WASHINGTON (AP) - The Secret Service said Thursday that Democratic Sen. Barack Obama was being placed under its protection, the earliest ever for a presidential candidate.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff authorized Obama's protection after consultations with the bipartisan congressional advisory committee, according to Chertoff spokesman Russ Knocke and the Secret Service.

Secret Service spokesman Eric Zahren would not provide details of what led to the extra security, but said, "I'm not aware it was based on any threat." Department of Homeland Security officials said there were no known threats.

Obama's rival, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, has a Secret Service detail that is provided to all former first ladies.

OK, here is where my conservative side comes out.

It is OK for a former first lady to have Secret Service protection, no matter what her husband or she does after his service, but I draw the line on private citizens.

The campaign should either pay for private protection or pay back the government for the extra protection. We should not be paying to protect the rich cats when they take on the task of running for office.

I believe that all Senators with any present danger should be afforded protection. If they are running for President, well, so be it. I am in agreement that Perot, Forbes, and others who may run, should pay the invoice. Providing their own security could result in some unsavory or even criminal acts, so I say just bill 'em for the services rendered.

I also think that certain presidential candidates having widespread support ought to have protection. It should be offered to Rudy and McCain as well. Our country doesn't need another RFK incident.

I think Obama just really pissed off the health insurance industry out there ...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070529/ap_on_el_pr/obama_health

Now THIS is something I would consider. Something private-based, funding the health care for those who NEED it and not putting all of us under one big governmental HMO umbrella. While I am no fan of government interference in health care, I would strongly consider something like that.

Any health care plan that mandates, for example, no denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions is going to piss off the insurance industry. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch!

I'm not sure which type of health care plan I support, but I support ONE of them. It's way past time to do something about the health care crisis in America.

Andrew

If you cant exempt pre existing conditions, whats to stop someone from not having insurance, until they get really sick, or hurt?

Nwokie writes:
If you cant exempt pre existing conditions, whats to stop someone from not having insurance, until they get really sick, or hurt?

Not all preexisting conditions are the same. My friend has Type I diabetes. She requires insulin to live. There are numerous complications with Type I (ask DrChaps). She had insurance at her employer in Oregon but moved to New Mexico for school. Turns out the college insurance, in order to cover her diabetes as a preexisting condition, requires her to exhaust her COBRA coverage from her previous employer - which would cost her $600/month!!! And because that's Kaiser, it's not going to help her much in New Mexico where there are no Kaiser hospitals or doctors. She's basically screwed unless she can get a waiver of some sort.

The insurance companies pull this bullshit all the time. Diabetes is a disease, not something anyone can prevent (not Type I anyway). It's not like she "waited until she got sick." On the contrary, if she goes without insurance and does require emergency room care, it's going to bankrupt her if she has no insurance. And the high emergency room bills will never get paid - and guess who pays them? All of us. The hospitals pass them on to the rest of us in the form of higher costs.

Just one more reason why I believe we need some sort of universal health coverage to protect us from the blind greed of the health care industry.

Andrew

Agreed. If all American citizens are covered under a national plan, ideally a single pay one, then pre-existing is rendered moot.

It also renders picking and choosing who to cover and who not to cover, moot as well.

I still prefer choices, and the primary choice being a private company rather than Uncle Sam, M.D.

That said, any effort to regulate the out-of-control insurance industry is welcome by me. They remind me in a way of big business during the Industrial Revolution, where they would employ child labor for pennies per day in insane working conditions, yet for the longest time the feds turned their collective noses at the practice.

The only Democrat with a plan that makes "Uncle Same, M.D." your insurer is Dennis Kucinich. The others basically add regulation to private insurance and provide a means to insure everyone or nearly everyone. As I understand it the Edwards Plan isn't too different from the Obama Plan. (Hillary hasn't released all of hers yet.)

Andrew

Brian, would having a choice above and beyond a base plan for everyone make sense?

We could easily do universal health care in such a fashion that those willing and able to pay, could have a means to do so. Maybe priority, alternative treatments, cosmetics, excessive treatment, etc..

Or is your choice really about who you see and why?

If the latter, getting single pay coverage would more or less assure that. Right now, we do have choice in plans, but that choice often trumps the choices I mentioned above.

Which matters most?

I'm in the latter camp in that I really don't care how our base coverage works. I do care that it's essentially tied to ones job though. There is a lock in factor there that really needs to go, IMHO. Forces too many other choices and can be leveraged to our disadvantage.

Whats next? Single pay for housing, food?

If the govt takes over health care, it will cost at least twice as much, and have horrible service.

I'm not sure that's true.

Having a single pay system would eliminate a whole lot of overhead, markups, etc... Besides, multiple entities could still provide service --they just would not bill for it directly. Think of the medicare model, only for everyone.

I'm generally against government involvement when it can be avoided, but insurance is one business which is a "natural monopoly". The level of overhead in healthcare is obscene.

we need to just eliminate the billing alltogether. Doctors prescribe what they think you need, it gets provided, and the government foots the bill. No more wasting half the budget sending pieces of paper back and forth.

Talk about a prescription for chaos. First of all there are not enough health personnel to support such a plan, and why should I be taxed to pay for someone else's responsibility?

"why should I be taxed to pay for someone else's responsibility"

too late, you're already paying for somebody's responsibility. everytime an uninsured person goes into the ER, it's passed along to insured people in the form of high premiums. so what's your solution?

Your right, and I think there should be some kind of federal program to help those uninsured for emergency care, except for those here illegally, they should be given 2 asperin and sent away.

How about a federally-funded uninsured-only ER center in each city with long lines to discourage people from going without insurance? I'm thinking many of the "illegals" in the ER are children. Send them away?