Which issue is biggest for the 2008 election? Immigration, health-care, or terrorism.?

Question

For me it's health care because I know I'm thousands of times more likely to die from lack of health care than from a terrorist or illegal immigrant.

Answer 1

Immigration. Not deporting illegal immigrants can create civil instability in the future. Most illegal immigrants don't have a culture that matches mainstream Americans. And they refuse to adopt American culture.

Answer 2

Terrorism--which IS the job of the president to address. We've been lucky so far, but the terrorists only have to get lucky once for there to be a huge tragedy again, probably worse than 9/11.

The immigration laws on the books are pretty good--now let's try ENFORCING them!
As to health care, it's not actually the job of the feds and to be frank, both the feds and state level governments, have largely screwed it up.
For healthy folks--really, look at HSAs (high deductibles) as that's a good start.

For those who are not healthy (my people) check and see if your state has a high-risk insurance pool you can look here:
http://www.healthinsurance.org/riskpoolinfo.lasso
That site explains the requirements as well.

Health care IS a huge issue (alas so is homeland security, immigration, taxation and several other key issues). We have to recognize, however, that the power of the president is far more limited than people like to pretend it is. Even when you can get one who is a leader and has your priorities, you have to be concerned with Congress and then eventually the judges who hear challenges to all the big laws eventually. As we also see with immigration, you can have the right laws, but if they're not enforced, it doesn't do you much good.

Again, I've got to suggest that people consider a few things re: health care.

Under this system, we need price transparency. No reason hospitals, doctors, etc. can't have their price lists online AND we don't need to play the CPT code game either--use the terms the doctor uses. "You need a hysterectomy and an oopherectomy." "You need an angiogram." "You need a cholecystectomy." Etc. No reason they can't be posted under the terms the doctor uses and yes I do fully understand that there are different costs (within a small percentage, however) based on the specific procedures, but that is also what price ranges are for. People will then say, "But your insurance determines what you pay." THAT is part of the problem--insurances should have to pay whatever percentage of the bill they are committed to (not all insurance policies are 80/20 splits) and NOT receive "discounts." Those "discounts" are then passed on to the uninsured, which too often ends up being the taxpayer. It's unconscionable.

It should be possible to buy a health insurance policy NATIONALLY. Not everyone feels the need to have chiropractic coverage or pregnancy coverage or some other things. Let the insurers offer policies of all sorts as happens now BUT let ANY American apply for ANY policy he likes. I did NOT say GIVE him any policy, but apply and pay the appropriate premium. That would help some.

For the states that don't have high-risk insurance pools, they need to get with reality and offer them. As it is, they are going to either bankrupt those who can't get any insurance OR run up costs to the taxpayer when a person finally has an emergency and MUST be treated. Pretending cutting people off from ANY insurance "saves" money is delusional.

And, again, here are the basics of a solid, sensible plan:

AFFORDABLE (sliding-fee scale premium AND limit per year on out-of-pocket medically necessary expenses--therefore fertility treatments do NOT count, but surgery for cancer DOES count toward the out-of-pocket. Nothing against the infertile--or those with ED either--but we can't afford to give everyone EVERYTHING he wants and as these providers will STILL exist and the treatment is available, those who need it will have to find a way to finance it outside of the pool required to keep people alive).

CATASTROPHIC COVERAGE--this is all the insurance anyone REALLY needs--currently sometimes paying a bit here and there for not much of a medical need means that the really ill or injured run up against stupid caps where THEY can be expected to come up with tens or hundreds of thousands for procedures the insurer pretends are "covered" items. IF insurance were doing an adequate job, more than half of all bankruptcies in the US would not be over medical bills--and most of those folks have insurance. So if you're into seeing the doctor every month, then you should pay for that. If you NEED to see the doctor every month because you have cancer or such, then the insurance will make sure you don't end up bankrupt as a result of that.

One physical with follow up per year to be covered for a modest co-pay. Prevention is better. It's moral, it's cheaper, and if you detect a problem early, it's cheaper to treat. THIS is the way to do healthcare for everyone's benefit. Also one ER visit per year IF needed with a co-pay--stuff happens.

Cover the necessary meds and treatments. Let people have additional policies they can buy IF they want insurance that WOULD deal with infertility, ED, etc. Someone's always willing to come up with some kind of policy so long as he can still make money on the deal.

Funding? How about NO mandatory participation by employers and NO new taxes for individuals BUT fixing some CURRENT problems that would allow the funding? It is i doable, but lobbyists will hate it because they lose their leverage and special deals.

It's not the blurb, it's the PDF that has to be opened:
http://www.booklocker.com/books/3068.html


For all non-emergency procedures, people should know, uninsured or insured, what the bottom line bill to them is and the providers should be held to that barring fraud.

Answer 3

The Republicans have no plan for health care but, sadly and realistically, Democrats will never be able to get a plan that covers everyone because the insurance companies will stop them. They spin that the health care system is fine while insurance executives make 100x more than doctors. They claim that countries with socialized medicine have long waits for care, etc. However, I would judge a country's health care system by its life expectancy and infant mortality rate. U.S. life expectancy has dropped to 29th place, below almost all other Western nations. The countries that have free health care are all above us. They are also above us for low infant mortality, i.e. fewer babies die at birth in countries with socialized medicine than here. Those who are against socialized medicine, how is the current system possibly better if people aren't living as long here as in most other civilized countries?

Answer 4

It should be healthcare. Which is why the rightwing media will make it terrorism or immigration.

I live in the UK and work in the NHS (our universal health care system). It has problems, but not as many as the US healthcare system has. Despite spending much more per head of population than other developed countries, the US has worse health outcomes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care#Economics Life expectancy and infant mortality figures in the US are higher than in other developed countries, despite more money being spent (and wasted) in the USA.

In the UK there are waiting lists for routine problems. Problems that can not wait are treated as emergencies. Also, in the UK, people can also have private health care.

I can understand Americans being proud of living in the richest and most powerful country in the world. What I can not understand is why Amercians settle for an expensive healthcare system where babies die that would have a better chance of life if born in another developed country.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2167865,00.html

Answer 5

The energy economy.

Rising fuel prices put us at risk of serous inflation and recession if we cannot manage our resources correctly, which with SUV's being the preferred mode of transportation, we're obviously not resourceful enough. Our management of the energy economy determines how much money we waste on fuel, home and heating, or save with alternative methods. It Infrastructurally weakens us because of an aging power grid, cornering us into fossil fuels, and hampers technological developement. Then rising prices forces us into hiring illegals or outsourcing.

It also has an environmental impact, whether you believe in global warming or not. Smog is bad and we have to breathe a lot of it everyday at work or school. Plus the oil spills.

What makes things worse is when we spend our money fighting for oil when we could be researching for cheaper alternatives. The dependency on foreign oil is upsetting both wings of politics. It causes foreign trade deficits at the opportunity costs of recycling our money in homeland energy, but our slow pace advancements and conservation causes this dependence. Plus about half of the nation and all of the world believes that we got to war for oil. Then there's the fact that terrorists get support from the middle east, and the middle east gets financial support from our SUV's. there's no direct link, but you can't tell me that basic monetary economics can't prove that our money recycles enough over there to eventually fall into the hands of terrorists.

So there you have it, combating the energy economy solves the following other problems: energy crisis, economic lagging, financial crisis, terrorism, improved respiratory health and environment, illegal immigration and job outsourcing, and my favorite, I won't have to squeeze in between SUV's when I try to park.

Answer 6

The 'health care' situation is the easiest of all to solve. The federal government could simply institute a single-payer, non-profit insurance company to insure all Americans for medical expenses. This will have zero to do with HEALTH CARE', and everything to do with HEALTH INSURANCE. This publically owned insurance company could easily be funded by eliminating Medicare, Medicade, large parts of the VA medical system and other overlapping state, local and federal systems. Coupled with an appropriate sized deductable and co-pay system plus employer/employee contributions this system would work. Overseen by citizens groups, government groups and third party accounting firms, fraud and waste could be dealt with, unlike the current system of 'private' insurance that is and of itself a fraud. The 'wingers of course will read none of the above...they'll simply call it 'socialized medicine'. Too bad...people will die and be gyped. They'll continuosly pay too much and get screwed out of timely payments. But that's 'politics'....it's enough to make you sick! No kiddin'!

Answer 7

I would rank those three as: health care, then immigration, hten terrorism.

But I think the biggest issues are going to be none of these--except indirectly. the biggest issue is going to be the economy, since we are almost certainly going to be in a recession by next November. Number two will be the war in Iraq (which isn't the same thing as terrorism, obviously).

Answer 8

Giving birth to a new life is indeed a blessing which almost every woman would wish to have. How to get pregnant naturally https://tr.im/JOLLY
Enjoying the feeling of motherhood and raising a family would surely be a couple’s dream. Some get it naturally, while for some others things don’t seem to work as they desire. These reasons which stop a women from conceiving can be due to either physical reasons or truly physiological.

Answer 9

If we (taxpayers) didnt have to pay for all the illegals health care, it would free up a lot of money.
1) Illegal immigration
2)terrorism (part of securing borders)
3) Get rid of lobbyists and special Int. groups influences (although the Dems already promised that in 2006.. surprise! they forgot about it already)
4) health care.... and NOT Hillary's social care!

Answer 10

Illegal immigration causes a problem for healthcare and creates terrorism. I'd say illegal immigration is the main problematic factor at the moment. Secure our borders and deport those who don't belong here and we'll see a great improvement in our economy (healthcare) and a decrease in terrorism.