What Will Obama Do?

[Steve]

Everyone is playing soooo nice today with politics, I have a question for you Obama supporters. Exactly what does he stand for? Seriously. I mean, Billary is a known quantity. For example, we know what she'd really like to do with health care if allowed. But what does Obama stand for, except "change?" He uses that word incessantly, but I have yet to hear him give any details at all about what he'll change or how he'll change it.

Seriously, what does he stand for? What will he do if elected that's got so many people excited about him?

[JKTODD]

I don't think anybody knows. Which is why I wouldn't vote for him. Truth be told I don't think he knows. He'll end the war in Iraq. Which is good for the toops there. Bad for the familys of the ones who died there. Really bad for the region and the Iraqi's who stood behind the Americans. The vacuum and civil war that will be created will probably make the Sudan look like Disneyland.

Just my .02

[SUPERGILDO43]

I personally think, especially based on the entertainment industries recent surge of "inspirational" material, he is what people think is the new reincarnation of MLK in a presidential race. He has the feeling behind him and thats all some people want.

ok that being said, I think obama has definately been the best at the democrat debates but i do agree he is definately much more vague with his answers.

I will be researching it more now that I think he is the dem front runner and Mccain is the rep front runner.

the election is turning to a better direction than I thought it would actually...

[Gags]

Well first of all, congress passes laws so often times regardless of what a Presidents plan may be it has to go through congress. I say this because if you take Regan for example he was much more pragmatic of a leader than the "Regan qualities" he portrayed as a politician.

I like Obama after reading his stances on issues. What I like more is how he carries himself, his intelligence, pragmatic approach, thoughts on genocide, and seeming honesty. Putting faith back into the White house is what has me. I don't see him AS shady a politician as the all of the others. He is socially liberal but not over the top. I like him because he is smart, moderate, seems to have a heart.

Plus, I trust to pick a cabinate of QUALIFIED people who are smart and good for the Country as a whole.

[SUPERGILDO43]

also I want to say that with goverment intelligence and what I know of obamas stance, I think he will be a good candidate.

someone once said that even if an anti iraq dem were to get in, they wouldnt pull out so immediately or as fast as they advertise and I agree. But as of now, as far in as we are in Iraq I am converting to the line of thinking that we need to just finish it off there, well "finish" it as much as we actaully could...

[jnschwie]

Honestly, I just don't see a difference in his policy plans from what Hillary puts forth.

Between the two, you are definitely voting for the personality/experience, and, in some cases, age/gender/race....not a fundamental philosophical difference, as I see it.

[TheCopperCowboy]

A better answer is what he isn't. More of the same and "stay the course" doesn't help the little guy. So, as his campain states, change. Honestly, I can't explain it myself, but I find it refreshing. Don't worry, corporate America will line up with whoever is elected in November. :D

[Pilot]

Everyone is playing soooo nice today with politics, I have a question for you Obama supporters. Exactly what does he stand for? Seriously. I mean, Billary is a known quantity. For example, we know what she'd really like to do with health care if allowed. But what does Obama stand for, except "change?" He uses that word incessantly, but I have yet to hear him give any details at all about what he'll change or how he'll change it.

Seriously, what does he stand for? What will he do if elected that's got so many people excited about him?

He's essentially for any and every government assistance program known to man and a major redistribution of wealth proponent. Not too different from Hitlary. Same playbook, he's just a more charismatic and likeable guy. Its all show, no substance.

Oh and what is "Change"? About $.38, which is all we'll collectively have after he gets through.

[SUPERGILDO43]

What I like more is how he carries himself, his intelligence, pragmatic approach, thoughts on genocide, and seeming honesty. Putting faith back into the White house is what has me. I don't see him AS shady a politician as the all of the others. He is socially liberal but not over the top. I like him because he is smart, moderate, seems to have a heart.

this draws me to him as well. this and my earlier statement gets his votes...

[Steve]

I like Obama after reading his stances on issues.

Which are what, exactly, besides "change?" :confused:

I don't want to know who he isn't Copper, but thanks anyway. :rolleyes: I'd like to know what he really stands for. Yeah, he's smart. Yeah, he seems to be a nice guy. Yeah, he's an inspirational speaker. But where's the substance?

I didn't ask this for people to bash him or badmouth GWB, go do that in another thread. I really am curious to what's attracting people to him beyond charisma and a desire to "change," or if that's simply it.

[jnschwie]

I like Obama after reading his stances on issues. What I like more is how he carries himself, his intelligence, pragmatic approach, thoughts on genocide, and seeming honesty. Putting faith back into the White house is what has me. I don't see him AS shady a politician as the all of the others. He is socially liberal but not over the top. I like him because he is smart, moderate, seems to have a heart.


Wow. Where else do you go to get to your top? :confused:

Stalin?

[scottycards]

Healthcare: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/HealthCareFullPlan.pdf

Iraq: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/IraqFactSheet.pdf

Immigration: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/ImmigrationFactSheet.pdf

Fiscal: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/fiscal/ObamaPolicy_Fiscal.pdf

You can go to http://www.barackobama.com

It will ask your name and email. Put in email of steve@steve.com
first name: steve
last name: steve
zip: 80406

Then you'll be in, and it's all right there.

[Pilot]

He is socially liberal but not over the top. I like him because he is smart, moderate, seems to have a heart.




He is way over the top liberal and known as the most liberal Senator in Congress due to his voting record. He is FAR LEFT, even a bit left of Hillary's public persona. If Hillary were honest they would be equally liberal but she pretends to be a bit more centrist to get elected. What I like about Obama is that he's honest about his far left stances. I respect that. Hillary is anything but honest.

Obama = just another far left, "kook" liberal who promises the government will solve all our problems through even higer taxes, more bueacracy and big government programs.

[Gags]

Wow. Where else do you go to get to your top? :confused:

Stalin?

Well, look at him on gay marriage and a number of other "social" issues. I believe in freedom of choice when it comes to how I choose to live my life.

[TheCopperCowboy]

Which are what, exactly, besides "change?" :confused:

I don't want to know who he isn't Copper, but thanks anyway. :rolleyes: I'd like to know what he really stands for. Yeah, he's smart. Yeah, he seems to be a nice guy. Yeah, he's an inspirational speaker. But where's the substance?

I didn't ask this for people to bash him or badmouth GWB, go do that in another thread. I really am curious to what's attracting people to him beyond charisma and a desire to "change," or if that's simply it.

You keep answering your own question. :rolleyes:

[jnschwie]

Well, look at him on gay marriage and a number of other "social" issues. I believe in freedom of choice when it comes to how I choose to live my life.

:confused:

So do I, which is why I'll never vote for a socialist.

Socialism is anti-freedom.

[Gags]

He is way over the top liberal and known as the most liberal Senator in Congress due to his voting record. He is FAR LEFT, even a bit left of Hillary's public persona. If Hillary were honest they would be equally liberal but she pretends to be a bit more centrist to get elected. What I like about Obama is the he's honest about his far left stances. I respect that. Hillary is anything but honest.

Obama = just another far left, "kook" liberal who promises the government will solve all our problems through even higer taxes, more bueacracy and big government programs.

There are some problems that are too big that the government should get involved. I'm definitely not a fan of "big government" but some things are good for a body of elected officials with their eyes on the Country to handle.

I want a respectable leader who believes in human rights.

[cheftyler]

Healthcare: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/HealthCareFullPlan.pdf

Iraq: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/IraqFactSheet.pdf

Immigration: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/ImmigrationFactSheet.pdf

Fiscal: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/fiscal/ObamaPolicy_Fiscal.pdf

You can go to http://www.barackobama.com

It will ask your name and email. Put in email of steve@steve.com
first name: steve
last name: steve
zip: 80406

Then you'll be in, and it's all right there.

Just a quick question...why should I have to give any details (false or otherwise) to find out what the man is all about?

[Gags]

:confused:

So do I, which is why I'll never vote for a socialist.

Socialism is anti-freedom.

I'm not talking socialism. I'm talking about removing laws and ideas based upon hate. When I say socially liberal I mean allowing people to be who they are and free to pursue happieness.

[scottycards]

:confused:

So do I, which is why I'll never vote for a socialist.

Socialism is anti-freedom.

I keep seeing socialist in your posts. Once saying "admitted socialist".

Source? Backup? Opinion? Fact?

A statement like "socialism is anti-freedom". Interesting, may be true, but needs explanation. I don't understand- can you explain how socialism is anti-freedom? Not saying you're wrong, but rather just trying to understand.

[scottycards]

Just a quick question...why should I have to give any details (false or otherwise) to find out what the man is all about?

Log on and ask him, I'm not his keeper..........

[cheftyler]

a body of elected officials with their eyes on the Country



See the flaw here? Very few politicians have their eyes on the country...they have their eyes on their interns, their buddies' pockets, and their life after office. Shame really.

[Gags]

See the flaw here? Very few politicians have their eyes on the country...they have their eyes on their interns, their buddies' pockets, and their life after office. Shame really.

I know man...We as the people need to clean house.

[cheftyler]

Log on and ask him, I'm not his keeper..........

Figured you might have an idea as to why, I don't care enough to ask him just seemed odd to me :shrug:

[cheftyler]

I know man...We as the people need to clean house.

Quoted for truth.

[JKTODD]

I really don't see why people think that Obama will be any different than any other politician. Voting "Present" instead of yes or no on issues is a red flag to me.

[SUPERGILDO43]

Just a quick question...why should I have to give any details (false or otherwise) to find out what the man is all about?

because you care to make an educated decision???

this might be something as simple as getting an idea where people are more frequently seeking information :shrug:

[scottycards]

Figured you might have an idea as to why, I don't care enough to ask him just seemed odd to me :shrug:

Total guess?

OK. So that he (and his workers) can stay in touch with you, keep you updated, collect data on how many people are interested in his site, what issues they click on as being important, etc.?

Listening to his constituency, basically. :shrug:

[CSP]

You keep answering your own question. :rolleyes:

So you're saying that Steve admitting that Obama is smart, a nice guy, and an inspirational speaker is an answer to his own question?

Is that all you ask of a candidate along with a (D) in front of his/her name on the ballot?

[jnschwie]

I'm not talking socialism. I'm talking about removing laws and ideas based upon hate. When I say socially liberal I mean allowing people to be who they are and free to pursue happieness.

What makes me happy is freedom to choose my profession, to sell myself to the highest bidder, and invest in my future the way I want.

I keep seeing socialist in your posts. Once saying "admitted socialist".

Source? Backup? Opinion? Fact?.

What else would you call a universal healthcare program paid for through taxes? :shrug: You remove the choice of the people in a redistribution attempt.

A statement like "socialism is anti-freedom". Interesting, may be true, but needs explanation. I don't understand- can you explain how socialism is anti-freedom? Not saying you're wrong, but rather just trying to understand.

Above, I guess. To me, freedom is being able to choose what I want to do for my own healthcare, my own retirement plans, and my own firearms. The firearm has less to do with socialism, admittedly, but it is still anti-freedom.



Edit: Delete floating "how do you" :D :confused:

[scottycards]

I have not seen the part of any of the candidate's plans that prohibits a person from going and getting their own healthcare plan if the one that is offered is unacceptable to them.

But I haven't looked that closely.

[potter]

I think gags said it best. I just think it would be nice to finally have such a strong willed person. Someone who doesn't seem so jaded and biased. Or consumed by corporate and shady politics.

Even though he's even far left for my own tastes. He doesn't look like a person who's going to force his leftist views into pushing this country somewhere we don't want. I believe he'll be a man of the people. Something we have not had in the White House in a long long time.

[CSP]

I'm talking about removing laws and ideas based upon hate.

Why is it that conservative beliefs are coined as "hate"?

It's a difference of opinion. No need to label it to fit an agenda.

[Gags]

What makes me happy is freedom to choose my profession, to sell myself to the highest bidder, and invest in my future the way I want.



What else would you call a universal healthcare program paid for through taxes? :shrug: You remove the choice of the people in a redistribution attempt.



Above, I guess. To me, freedom is being able to choose what I want to do for my own healthcare, my own retirement plans, and my own firearms. The firearm has less to do with socialism, admittedly, but it is still anti-freedom.

How do you


If Obama was elected you will still be able to do these things.

[Steve]

I just think it would be nice to finally have such a strong willed person.

Bush isn't "stong willed??!!!" :eek: Damn, that seems to be the biggest rap against him by his legions of haters. :shrug:

Except for the links that Scotty posted (thanks, but I wanted the Cliff Notes versions right now :flipoff2: ) nobody has posted anything of substance about his positions. Strange, very strange indeed.

[potter]

What makes me happy is freedom to choose my profession, to sell myself to the highest bidder, and invest in my future the way I want.



What else would you call a universal healthcare program paid for through taxes? :shrug: You remove the choice of the people in a redistribution attempt.



Above, I guess. To me, freedom is being able to choose what I want to do for my own healthcare, my own retirement plans, and my own firearms. The firearm has less to do with socialism, admittedly, but it is still anti-freedom.

How do you

Why is it you guys constantly scream socialism and compare it to the U.S.S.R. It's like you're still living in the 50's during the red scare.

Just so you know, universal health care plans are for those that don't have health care. You yourself would still be able to keep your current healthcare plan. Privatized health care would not just suddenly disappear, it would still be available to those who wanted to pay for it.

[Steve]

Why is it you guys constantly scream socialism and compare it to the U.S.S.R. It's like you're still living in the 50's during the red scare.

Um, they keep saying socialism, not communism. They're not the same thing.

[Gags]

Why is it that conservative beliefs are coined as "hate"?

It's a difference of opinion. No need to label it to fit an agenda.

Well MJ was made illegal in GA only for Black people at first. It spread from there.

If your opinion is anti-gay rights I guess it's because you "love" all people. Huckabee wanted a constutional amendment.

[scottycards]

Bush isn't "stong willed??!!!" :eek: Damn, that seems to be the biggest rap against him by his legions of haters. :shrug:

Except for the links that Scotty posted (thanks, but I wanted the Cliff Notes versions right now :flipoff2: ) nobody has posted anything of substance about his positions. Strange, very strange indeed.

Super funny, Steve.

Super important issues, critical to the future of our country. Please send me the Cliff's Notes, cause I've got more important things to attend to.

Hey, I'm the same way. If I can't get the Exec. Summary, don't bore me- I'll just vote based on hairstyle and smile- oh, and who's taller. ;)

[jnschwie]

I have not seen the part of any of the candidate's plans that prohibits a person from going and getting their own healthcare plan if the one that is offered is unacceptable to them.

But I haven't looked that closely.

If Obama was elected you will still be able to do these things.

Just so you know, universal health care plans are for those that don't have health care. You yourself would still be able to keep your current healthcare plan. Privatized health care would not just suddenly disappear, it would still be available to those who wanted to pay for it.

So I pay twice for someone either unwilling or unable to pay once?
In other words, I lose the FREEDOM to dictate where at least some (INCREMENTAL ADDITIONAL) portion of my income goes.


My bad....that's not socialism at all. :lmao:



Take it a step further....who do you think is going to make the choices for those IN the plan? :confused: Certainly they won't be. Another loss of freedom.

But hey, medicare/medicaid and part b are working out fabulously. :laughing:

[Gags]

Bush isn't "stong willed??!!!" :eek: Damn, that seems to be the biggest rap against him by his legions of haters. :shrug:

Except for the links that Scotty posted (thanks, but I wanted the Cliff Notes versions right now :flipoff2: ) nobody has posted anything of substance about his positions. Strange, very strange indeed.

I was but Scotty did it right before me.

[TheCopperCowboy]

So you're saying that Steve admitting that Obama is smart, a nice guy, and an inspirational speaker is an answer to his own question?

Is that all you ask of a candidate along with a (D) in front of his/her name on the ballot?

Not at all, but it's usually the deal breaker. You know, he seems like someone I can have a beer and an intelligent conversation with. :D

[Steve]

Scott, the CO primary's over. General election isn't until November. Cliff Notes version is good for now until it's time to decide how to vote. :P

[jnschwie]

Um, they keep saying socialism, not communism. They're not the same thing.

Seems obvious enough to me...

[Gags]

So I pay twice for someone either unwilling or unable to pay once?
In other words, I lose the FREEDOM to dictate where at least some (INCREMENTAL ADDITIONAL) portion of my income goes.


My bad....that's not socialism at all. :lmao:



Take it a step further....who do you think is going to make the choices for those IN the plan? :confused: Certainly they won't be. Another loss of freedom.

But hey, medicare/medicaid and part b are working out fabulously. :laughing:

Well what would be your plan for healthcare for Americans?

[jnschwie]

Well what would be your plan for healthcare for Americans?

PAY FOR IT IF YOU WANT IT!!!!

[jnschwie]

In seriousness....

Gags, read up. This is rational:

http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3459466.html

He combines it with a negative income tax for the "truly needy." It would have to be packaged together.

[jnschwie]

All comes back to this: http://www.colorado4x4.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=102549&highlight=robin+hood

[Sound_Man]

I just went to his site and started reading some about the guy. Seemed okay until I got to his blog. He has a big thing in there about "black aids/hiv awareness day". Apparently that is today, I had no clue. Can any of you tell me when the red aids/hiv awareness day is? How about the white day or blue? Even better lets find out when the AMERICAN aids/hiv awareness day is. I do not want a hyphenated American in office, just an American.

I didn't know there was a "Black AIDS Institute" in Los Angeles. Can anyone help me out and tell me where the red, blue orange and green ones are? I would really hope that he could focus on American institutions and not on hyphenated ones at least until he was in office.

[CSP]

If your opinion is anti-gay rights I guess it's because you "love" all people.

First of all I don't recall any mention I've ever made on my stand on gay or anti-gay rights.

Second that isn't a decision based on "love" or "hate". Sorry, but it just isn't that black and white. Personally I believe the "hate" bandwagon, no matter the issue, is a crutch.

Sorry for the hijack Steve. I'm with you on Obama's lack of substance.

[scottycards]

So I pay twice for someone either unwilling or unable to pay once?
In other words, I lose the FREEDOM to dictate where at least some (INCREMENTAL ADDITIONAL) portion of my income goes.


Don't like public schools? Gotta go private, right? Cough up, dude.

Don't like I-25 traffic, gotta pay to drive on E-470.

There are many instances where government supplied programs may not be acceptable, so there are other options for those who choose them.

But you can't just opt out. Hey, I don't have kids, and school taxes where I live in Erie are friggin' OUTRAGEOUS, but I can't just opt out. I don't use the rec center there, but I'm sure as hell paying for it. It's for the good of the majority, which is what democracy is all about- majority wins, screw the minority.

So, you've gotta take the good with the bad, suck it up, and if you don't like what the .gov is supplying, take the lock off your wallet and pay your own way.

[scottycards]

PAY FOR IT IF YOU WANT IT!!!!

Because as it stands, if you don't we all pay FOR you!

I heard recently some percentage (you might know) -that seemed very high- of our current healthcare premiums go just to pay for the uninsured.

So like it or not, you're already paying for Pedro to have his leetle anchor baby.......

[Gags]

First of all I don't recall any mention I've ever made on my stand on gay or anti-gay rights.

Second that isn't a decision based on "love" or "hate". Sorry, but it just isn't that black and white. Personally I believe the "hate" bandwagon, no matter the issue, is a crutch.

Sorry for the hijack Steve. I'm with you on Obama's lack of substance.

I know you didn't that's why I said "if." You asked to qualify my use of "hate." Perhaps it was too strong of a word. I'll use dislike.

If Obama lacks substance who has it?

[Gags]

I just went to his site and started reading some about the guy. Seemed okay until I got to his blog. He has a big thing in there about "black aids/hiv awareness day". Apparently that is today, I had no clue. Can any of you tell me when the red aids/hiv awareness day is? How about the white day or blue? Even better lets find out when the AMERICAN aids/hiv awareness day is. I do not want a hyphenated American in office, just an American.

I didn't know there was a "Black AIDS Institute" in Los Angeles. Can anyone help me out and tell me where the red, blue orange and green ones are? I would really hope that he could focus on American institutions and not on hyphenated ones at least until he was in office.

He is politicing right now. I see him much more pragmatic in office.

[Jeffro600]

What will Obama do??

Same things the "rest" of them do/did...make false hopes and promises, squander, dig us in a bigger hole of a deficit, lie, cheat, swindle, dictate, bang whores in the oval office...you know, regular US president stuff. :flipoff2:

[SUPERGILDO43]

I just went to his site and started reading some about the guy. Seemed okay until I got to his blog. He has a big thing in there about "black aids/hiv awareness day". Apparently that is today, I had no clue. Can any of you tell me when the red aids/hiv awareness day is? How about the white day or blue? Even better lets find out when the AMERICAN aids/hiv awareness day is. I do not want a hyphenated American in office, just an American.

I didn't know there was a "Black AIDS Institute" in Los Angeles. Can anyone help me out and tell me where the red, blue orange and green ones are? I would really hope that he could focus on American institutions and not on hyphenated ones at least until he was in office.

I would attribute it to the connections that aids in african is an epidemic. now would he deny aids research for a magenta colored person??

I would highly doubt it...

[jnschwie]

Don't like public schools? Gotta go private, right? Cough up, dude.

Don't like I-25 traffic, gotta pay to drive on E-470.

There are many instances where government supplied programs may not be acceptable, so there are other options for those who choose them.

But you can't just opt out. Hey, I don't have kids, and school taxes where I live in Erie are friggin' OUTRAGEOUS, but I can't just opt out. I don't use the rec center there, but I'm sure as hell paying for it. It's for the good of the majority, which is what democracy is all about- majority wins, screw the minority.

So, you've gotta take the good with the bad, suck it up, and if you don't like what the .gov is supplying, take the lock off your wallet and pay your own way.

Hey, I agree and don't like it either. You've seen my rants on PT and public schools. :shrug: However, I don't think "other examples" makes it right.

I really believe this sort of (sorry about this, but) jackassery is what is going to kill our economy AND kill the middle class.

Because as it stands, if you don't we all pay FOR you!

I heard recently some percentage (you might know) -that seemed very high- of our current healthcare premiums go just to pay for the uninsured.

So like it or not, you're already paying for Pedro to have his leetle anchor baby.......

Well, that's why he rolled the plan with a negative income tax. So now they would have the money, they just have to make the choice. IMO, if you give them the financial means to get into a plan (which this idea would) and they opt to prioritize something higher, then by all means we should be able to deny care, even in an ER. Cold-hearted? I don't think so.

But if you read the Friedman link, there are massive fundamental flaws with the idea. And I'd be less hostile to it if we had ANY indication whatsoever that it would work.

[Gags]

In seriousness....

Gags, read up. This is rational:

http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3459466.html

He combines it with a negative income tax for the "truly needy." It would have to be packaged together.

Are you saying that our HC system doesn't need attention? Rising costs of prescriptions...People who can't pay just suffer? There are so many cases where people get f@cked by HMO's...Sh!t my nieghbor is an ER doctor and he tells me how much some our current system sucks.

It's either live and let live or you take a human approach and do what's best for ALL our citizens.

[Gags]

I would attribute it to the connections that aids in african is an epidemic. now would he deny aids research for a magenta colored person??

I would highly doubt it...

Exactly. It's a huge problem in Africa but we don't care about Africans at all.

[jnschwie]

Are you saying that our HC system doesn't need attention? Rising costs of prescriptions...People who can't pay just suffer? There are so many cases where people get f@cked by HMO's...Sh!t my nieghbor is an ER doctor and he tells me how much some our current system sucks.

It's either live and let live or you take a human approach and do what's best for ALL our citizens.

So fawking everyone is best for our citizens? Not allowing ANYONE in the plan a choice? Did you read it? :confused:

He outlines a plan for what to do and how to do it.




-And don't get me started on prescription prices. :rolleyes:

[Big Dave]

I saw a clip somewhere where some guy on I think Hannity's show asked a bunch of Obama supporters to list some of Obama's accomplishments, they were all stumped, it was kinda funny to watch.

He's definitely got charisma, I'll give him that. But there's a lot of things that me and him don't see eye to eye on.

[jnschwie]

His accomplishment is all the momentum he has gathered on nothingness.

[Gags]

So fawking everyone is best for our citizens? Not allowing ANYONE in the plan a choice? Did you read it? :confused:

I did. It was good. I'm for choice. I don't have a perfect plan that is fair. I do know that HMO's are companies and a company's mission is to profit not actually give a sh!t.

[Steve]

Sorry for the hijack Steve. I'm with you on Obama's lack of substance.

Meh. Most of the thread ain't about what I asked, but at least (so far) it's civil.

If Obama lacks substance who has it?

At least Billary and McCain have a voting record. Obama has voted "present" way too many times. WTF is with that?

What we all must keep in mind is that the Prez really doesn't have nearly as much power, nor should he/she get all the credit or blame for what happens. That's really Congress. Frankly, Pelosi and Reid scare me MUCH more than any of the presidential candidates. They're just plain whack-jobs.

[SUPERGILDO43]

Good point. What we all must keep in mind is that the Prez really doesn't have nearly as much power, nor should he/she get all the credit or blame for what happens. That's really Congress. Frankly, Pelosi and Reid scare me MUCH more than any of the presidential candidates. They're just plain whack-jobs.

thats why I said if obama gets in and he has all his government intelligence and advisors, i would think he would handle it all the most eloquently...

[jnschwie]

I did. It was good. I'm for choice. I don't have a perfect plan that is fair. I do know that HMO's are companies and a company's mission is to profit not actually give a sh!t.

Incorrect.
The HMO's mission is to pool resources for risk mitigation. Everyone wants big, evil insurance to pay up or go down! But if that were to happen, and they were to just blindly pass-through all the absurd claims they get, they simply could NOT provide coverage for the entire pool. Plain and simple.

ALSO, you do realize that some of the bigger HMOs (ie. the biggest on in CO) is actually not for profit, right?

If we blow our entire wad on person A, when person B gets sick, there is nothing left. Yet it is somehow unpalatable to raise rates.

POOLED RISK -that is all it is.

[jnschwie]

Incorrect.
The HMO's mission is to pool resources for risk mitigation. Everyone wants big, evil insurance to pay up or go down! But if that were to happen, and they were to just blindly pass-through all the absurd claims they get, they simply could NOT provide coverage for the entire pool. Plain and simple.

ALSO, you do realize that some of the bigger HMOs (ie. the biggest on in CO) is actually not for profit, right?

If we blow our entire wad on person A, when person B gets sick, there is nothing left. Yet it is somehow unpalatable to raise rates.

POOLED RISK -that is all it is.



Taking this further, it continually amazes me how people sign up for their plan (when the details and coverages are fully outlined) and then they simply cannot understand when something isn't covered (like your "rising" cost script), OR, like your athletic injury MRI you think you MUST have. :rolleyes:

They have caviar tastes on a mac and cheese budget. :rolleyes:

[TheCopperCowboy]

And don't get me started on prescription prices. :rolleyes:

How about being able to negotiate drug prices with big pharma? :cool:

[scottycards]

jnschwie-

I know virtually nothing about the details of the HC fiasco, and I sure as heck ain't gonna argue it with you- you seem very well versed on the topic.

My uneducated opinion is that it's a mess, leaving it as it is serves no-one, and just leaves a major problem unaddressed.

Rarely in my life have I set out to make any sort of improvement that was a guaranteed win, be it a career move, financial move, or personal move.

But life is a series of risks, and just sitting in a bad situation has never served my goals of improvement. I just have to keep it simple, take some chances, and do my best to improve. Sometimes I win, sometimes I've lost.

I would apply the same tactics to the HC situation. We've just gotta change something- if it doesn't work, at least we'll know. There is no such thing as a sure thing.

[jredmond]

What will Obama do??

Same things the "rest" of them do/did...make false hopes and promises, squander, dig us in a bigger hole of a deficit, lie, cheat, swindle, dictate, bang whores in the oval office...you know, regular US president stuff. :flipoff2:

You make me want to run to for office. I can lie, cheet, steel, and bang whores like a pro. I just have to loose my morals and I should do ok:D

[Jeffro600]

Well hey, as long as youll be honest about what your intentions are, id vote for ya! :flipoff2:

[Budman]

I don't think anybody knows. Which is why I wouldn't vote for him. Truth be told I don't think he knows. He'll end the war in Iraq. Which is good for the toops there. Bad for the familys of the ones who died there. Really bad for the region and the Iraqi's who stood behind the Americans. The vacuum and civil war that will be created will probably make the Sudan look like Disneyland.

Just my .02

This is a common misconception... What good does it do me to come home today when i own the ground over there, and am making headway, only to have to go back and regain that ground in 5-10 years? Sorry, I know your heart is in the right place.


I have not seen the part of any of the candidate's plans that prohibits a person from going and getting their own healthcare plan if the one that is offered is unacceptable to them.

But I haven't looked that closely.

So you are going to tax me for a broken healthcare system, that is not going to meet my needs, but that is okay because if I don't like it, i can go pay MORE for another provider? This seems flawed to me...

I think gags said it best. I just think it would be nice to finally have such a strong willed person. Someone who doesn't seem so jaded and biased. Or consumed by corporate and shady politics.

Even though he's even far left for my own tastes. He doesn't look like a person who's going to force his leftist views into pushing this country somewhere we don't want. I believe he'll be a man of the people. Something we have not had in the White House in a long long time.

Strong willed??? Does no one remember that this is the guy who wants to sit down at a table with Chavez, Kim Jong Il, and aquavelvamajad??? He wants to "work things out" with these psychos. this guys is so weak on foreign policy that it scares the living crap out of me.

Bush isn't "stong willed??!!!" :eek: Damn, that seems to be the biggest rap against him by his legions of haters. :shrug: What they mean by strong willed is "tollerant" Not willing to stand up to the psychotic leaders of the world.

Why is it you guys constantly scream socialism and compare it to the U.S.S.R. It's like you're still living in the 50's during the red scare.

Just so you know, universal health care plans are for those that don't have health care. You yourself would still be able to keep your current healthcare plan. Privatized health care would not just suddenly disappear, it would still be available to those who wanted to pay for it.

So who is going to pay for this healthcare for people who don't have it? Where is this money going to come from.

Well what would be your plan for healthcare for Americans?

PAY FOR IT IF YOU WANT IT!!!!

Yup... Pretty much sums it up.


jnschwie-

I know virtually nothing about the details of the HC fiasco, and I sure as heck ain't gonna argue it with you- you seem very well versed on the topic.

My uneducated opinion is that it's a mess, leaving it as it is serves no-one, and just leaves a major problem unaddressed.

Rarely in my life have I set out to make any sort of improvement that was a guaranteed win, be it a career move, financial move, or personal move.

But life is a series of risks, and just sitting in a bad situation has never served my goals of improvement. I just have to keep it simple, take some chances, and do my best to improve. Sometimes I win, sometimes I've lost.

I would apply the same tactics to the HC situation. We've just gotta change something- if it doesn't work, at least we'll know. There is no such thing as a sure thing.

While I would normally agree with you that if it is broken, we should start making changes to fix it, the scope of this makes it difficult. I don't think the government could implement this and say it was a trial run. Once this sort of thing is implemented, it stays around FOREVER. Look at all the social programs that were implemented in the 20s-30s that should have gone away, but are still with us, and bleeding us dry.

I have said this before (as have others) If you think socialized healthcare is a great idea, you should take a look at some of the countries that have it. the first thing to look at is the quality of the care, then take a look at what percentage of thier income goes to taxes. Include all taxes, Income, sales etc.


this draws me to him as well. this and my earlier statement gets his votes...

I would attribute it to the connections that aids in african is an epidemic. now would he deny aids research for a magenta colored person??

I would highly doubt it...

thats why I said if obama gets in and he has all his government intelligence and advisors, i would think he would handle it all the most eloquently...

Since you are looking at joining the AF, I am going to save these quotes, and show them to you about a year after you graduate basic. We will see what you think about them then. :flipoff2:

[architect1]

He will help a brother out. LOL:flipoff2:


Read His BOOK. Then You will know.:thumbsup:

[jnschwie]

How about being able to negotiate drug prices with big pharma? :cool:

That's fine. It happens daily. What are you getting at?

jnschwie-

I know virtually nothing about the details of the HC fiasco, and I sure as heck ain't gonna argue it with you- you seem very well versed on the topic.

My uneducated opinion is that it's a mess, leaving it as it is serves no-one, and just leaves a major problem unaddressed.

Rarely in my life have I set out to make any sort of improvement that was a guaranteed win, be it a career move, financial move, or personal move.

But life is a series of risks, and just sitting in a bad situation has never served my goals of improvement. I just have to keep it simple, take some chances, and do my best to improve. Sometimes I win, sometimes I've lost.

I would apply the same tactics to the HC situation. We've just gotta change something- if it doesn't work, at least we'll know. There is no such thing as a sure thing.

I'm not against change in healthcare reimbursement, I'm just against this particular change. :)

[ni0h]

I hate to say anything good about Hillary, but she pointed out something very important, though she didn't go to the actual issue:
He's groomed for the whitehouse his whole career, always careful to never be pinned down on controversial issues. Hence all his "present" votes that she called him on. And now in the campaign, he's doing the same.

[spacely]

Since there is too much political rhetoric for me to weed through, I'll just get to the point on why I like him. It his 2004 Democratic National Convention speech (http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/convention2004/barackobama2004dnc.htm) that made me like him. More specifically, this part:

Now even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us -- the spin masters, the negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of "anything goes." Well, I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America -- there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America -- there?s the United States of America.

The pundits, the pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I?ve got news for them, too. We worship an "awesome God" in the Blue States, and we don?t like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and yes, we?ve got some gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.

And I think the reason why is because I am so sick of our country being divided. It has been this way since the Clinton era, so yes, it is time for change and time for all sides to realize that we are all human beings, regardless of our own personal beliefs, gender, age, sexual orientation, etc.

As a female, I don't want the religious right or a male-dominated Congerss to dictate to me what I can or cannot do with my body. I also think that a couple's decision to get married, regardless of sexual orientation, is just that, THEIR decision. So...some other things that attract me to Obama (and maybe Hilary): I'm not a supporter of big business; I don't consider the War in Iraq as part of the War on Terrorism; I think there should be better support and assistance for our veterans; I don't think building a fence along our borders is the answer to the immigration problem; I'm all for preserving our environment; I support preservation of cultural resources; I think that funding for the arts is important; I don't think school vouchers are the answer to the problem with schools (neither is No Child Left Behind); I support gun control (to an extent); I don't think that permanent tax cuts are not the answer to the economy; and um, I guess that's about it. (Maybe its time for me to run and hide after saying all of that!)

Anyhoo, here is how Obama stands on the issues: http://www.issue2008
.com/campaign/candidates/barack-obama-candidates/ I'm pretty much in agreement with him on the majority of issues, although there are some that I do not agree with. Then again, that happens with pretty much every candidate. If you want to know how all the candidates stand, check out http://www.issue2008.com

[jnschwie]

If you don't like division, why do you support one of the most polarizing candidates?

I never understood that. The democrats could have easily won the last two presidential elections, but they always pick the most radical person out there.

[SUPERGILDO43]

Since there is too much political rhetoric for me to weed through, I'll just get to the point on why I like him. It his 2004 Democratic National Convention speech (http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/convention2004/barackobama2004dnc.htm) that made me like him. More specifically, this part:



And I think the reason why is because I am so sick of our country being divided. It has been this way since the Clinton era, so yes, it is time for change and time for all sides to realize that we are all human beings, regardless of our own personal beliefs, gender, age, sexual orientation, etc.

As a female, I don't want the religious right or a male-dominated Congerss to dictate to me what I can or cannot do with my body. I also think that a couple's decision to get married, regardless of sexual orientation, is just that, THEIR decision. So...some other things that attract me to Obama (and maybe Hilary): I'm not a supporter of big business; I don't consider the War in Iraq as part of the War on Terrorism; I think there should be better support and assistance for our veterans; I don't think building a fence along our borders is the answer to the immigration problem; I'm all for preserving our environment; I support preservation of cultural resources; I think that funding for the arts is important; I don't think school vouchers are the answer to the problem with schools (neither is No Child Left Behind); I support gun control (to an extent); I don't think that permanent tax cuts are not the answer to the economy; and um, I guess that's about it. (Maybe its time for me to run and hide after saying all of that!)

Anyhoo, here is how Obama stands on the issues: http://www.issue2008
.com/campaign/candidates/barack-obama-candidates/ I'm pretty much in agreement with him on the majority of issues, although there are some that I do not agree with. Then again, that happens with pretty much every candidate. If you want to know how all the candidates stand, check out http://www.issue2008.com

hmm very good reply. :thumbsup:

[spacely]

If you don't like division, why do you support one of the most polarizing candidates?

I never understood that. The democrats could have easily won the last two presidential elections, but they always pick the most radical person out there.

I don't think the Republicans have done much better.

[jnschwie]

Except that no one but George himself expected any "uniting" to be done.

[Steve]

So...some other things that attract me to Obama (and maybe Hilary): I'm not a supporter of big business;

Wow. So, small business is inherently good and big business is inherently bad? What's the magic point when a small business grows enough to change from good to bad??? :confused:

[TheCopperCowboy]

Wow. So, small business is inherently good and big business is inherently bad? What's the magic point when a small business grows enough to change from good to bad??? :confused:

Don't know, but I want to be bad again. :D

[creepycrawler]

Conversation with my mom about 10 years ago...

Mom..."Don't ou want to get married & have some children?"

Me..."I'm not cruel enough to bring kids into what this country is going to be like after I'm gone."


:shrug:

[bsaunder]

My take on Obama -

Very well groomed to be a presidential candidate, charisma like JFK, speaking ability and presence like MLK, very good speech writers, presents many positions that seem to be the "correct" answer that many voters have been looking for...

All that and I'm still not sure if what we are seeing is one heck of a facade, the real person, or a "manchurian candidate". I've started to try to coorelate what he says vs what he does as I still believe actions show much more about a person that what that person says. So far, all I can say is I don't have an opinion on Obama.

I've listened to several of his speeches, and I can fully understand how he gets people to follow him; which could be great for foreign relations- if he can adapt his "ways" to fit with the needed language and customs of who ever he is talking to.

beyond that - I have no idea how good of a manager he is, I don't know if he has the ability and connections to truly select the correct people to surround and advise him. I'm really hoping he does as I can very easily see him having the possibility of destroying the "last" bit of hope that many seem to have for a politician that isn't truly corrupt. (which is one issue I have with him - the aura around him is that he is a "breath of fresh air", not a corrupt politician, speaks straight, - ie what most of the population has been asking for but realizing that a person like that would never run for election. I also hold the opinion that someone like that wouldn't run for election - so the image just doesn't fit with reality for me; kinda like the saying of if it appears to be too good to be true..... I'll admit that great things to happen, but the skeptic in me will always be testing it out...

eh--- well that's enough rambling now that I think I'm getting into gibberish...

[Dave McDonald]

change!!!!change!!!!change!!!!
change!!!!change!!!!change!!!!
change!!!!change!!!!change!!!!
change!!!!change!!!!change!!!!

But, I'm bettin it's gonna cost me more than just the $1.47 worth of coins in my pocket.

[spacely]

Wow. So, small business is inherently good and big business is inherently bad? What's the magic point when a small business grows enough to change from good to bad??? :confused:

I think I phrased that wrong - maybe I should have said that I prefer to support local business when possible. Its cool to see when a small business is able to take off...I guess what I don't really like so much is when the bigger businesses seem to buy out all the smaller ones. I know its just a part of capitalism, I accept it, but it doesn't mean I have to like it. :D

Anyway, I think I saw that Romney dropped out of the election so for me, at least, it will be a tough decision. I'm more democrat in my views, but I do like McCain (would have voted for him if he had one the nomination in 2000...)

[Waifer2112]

Scott, the CO primary's over. General election isn't until November. Cliff Notes version is good for now until it's time to decide how to vote. :P

Which is why I'm not going to try real hard to figure out who's for what yet. There's waaayyyy too much time for that to come.

[potter]

They're not the same thing.


THANK YOU. I may need to go bump a bunch of old threads so you can point this out to some of the people on this board.

[potter]

So who is going to pay for this healthcare for people who don't have it? Where is this money going to come from.

Don't like public schools? Gotta go private, right? Cough up, dude.

Don't like I-25 traffic, gotta pay to drive on E-470.

There are many instances where government supplied programs may not be acceptable, so there are other options for those who choose them.

But you can't just opt out. Hey, I don't have kids, and school taxes where I live in Erie are friggin' OUTRAGEOUS, but I can't just opt out. I don't use the rec center there, but I'm sure as hell paying for it. It's for the good of the majority, which is what democracy is all about- majority wins, screw the minority.

So, you've gotta take the good with the bad, suck it up, and if you don't like what the .gov is supplying, take the lock off your wallet and pay your own way.

and if that wasn't enough I'll quote the constitution. strange how in alot of my debates my only defense is quoting the constitution.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[potter]

I have said this before (as have others) If you think socialized healthcare is a great idea, you should take a look at some of the countries that have it. the first thing to look at is the quality of the care, then take a look at what percentage of thier income goes to taxes. Include all taxes, Income, sales etc.

I've said the same thing before as well. Across the big pond they've got incredible health care. The statistics of the general public health makes us look like we're dying in the streets. Their overall health is far better than ours.

Oh, and let's not forget people with terrible diseases aren't looked at under a microscope to find a way to be denied. People there are brought in and helped. Here they're turned away and their lives are ruined or worse they die.

[TheCopperCowboy]

Private healthcare could be paid for with a tax credit on my personal income at the end of the year instead of being combined with all my other expenses. The health insurance company gets theirs and Uncle Sammy gets his. I've recently been having a hard time keeping health insurance on myself and two girls. We could use my wife's insurance plan, but it would still cost the same and also requires additional income. Then again, there's always the emergency room in a pinch. :rolleyes:

[Budman]

and if that wasn't enough I'll quote the constitution. strange how in alot of my debates my only defense is quoting the constitution.

"Promote the general welfare. Does not mean I should have to pay for some lazy arse who does not want to work to draw welfare and get free healthcare.


I've said the same thing before as well. Across the big pond they've got incredible health care. The statistics of the general public health makes us look like we're dying in the streets. Their overall health is far better than ours.

Oh, and let's not forget people with terrible diseases aren't looked at under a microscope to find a way to be denied. People there are brought in and helped. Here they're turned away and their lives are ruined or worse they die.

You have quoted these stats before, but stats are just that. What I want you to do is pick a country with socialized healthcare, then go find out what percentage a middle income family pays in taxes in that country. We can use Canada if you like, and I can give you the numbers.

My coworker is in the Canadian Army, (Not counting sales tax when he is living up there) he pays 42% of his gross income to taxes. Throw in the fact that the sales tax is over 10%, and that is close enough to half of his income to just call it 50%. Are you willing to cut your pay check in half so a bunch of freeloaders and illegal aliens can have free healthcare?


ETA: This coworker's dad is a retired Regimental Seargent Major who did 35 years in the Canadian Army. After he pays taxes on his retirement check, he would actually make more money if he were a "somalian refugee" drawing welfare.


This is where we are heading folks, open your eyes.

[Clint]

Don't know, but I want to be bad again. :D

Hell yeah, I wanna be an evil corporation!

[Sound_Man]

Yeah well what is he gonna do about these?



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/02/08/eajelly108.xml


:flipoff2:

[jnschwie]

and if that wasn't enough I'll quote the constitution. strange how in alot of my debates my only defense is quoting the constitution.

Wow, how Keynesian of you.
That really spells it all out. :rolleyes:


:laughing: -at that "defense" by quoting the constitution. :laughing:

Best one tonight! :thumbsup:

I've said the same thing before as well. Across the big pond they've got incredible health care. The statistics of the general public health makes us look like we're dying in the streets. Their overall health is far better than ours.

You're free to go. :)

And no it doesn't. Not even close.
Curious....what is your explanation for all the black market bartering going on over yonder?

You do realize some of their socialist benefits CEASE at the very age ours START, right?

Yeah, the fact is we have a much higher infant mortality rate skewing our data. (Honestly, I *should* be amazed someone so into this doesn't know this, but then again, you are pushing socialism, so I'm not surprised by the lack of analysis :shrug: ) :) Why do we have such a high infant mortality rate? Does (fill in favorite country here) have ghettos full of wastes of skin abusing drugs at the rate we do? They are not shoving Big Macs down their gullet faster than your jeep can consume gas. They are not ignoring exercise completely.

You also COMPLETELY ignore the "inconvenient truth" that America subsidizes the health care of the entire world.....

But that's cool, whatever twisted warped reality you want to use to justify it.





Your life is the sum of every decision you make to that point.

Again, why is it fair for the few to redistribute the wealth of the many to benefit those who will not help themselves?

We as a forum have YET to get an answer to this question, other than, well FDR wrote some legislation....

Fabulous. :rolleyes:

Oh, and let's not forget people with terrible diseases aren't looked at under a microscope to find a way to be denied. People there are brought in and helped. Here they're turned away and their lives are ruined or worse they die.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness doesn't guarantee happiness, only its pursuit.
Life does not mean free healthcare, it means freedom from being unjustly harmed. Don't you know the difference between a positive right and a negative right? :confused:

Wow, dude. :laughing:
I am impressed.

[jnschwie]

Private healthcare could be paid for with a tax credit on my personal income at the end of the year instead of being combined with all my other expenses. The health insurance company gets theirs and Uncle Sammy gets his. I've recently been having a hard time keeping health insurance on myself and two girls. We could use my wife's insurance plan, but it would still cost the same and also requires additional income. Then again, there's always the emergency room in a pinch. :rolleyes:

Well, yes, but....your employee health plan is already tax advantaged.

But I agree, it would be a BETTER plan to give out cash, than set up a system of socialized medicine. Edit: And if cash is given out, we should enact laws allowing denial of care for those who choose to NOT purchase a plan, when they have zero excuse.

[kmon35]

Steve,

I am sorry, but I do not know what he stands for. I read in the Ft. Collins paper last week, he does not support much of the second ammendment, It was in the opinion section though, so I have my doubts about him.

jnschwie wrote earlier about medicare, medicaid, and part B, I don't know what part B is, but part C is saving my ass right now. I have had a job, and paid my share since I was 15. I have badmouthed social programs for almost as long. I am employed full-time with a good sized city fire department, and my wife works too. We do not have a ton of debt, 1 credit card, for gas, paid off every month a small car payment< than 250 a month, house and utilities. A daughter with special needs has brought us to the point of needing social assistance. I am not proud to ask for it, in fact, I refused to at first. But, part C will allow us to have the physical therapy my daughter needs this year.

So, the point of this ramble is, I am glad there are some assistance programs out there for hard working Americans to use when needed.

Sorry, I didn't add much to this thread, but I had to share.

[Budman]

Steve,

I am sorry, but I do not know what he stands for. I read in the Ft. Collins paper last week, he does not support much of the second ammendment, It was in the opinion section though, so I have my doubts about him.

jnschwie wrote earlier about medicare, medicaid, and part B, I don't know what part B is, but part C is saving my ass right now. I have had a job, and paid my share since I was 15. I have badmouthed social programs for almost as long. I am employed full-time with a good sized city fire department, and my wife works too. We do not have a ton of debt, 1 credit card, for gas, paid off every month a small car payment< than 250 a month, house and utilities. A daughter with special needs has brought us to the point of needing social assistance. I am not proud to ask for it, in fact, I refused to at first. But, part C will allow us to have the physical therapy my daughter needs this year.

So, the point of this ramble is, I am glad there are some assistance programs out there for hard working Americans to use when needed.

Sorry, I didn't add much to this thread, but I had to share.

Actually you added a lot to this thread. i think your situation is exactly what social programs are designed for. a leg up. They are not designed to be a permant paycheck. Theya re designed to help you out when you are in need, and OBTW: you have paid your dues into the system.

[jnschwie]

I think I referred more specifically to the disaster that part D was.

A is hospital admission "stuff"
B is a little more "outpatient-y" and includes some diagnostics and some equipment
C is weird bastardization of a private program to supplement your gov't shiat
D is the drugs....it too is a weird privatized bastardization.

My problem with it [part d] is that it is a total free-for-all, regulated poorly, and has caused some serious cash flow (not reimbursement altogether) problems that has put some small town pharmacies out of business. That's fine (really).

Guess who loses? The pharmacist? :laughing: -No, they jump over to a six figure at the chain in the next town and for the first time get vacations (plus an attractive 401k, etc).....but now the townspeople get to make the drive as well. (That's my editorial on that). So, we've cut supply of a provider.


The fact that part C is saving your ass is :thumbsup: You said yourself you paid your share.

Truth be told, my problems with medicare/caid are far more the actual execution than the plan.

However, to further expand (especially caid) to take it from state to federal....and then probably execute it as poorly is really problematic for me.



MARK MY WORDS: It'll [Socialized medicine] happen. People will ignorantly cheer. Implementation will be horrible. Providers and patients both will be dissatisfied, and we'll continue on down the political path.

[TheCopperCowboy]

Actually you added a lot to this thread. i think your situation is exactly what social programs are designed for. a leg up. They are not designed to be a permant paycheck. Theya re designed to help you out when you are in need, and OBTW: you have paid your dues into the system.

I think we found middle ground. There is a need for "a leg up" and there is also, for instance, when a individual simply can not provide for themself or a family member(s). All others should have some form of assistance available, but have the cord cut when either conditions improve or adequate job training, (mandatory), is completed. But, living off the public teat is, by no means, a lavish lifestyle. :(

[jnschwie]

I think we found middle ground. There is a need for "a leg up" and there is also, for instance, when a individual simply can not provide for themself or a family member(s). All others should have some form of assistance available, but have the cord cut when either conditions improve or adequate job training, (mandatory), is completed. But, living off the public teat is, by no means, a lavish lifestyle. :(

I mean, here is the other thing that comes back to the sum of all decisions: Why are you having these kids if you cannot provide for them?


I'll admit that I am openly hostile to these ideas, but my opinions were formed during my, well, formative years as an EMT right out of HS running the streets to pick up medicaid patients. MOST of them were at least as able bodied as I am, and simply did not wish to get a job.

It blew my mind that they neither had insurance nor a mortgage, but many had home entertainment equipment that was far superior then to what I HAVE TODAY, ten years later....

These same folks will be getting a nice "economic stimulus" rebate in the hopes that they buy more of the same. It is beyond disgusting.

[TheCopperCowboy]

These same folks will be getting a nice "economic stimulus" rebate in the hopes that they buy more of the same. It is beyond disgusting.

That may be true in some cases, however I think this time, it will be going more so to mortgage companies, credit card companies, food and gas purchases, healthcare insurance, etc. Why even let me cash the damn check? Just apply it to these account numbers. :mad:

[Budman]

I think we found middle ground. There is a need for "a leg up" and there is also, for instance, when a individual simply can not provide for themself or a family member(s). All others should have some form of assistance available, but have the cord cut when either conditions improve or adequate job training, (mandatory), is completed. But, living off the public teat is, by no means, a lavish lifestyle. :(

I guess this depends on how we draw the line. The line needs to be hard and fast with a time limit, and certain requirements, one of those is getting fixed. One of those is that you can not come back on assistance for X number of years (this number needs to be bigger than 3). Oh yeah, and shouldn't this be a State program not a federal one. If one state wants to cater to the free loaders, let them, if another state does not want to, good on em.

[potter]

"Promote the general welfare. Does not mean I should have to pay for some lazy arse who does not want to work to draw welfare and get free healthcare.

It means we should promote the general welfare. And do you honestly believe all the people without health care are lazy arse's who don't work?

[jnschwie]

It means we should promote the general welfare. And do you honestly believe all the people without health care are lazy arse's who don't work?

No, and of course not to your second sentence. It is truly tragic that those in the worst predicament actually HAVE some employment, just not good employment, yet they continue at it, rather than falling back completely.

But, to play devil's advocate, isn't disincentivizing, decreasing, and eliminating a culture of government handouts promoting general welfare? I'd argue it to be far better for the general welfare of our society, myself.

[potter]

"Promote the general welfare. Does not mean I should have to pay for some lazy arse who does not want to work to draw welfare and get free healthcare.




You have quoted these stats before, but stats are just that. What I want you to do is pick a country with socialized healthcare, then go find out what percentage a middle income family pays in taxes in that country. We can use Canada if you like, and I can give you the numbers.

My coworker is in the Canadian Army, (Not counting sales tax when he is living up there) he pays 42% of his gross income to taxes. Throw in the fact that the sales tax is over 10%, and that is close enough to half of his income to just call it 50%. Are you willing to cut your pay check in half so a bunch of freeloaders and illegal aliens can have free healthcare?


ETA: This coworker's dad is a retired Regimental Seargent Major who did 35 years in the Canadian Army. After he pays taxes on his retirement check, he would actually make more money if he were a "somalian refugee" drawing welfare.


This is where we are heading folks, open your eyes.

lol. Ok.

United States tax rates
Marginal Tax Rate Single Married Filing Jointly or Qualified Widow(er) Married Filing Separately Head of Household
10% $0 ? $7,825 $0 ? $15,650 $0 ? $7,825 $0 ? $11,200
15% $7,826 ? $31,850 $15,651 ? $63,700 $7,826 ? $31,850 $11,201 ? $42,650
25% $31,851 ? $77,100 $63,701 ? $128,500 $31,851 ? $64,250 $42,651 ? $110,100
28% $77,101 ? $160,850 $128,501 ? $195,850 $64,251 ? $97,925 $110,101 ? $178,350
33% $160,851 ? $349,700 $195,851 ? $349,700 $97,926 ? $174,850 $178,351 ? $349,700
35% $349,701+ $349,701+ $174,851+ $349,701+

French Tax rates
Band of income Rate of Tax
? %
Less than 4,262 0
4,263 - 8,382 6.83
8,383 - 14,753 19.14
14,754 - 23,888 28.26
23,889 - 38,868 37.38
38,869 - 47,932 42.62
47,933 + 48.09

Canadian tax rates
* 15% on the first $37,885 of taxable income, +
* 22% on the next $37,884 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $37,885 and $75,769), +
* 26% on the next $47,415 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $75,769 and $123,184), +
* 29% of taxable income over $123,184.

British tax rates
n the 2007/8 tax year (for income earned between April 6th 2007 and April 5th 2008), the income tax bands were as follows:
0% on the first ?5,225 (your personal allowance, equivalent to about ?100 per week, or ?435 per month)
(you will not be entitled to the full allowance if you have not been resident in the UK during the whole tax year)
10% (the lower rate) on the next ?2,230 (equivalent to about ?42 per week, or ?185 per month)
22% (the basic rate) on the next ?32,370 (equivalent to about ?622 per week, or ?2,700 per month)
40% (the higher rate) on any income above this

As you can see, they're all basically the same. Besides Canada, but they're retarded. Which is prob all those anti-universal health care bandwagoners jump on Canada's stats.

[potter]

aussie tax rates
Income Tax Rates 2007-08 - excluding Family Tax Benefit[3]
Taxable income Tax on this income Effective Tax Rate
$0 ? $6,000 Nil 0%
$6,001 ? $30,000 15c for each $1 over $6,000 0% ? 12%
$30,001 ? $75,000 $3,600 plus 30c for each $1 over $30,000 12% ? 22.8%
$75,001 ? $150,000 $17,100 plus 40c for each $1 over $75,000 22.8% ? 31.4%
Over $150,000 $47,100 plus 45c for each $1 over $150,000 31.4% ? 45%

[jnschwie]

As you can see, they're all basically the same. Besides Canada, but they're retarded. Which is prob all those anti-universal health care bandwagoners jump on Canada's stats.

Disregarding reimbursement (and therefore taxes), the fact remains that healthcare elsewhere (pick Canada or England or wherever) is fundamentally different than here. Their plans simply are not palatable to US citizens who must have teh absolute best, they must have the absolute safest, and they must have it now and forever.

What most Americans want is absurd, and we encourage this by giving it to them. (or trying to, anyway).


I simply do not believe you can compare what we'd want to what they have.

[potter]

As you can see, alot of these countries are paying roughly the same as us. Some even less. And they have free health care, alot even have a ton of other social programs. Like school and free education. ;)

[jnschwie]

As you can see, alot of these countries are paying roughly the same as us. Some even less. And they have free health care, alot even have a ton of other social programs. Like school and free education. ;)

BS.

That's a horrible way to look at it from any sort of financial standpoint.


Edit: And you KNOW this to be true based on your own posts above.

[potter]

Disregarding reimbursement (and therefore taxes), the fact remains that healthcare elsewhere (pick Canada or England or wherever) is fundamentally different than here. Their plans simply are not palatable to US citizens who must have teh absolute best, they must have the absolute safest, and they must have it now and forever.

What most Americans want is absurd, and we encourage this by giving it to them. (or trying to, anyway).


I simply do not believe you can compare what we'd want to what they have.

If we have the absolute best health care. Why do we have one of the worst global health rates? We're somewhere in the 70s behind a bunch of third world countries. Sorry, but I don't know where or how you've come to the conclusion we have the best.

[potter]

BS.

That's a horrible way to look at it from any sort of financial standpoint.


Edit: And you KNOW this to be true based on your own posts above.

If you consider they're roughly paying the same in taxes that we do. But then don't have to pay for health care ontop of it. Yes, in comparison to us they kinda almost get it free.

[potter]

he does not support much of the second ammendment,

this is his only stance i'm not behind. but i have no fear of anyone ever taking away our rights guaranteed in the second amendment. it's alot better than another whacko wanting to rewrite it into god's words :eek:

[jnschwie]

If we have the absolute best health care. Why do we have one of the worst global health rates?


Yeah, the fact is we have a much higher infant mortality rate skewing our data. Why do we have such a high infant mortality rate? Does (fill in favorite country here) have ghettos full of wastes of skin abusing drugs at the rate we do? They are not shoving Big Macs down their gullet faster than your jeep can consume gas. They are not ignoring exercise completely.

You also COMPLETELY ignore the "inconvenient truth" that America subsidizes the health care of the entire world.....


We are what? 5% of the world's population here in the US and we are responsible for anywhere from 50% to 2/3rds of the world's medical discovery? This counts against us in terms of costs, certainly, yet everyone else benefits. Certainly that skews the very anti-US WHO, which is unfortunate for them, but I put little stock in their recommendations.

MORE: We allow our citizens (in theory) the choice between any different types of treatment modalities that could be offered. This is simply not the case elsewhere.

MORE: We train the world's physicians at a significant cost to US citizens.
MORE: We conduct and publish the world's research, ultimately including those trials performed in the third world countries.

MORE: THEY offer few choices (especially in terms of medications) via national formularies. "Evil" Big Pharma has to make up that cost in the US by OVERcharging US citizens. This is the cost of 1) economic freedom and 2) technological progress.

We're somewhere in the 70s behind a bunch of third world countries. Sorry, but I don't know where or how you've come to the conclusion we have the best.

Getting carried away? Per WHO we are 37, not 70. :rolleyes:

See above. Perhaps if we were to hoard our technologies, or more aggressively protect our intellectual property rights that countries ABOVE US ON THE LIST STEAL, we wouldn't be spun so poorly.

Its easy and fun to bash our system, though, if you don't consider the entire picture. :thumbsdown:



Edit: BTW, if you actually put stock in that WHO list, I have a physician friend from Colombia I would LOVE for you to meet. They cannot even get the most BASIC of needs met there. I am constantly shipping him US product when he is there on research.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

ALSO, if Italy is so fabulous, pray tell, what caused the famous flying TB patient to risk life, limb, and liberty to escape #2 to get to lowly Denver in lowly #37?

Its fun to bash, but my guess is you would simply NOT BE WILLING to leave our program to go to any of those places. :thumbsup:
:blah: instead of money where mouth is. :)
:beer:

[jnschwie]

If you consider they're roughly paying the same in taxes that we do. But then don't have to pay for health care ontop of it. Yes, in comparison to us they kinda almost get it free.

:laughing:
Are ya sure about that? :laughing:



Just because we waste taxes elsewhere doesn't mean THEY get their healthcare for free. If anything, you SHOULD take it to mean we are horribly inefficient with taxes and government spending. What makes you think they'll finally get one right and it'll be healthcare? :lmao:

Again them =/= us by any stretch of even the most creative of liberal imaginations.

[TheCopperCowboy]

If you consider they're roughly paying the same in taxes that we do. But then don't have to pay for health care ontop of it. Yes, in comparison to us they kinda almost get it free.

Sign me up! :cool:

[jnschwie]

Yes, please gubbamint, take care of me.
I am incapable of doing anything for myself.

[TheCopperCowboy]

Yes, please gubbamint, take care of me.
I am incapable of doing anything for myself.

With you strong feeling about this issue, I suspect you're either A) in the drug or medical profession, or B) heavily invested in or your pension is hedged in the drug or medical industry, or C) both. :confused:

[jnschwie]

With you strong feeling about this issue, I suspect you're either A) in the drug or medical profession, or B) heavily invested in or your pension is hedged in the drug or medical industry, or C) both. :confused:

A) Yes
B) Certainly not!
C) no

However, I do sort of believe that *I* could stand to benefit (myself) if we were to go to this plan. (I consume little, and could end-around the system much like smarter Brits do should I need anything). What's more *IF* we go to a socialized medicine plan, it will set up tremendous bureaucracy. I might put in massive effort to get a government job (and a pension to top my non-medically based investments!) and never work again. :D I'll show up, but as a gov't employee? Pfft. I could cut my output by 2/3rds and be a superstar, and it would take an act of treason to be fired. :D Feet up on the desk 2k8!!!


Joking aside: I think it would be really bad for Americans. Sincerely.

Also, I sincerely do not invest (outside of generically blended funds) in any medical companies. My "I-pickem" securities have zero to do with that. I don't care if they tank from an investor's perspective....but that sort of IS our source for improvements in care. As an "A" (by your quiz), I sincerely do want to help the masses, and I believe in my heart that socialized medicine would be harmful to patients, not helpful.




-But the statement you quoted could be applied for any number of government-tuck-you-in-at-night-and-don't-worry programs. How many of them are working to your satisfaction?
Now you want them treating your health as TSA treats you when you line up for a flight? Oy vey! :eek:

[TheCopperCowboy]

But the statement you quoted could be applied for any number of government-tuck-you-in-at-night-and-don't-worry programs. How many of them are working to your satisfaction?

Well, I haven't seen any UFO's in a long time. The interstate highway system is convienent and we are safe from attack by France. I'm not reliant on any government programs, so they must be working. Wrong person to ask. :shrug:

[Budman]

Potter; I took my household income bracket out of the US chart above, then Tried to pull that income level out of the other countries. Now here is what your little stats (once again stats are only as good as where you get them). You are not considering State (provencial, county whatever the country calls it) Or sales tax. Here is the other thing you are missing is what these income brackets ACTUALLY pay. I will give you an example. I fall into the above tax bracket, but I only actually pay 7% of my annual income into the govt at the end of the day. Instead of throwing up a bunch of numbers that mean no more than spit in the wind, let's try some hard fast data. I have seen my coworker's tax form, and I have seen how the Canadian system works. I will take our system over it any day.

ETA: I forgot the numbers

US: 28% $77,101 ? $160,850
France: 42.6% 38,869 - 47,932
Canada: 26% $75,769 and $123,184
UK: 40% on anything highter than ?32,370
Aus: $75,001 ? $150,000 $17,100 plus 40c for each $1 over $75,000. that is 23% on the first 75k, then 40% on every dollar after that. I get 31% if your household income was 150k.

[Budman]

It means we should promote the general welfare. And do you honestly believe all the people without health care are lazy arse's who don't work?

Take a look at welfare in this country. I see govt health care going the way of welfare in very few years. If you are dead set on govt healthcare, I suggest you sign up for it. there are a number of ways to get it. The first of which is to join the military. I have had govt provided healthcare for my family and I for 15 years now, and I can tell you how it works. I can not even begin to imagine how terrible it is going to be if the entire country is involved.

If you consider they're roughly paying the same in taxes that we do. But then don't have to pay for health care ontop of it. Yes, in comparison to us they kinda almost get it free. I think you are mistaken on how much they are paying for it. Also you have to look at where these countries tax dollars go. For example take a look at thier military spending as compared to ours.

When looking at how much is paid in taxes, here is the basic formula you should follow. For every dollar earned, how much of that is yours to spend when the day is done. That is after federal taxes, state taxes, sales tax, fuel tax etc.

[Budman]

OBTW: I own Pg 4

[jnschwie]

I think you are mistaken on how much they are paying for it. Also you have to look at where these countries tax dollars go. For example take a look at thier military spending as compared to ours.

When looking at how much is paid in taxes, here is the basic formula you should follow. For every dollar earned, how much of that is yours to spend when the day is done. That is after federal taxes, state taxes, sales tax, fuel tax etc.

That's the key. It is absurd to point to a tax base elsewhere that has a program you like, and then say 'we'll be at that tax base if we add this program.'

No we won't. :rolleyes: We tend not to subtract much here. We're wasteful, but adding something else will not change that without a fundamental change in our spending.

[potter]

For example take a look at thier military spending as compared to ours.

We're wasteful, but adding something else will not change that without a fundamental change in our spending.

:thumbsup: :beer:

[jnschwie]

:beer:

[jnschwie]

I came across this, which is a brilliant and critical read for anyone up to the challenge. It certainly is a blow to the idea that Canada and these socialized programs are so great, and it is also a blow to the taxes and spending argument.

It isn't a quick read, though, and I suspect it goes largely ignored by those so enamored with using them as an example:

Top 10 myths on Canadian Healthcare. (http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/upload/71654_1.pdf)


Also, it goes against my arguments on infant mortality...in a sense. He just uses the term "African-American" which I find largely unsatisfying. Seems the crude figures agree more with me.... (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004393.html)

[scottycards]

The Heritage Foundation?

Big ol' picture of Regan on their homepage. I don't really care one way or the other, but considering the source is generally a good idea.

These people are ideologically opposed to gov't healthcare, as interpreted by their "operating principles", so their conclusions don't really surprise me.

They have an agenda- but most organizations do, so I think it's best for people to draw their own conclusions after reading the proposals from the candidates themselves.

What I would recommend to people is read what the candidates are proposing, and draw your own conclusions- don't rely on the internet, some foundation, or anyone else- think for yourself- and ask yourself questions:

1. Is our current system broken?
2. Is doing nothing about it going to help?
3. Is changing our system going to make it immediately and substantially worse?
4. Could there possibly be upside to changing our current system?
5. If it's a complete catastrophe, will it be impossible to go back to our current system, and if so, why?

You know, regular old questions...........

[Steve]

5. If it's a complete catastrophe, will it be impossible to go back to our current system, and if so, why?

That one is the troubling question for me. Give me an example of one federal assistance/welfare program that we've undone since it was passed. It doesn't happen.

[jnschwie]

The Heritage Foundation?

Big ol' picture of Regan on their homepage. I don't really care one way or the other, but considering the source is generally a good idea.

These people are ideologically opposed to gov't healthcare, as interpreted by their "operating principles", so their conclusions don't really surprise me.

They have an agenda- but most organizations do, so I think it's best for people to draw their own conclusions after reading the proposals from the candidates themselves.

I wasn't putting it forth as a "this is what will happen to America." Take it for what it is. There was some big-time pimping of "Canada's system works so well!" on this board, and this was written by a solid business mind who happens to LIVE in Canada and is FORCED to use this service.

If it is so universally great, why so much dissent? :)



What I would recommend to people is read what the candidates are proposing, and draw your own conclusions- don't rely on the internet, some foundation, or anyone else- think for yourself- and ask yourself questions:

1. Is our current system broken?
2. Is doing nothing about it going to help?
3. Is changing our system going to make it immediately and substantially worse?
4. Could there possibly be upside to changing our current system?
5. If it's a complete catastrophe, will it be impossible to go back to our current system, and if so, why?

You know, regular old questions...........


I did answer those questions. :shrug:

1) Of course it is not broken. If anything about it IS broken, it is already too much government involvement.
2) Well, LESS government, but that goes against what (at least) Hillary/Obama are campaigning upon.
3) YES!
4) Depends on if you are a bureaucrat or not.
5) Potentially not, but for the reasons Steve gave, I'm going with YES since history has yet to give us an example....

NEARLY COMPLETELY unrelated would be some industry deregulation, but that was long and hard fought. I don't see that happening in this case.

[scottycards]

Good to see people looking at it, at least.

I went to check out McCain's plan, and beyond a $2,500 tax credit, I see some ideas, but few specifics. I'm not quite sure I could get decent health coverage for $2,500 per year.

Cost controls seem to be his focus.

Here are my answers:
1. Definitely broken. Like it or not, we're paying for the uninsured.
2. Not addressing a problem has never worked for me, so I'm all for addressing it and making changes.
3. This answer is speculation, and I don't think that with our gov't set up the way it is, we would make drastic enough changes that we would be risking total and immediate failure.
4. I think change absolutely brings with it the upside of progress, as well as the potential for decline- there are risks associated with change.
5. I see no reason we could not go back. However, I do agree with both you and Steve that we need to treat this with a plan. I think the lack of a plan, benchmarks, and contingencies that are agreed upon in advance of implementation is a recipie for disaster. Reference the Iraq war- we literally are operating over there with no plan other than "do as good as we can".

If I laid my sales plan out in front of my boss for 2008 and it said "sell as much as possible", he'd laugh. We have specific dates, goals, objectives, timelines, and contingencies that we execute should we not hit our interim goals within the year.

In short- run the system as if it were a business- plan it, execute the plan, and have a Plan B in case Plan A does not work. Plan C ain't a bad idea, either.

[Steve]

In short- run the system as if it were a business- plan it, execute the plan, and have a Plan B in case Plan A does not work. Plan C ain't a bad idea, either.

Got one example of where the federal government does this? Government isn't a business, and they don't run like a business - ever. It's not in bureaucrats' best interest to do so.

[scottycards]

Got one example of where the federal government does this? Government isn't a business, and they don't run like a business - ever. It's not in bureaucrats' best interest to do so.

No examples, and didn't imply any existed. My recommendation is that they implement such SOP's. Again, reference Iraq.

[jnschwie]

Why plan when you can tax?

[scottycards]

Back on the tax thing- got my tax bill for the house last night in the mail.

This is good for a laugh:

Weld Library: $86.95 (I haven't been to a library since college).

School District RE1J: $1,010.34 (Sorry, no kids, don't use the schools much, except to troll for chicks in the parking lot of the high school)

There are a couple of other useless ones, but those are the laughers........

Library and Schools. I don't use 'em, will never use 'em, but I'm coughing up $1,100 per year for them.

It's for the good of the community, and I have no problem with it.

[jnschwie]

Back on the tax thing- got my tax bill for the house last night in the mail.

This is good for a laugh:

Weld Library: $86.95 (I haven't been to a library since college).

School District RE1J: $1,010.34 (Sorry, no kids, don't use the schools much, except to troll for chicks in the parking lot of the high school)

There are a couple of other useless ones, but those are the laughers........

Library and Schools. I don't use 'em, will never use 'em, but I'm coughing up $1,100 per year for them.

It's for the good of the community, and I have no problem with it.


Then donate another few thousand to them.