I try to keep a balanced, moderate perspective on candidates and issues. To answer your question would be to assume we know who will be on the ballot in November - we don't.

My understanding is that as millions more get affordable healthcare, the competition will force prices down - just like has happened with the Medicare Advantage plan. The MA plan is the leading edge of the implementation of "Obamacare."

Bob, you are correct; the healthcare legislation is supposed to help everyone. I read the article last week & did not agree with some of its content. One actually needs an advanced degree to fully understand Medicare & its components. Learning it is analogous to on-the-job training; you learn it as you experience situations. I have been given incorrect information by Medicare personnel, as well as my Medicare Supplemental Insurance provider. My friends in FL have Medicare PPO and say they do not have to pay anything for Medicare, including drugs; although they just signed on & have not used it yet. I find that difficult to believe, but it may be true. My research shows Medicare Advantage would be Kaiser or HMO. You have to see doctors within their plan & receive services within their plan & there is a co-pay. I have tried to see a list of physicians in their network and have not been able to access it on line. This link gives a basic overview of Medicare Choices: http://www.medicare.gov/navigation/medicare-basics/coverage choices.aspx
Some think Medicare is free, but it is not. I paid $96/mo. for Medicare Part B, now paying $229/mo. for Medicare Part B Supplemental Insurance and now paying $36/mo. for Part D prescription with a co-pay. Part D does not cover all meds, incl. some generics. The doughnut hole is another costly experience for most Seniors. Folks need to stop bashing the President! He did not create this mess in 4 years, it started YEARS AGO.

I inserted a link in my comment below. Unfortunately all of it is not highlighted, so you will get an error page. Here is the full link:
http://www.medicare.gov/navigation/medicare-basics/coverage-choices.aspx

What unprecedented blockage from the GOP would that be Wes? Obama had democrat majorities in the house and senate his first two yrs in office, and it still took him almost the whole two yrs just to get obamacare passed! And he still has a democrat majority in the senate and they are the ones who wont pass any legislation. They havent even passed a budget in three years.
But obama doesnt deserve an F, because he's not a total failure. He can always be used as a bad example.

One of my issues with Mitt Romney is that he has attempted to "weasel" his way out of, or take ownership of the health care program that he initiated in MA, in order to gain acceptance of Republicans and others. If anyone buys his excuse, I have a bridge to sell you. I speak from firsthand experience: In MA I paid almost $500/month for COBRA, had paid over $800/mo. for my own policy. I owned a home and thought for sure I would not qualify for assistance under the health care program that Mitt initiated. I was accepted and had a choice of 2 premiums. One was approx. $139/mo. and the other was $169/mo. I chose $169/mo. because it offered better coverage and lower co-pays. My insurance company, whose CEO later ran for governor and is a Republican, chose not to offer coverage under the MA health plan; they were raking in BIG bucks so no need to. I had a choice of coverage from 2 companies and chose the one that would allow me to continue with my health care providers of 25 years, and nothing ever changed with my coverage, quality of health care, NOTHING changed except I was paying hundreds of dollars less for my premium, which had become affordable. Once I moved to GA I was without health insurance for a time, which caused anxiety and praying that I would not get sick. Thank God, when I finally needed medical care I had just qualified for Medicare. I will have to write about that in a separate comment; I am out-of-characters for writing here. Bob, it is supposed to help everyone

Shop around again for insurance. The new Health Care law is rolling into play up through 2014. Our family (self-employed) was just able to get a significantly better rate - plus many annual 'wellness' items are now being covered at or close to 100%. It has been a wonderful savings for us, and we are again getting the preventative screenings taken care of that will save both us and the insurer $ over time = win-win.

John - I agree that the President missed (and is still missing) the opportunity to institute S-B. A real shame.

I also agree that strong leadership can solve any problem we have. Not easy, but can be done!

Ed, Mr. Heckman is not a member of the media.

Ed - Are you one of those folks that absolutely will not give the President a good review on anything? Give me one good thing you think Pres Obama has done?

I don't believe the President has divided the country with class warfare in the least; that would have happened with or without him. I don't blame him for the economy either, since all that began to snowball before his term. Regarding the stimulus package - totally agree with you. But, that wasn't just him. Republicans and Democrats passed that. In my opinion, the worst thing in this presidency was his lack of connecting to Americans. Doug mentioned Roosevelt's "Fireside Chats," and I think he hit it right on the head. With more transparency and communication, public sentiment toward the economy and America's future would have been different.

Crystal, I agree on some points - the stimulus was a waste of money, but was passed with both parties. Of course, the Republicans weren't the majority, and the voting went almost right along party lines, but since the previous administration couldn't keep their wallets in their pockets either, we won't totally blame Obama for the current state of our economy. Also, with more transparency, things would probably be better. I remember Obama campaigning on this ad nauseum, about EVERYTHING showing up on C-SPAN. Yeah, hasn't happened. Even the meeting about a year ago with the transparency in government group was closed-door. Explain that one.

But I have to respectfully disagree with your comment about this president not furthering class warfare. It's their tactic. "Fair share" is the new Democrat buzz-word. Blaming Wall Street for problems that actually originated with Washington. The idea from the left currently is to get the poor and middle class to go against the rich and therefore vote Democrat this election. The Dems may not have caused the split between classes, but they're definitely fostering the notion....

The fact is that 49% of the working population pay no taxes at all, 0. Nada. That leaves 51% paying 100% of the taxes. And the top 1% pays 40% of that. And that does not include the massive charitable donations the 1% make. So what is the Presidents definition of "Fair"?? As long as the well off feel they are being punished for being successful. they will continue to hold on to their money. And that means no new start ups. No new jobs. No new raises. China is more capitalist than we are right now.
Doug, Found that O"Bama definition of fair yet?

Doug- your response is disappointing, but about what I expected. Whether my discussion come from "republican talking points" or not is irrelevant. The points in question are legitimate and apparently you have no answers for them. Instead, you do a shuffle, and try to make your lack of answers my fault. I suppose your next response will be, "your mother wears combat boots". Try some honest discourse for a change. In the mean time, I'll be looking for something good that the president has done- a daunting task indeed.

All good points, Hal. As I recall, the Congress has the "power of the purse" - I blame them for the overspending as much as the Obama Administration. I agree that we MUST get to a balanced budget very soon.

Doug
How right you are about Congress having the power of the purse. In fact the Dems controlled both houses for the first two years of this regime ( and the Presidents chair) and created the largest deficit ever.
Good point.

Please read up on the Health Care Reform Law facts - AARP.org has it organized into easy to read fact sheets and also offer experts to help you with further questions.

The government is setting guidelines for insurance companies - like expanded coverage for preventive care and screenings; new options for people with pre-existing conditions; greater consumer protections against insurance cancellations; end to lifetime limits on health insurance coverage; higher annual limits on health insurance coverage; expanded coverage for adult children up to age 26.

This is not a new medicare/medicaid government program (although I hear from seniors that these are not plans that they would give up or fight to end in order to save the tax payer $). There is a lot in this initial piece of legislation, find out the facts so that you can obtain the best health care coverage for less.

I've read up on it. Still a dismal failure. I've stated all this already, but I'll say it again. All this expanded coverage and more regulations on what has to be covered is driving up costs, and hence premiums. That's why everybody's jumping over to the government-subsidized plans. AARP started out all gang-busters about ObamaCare, and hasn't really maintained that enthusiasm.

It's turning the corner to the point of the only way that you're going to be able to get 'cheaper' insurance is to get on the government's roles. Of course, I'm convinced that's the plan anyway. Easiest way to get single-payer insurance is to make the private plans so bad that there's really no choice.

There is this problem with facts.I mantion a positive aspect of Obamacare and all I get back is a story about the cost of coverage.Try and remember that there are many people that could not buy coverage for ANY price prior to the change.
When the President and thwe Congress passed the stimulus the GOP insisted on tax credits. And, amoung Economists it was the right thing to do.Ifyou would look at the employment figures ...it is very clear that employment has improved every month since President Obama took office.
When Bush put in the tax breaks they had a ten year sunset.And, all the GOP PUNDITS promised that by lowering taxes for the so called "job creators" unemployment would go down and Revenue would go up. Neither one of those conterrintuitive dreams came true. To me the removal of the Bush cuts is not an increase. Its more like what was promised.

Wes.
You say by letting the Bush tax cut expire that does not make it a tax increase? Lets see. If the amount of a tax you pay goes up, by any definition that is a increase in ones taxes they pay. I do not know what math class you took but Doug must have been grading the tests.

Regarding birth control, it is far less expensive to pay for birth control than the medical costs of pregnancy and then the childhood expenses, especially if the mother or the child has serious health complications. Also, if the mother doesn't have health insurance and is unable to pay for emergency care at a place like Grady, the tax payer is then paying an even larger medical bill.

For those who would rather the government not get involved or don't feel the government is reliable, do you feel the same way about medicare and medicaid?

Again, insurance was never intended to pay for everything. If we'd government uninvolved, quit dictating all the little things insurance should cover (which raises costs) and let the insurance companies compete against state lines (which would lower costs by increasing competition) and go back to how it should be instead of this entitlement-mentality system we have now, then that mother could afford to buy insurance. So for me, no, it's not a matter of X being cheaper than Y. I shouldn't be forced to pay for either for somebody else. As far as Medicare and Medicaid, yeah, not a huge fan. I'm all for one that covers children, but even that gets abused. The ER is not for runny noses.

Actually, it is all about x being cheaper than y. Insurers are most definitely looking for what is the most cost effective way to insure a person/population as this helps them to maximize profits. One way to do this is to have people take care of themselves and take preventative measures - yearly exams and screenings - and birth control is also preventative, strictly in terms of long terms costs. For example, it is a lot cheaper to treat cancer at Stage 1 than Stage 3. Just as it is a lot cheaper to cover birth control than prenatal care, delivery, and so on. Offering coverage for these less costly measures saves everyone in the long run.

Read up on what the new Health Care law covers - AARP.org has some well organized Fact Sheets and is a place to start. Let us know exactly what will help you vs. cost you.

So far, my family has found more coverage for less $. We have also been told to revisit our plan and shop around yearly through 2014.

Assuming that birth control is less expensive than paying for unwanted pregnancies would imply that birth control is somehow hard to come by. It's not. And it's already covered at all kinds of clinics and places. Out of all the single teen pregnancies last year, only 13% said that birth control was hard to come by. 13%. So, readily available or paid-for birth control would have had little to no effect. Sorry, but that's barking up the wrong tree. How about if we make it less acceptible to be an unwed teen mom? We stop glorifying it? Stop letting them stay in the high schools and take them out again like we used to? We're never going to stop it, but raising insurance costs by adding mandatory items to policies really isn't the way to solve this problem.

Hi Karsten, I don't think the intent was to target teens but to help all women. And again, it is all about economics for the insurance industry.

I hope that you are able to find someone knowledgeable about the different health plans out there so that you can take advantage of the lower rates and new services that are now covered. It has been a positive relief to our family to finally end the ballooning 20-30% yearly premium increases and get our yearly wellness exams covered. My best to you and your family in finding a plan that is helpful to you.

Read what the Congressional Budget office has to say about Obama Care
And if you want to know were Gov controlled heath care will take us, ask any soldier that has been through the VA system.

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/02/23/new-cbo-report-proves-we-cannot-afford-obamacare/

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/22000

Jus t the facts...The Bush Tax Cuts promised to be a Ten Year Plan. They also were promising to Raise revenue.And, when they were promising all this theGOP was saying that the excess money the wealthy would get would Trickle Down to normal people. But, my real question to you Marc , is why do you defend the rich? Your idea of freedom of Religion and mine are at polar opposites. I see it as a way for me and my beliefs to not be trampled on by you and your beliefs.

One more thing. What part of having more people pay into insurance companies making coverage less costly for all don't you understand? What part of paying into insurance companies constitutes a government takeover of health insurance? What part opf the insurance companies screwing us all for years are you defending?

Wes, the tax cuts weren't promised to be a ten-year plan. The GOP back then wanted them permanent, the Dems didn't want them at all, this was the compromise. The GOP had every intention of going in and making them permanent. The lack of permanence and the ongoing lack of permanence is why they aren't working like they really should be.

It's not a matter of defending the rich. It's defending liberty and common sense. The rich create the jobs, they supply the jobs. I've never gotten a job from a poor person. The rich already pay more than others - anything else you hear from the left is a lie, don't fall for it. So how much is enough? Should they be paying twice the rate of everybody else, on average? Would that make you happy? Or maybe three times the rate? At what point would you be satisfied that the rich are paying their 'fair share?'

If more people paid into insurance and could compete across state lines and the insurance companies could dictate policies based on needs and not on what the government dictates needs to be covered. Where it constitutes a takeover of insurance companies is when the system is set up to fail so that more and more people wind up on the government teat. Insurance companies really haven't had a lot of opportunity to lower our rates with the government regulations they keep getting piled up on them.

Wes,
The fact is that 49% of the working population pay no taxes at all, 0. Nada. That leaves 51% paying 100% of the taxes. And the top 1% pays 40% of that. And that does not include the massive charitable donations the 1% make. So what is the Presidents definition of "Fair"?? As long as the well off feel they are being punished for being successful. they will continue to hold on to their money. And that means no new start ups. No new jobs. No new raises. So just how fair is fair? How much is enough. How rich is to0 rich? If I am only making 250,000 and have a family of 4 and live in NY city I am worst off the then a similar family in Greenville SC bringing home 100,000 a year. Stop punishing people for being innovated and successful. Those are the people that create new jobs. Not the federal government.

That is a very simplistic argument. It is more accurate to look at the lack of compromise in Committee of the legislation moving through both Houses, and the over use of the filibuster and cloture petitions over the last 10 years, when each party has had the advantage of majority but had a hard time getting anything accomplished, as far as their agenda is concerned. Any President to muscle through his/her agenda, without compromise, is labeled a "Dictator", as we have seen many times in the media over the last 12 years. It is simply not a problem with the current sitting President has, except that he is the current sitting President. It comes down to Congress and their willingness to compromise and move things through both Houses, as well as the need to change the environment of harsh polarization = no room for compromise / give-and-take.

Here Here!

Jane,
medicare and medicaid take up the largest part of our nations budget. All these programs cost billions of dollars. Instead we need a mandatory individual health savings and retirement savings. If all the monies I had put into Social Security was put into a individual retirement account, I would get 5,000 amount instead of 1200. We cannot keep raising taxes to pay for them. Something has to be cut and cut deeply. In theory BOA , GM and others have to stand up to standards or the customers go elsewhere. But the Feds just step in to bail them out so there is no incentive for them to perform well. But if federal programs fail, we keep funding them to buy votes.

This is the very heart of the problem with the country today. Of course your parents and grandparents are not looking to give up their medicare and medicaid. Of course, you are happy that your healthcare costs have been reduced (mine went up 34% this year). That is the way the liberals addict us to more government. They get us hooked on "free stuff" so that we become reliant on it and cannot imagine doing without it. The problem is, none of it is free! Someone actually has to pay for it. 47% of families pay ZERO taxes, which means the rest of us are paying the freight, or at least part of the freight. The rest is being CHARGED to our children and grandchildren and their children and grandchildren to the tune of $1.5 TRILLION dollars a year. This INSANITY cannot continue! Either we take steps to reverse what's been done or wait for it to collapse of its own weight. Your choice!

Jane, having children is a big, and expensive, responsibility. If you have two adults, who arent smart and/ or industrious enough to make more than $26K between them, they probably shouldnt be having children.
If the 53% who do pay all the tax, were taxed at 100%, it still wouldnt be enough to eliminate the deficit for even one year.
You can try to blame on it on who ever you want, the numbers dont lie.

Jimmy, you're just being mean. To say that two people who are either too lazy or too stupid to even make minimum wage if it wasn't guaranteed to them shouldn't have children is just a sign that you don't care about people. It's peoples' right to have all the children they want, and it's not any of your business if your money is spent to take care of them. You're just hearless and mean! (Note the sarcasm font) Seriously, though, good job on saying it. We're all thinking it, you just throw it out there.

At any point it would actually be OK to teach abstinence or personal responsibility rather than just handing out prophylactics with our money to whoever wants it and saying "Have Fun!!!!" Let's hold people accountable. Have a kid? Be prepared to take care of it. Can't? Then you WILL fund that child for the first 18 years of his life - regardless of whether he winds up in foster care. And no, abortion is not an option for being stupid. We'll save that little procedure for rape and health issues. We make it too easy to make mistakes. Maybe if we didn't, the problems would be greatly reduced in number. Maybe.

And you're right about the other - we can't tax the tax base enough to carry this current level of spending. But the liberals are right, it's definitely an income problem, not a spending problem. God help me....