The style jumps around a bit without clear segue-ways, but if you relax and read it, it has a fair amount of information. Starting from information in the WSJ, however, always raises a red flag of big money corporate interest bias. Several aspects not explicitly mentioned include the insurance company financial interest in NOT paying for care, and the strong public desire for single payer health coverage that gets rid of the insurance companies. Candidates afraid of big insurance contributions going to opponents seem timid in getting behind such proposals, so publicly financed campaigns may have to be instituted before single payer health care insurance.

True universal health care = single payor. As this blog post points out, everything else is just politics.

Compelling evidence that our already backwards approach towards health care will be driven further so under a McCain administration.

This blog post explains the consequences of McCain's health plan by gleaning comments from multiple sources to intepret the "fuzzy language." It's not hard to conclude that under McCain's plan most boomers are screwed.

Interesting to hear that nobody is getting behind McCain's healthcare "ideas." Seems to be the story of his campaign so far. Still, I'd be interested to hear if Wellington can name three things (that are not regulated in some way) that have not quadrupled in price in the last 10 years. Gas? Food? That aside, she is surely right that McCain's "plan" would make insurance more expensive for all, especially those who need it most.

A really good article with loads of facts, quotes, etc. The author not only presents much facts provides some incite and analysis of the subject.

Disjointed post about health care leaves out any discussion of employers providing less care with larger deductibles for more money, any discussion of Massachusetts, any mention of physicians, nurses, hospitals, Medicare, Medicaid. Good, but offhand, comment about the insurance industry.

This is a short summary of the problems with market based health care solutions. Well organized and clear, with citations to other speakers and reports. <updated> With the additions, a better discussion. Many more sources and citations. I'm ready for the "other day," where we can discuss universal health care.

this story, written by a newstrust host quotes experts, primarily from other news sources, in this field who are critical of sen. mcain's health plan for americans, who point out problems with the actual costs to both the government and to consumers. one quote from sen. mcain's policy advisor, that elizabeth edwards' comments onthe plan "revealed that she did not understand the comprehensive nature of the senator's proposal" , could be said about most of us. perhaps the proposal needs more work and fact-checking. i'd like to see a comparison of both candidates' plans with facts and figures fact-checked

Short piece surveying McCain's health plan and its weaknesses. It has a point of view but is clear and well argued.

This is from a NewsTrust affilitated source, and thus it is a conflict of interest to have it submitted for review on NewsTrust.

McCain's McCarthyite chorusing of the term"socialized medicine" should really be examined in the context of its anachronistic jargon. Socialized medicine? Does he presuppose that the American people of 2008 as a whole are so fearful of anything that could be relegated to socialism that they would cast aside all financial worries and purchase private health insurance? Does he know that many bankruptcies are the direct result of illness or injury that so depletes one's insurance benefits it often leaves one drowning in a sea of debt? What planet is McCain on that he would invoke a 1950s horror movie plot synopsis as an justification to veto that which he cannot comprehend as viable regarding no-cost health care plans in the ... More »

Kind of a limited article in that the author is attacking one specific thing while only quoting people instead of looking at some hard facts and numbers.