iraq? Please discuss.
The answer depends on if we are talking short-term or long-term. In the short-term, they should not be pulled from Iraq. To do so would put the lives of remaining troops, Iraqi military, Iraqi police and innocent civilians in jeopardy. The Iraqis are not sufficiently trained and equipped to be able to take over the security responsibilities currently being provided by American and other NATO troops.
We must remove all troops in the long-run. A decision on a firm timetable for removal of the troops should be a mutual agreement between the Government of Iraq and the on-the-ground military commander. This would require Presidential approval, but should not be a unilateral decision by the President. The military commander is in the best position to judge the on-going situation. The timetable should be established in the near future to force the Iraqi Government to ensure that their troops are adequately trained and equipped.
2. Which of the Presidential candidates (one democrat and one republican) do you think would be best at dealing with Iraq and why?
For the Republican's, I believe that Sen. McCain would be in the best position to deal with the Iraq situation. He has been a trained military officer and recognizes the importance of getting input from the on-the-ground commander. Additionally, all of the intelligence reports for several years and currently are available to him as a member of the Senate Intelligence Oversight Committee.
For the Democrat's, I believe that Sen. Clinton would be in the best position to deal with the Iraq situation. She, unlike her Democratic opponents, has continued to push for a controlled, situation-driven withdrawal from Iraq. She also has been a party to the vast intelligence reports in the Senate.
3. What do you think are the main reasons why Iraq's independence from the US is going so slowly? Or, if you disagree with this statement, why?
I do disagree with the statement. Our invasion of Iraq destroyed the military, the existing government and the police. It takes years to recruit, train and equip a military force to deal with terrorists. The Iraqi people are a fractionalized race (primarily Sunni and Shite) that have hated each other for thousands of years. The only thing that made them live in relative peace was the strong dictatorial hand of Sadam. As I recall, it took the colonists in the United States several years to agree on a constitution that all could agree with and that was without having to contend with terrorists. I believe that once the military and police are reconstituted, trained and equipped, the independence will excellerate.
The Iraq War
On March 18, 2001, the United States invaded Iraq.. Reasons given for the invasion included apparent evidence of Iraqi harboring of WMDs and links to al-Qaeda, and the need to remove Saddam Hussein due to his tyrannical abuse of power.
Seven years later the United States is still in Iraq, restoring order and attempting to transmit power to the new Iraqi government. 3,923 American soldiers have died in the war so far and getting the Iraqis to take control over their own country is going slow. Over the past several years many questions have been raised in regard to the U.S.’ legitimacy in Iraq as many of the initial reasons for the war seem a bit lacking in evidence. As more and more Americans question the war’s validity, more troops are being sent overseas. The main question is, “Do we stay in Iraq to clean up the mess or do we bring the soldiers home out of harm’s way?”, and it seems the nation is split. These are the reasons why the Iraq War will be a major issue in the upcoming Presidential Election. What to do in Iraq, and how and when to do it, will be a key talking point in campaign speeches and debates for the next ten months. The following list, taken from the New York Times, gives the stance on the war of all the remaining presidential candidates.
Hillary Clinton :Senator from New York
Voted in 2002 to authorize invasion, now opposed; opposed troop increase; start phased withdrawal within 60 days of taking office, with the goal to have most troops out by the end of 2013.
John Edwards: Former senator from North Carolina
Voted in 2002 to authorize invasion, now opposed; opposed troop increase; withdraw 40,000 to 50,000 combat troops immediately and all troops within nine to 10 months.
Mike Gravel:Former senator from Alaska
Opposed invasion from the beginning; opposed troop increase; withdraw now
Dennis J. Kucinich: Representative from Ohio
Voted in 2002 against authorizing invasion, still opposed; opposed troop increase; de-fund the war and withdraw now.
Barack Obama: Senator from Illinois
Opposed invasion from the beginning; opposed troop increase; withdraw one or two brigades a month to finish within 16 months.
Bill Richardson: Governor of New Mexico
Opposed to the invasion, knowing what he knows now; opposed troop increase; withdraw all troops before 2010.
Rudolph W. Giuliani: Former mayor of New York City
Supportive of decision to invade; in favor of troop increase; against a timetable for troop withdrawal.
Mike Huckabee: Former governor of Arkansas
Supportive of decision to invade; was tentatively in favor of troop increase; against a timetable for troop withdrawal.
Duncan Hunter: Representative from California
Voted in 2002 to authorize invasion, still supportive; in favor of troop increase; gradually cede responsibility to Iraqis.
John McCain: Senator from Arizona
Voted in 2002 to authorize invasion, still supportive; in favor of troop increase; against a timetable for troop withdrawal.
Ron Paul: Representative from Texas
Voted in 2002 against authorizing invasion, still opposed; opposed troop increase; withdraw all troops immediately.
Mitt Romney: Former governor of Massachusetts
Supportive of decision to invade; in favor of troop increase; against a timetable for troop withdrawal.
Fred D. Thompson: Actor and former senator from Tennessee
Voted in 2002 to authorize invasion, still supportive; in favor of troop increase; against a timetable for troop withdrawal.
Americans disagree on how best to end the war, and when it should end. It may be the candidates with the best approach to ending the war that win the nomination.
Global Warming: Presidential Race 2008
Something that has been coming up quite a bit in the 2008 Presidential race is the issue of GLOBAL WARMING and what the candidates’ plans are to remedy this problem. For those of you who are not in the loop, let me give you a definition. Global warming: an increase in the world's temperatures, believed to be caused in part by the greenhouse effect, which is basically the warming of the Earth's surface as a result of atmospheric pollution by gases. There are many who think that global warming is a “myth,” and then there are those who are extremely passionate about preventing it. Let me start off by showing you some of the views of the American public on this topic and then comparing how they align with the ideas of the Presidential candidates.
In a poll taken by Time Magazine, it was asked “Do you think the Federal Government should do more to try to deal with global warming?” Thirty-five percent thought that the Federal Government should be doing more, while five percent thought it should do less, and twenty-five percent were content with the way the government is handling the issue. Another poll taken by Time Magazine gave different examples of ways the government could try to reduce global warming and asked which one the people favored most. Nineteen percent thought that the government should increase taxes on electricity so that people wouldn’t use it as much or as carelessly. Thirty-one percent thought that they should increase taxes on gasoline so that people wouldn’t use it as much. Forty-one percent thought that should give companies tax breaks to build nuclear power plants. And a whopping eighty-seven percent thought that the government should give companies tax breaks to develop alternative energy sources. On just the simple question of whether or not people even believe it exists, FOX News came up with some results. They found that eighty-two percent of Americans say they believe in global warming, ten percent disagree, and eight percent are on sure. An interesting find by FOX News was that ninety-one percent of Democrats and eighty-four percent of independents believe that global warming is a problem while only seventy-two percent of Republicans agree. There are mixed views about whether or not global warming is a direct result of human behavior, or whether human behavior combined with natural occurrences is causing the problem.
Now the question is, what do our Presidential candidates have to say about the problem?
Let’s start with the Democratic Party. After visiting Barack Obama’s website, it is quite clear that he has a large and extensive plan for the prevention of global warming if he is elected President. Some of the specifics of his plan are as follows:
*To reduce greenhouse gas emissions to the level recommended by top scientists to avoid calamitous impacts.
*To invest $150 billion over the next 10 years; deploy climate friendly energy supplies, protect our existing manufacturing base, and create millions of new jobs.
*To improve energy efficiency to reduce energy intensity of our economy by 50% by the year 2030.
*To reduce dependence on foreign oil; reduce oil consumption overall by at least 35% (10 million barrels of oil) by the year 2030.
*To make the United States of America a leader in the global effort, leading a new, international global warming partnership.
Something Barack said himself concerning climate change was, “The issue
of climate change is one that we ignore at our own peril. There may still be disputes about exactly how much is naturally occurring, but what we can be scientifically certain of is that our continued use of fossil fuels is pushing us to a point of no return. And unless we free ourselves from a dependence on these fossil fuels and chart a new course on energy in this country, we are condemning future generations to global catastrophe.”
Let’s now take a look at what Hillary Clinton plans to do about global warming. Some of the specifics of her plan are as follows:
*To reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% from 1990 levels by the year 2050; cut foreign oil imports by 2/3 from 2030 projected levels (10 million barrels a day).
*$50 billion Strategic Energy Fund and doubling investment in basic energy research.
*To increase fuel efficiency standards to 55 miles per gallon by the year 2030.
*A cap and trade system for carbon emissions, stronger energy, and auto efficiency standards.
A direct quote from Hillary when speaking at the National Press Club about
global warming was, “Our values demand that we be good stewards of the planet for our children and our children’s children. We are failing that simple moral test if we continue to stand by as the earth warms faster than at any time in the past 200,000 years.”
Now, it’s time to see what the Republican Party has in store for the environment. Mike Huckabee stated on his website, “The first thing I will do as President is send Congress my comprehensive plan for energy independence. We will achieve energy independence by the end of my second term. Achieving energy independence is vital to achieving success both in the war on terror and in globalization. Energy independence will help guarantee both our safety and our prosperity.”
Some of the specifics of Huckabee’s global warming plan are as follows:
*To pursue all avenues of alternative energy: nuclear, wind, solar, hydrogen, clean coal, biodiesel, and biomass.
*To set aside a federal research and development budget that will be matched by the private sector to seek the best new products in alternative fuels.
*To become energy independent in less than 10 years.
John McCain is also speaking up about global warming. He says, “I believe
climate change is real. I think it’s devastating. I think we have to act and I agree with most experts that we may at some point reach a tipping point where we cannot save our climate. I don’t think we’re there yet. But the overwhelming evidence is that greenhouse gases are contributing to the warming of our earth and we have an obligation to take action to fix it.”
Some of the specifics of McCain’s global warming plan are as follows:
*To limit carbon emissions by harnessing market forces that will bring advanced technologies, such as nuclear energy, to the market faster.
*To reduce our dependence on foreign supplies of energy.
Looking at what the people of America want and what the 2008 Presidential
candidates are proposing to do if they are elected, I would say that Republican Mike Huckabee’s plan would be very appealing to the American people. After reading his whole spiel about global warming on his official website, I got the impression that he was very passionate about this topic and was ready to do what other candidates probably haven’t even thought of, like becoming energy independent within 10 years. Also, his plan to focus on pursuing and researching alternative sources of energy is compatible to the American people’s desire to give companies tax breaks to develop alternative energy sources.
An article written by Edmund L. Andrews in the New York Times talks about the differences between the Democratic candidates’ approaches to the issue of global warming and the Republicans’. He says that the Democrats’ goal is “largely about reducing oil consumption,” while the Republicans’ goal is more about “producing more energy at home.”
Bottom line, these four candidates, and I’m sure several others which I have not mentioned, are ready to face the problem of global warming head on, which is good to know for those of us who are environment crazy. And which, I’m sure, if our candidates pull through, generations to come will be very grateful for.
Labels: global warming presidential race 2008
Interview with Paul Steucke,Chief Environmental Division Directorate of Public Works of Ft. Lewis, WA
My answers to the questions are as follows (my humblest apologies upfront for the length of the answers):
1. What are your opinions or feelings about global warming?
A good way to summarize my feelings and opinions regarding global warming is from a quote I saw on the side of Starbucks cup. It is a "Tongue in Cheek" statement that, by pretending to be anti-environmental, makes a very strong point:
"So-called "global warming" is just a secret plot by wacko tree huggers to make America energy independent, clean our air and water, improve the fuel efficiency of our vehicles, kick-start 21st-century industries, and make our cities safer and more livable. Don't let them get away with it!" - Chip Giller
The beauty of that quote is that it make the very true point that arguing over whether global warming is occurring or not is a waste of effort because the proposed solutions to prevent it have so much value to us, that we should pursue them regardless!
I have very strong feelings regarding global warming, so I will start with feelings and end with opinions. As a trained scientist, I look at the preponderance of evidence that overwhelmingly shows a warming planet from human activities, and see it as virtually undeniable (not completely, because a true scientist always leaves room for some doubt when dealing with events that have not yet occurred. For example, think about shoving a bowling ball off a table. One can predict, with pretty good certainty, that it will not float in the air, or fly up, or transform into a bouquet of flowers, but instead drop to the floor, even though the event has not yet happened, but still, one cannot be 100% certain). Those who do not believe global warming is occurring and/or is a risk to continued human existence are, in my opinion, simply "whistling in the dark", in a futile attempt to ignore the problem and hope it goes away on its own. Some critics even acknowledge that is occurring, but attempt to convince themselves that such a radical change will be good for human existence. I think at best, it brings about great uncertainty - and the patterns of history tell us that great changes in climate are often not very kind to the life forms that existed prior to the climatic shift (think dinosaurs), so betting that it will result in improvement seems like a long-shot to me.
This knowledge, combined with the fact that I am a father of four, causes me great anxiety at times. I literally cannot sleep at night sometimes, wondering what type of planet I will hand off to my children and grandchildren. The big issue since September 11, 2001 for this nation has been security from radical terrorists. This is a real threat that must be dealt with, but I have much greater confidence in our ability to contain that threat and move past it than I do the threat of global warming. First, we are truly awakened to it, and second we are actively fighting it with the world's best military. I wish we we were fighting terrorism with more tools than just law enforcement and military force, and hopefully future leaders will see the need to attack it at the root, and not just where it flowers. When we start using diplomatic, economic, and cultural resources alo ng with the military, we can start to better prevent the conditions from arising that allow extreme, violent factions to be born and gain the ability to project their terror.
The problem with environmental threats, like global warming, is that they are not as flashy, and they "sneak up" on us, so that the danger may already be upon us by the time we recognize it, and unfortunately it will likely be too late then to make the needed changes to beat it. It is like an ocean liner- there is so much forward momentum that to avoid the iceberg, you must start the turn miles in advance. It is this single fact that scares and saddens me the most. We have the capability to stop it, but do we have the will?
I recently graduated from the SBLM course last April, and one task was to to write a professional article (for which I won first place in the writing contest). Mine was entitled "Army Leadership in Sustainable Development". In it, I share some of my research findings and opinions on global warming. I'll end this answer with an excerpt of that here (if you truly wish to torture yourself, I have attached the entire article as a word document):
2. What do you think would be the most effective way to prevent it? With examples if possible on what has been or is planned to be implemented.
I can answer this question in four words. "Stop using fossil fuels". Simply put, this is the centerpiece issue because it affects so many other areas. Clean, renewable energy sources would 1) Remove US dependence on foreign sources of energy, making us a more secure nation. And 2) eliminate the single greatest (by far) greenhouse gas contributor to the atmosphere, and simply put- if the first step in getting out of a hole is to stop digging -then likewise the first step in preventing global warming is to stop emitting greenhouse gasses, like Carbon Dioxide from the combustion of fossil fuels. Essentially, one needs to look at the bio-sphere as a big box. Fossil fuels exist below the surface of the earth and when we extract them and burn them, we take them from outside and the box and put them inside the box. This adds to the total amount o f carbon in the bio-sphere, specifically in the atmosphere. Even burning wood (which can have significant local air quality effects from smoke particles) has little or no effect on global warming, because the carbon originally existed in the bio-sphere.
So the solution resides in doing two things. 1) Stop bringing carbon into the bio-sphere - and fossil fuel use is the ONLY significant human activity (there are some natural introductions via volcanic eruptions and other geothermal pathways, but these are very minor in comparison to fossil fuel use) that does this. 2) attempt to sequester as much carbon as possible into non-atmospheric locations - this means injecting it back into the earth's subsurface (taking it outside the biosphere altogether) or simply increasing the solid, non-gaseous forms of carbon (like more plants).
I am actually optimistic that we can beat this. I see the awakening occurring and efforts are underway everywhere. Here at Fort Lewis, we have been a leader in both phasing out fossil fuel use and sequestering carbon. Below are just a few examples of things done, being done, or planned to be done:
1) We have a lot of vehicles (hundreds!) that run on non-fossil fuels such as electric, ethanol, and bio-diesel (from waste cooking oils!). Just this year we have been funded (MCA) to build a non-fossil fueling station along the I-5 Freeway. This will be used by us, but also be available for use by regular citizens, so those with non-fossil fuel vehicles driving along I-5 will have place to get fuel.
2) We continue to grow more trees than we cut, taking more carbon dioxide out of the air and sequestering it into plant materials.
3) We are working a project to take the methane gas generated at the wastewater treatment plant, convert it to Hydrogen, and use it to run forklifts at the DOL and a shuttle bus around the installation (Thus reducing the number fossil fuel burning cars need). This is a DLA funded project that we hope to have in place in 2-3 years.
4) We have numerous car pooling and van pooling efforts underway. There are currently 184 people riding in vanpools on Fort Lewis, preventing the use of thousands of gallons of fossil fuels each year.
5) 21% of all the electrical energy we purchase and use on Fort Lewis comes from a non-fossil fuel, renewable source (Solar or wind).
6) Many of our new buildings are built to do a better job of conserving energy (LEED Silver), and projects are in place or being studied to conserve energy in existing buildings.
7) We are studying the renewable energy capabilities of Fort Lewis, McChord AFB, and the Yakima Training Center (Bio-mass, Solar, and Wind) so we will be producing all our energy needs on on our property and eventually (by the year 2025 at the latest) be using no fossil fuels at all. While it seems difficult, this is actually very, very doable.
Michigan Results
Today's Michigan Primary gives hope to Republican canidate Mitt Romney. With 27,123 more votes than Republican John McCain, Romney says "This campaign is going to go to all 50 states," As for the Democratic side, Hilary Clinton wins with 54% over Dennis Kucinich 4%.This wasn't really a big race for Clinton because her top rivals weren'ton the battle. Stay tuned for next time.
Health Care 2008
First Stop Health Care
In the upcoming election there are many issues that will determine which candidate voters will choose. According to the Kaiser Health Tracking Poll for the 2008 election Heath Care ranks second among key problems the voters want addressed (Iraq war being first). So what is wrong with America’s health care plan? One problem that has arisen is ever more prominent cost increases. Health Care costs have risen 6.1% in 2007. Though the increase is becoming steadier, it is still twice the rate of inflation and is quickly overpowering wages. Small businesses with 200 or less employees have begun to completely drop their health plans due to these increases; contributing to the already millions of uninsured Americans. Thus our second problem: uninsured Americans. Millions of Americans live everyday without health insurance. As a government what are we to do? That is where the candidates come in. Whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, health care and cost is on your mind. Each candidate is consistently trying to get a leg up on their opponents. But who has the best plan? First what are their plans? We’ve summarized the top two candidates of each party and what they believe we should do to help our health care system.
For the Democrats:
Barack Obama-
"I...believe that every American has the right to affordable health care. I believe that the millions of Americans who can't take their children to a doctor when they get sick have that right...We now face an opportunity - and an obligation - to turn the page on the failed politics of yesterday's health care debates. It's time to bring together businesses, the medical community, and members of both parties around a comprehensive solution to this crisis, and it's time to let the drug and insurance industries know that while they'll get a seat at the table, they don't get to buy every chair."
-Barack Obama, Speech in Iowa City, IA, 5/27/07
Senator Obama plans to lower health care costs to ensure quality care for all Americans. In his plan to cover the uninsured he outlines eight points which include:
*Guaranteed eligibility.
*Comprehensive benefits.
*Affordable premiums, co-pays and deductibles.
*Subsidies.
*Simplifying paperwork and reining in health costs.
*Easy enrollment.
*Portability and choice.
*Quality and efficiency.
Obama hopes to ensure that everyone who is unable to pay for insurance will get the coverage they need. His plan calls for expanding Medicaid and the SCHIP. Any person who does not qualify for either of these programs will receive and income-related subsidy to help pay for a health care plan. The plan continues to call for employer contribution. All employers who do not offer or contribute to employee health care will be forced to pay money towards a national fund. Also mandatory health care for children will be enacted. This will offer many plans for children and even allow young adults up to 25 years of age to remain on their parents plans.
Hillary Rohdam Clinton-
Clinton’s plan called the Health Choices Plan will cover all Americans and improve health care by lowering costs and improving quality. The main points are
*Offer new coverage choices for the insured and uninsured:
*Clinton says if you like your plan keep it. If you do not like it, pick a new one. Citizens can choose from health plans that members of Congress receive.
*Lower Premiums and increase Security:
*Reduce costs by getting rid of hidden taxes and stressing efficiency and modernization. Also ensuring that job-loss or illness will never lead to loss of coverage or high cost.
*Promote Shared Responsibility:
*Responsibility will be divided among Insurance and Drug companies, Individuals, Providers, Employers, and the Government.
*Ensure Affordable Health Coverage for all:
*This will provide tax credit to families to help pay for health care. Also making sure that premiums do not exceed a certain percentage of a family’s income. Small businesses also receive a tax cut to help them provide health care for their employees.
*A fiscally responsible plan that honors our priorities:
*Savings will come from modernizing and reducing wasteful health spending.
For Republicans:
Mike Hukabee-
Hukabee calls for a plan not of universal coverage but of preventive health care. He calls on the private sector to find new ways of lowering costs. He says “We have to change a system that that happily pays $30,000 for a diabetic to have his foot amputated, but won’t pay for the shoes would save his foot.” He promotes changes such as reforming medical liability; adopting electronic record keeping; making health insurance more portable from one job to another; and giving families not just businesses tax deductions on insurance. He believes we need to put control in the hands of the people not of the government. With universal coverage the government has too much control. He claims “If we reduce our out-of-control health care costs from 17% to 11%, we’d save $700 billion a year, which is about twice our annual national deficit.” He recognizes that it is time to move our system to become consumer-based not an employer-based. By companies providing health care employees consume more because they are not directly affected with the costs they simply pay the premium. Workers continually wonder where their money is going when they think they have gotten a raise, when in all actuality health care costs are rising higher then their wages so they end up getting paid less. By making health care consumer-based and lowering costs employees will become more knowledgeable and more accountable.
Rudy Giuliani-
"America is at a crossroads when it comes to our health care. All Americans want to increase the quality, affordability and portability of health care. Most Republicans believe in free-market solutions to the challenges we face. I believe we can reduce costs and improve the quality of care by increasing competition. We can do it through tax cuts, not tax hikes. We can do it by empowering patients and their doctors, not government bureaucrats. That's the American way to reform health care." - Mayor Rudy Giuliani
Giuliani’s plan proposes to:
*Empower patients and families, not the government:
*Expand choice through tax code reform. Americans without employer-based insurance should get the same tax benefits as Americans with employer-based insurance. Proposes up to $15,000 for those without employer-based insurance to make insurance more affordable.
*Help Low-Income Individuals and Families Secure Health Insurance: Provide health Insurance Credit to low-income Americans to make coverage more affordable to the millions of uninsured.
*Drive Quality and Price Transparency: Rudy proposes creating visibility of price, provider qualifications, and risk-adjusted procedure outcomes will expand competition and open up new motivation for improving quality and reducing cost.
*Transform bureaucracies and change health care delivery:
*Reform the Medical Liability Legal System: Rudy’s commitment to end frivolous lawsuits without limiting compensation for real economic loss is key to comprehensive health care reform.
*Reward States for Innovative Solutions: Giuliani hopes to encourage states by offering block grants to reduce health costs, enroll eligible uninsured, and solve adverse selection issues.
*Required Availability of Low-Cost Insurance Options: 1,900 state mandates limit coverage options and increase costs from 20-45%. Giuliani proposes if a state’s mandates prevent affordable coverage citizens should be able to purchase coverage through interstate markets.
*Save Lives and Reduce costs by Streamlining the FDA Process: By bringing greater accountability and efficiency to the evaluation process for new drugs, new prescriptions can get on the market faster. Currently it takes new drugs 12-15 years to make it to the market which possibly could cost thousands of lives.
*Invest in Health IT to Reduce Medical Error, Improve Efficiency, and detect Health Threats: Public-private partnerships to improve and set standards for Health IT without overbearing regulations can play a major role in improving care and reducing costs.
*Reform health care coverage to promote a healthier America:
*Improve and Expand Health Savings accounts: Health saving accounts provide incentives for consumers to maximize the value of services tailored to their needs. Giuliani wants to expand access to these accounts by simplifying the rules and regulations so that insurance coverage will meet the health care goals of individuals and families.
*Infuse Incentive in Insurance Market that Promote Wellness and Better Outcomes for Chronic Diseases: Health insurance must be redefined to cover wellness as well as sickness. In conjunction with recommendations from doctors and nurses, Rudy will propose new initiatives to promote healthy lifestyles and wellness programs, and tie Medicaid payments to a state’s success in promoting preventative care and tracking obesity for children.
After review of the four plans, in my opinion Governor Huckabee’s plan is favorable for the citizens of the United States because:
*He puts control and responsibility in the hands of the people not the government.
*He hopes to reform the costly medical system. By doing so it will reduce health care cost thus saving the government and citizens billions of dollars.
*He plans to move to consumer-based medical to allow workers to understand the health care process while taking responsibility of their costs.
The other plans put too much control in the governments hands while costing our country billions of dollars.
