• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
* * * - - 5 votes

John McCain vs Barack Obama?


  • Please log in to reply
223 replies to this topic

Poll: Obama vs McCain (120 member(s) have cast votes)

Would you choose John McCain or Barack Obama?

  1. John McCain (25 votes [20.83%])

    Percentage of vote: 20.83%

  2. Barack Obama (76 votes [63.33%])

    Percentage of vote: 63.33%

  3. 3rd Party or Undecided (19 votes [15.83%])

    Percentage of vote: 15.83%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#91 abolitionist

  • Guest
  • 720 posts
  • -4
  • Location:Portland, OR

Posted 21 June 2008 - 09:28 AM

just in case you are thinking of voting for McCain, please read this article first;

http://www.wclt.com/...articleid=23261 ;

"Had he not been the son and grandson of admirals, there is scant chance he would have been admitted to the U.S. Naval Academy. Given his behavior patterns and academics, had he not been the son and grandson of admirals, there is little doubt he would have been thrown out. Instead, in 1958 he managed to graduate 894 out of 899. Had he not been the son and grandson of admirals, he is no chance he would have been accepted into the prestigious naval flight training program over far better qualified officers. On his way to becoming a North Vietnamese ace, the aviator lost 3 expensive aircraft on routine, non-combat flights. Little was made of all that, because he was, you know, the son and grandson of admirals.

McCain’s most horrendous loss occurred in 1967 on the USS Forrestal. Well, not horrendous for him. The starter motor switch on the A4E Skyhawk allowed fuel to pool in the engine. When the aircraft was “wet-started,” an impressive flame would shoot from the tail. It was one of the ways young hot-shots got their jollies. Investigators and survivors took the position that McCain deliberately wet-started to harass the F4 pilot directly behind him. The cook off launched an M34 Zuni rocket that tore through the Skyhawk’s fuel tank, released a thousand pound bomb, and ignited a fire that killed the pilot plus 167 men. Before the tally of dead and dying was complete, the son and grandson of admirals had been transferred to the USS Oriskany."

and

"McCain’s 5½-year stay at the Hanoi Hilton (officially Hoa Loa Prison) has ever since been the subject of great controversy. He maintains that he was tortured and otherwise badly mistreated. One of many who disagree is Dennis Johnson, imprisoned at Hanoi and never given treatment for his broken leg. He reports that every time he saw McCain, who was generally kept segregated, the man was clean-shaven, dressed in fresh clothes, and appeared comfortable among North Vietnamese Army officers. He adds that he frequently heard McCain’s collaborative statements broadcast over the prison’s loud speakers.

On October 26, 1967, McCain’s A-4 Skyhawk was shot down over Hanoi. The fractures of 1 leg and both arms were reportedly due to his failure to tuck them in during ejection. According to U.S. News & World Report (May 14, 1973), McCain didn’t wait long before offering military information in return for medical care. While an extraordinary patient at Gi Lam Hospital, he was visited by a number of dignitaries, including, to quote McCain himself, General Vo Nguyen Giap, the national hero of Dienbienphu.

Jack McLamb is a highly respected name in law enforcement circles. After 9 years of clandestine operations in Cambodia and unmentionable areas, he returned home to Phoenix where he became one of the most decorated police officers on record. Twice McLamb was named Officer of the Year. He went on to become an FBI hostage negotiator. This man has stated that every one of the many former POWs he has talked with consider McCain a traitor. States McLamb, “He was never tortured…The Vietnamese Communists called him the Songbird, that’s his code name, Songbird McCain, because he just came into the camp singing and telling them everything they wanted to know.” McLamb further quotes former POWs as saying McCain starred in 32 propaganda videos in which he denounced his country and comrades."

Edited by abolitionist, 21 June 2008 - 09:30 AM.


#92 biknut

  • Guest
  • 1,892 posts
  • -2
  • Location:Dallas Texas

Posted 21 June 2008 - 12:51 PM

just in case you are thinking of voting for McCain, please read this article first;

http://www.wclt.com/...articleid=23261 ;

"Had he not been the son and grandson of admirals, there is scant chance he would have been admitted to the U.S. Naval Academy. Given his behavior patterns and academics, had he not been the son and grandson of admirals, there is little doubt he would have been thrown out. Instead, in 1958 he managed to graduate 894 out of 899. Had he not been the son and grandson of admirals, he is no chance he would have been accepted into the prestigious naval flight training program over far better qualified officers. On his way to becoming a North Vietnamese ace, the aviator lost 3 expensive aircraft on routine, non-combat flights. Little was made of all that, because he was, you know, the son and grandson of admirals.

McCain’s most horrendous loss occurred in 1967 on the USS Forrestal. Well, not horrendous for him. The starter motor switch on the A4E Skyhawk allowed fuel to pool in the engine. When the aircraft was “wet-started,” an impressive flame would shoot from the tail. It was one of the ways young hot-shots got their jollies. Investigators and survivors took the position that McCain deliberately wet-started to harass the F4 pilot directly behind him. The cook off launched an M34 Zuni rocket that tore through the Skyhawk’s fuel tank, released a thousand pound bomb, and ignited a fire that killed the pilot plus 167 men. Before the tally of dead and dying was complete, the son and grandson of admirals had been transferred to the USS Oriskany."

and

"McCain’s 5½-year stay at the Hanoi Hilton (officially Hoa Loa Prison) has ever since been the subject of great controversy. He maintains that he was tortured and otherwise badly mistreated. One of many who disagree is Dennis Johnson, imprisoned at Hanoi and never given treatment for his broken leg. He reports that every time he saw McCain, who was generally kept segregated, the man was clean-shaven, dressed in fresh clothes, and appeared comfortable among North Vietnamese Army officers. He adds that he frequently heard McCain’s collaborative statements broadcast over the prison’s loud speakers.

On October 26, 1967, McCain’s A-4 Skyhawk was shot down over Hanoi. The fractures of 1 leg and both arms were reportedly due to his failure to tuck them in during ejection. According to U.S. News & World Report (May 14, 1973), McCain didn’t wait long before offering military information in return for medical care. While an extraordinary patient at Gi Lam Hospital, he was visited by a number of dignitaries, including, to quote McCain himself, General Vo Nguyen Giap, the national hero of Dienbienphu.

Jack McLamb is a highly respected name in law enforcement circles. After 9 years of clandestine operations in Cambodia and unmentionable areas, he returned home to Phoenix where he became one of the most decorated police officers on record. Twice McLamb was named Officer of the Year. He went on to become an FBI hostage negotiator. This man has stated that every one of the many former POWs he has talked with consider McCain a traitor. States McLamb, “He was never tortured…The Vietnamese Communists called him the Songbird, that’s his code name, Songbird McCain, because he just came into the camp singing and telling them everything they wanted to know.” McLamb further quotes former POWs as saying McCain starred in 32 propaganda videos in which he denounced his country and comrades."


I'd have to say this is probably not true. It seems hard to believe we're not hearing it blasted at us everyday from the media. Where's the swift boat? Even if it is true so what, Obama would probably sing even louder in the same position. That being said it's still hard to say which one is worse, McCain, or Obama. How about we don't elect either one. It's amazing that out of everyone in the US these are the best two people for the job?

Edited by biknut, 21 June 2008 - 12:55 PM.


#93 biknut

  • Guest
  • 1,892 posts
  • -2
  • Location:Dallas Texas

Posted 21 June 2008 - 01:30 PM

Growth during the the Bush administration has been fair to middling, although the deficit has grown quickly. If you're a working stiff, your tax rate didn't go up during the last democratic administration. It didn't go down much under this one either. For working stiffs (let's say the middle quintile of the income distribution) there hasn't been much of the economic pie coming your way. The vast majority of the economic growth of the past quarter century has been enjoyed by those at the top of the income distribution.

Do you have sources on any of that? There are no calls from anyone in government to nationalize oil companies. That just hasn't happened. "Nationalize" implies government ownership of, or government running of something like healthcare. There are no proposals like that. The proposals are more along the lines of car insurance, where you would have to buy it, with subsidies for those who can't afford it. That's not nationalization as I understand it. I don't recall hearing Obama calling for limits on CEO pay. Heaven sakes, I don't see any reason why a guy who tanks a company shouldn't get a couple hundred million dollars on his way out the door.


I don't disagree much with the first paragraph except to say, I did have economic growth, but it wasn't from anything the government did. I just worked hard to get it.

As far as the second part, you're very uninformed my friend.

"Rep. Maxine Waters: And, guess what this liberal will be all about? This liberal will be about socializing... uh, will be about, basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."

Just Google Maxine Waters

Also this
http://www.youtube.c...e-oil-industry/

And this
http://en.sevenload....Ex3l-Waters-oil

Is there be any doubt these people are not socialists?

Edited by biknut, 21 June 2008 - 01:32 PM.


sponsored ad

  • Advert

#94 biknut

  • Guest
  • 1,892 posts
  • -2
  • Location:Dallas Texas

Posted 05 July 2008 - 02:28 AM

I wish the Democrats and Obama would be honest enough to just come out and say, "our polices are socialist, but that's OK because we believe in socialism and think it would make America a better country". I still wouldn't vote for them, but I would have respect for their honesty. Hiding their intentions isn't going to win my vote, but obviously they think it will win yours.

#95 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 1,999
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 05 July 2008 - 03:38 AM

Growth during the the Bush administration has been fair to middling, although the deficit has grown quickly. If you're a working stiff, your tax rate didn't go up during the last democratic administration. It didn't go down much under this one either. For working stiffs (let's say the middle quintile of the income distribution) there hasn't been much of the economic pie coming your way. The vast majority of the economic growth of the past quarter century has been enjoyed by those at the top of the income distribution.

As far as the Marxist comment, I think 70% of current Democrats in Washington probably fit that description. There's calls now to nationalize oil companies, and they want to nationalize health care, and what else? Obama is calling for limits on CEO's pay. Calling for limits on any ones pay sounds Marxist to me.

Do you have sources on any of that? There are no calls from anyone in government to nationalize oil companies. That just hasn't happened. "Nationalize" implies government ownership of, or government running of something like healthcare. There are no proposals like that. The proposals are more along the lines of car insurance, where you would have to buy it, with subsidies for those who can't afford it. That's not nationalization as I understand it. I don't recall hearing Obama calling for limits on CEO pay. Heaven sakes, I don't see any reason why a guy who tanks a company shouldn't get a couple hundred million dollars on his way out the door.

I don't disagree much with the first paragraph except to say, I did have economic growth, but it wasn't from anything the government did. I just worked hard to get it.

As far as the second part, you're very uninformed my friend.

"Rep. Maxine Waters: And, guess what this liberal will be all about? This liberal will be about socializing... uh, will be about, basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."

Just Google Maxine Waters

Is there be any doubt these people are not socialists?

Well, I missed that one. Maxine Waters is a nut, but you are correct that the comment was made, so I was wrong about that. However, she is so far out on the fringe, it just doesn't represent where the Democrats are at. I will say, though, after watching the video, that she made that comment in response to a threat from one of the oil company guys that gas prices were going to skyrocket if congress didn't let them drill where they wanted to. So they were both throwing empty threats back and forth. I quoted your comment from above about 70% of Democrats being Marxists. It sounds like the implication there is that 70% of Democrats would nationalize the oil companies, but that is simply not true. Most Democrats today are Centrists, and there are a handful that are on the Conservative side, and a handful that are Liberal. Liberals like Maxine Waters have no power in this country. Obama is a Centrist.

You know, Maxine Waters made that wacky comment one time, and she is one person on the fringe of her party. But Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and all the rest of the Right Wing Media Machine must have repeated it ten thousand times. They wanted to make it look like all Democrats are Socialists. That isn't reporting, it's propaganda, because the message it imparts isn't true. Today's Democrats are more like Eisenhower Republicans than they are the caricatures that the Right is promoting.

#96 biknut

  • Guest
  • 1,892 posts
  • -2
  • Location:Dallas Texas

Posted 05 July 2008 - 05:24 AM

Well, I missed that one. Maxine Waters is a nut, but you are correct that the comment was made, so I was wrong about that. However, she is so far out on the fringe, it just doesn't represent where the Democrats are at. I will say, though, after watching the video, that she made that comment in response to a threat from one of the oil company guys that gas prices were going to skyrocket if congress didn't let them drill where they wanted to. So they were both throwing empty threats back and forth. I quoted your comment from above about 70% of Democrats being Marxists. It sounds like the implication there is that 70% of Democrats would nationalize the oil companies, but that is simply not true. Most Democrats today are Centrists, and there are a handful that are on the Conservative side, and a handful that are Liberal. Liberals like Maxine Waters have no power in this country. Obama is a Centrist.

You know, Maxine Waters made that wacky comment one time, and she is one person on the fringe of her party. But Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and all the rest of the Right Wing Media Machine must have repeated it ten thousand times. They wanted to make it look like all Democrats are Socialists. That isn't reporting, it's propaganda, because the message it imparts isn't true. Today's Democrats are more like Eisenhower Republicans than they are the caricatures that the Right is promoting.


I'm glad you think so. So do I. Don't you at least find it interesting that the news you watch didn't even mention it once?

As for as Obama goes, I'm not so sure of that. I really hope it's true, but I believe most of the Democrats that you and I would classify as nuts are smart enough to hide their true agenda. You're more trusting of them than I.

#97 lucid

  • Guest
  • 1,195 posts
  • 65
  • Location:Austin, Tx

Posted 05 July 2008 - 05:44 PM

Well George W promised to cut government spending, tax cuts, privatize social security, no nation building, no policing the world. He actually said these things. Given, we did get nominal tax cuts, but no decrease in federal spending.

More later, but my perception is as follows: Politicians dance around questions so as to remain as ambiguous as possible (so its hard to know what they are 'promising' to do), with very few exceptions they vote on pork filled legislation which they have not read (they rarely know the full extent of what they are even doing), they have a very poor track record of actually doing what they say that they are going to do. I personally feel that there is too much poop to sort through, in fact, after you have shoveled all of the poop out of the way, there isn't much left underneath to look at.

Whoops about the '. lol

If you have a good source for analysis on either of candidates then I would like to see it niner. I think we are on a similar page broadly about the political system, how do you feel specifically about the candidates?

Bush probably lied more than any president in my lifetime. His campaign promises weren't just dancing around the truth, they were comically wrong. Having spent the last seven years with that as your example of presidential leadership probably makes you pretty cynical. I would propose that Bush is not a typical politician, he is a really bad one. Both McCain and Obama are light years ahead of him, although McCain is proposing to give us more of the same Bush policy in a number of areas, particularly the economy. As far as I'm concerned, that alone is enough reason to vote against McCain. There are a number of reasons to vote for Obama, as opposed to just voting for him because he isn't McCain. I detailed them a while back, maybe even in this thread, but it's late so I'm not going to find it now. There are tons of good sources on either of the candidates, although just about any source that I name will be denounced as "biased" by the people who cleave strongly to the other side. There are web sites that do straight across comparisons of the major candidates in a variety of policy areas, and they usually take the candidates' stated positions so they aren't usually accused of "bias". Unfortunately, unless you understand the consequences of those policies, such sites only go so far, as they usually don't provide analysis. My favorite political blogger is a Conservative who's into intellectual honesty. He goes by the nom de plume of The Cunning Realist. Since he's into intellectual honesty and fiscal sanity, he is critical of most of what the Bush administration does. Another source of information is Steve Clemons at The Washington Note. It tends to skew toward foreign policy. For economic analysis, I like Paul Krugman or Robert Reich, among many. The Right will fulminate that they are liberals... And all I can say is yup*. The economic policies of "Movement Conservatism", as we have seen partially implemented via Reaganomics and Bushonomics, is simply a failure. We are living with the consequences of it now. We have cut taxes on the wealthy to an extraordinary degree. We are deeper in debt than ever, the dollar is in the toilet, and the "lower 90%" is not doing so well. We have deregulated to the point of creating Enron and the Mortgage Crisis. (The key guy in that very deregulation, Phill Graham, is McCain's "economic advisor".) Enough for now.

*actually, the word "liberal" has been redefined by the Right to mean, approximately, "Marxist". It has simultaneously been applied to virtually everyone who is a Democrat. Neither Krugman nor Reich are Marxists, although they are Democrats.

Delayed response here.

I enjoyed reading The Cunning Realist's blog, thanks for turning me on to that.

You seem to see the problems in washington as more 'instance based' by saying that Bush screwed up etc.. And of course he did screw up.. Epically. But I see the problem as much more systemic. You and some of the people you are reading have done quite a good job deconstructing McCain which is a good thing. But what about Obama? He hasn't given us too much to deconstruct, but he is sold to special interest groups and he speaks with the same 'don't say anything' political jargon as every other politician.

Perhaps one can prove that McCain will hurt the country as president; Don't we deserve better than just saying "Well Obama hasn't told us enough about how he is going to screw things up". But I can't say that we as a people DO deserve straight speaking because everyone I have talked to about the elections says: "I just think it would be cool to have a black person as the president". Or if they are rednecks then they say "I don't want to have a black person or a woman as president". God how f***ing dumb are people? Seriously I must have heard that 20-40 times. The truth of the matter is that while the majority of people may be good intentioned they are 2x more dumb than they are good intentioned, and 10x more lazy. We don't deserve good leadership and we won't get it.

Edited by lucid, 05 July 2008 - 05:45 PM.


#98 Forever21

  • Guest
  • 1,918 posts
  • 122

Posted 06 July 2008 - 02:29 AM

Who can actually do more for science?


OBAMA

-Stem cells hold promise to cure 70 major diseases
-Pass the Stem Cell Research Bill
-YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines


MCCAIN

-Supports federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. (May 2007)
-Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
-Expand embryonic stem cell research. (Jun 2004)

#99 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 1,999
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 06 July 2008 - 03:49 AM

Well, I missed that one. Maxine Waters is a nut, but you are correct that the comment was made, so I was wrong about that. However, she is so far out on the fringe, it just doesn't represent where the Democrats are at. I will say, though, after watching the video, that she made that comment in response to a threat from one of the oil company guys that gas prices were going to skyrocket if congress didn't let them drill where they wanted to. So they were both throwing empty threats back and forth. I quoted your comment from above about 70% of Democrats being Marxists. It sounds like the implication there is that 70% of Democrats would nationalize the oil companies, but that is simply not true. Most Democrats today are Centrists, and there are a handful that are on the Conservative side, and a handful that are Liberal. Liberals like Maxine Waters have no power in this country. Obama is a Centrist.

You know, Maxine Waters made that wacky comment one time, and she is one person on the fringe of her party. But Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and all the rest of the Right Wing Media Machine must have repeated it ten thousand times. They wanted to make it look like all Democrats are Socialists. That isn't reporting, it's propaganda, because the message it imparts isn't true. Today's Democrats are more like Eisenhower Republicans than they are the caricatures that the Right is promoting.


I'm glad you think so. So do I. Don't you at least find it interesting that the news you watch didn't even mention it once?

As for as Obama goes, I'm not so sure of that. I really hope it's true, but I believe most of the Democrats that you and I would classify as nuts are smart enough to hide their true agenda. You're more trusting of them than I.

It might be that one of the news sources that I read or listen to did mention it once, but I missed it. It may also be the case that they never mentioned it because it isn't news. One nutty congresswoman stammering out an empty threat to an oil company executive she's angry at isn't really indicative of anything. Real news is what Congress is really doing, or what they're about to do, or what they're doing under wraps, like OKing four hundred million dollars for covert ops aimed at producing a casus belli in Iran. Did the news you watch mention that one?

#100 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 1,999
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 06 July 2008 - 04:28 AM

Well George W promised to cut government spending, tax cuts, privatize social security, no nation building, no policing the world. He actually said these things. Given, we did get nominal tax cuts, but no decrease in federal spending.

More later, but my perception is as follows: Politicians dance around questions so as to remain as ambiguous as possible (so its hard to know what they are 'promising' to do), with very few exceptions they vote on pork filled legislation which they have not read (they rarely know the full extent of what they are even doing), they have a very poor track record of actually doing what they say that they are going to do. I personally feel that there is too much poop to sort through, in fact, after you have shoveled all of the poop out of the way, there isn't much left underneath to look at.

Whoops about the '. lol

If you have a good source for analysis on either of candidates then I would like to see it niner. I think we are on a similar page broadly about the political system, how do you feel specifically about the candidates?

Bush probably lied more than any president in my lifetime. His campaign promises weren't just dancing around the truth, they were comically wrong. Having spent the last seven years with that as your example of presidential leadership probably makes you pretty cynical. I would propose that Bush is not a typical politician, he is a really bad one. Both McCain and Obama are light years ahead of him, although McCain is proposing to give us more of the same Bush policy in a number of areas, particularly the economy. As far as I'm concerned, that alone is enough reason to vote against McCain. There are a number of reasons to vote for Obama, as opposed to just voting for him because he isn't McCain. I detailed them a while back, maybe even in this thread, but it's late so I'm not going to find it now. There are tons of good sources on either of the candidates, although just about any source that I name will be denounced as "biased" by the people who cleave strongly to the other side. There are web sites that do straight across comparisons of the major candidates in a variety of policy areas, and they usually take the candidates' stated positions so they aren't usually accused of "bias". Unfortunately, unless you understand the consequences of those policies, such sites only go so far, as they usually don't provide analysis. My favorite political blogger is a Conservative who's into intellectual honesty. He goes by the nom de plume of The Cunning Realist. Since he's into intellectual honesty and fiscal sanity, he is critical of most of what the Bush administration does. Another source of information is Steve Clemons at The Washington Note. It tends to skew toward foreign policy. For economic analysis, I like Paul Krugman or Robert Reich, among many. The Right will fulminate that they are liberals... And all I can say is yup*. The economic policies of "Movement Conservatism", as we have seen partially implemented via Reaganomics and Bushonomics, is simply a failure. We are living with the consequences of it now. We have cut taxes on the wealthy to an extraordinary degree. We are deeper in debt than ever, the dollar is in the toilet, and the "lower 90%" is not doing so well. We have deregulated to the point of creating Enron and the Mortgage Crisis. (The key guy in that very deregulation, Phill Graham, is McCain's "economic advisor".) Enough for now.

*actually, the word "liberal" has been redefined by the Right to mean, approximately, "Marxist". It has simultaneously been applied to virtually everyone who is a Democrat. Neither Krugman nor Reich are Marxists, although they are Democrats.

Delayed response here.

I enjoyed reading The Cunning Realist's blog, thanks for turning me on to that.

You seem to see the problems in washington as more 'instance based' by saying that Bush screwed up etc.. And of course he did screw up.. Epically. But I see the problem as much more systemic. You and some of the people you are reading have done quite a good job deconstructing McCain which is a good thing. But what about Obama? He hasn't given us too much to deconstruct, but he is sold to special interest groups and he speaks with the same 'don't say anything' political jargon as every other politician.

Perhaps one can prove that McCain will hurt the country as president; Don't we deserve better than just saying "Well Obama hasn't told us enough about how he is going to screw things up". But I can't say that we as a people DO deserve straight speaking because everyone I have talked to about the elections says: "I just think it would be cool to have a black person as the president". Or if they are rednecks then they say "I don't want to have a black person or a woman as president". God how f***ing dumb are people? Seriously I must have heard that 20-40 times. The truth of the matter is that while the majority of people may be good intentioned they are 2x more dumb than they are good intentioned, and 10x more lazy. We don't deserve good leadership and we won't get it.

When a politician is campaigning for a national office, they have to "talk like a politician", or they won't get elected. That's what the majority demands. During the primaries they sound more extreme, because they are trying to appeal to the partisans who vote in primaries. Then during the regular election, they move toward the center. That's when people start accusing them of "flip flopping" and waving sandals in front of cameras. A lot of people will vote for stupid reasons, but a lot of people want a Smart person for president. I think Obama is a smart guy, and that's one of the reasons I will vote for him. Obama has given us plenty to deconstruct. His positions are public. He doesn't have McCain's trail of votes in the Senate, but I don't hear much about McCain's record in that regard, only that he's a War Hero ™. Half the country has a double digit IQ, yes. A bigger problem is the media; much of which is only interested in entertaining people and some of which is actively lying to them. Do we not deserve good leadership? Some of us don't, I suppose. Unfortunately those of us who do want good government are stuck with the results of a crappy media and stupid population.

I do see the situation in Washington as dependent on who is running the country. It's clear that Bush screwed up epically. If the system is truly at fault, and not the leaders, then Clinton's eight years should have been about the same as Bush's. Yet I'm hard pressed to think of any parameter that was worse through Clinton's administration than through Bush's. Gas price? Value of the dollar? Deficit? War? Stock Market performance? Erosion of personal freedom?

Is the system optimal? No. It is what it is. But it works better when smart people are running things than when incurious ideologues are at the helm.

#101 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 06 July 2008 - 06:09 AM

If the system is truly at fault, and not the leaders, then Clinton's eight years should have been about the same as Bush's. Yet I'm hard pressed to think of any parameter that was worse through Clinton's administration than through Bush's. Gas price? Value of the dollar? Deficit? War? Stock Market performance? Erosion of personal freedom?


It's called divided government. Clinton wasn't able to do very much. I'm sure you remember this :)

#102 lucid

  • Guest
  • 1,195 posts
  • 65
  • Location:Austin, Tx

Posted 06 July 2008 - 08:38 AM

Begin semi drunk response:

That's when people start accusing them of "flip flopping" and waving sandals in front of cameras. A lot of people will vote for stupid reasons, but a lot of people want a Smart person for president. I think Obama is a smart guy, and that's one of the reasons I will vote for him.

Ok, Obama does appear to have enough savy to avoid the same sort of epic failure that Bush achieved. But who knows, all it really takes is one dumb war. If 9/11 never happened, then maybe the Bush presidency would be significantly less remarkable. If I were a terrorist organization (which I'm not), I would probably be saving up the next big attack for the next president. In fact, its odd that I haven't heard anyone say that before. Perhaps Obama will be given a similar hand of cards as Bush had.

Obama has given us plenty to deconstruct. His positions are public. He doesn't have McCain's trail of votes in the Senate, but I don't hear much about McCain's record in that regard, only that he's a War Hero ™.

Well, he has some reasonably clear legislation which he is looking to push through. I have been sitting here typing and deleting for like 10 minutes, I suppose I have a good bit to say, but I haven't been able to organize it yet so more later.

Half the country has a double digit IQ, yes. A bigger problem is the media; much of which is only interested in entertaining people and some of which is actively lying to them. Do we not deserve good leadership? Some of us don't, I suppose. Unfortunately those of us who do want good government are stuck with the results of a crappy media and stupid population.

Agreed.

I do see the situation in Washington as dependent on who is running the country. It's clear that Bush screwed up epically. If the system is truly at fault, and not the leaders, then Clinton's eight years should have been about the same as Bush's. Yet I'm hard pressed to think of any parameter that was worse through Clinton's administration than through Bush's. Gas price? Value of the dollar? Deficit? War? Stock Market performance? Erosion of personal freedom?
Is the system optimal? No. It is what it is. But it works better when smart people are running things than when incurious ideologues are at the helm.

Ok. Yes Clinton's presidency was far superior to Bush's. But I'm tired of voting between douchebag and a terd sandwich. Clinton was more or less a status quo president. He preserved the government beurocracy, and didn't get us too screwed up abroad except for Kosovo which was on a completely different scale when compared to Iraq. I will agree that O'bama is less frightening to me than McCain. But who really cares, my vote is a drop in a bucket of piss. I support clear speaking, true limited government, and transparency; basically I support Ron Paul.

Edited by lucid, 06 July 2008 - 08:44 AM.


#103 rahein

  • Guest
  • 226 posts
  • 0

Posted 06 July 2008 - 02:37 PM

I would probably be saving up the next big attack for the next president. In fact, its odd that I haven't heard anyone say that before.


Then you haven't been listening to the McCain campaign. The recent talking point is how the last 2 or 3 presidents have had domestic terror attacks in the first year of their presidency.

Got to love to politics of fear.

#104 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 1,999
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 07 July 2008 - 04:52 AM

Begin semi drunk response:

I do see the situation in Washington as dependent on who is running the country. It's clear that Bush screwed up epically. If the system is truly at fault, and not the leaders, then Clinton's eight years should have been about the same as Bush's. Yet I'm hard pressed to think of any parameter that was worse through Clinton's administration than through Bush's. Gas price? Value of the dollar? Deficit? War? Stock Market performance? Erosion of personal freedom?
Is the system optimal? No. It is what it is. But it works better when smart people are running things than when incurious ideologues are at the helm.

Ok. Yes Clinton's presidency was far superior to Bush's. But I'm tired of voting between douchebag and a terd sandwich. Clinton was more or less a status quo president. He preserved the government beurocracy, and didn't get us too screwed up abroad except for Kosovo which was on a completely different scale when compared to Iraq. I will agree that O'bama is less frightening to me than McCain. But who really cares, my vote is a drop in a bucket of piss. I support clear speaking, true limited government, and transparency; basically I support Ron Paul.

Your choices now are limited. You can vote for one of the two major candidates. You can vote for a minor candidate or write someone in. That "makes a statement" but probably no one will hear it. It also effectively casts a vote for the major candidate that you wouldn't have voted for. If the election in your state was not close, this would not matter, so it makes the cost of "making a statement" essentially free. Or, you can stay home, drink beer, and watch television. If the election in your state is not close, this may be a fine choice. Personally, I'm going to vote for Obama because I think that while he isn't perfect, he's the best choice for our country.

If eight years of peace and prosperity and a balanced budget is "the status quo", then I'll take it. It doesn't really sound like the status quo to me since it's the first time in my lifetime that it happened.

#105 lucid

  • Guest
  • 1,195 posts
  • 65
  • Location:Austin, Tx

Posted 11 July 2008 - 07:34 AM

If eight years of peace and prosperity and a balanced budget is "the status quo", then I'll take it. It doesn't really sound like the status quo to me since it's the first time in my lifetime that it happened.

Well I hope Obama gets elected now if for no other reason then just so that when we don't have peace prosperity or a balanced budget, then I can laugh with you at you. =p

Edited by lucid, 11 July 2008 - 07:35 AM.


#106 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 1,999
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 15 July 2008 - 03:04 AM

If eight years of peace and prosperity and a balanced budget is "the status quo", then I'll take it. It doesn't really sound like the status quo to me since it's the first time in my lifetime that it happened.

Well I hope Obama gets elected now if for no other reason then just so that when we don't have peace prosperity or a balanced budget, then I can laugh with you at you. =p

Uh, sorry lucid, I'm not making any promises about how Obama's term is going to work out. We are in such a hole now, it's going to take a miracle to get peace and prosperity any time soon. I almost wish McCain would win, just so the right wing idiots won't be able to blame it on the Democrats. But thanks for the kind thought.

#107 mike250

  • Guest
  • 981 posts
  • 9

Posted 15 July 2008 - 03:11 AM

If eight years of peace and prosperity and a balanced budget is "the status quo", then I'll take it. It doesn't really sound like the status quo to me since it's the first time in my lifetime that it happened.

Well I hope Obama gets elected now if for no other reason then just so that when we don't have peace prosperity or a balanced budget, then I can laugh with you at you. =p

Uh, sorry lucid, I'm not making any promises about how Obama's term is going to work out. We are in such a hole now, it's going to take a miracle to get peace and prosperity any time soon. I almost wish McCain would win, just so the right wing idiots won't be able to blame it on the Democrats. But thanks for the kind thought.


its a lose lose situation either way.

#108 lucid

  • Guest
  • 1,195 posts
  • 65
  • Location:Austin, Tx

Posted 15 July 2008 - 06:16 AM

Uh, sorry lucid, I'm not making any promises about how Obama's term is going to work out. We are in such a hole now, it's going to take a miracle to get peace and prosperity any time soon. I almost wish McCain would win, just so the right wing idiots won't be able to blame it on the Democrats. But thanks for the kind thought.

A hole we are in indeed. What a terrible time to take presidency.

As for Obama, I do like his nominal position towards lobbyists. (Here is a great clip of Hillary getting destroyed by Obama and edwards: ) I did have qualms about comments that he made to the AIPAC lobby, but he is certainly an improvement in the lobbying regard.

I suppose that the problem that I have is that Obama essentially supports the bureaucratic meddling in all sorts places within the economy. Furthermore, Obama doesn't feel required (nor does McCain of course) to ever expound on why said policy is ever economically sound. He simply will say a pleasant sounding platitude like "Program X creates xxxxx # of new jobs and helps our economy" and then moves along. Have there been case studies? Is anything even remotely controlled for? As I see it, though I like Obama's nominal position towards lobbyists, he is more of the same political jargon just slightly updated to please a slightly smarter audience. He might be a change from Bush which I would welcome, but he is not change from the status quo. That said, A dollar spent towards government non military programs is better than those spent getting us into wars abroad.

As for the laughing; You know I meant that lovingly.

Edited by lucid, 15 July 2008 - 06:43 AM.


#109 happy

  • Guest
  • 103 posts
  • 0
  • Location:So Cal

Posted 15 July 2008 - 06:51 AM

Posted Image

Morning Edition, July 3, 2008

Mention European health care to an American, and it probably conjures up a negative stereotype — high taxes, long waiting lines, rationed care.

It's not that way in Germany. Very little tax money goes into the system. The lion's share comes, as in America, from premiums paid by workers and employers to insurance companies.

German health benefits are very generous. And there's usually little or no wait to get elective surgery or diagnostic tests, such as MRIs. It's one of the world's best health care systems, visible in little ways that most Germans take for granted.

Checking In With An Old Friend

Juergen in der Schmitten was a medical student when I first met him 17 years ago. Now, he's a 42-year-old general practitioner in a suburb of Dusseldorf.

On one particular night, Juergen was the doctor on call for the region. Any German who needs after-hours care can call a central number and get connected to a doctor.

Around 11 p.m., a woman with a fever called Juergen. She wanted him to make a house call. They talked for maybe five minutes, in the end agreeing that she would come into his office in the morning.

A situation like this would be unlikely in the United States. Americans might not get through to a doctor at all, let alone have a discussion about whether the physician should make a house call in the middle of the night to treat a case of flu.

The Patients' Perspective

Sabina and Jan Casagrandes say they've had really good care from the German health system. And they've used it a lot.

Sabina is American, Jan is German. They live in a fourth-floor walkup with their two little girls in Cologne, an ancient city on the Rhine in western Germany.

"I've probably been very expensive for the health insurance system here," Sabina says. "When I was 33 years old, I had a giant lump on my neck all of a sudden, where your thyroid is. And it was a big tumor."

It took two operations to remove her cancer. Luckily it was curable with surgery and radiation. Sabina says she had the best care she could imagine.

"Then I came home to my little daughter, who I couldn't really lift up because of my neck having been cut open," Sabina says. "So I asked my doctor, 'What can I do?' And she said, 'Well, your health insurance will pay for someone to come help you in the house.'"

Sabina's health insurer paid a friend to shop, cook and even help care for the baby until Sabina was back on her feet. That's not unusual in Germany. In fact, under the country's system for long-term care, family members can choose to be paid for taking care of a frail elder at home if they want to avoid nursing home care.

Coverage For All

The health care system that took such good care of Sabina is not funded by government taxes. But it is compulsory. All German workers pay about 8 percent of their gross income to a nonprofit insurance company called a sickness fund. Their employers pay about the same amount. Workers can choose among 240 sickness funds.

Basing premiums on a percentage-of-salary means that the less people make, the less they have to pay. The more money they make, the more they pay. This principle is at the heart of the system. Germans call it "solidarity." The idea is that everybody's in it together, and nobody should be without health insurance.

"If I don't make a lot of money, I don't have to pay a lot of money for health insurance," Sabina says. "But I have the same access to health care that someone who makes more money has."

But she acknowledges that nearly 8 percent of her salary is a sizable bite.

"Yes, it's expensive. You know, it's a big chunk of your monthly income," Sabina says. "But considering what you can get for it, it's worth it."

Actually, it's about the same proportion of income that American workers pay, on average, if they get their health insurance through their job. The big difference is that U.S. employers pay far more, on average, than German employers do — 18 percent of each employee's gross income versus around 8 percent in Germany.

More Added Benefits In Germany

Moreover, German health insurance has more generous benefits than U.S. policies cover. There are never any deductibles, for instance, before coverage kicks in. And all Germans get the same coverage.

For instance, the Casagrandes' insurance covers an expensive medicine Jan needs for a chronic intestinal problem. He says if they moved to America, they might not be able to buy insurance at all because of their pre-existing conditions — a nonproblem in Germany.

"He says for himself — or for us — the health care system in the United States is the major reason why we have never moved there, and never will move there. Because both of us have chronic illnesses that have to have a lot of medical attention, and we would go broke," Sabina says, translating for Jan.

Jan adds something else. "It's also the No. 1 reason in the United States that people personally go bankrupt," Sabina translates, "which would never happen here ... never!"

Coverage For The Family

On the other side of Germany, in Berlin, we meet another couple who know both the American and German health systems.

Nicole and Chris Ertl own Tip Toe Shoes, a children's shoe shop in a well-off area of the German capital. The Ertls sell high-quality European shoes — tiny Italian sandals, French and Danish boots and clogs in wonderful colors.

Chris is from San Diego, Nicole is German. She also works part time as a physician therapist and gets her health care through her job like the great majority of Germans. Like the Casagrandes, she's happy with her coverage.

"It's a good deal!" she says. "It's really good because it's a package."

It's a package many Americans might envy. Nicole pays a premium of $270 a month for insurance that covers her children, too. Nicole pays a single $15 copayment once every three months to see her primary-care doctor — and another $15 a quarter to see each specialist, as often as she wants. She pays no copayments for her children's care —-and her insurance even covers her daughter's orthodontia bill.

"They always have good care," Nicole says, "because for kids, everything is free. The drugs, it's always free" until they turn 18.

Different Rules For The Self-Employed

But even though her insurance covers the kids, it doesn't cover her husband. Because Chris Ertl is self-employed, he has to buy insurance on his own, from a for-profit insurance company.

About one in 10 Germans buy this so-called "private" coverage. It's not just for people who are self-employed. Civil servants and anyone who makes more than $72,000 a year can opt out of the main system. It's a kind of safety valve for people who want more and can pay for it.

But most people don't opt out. Chris says that's because there's a fundamental difference in the way Germans view health care and the government's role — which, in Germany, means refereeing the system and making sure it's fair and affordable.

"The general opinion in Germany is always that the government will do it for us, everything will be OK," Chris says. "In the States, I think you grow up knowing that no one's going to help you do anything. If you want health care, go get it."

It's important to remember that the German government doesn't provide health care or finance it directly. It does regulate insurance companies closely — the nonprofits in the main system and the for-profits where Chris gets his coverage. So Chris' insurer can't raise his rates if he gets sick or jack up his premiums too much as he gets older. The government also requires insurers to keep costs down so things don't get too expensive.

"Where am I better off medically?" Chris says. "I would probably say Germany."

In some ways, Chis Ertl's coverage is better than his wife's. He gets his choice of top doctors — the chief of medicine, if he wants. If he goes into the hospital, he gets a private room. When he goes to the doctor, he gets a free cup of coffee and goes to the head of the line. All this embarrasses him — and annoys Nicole.

"When he goes to the doctor, he has a lot more service," she complains.

Germans really hate any hint of unfairness in health care. The fundamental idea is that everybody must be covered and, preferably, everybody should get equal treatment. So the fact that 10 percent or so can buy some perks is an irritant — something Germans complain about but manage to put up with.

But it's unthinkable that 48 million people wouldn't have health insurance at all — the situation in America. As an American, Chris thinks that's shameful. "It's terrible," he says. "It's unbelievable. It shouldn't happen."

Germans, he says, would never tolerate that. And their system has been working pretty well for 125 years.

Radio piece produced by Jane Greenhalgh.


Link

My dad had a heart attack in his mid thirties and he lost his job. My parents had to declare bankruptcy. Only in America kids. Only in America do we socialize corporate losses e.g Fannie/Freddie but think it's evil to provide decent health-care and a safety net. Only in America can a man work his ass off, pay taxes and respect his country only to have his wife work two jobs to keep their home. I pray for those of you with pre-existing conditions with employer provided healthcare that you don't lose your jobs in this economy. My friend's dad just got diagnosed with prostate cancer and didn't have insurance - he had to use home equity (~20k) to remove the tumor. He is now paying $900/month and is living between the dread of the cancer coming back and the agony of paying every penny he earns on health insurance. This isn't right guys.

Edited by happy, 15 July 2008 - 07:04 AM.


#110 happy

  • Guest
  • 103 posts
  • 0
  • Location:So Cal

Posted 15 July 2008 - 07:02 AM

Monday, July 14th
Washington Post

SEN. JOHN McCain says that President McCain would balance the federal budget by 2013. The plan is not credible.

The Congressional Budget Office projects a deficit of $443 billion in 2013 if President Bush's tax cuts are extended, as Mr. McCain wants, and the alternative minimum tax is merely patched to make certain it does not hit growing numbers of taxpayers. But Mr. McCain is proposing far more tax cuts. The only way he avoids having them add hundreds of billions more to the deficit in 2013 is by phasing them in and adding other caveats. Mr. McCain says on the campaign trail that he would repeal, rather than merely adjust, the alternative minimum tax, slash the corporate tax rate, now 35 percent, to 25 percent, and double the exemption for dependents. It turns out that none of that would be fully implemented by the end of the first McCain term. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center estimates the extra cost of the scaled-back plan at $47 billion in 2013, bringing the deficit to a daunting $490 billion. Sen. Barack Obama's campaign claims it would be far higher, somewhere between $650 billion and $750 billion.

The McCain campaign says it will fill the hole with spending cuts. It would "reclaim billions" by rooting out existing earmarks and prohibiting new ones; impose a one-year freeze on discretionary spending other than for defense and veterans; and "reserve all savings from victory in the Iraq and Afghanistan operations" to use toward deficit reduction. These claimed savings are illusory. The campaign assumes $150 billion in savings by cutting in half deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. But the Congressional Budget Office says that even reducing troops to 30,000, far beyond Mr. McCain's estimate, would save just $55 billion in 2013 beyond the costs that the CBO projects as part of its deficit calculation. The campaign assumes an additional $160 billion in cuts to the Pentagon procurement budget and other discretionary spending. But eliminating every procurement program that the CBO has identified as a potential budget target would save perhaps $30 billion in 2013.
ad_icon

In any event, Mr. McCain has called for billions more in new spending: increasing the size of the military, launching a new energy independence project, fully funding the No Child Left Behind law. Where's the savings? Mr. McCain says that he would limit overall growth in discretionary spending to 2.4 percent annually. History suggests that this would not be easily achievable: Discretionary spending has grown an average of 6.9 percent over the past seven years.

Mr. McCain's campaign says that he would rein in the growth of entitlement spending, saving another $160 billion, but it does not explain how. His campaign cites "excessive agricultural and ethanol subsidies," but eliminating all farm subsidies would trim less than $15 billion in 2013. Mr. McCain's opposition to the pending Medicare bill does not offer comfort on his willingness to deal with entitlements. He's willing to reverse $13 billion in scheduled cuts to doctors but opposes paying for it by reducing overpayments to the private Medicare plans. These overpayments -- the plans cost, on average, 13 percent more -- are just about the lowest-hanging fruit in tackling Medicare. In fact, Mr. McCain's chief economic adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, told USA Today in May that the plans should have to "compete on a level playing field" with traditional Medicare. Mr. McCain sells American voters short -- and he does himself a disservice -- with his implausible claim.



#111 happy

  • Guest
  • 103 posts
  • 0
  • Location:So Cal

Posted 15 July 2008 - 07:35 AM

McCain Plan to Aid States on Health Could Be Costly

By KEVIN SACK
Published: July 9, 2008
NYTimes

PIKESVILLE, Md. — If Senator John McCain’s radical plan for remaking American health care is to work, he will have to find a way to cover people like Chaim Benamor, 52, a self-employed renovator in this Baltimore suburb. Mr. Benamor never found it necessary to buy insurance before having a mild heart attack last year and now, 13 years shy of Medicare, has little hope of doing so.


Without Maryland’s high-risk pool “we’d be paying for the medications out of our retirement,” says Richard Logan. Mr. Logan and his wife, Susan, have battled cancer this decade.

“What do you pay first? Do you pay the mortgage? Do you pay your child support?” asks Chaim Benamor. The $4,572 premium for a high-risk policy was more than he could afford on an income of about $35,000.
Matt Roth for The New York Times

“You either find a way to slow enrollment through economic forces or you close the plan,” says Richard A. Popper. The Maryland plan’s director estimates that two-thirds of those eligible have not enrolled.

The heart attack left Mr. Benamor with a $17,000 hospital bill, $400 in monthly prescription costs and a desperate need for insurance. After being rejected by a number of commercial carriers, he turned to the Maryland Health Insurance Plan, one of 35 state programs for high-risk applicants whom no private company is willing to insure.

He decided that the annual premium — $4,572 for a plan with heavy deductibles — was more than he could handle on an income of about $35,000. Yet his earnings were too high for him to qualify for state subsidies.

“I’d like to get it, but what do you pay first?” Mr. Benamor asked at his dining room table. “Do you pay the mortgage? Do you pay your child support? Do you pay your car insurance? Do you pay for your medicine?”

In late April, Mr. McCain, Republican of Arizona, announced that if elected president he would seek to insure people like Mr. Benamor by vastly expanding federal support for state high-risk pools like Maryland’s, or by creating a structure modeled after them. But as Mr. Benamor’s case demonstrates, even well-regarded pools have served more as a stopgap than a solution.

Though high-risk pools have existed for three decades, they cover only 207,000 people in a country with 47 million uninsured, according to the National Association of State Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans. Premiums typically are high, as much as twice the standard rate in some states, but are still not nearly enough to pay claims. That has left states to cover about 40 percent of the cost, usually through assessments on insurance premiums that are often passed on to consumers.

Health economists say it could take untold billions to transform the patchwork of programs into a viable federal safety net. The McCain campaign has made only a rough calculation of how many billions would be needed and has not identified a source for the fi-nancing beyond savings from existing programs. Finding the money will only get more difficult now that Mr. McCain has pledged to balance the federal budget by 2013, which already requires a significant reduction in the growth of spending.

Mr. McCain’s proposal stands in sharp relief to that of his Democratic rival, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, who wants to require insurers to accept all applicants, regardless of their health. That is now the law in five states, including New York and New Jersey.

For those who can afford the premiums, or who qualify for subsidies in the 13 states that provide them, the high-risk programs can be a godsend.

Richard and Susan Logan, both of whom have battled cancer this decade, said they were grateful to have coverage for themselves and their daughter through the Maryland plan, even though it will cost $22,232 this year. They had been rejected by 25 commercial insurers, said Mrs. Logan, 57, a part-time billing clerk for a physician.

The Logans, who live in Gambrills, near Annapolis, estimate that without the high-risk pool, they would pay $40,000 a year for medication alone.

“The plan’s worth its weight in gold for that,” said Mr. Logan, 62, an aviation accident investigator. “Otherwise, we’d be paying for the medications out of our retirement.”

A fifth of the 14,000 participants in the Maryland plan receive subsidies that drop their premiums below the market rates charged to healthy people, said Richard A. Popper, the plan’s director. But many in the middle find the policies both unaffordable and intolerably restrictive, and Mr. Popper estimates that two-thirds of those eligible have not enrolled.

Almost all of the state pools impose waiting periods of up to a year before covering the health conditions that initially made it impossible to obtain insurance. In some states, fiscal pressures have forced heavy restrictions in coverage and enrollment. Florida, which has 3.8 million uninsured people, closed its pool to new applicants in 1991, and the membership has dwindled to 313.

An informal survey by the American Cancer Society recently found that only 2 percent of nearly 2,700 callers to its insurance hot line enrolled in high-risk pools within two months of being referred to them. “In most cases, we know they probably didn’t apply because they discovered high premiums or pre-existing condition clauses and just didn’t bother,” said Stephen Finan, associate director of policy for the group’s Cancer Action Network.

There is no census of the medically uninsurable. But in 2006, insurers turned down 11 percent of all individual applicants for medical reasons, including 22 percent of those 50 or older, according to America’s Health Insurance Plans, an industry trade group.

Finding a way to cover the sickest of the uninsured is critically important because 15 percent of the population is responsible for three-fourths of health care spending. Many wind up in emergency rooms, which cannot legally reject them, leaving hospitals with more than $30 billion in unpaid bills each year.

Mr. McCain’s proposal, which he calls the Guaranteed Access Plan, would be part of a market-based restructuring that is in many ways more fundamental than the universal coverage proposed by Mr. Obama.

With the goal of making the insurance marketplace more equitable and competitive, Mr. McCain would end the longstanding exclusion from income taxes of health benefits paid by employers. The 17 million nonelderly people covered by directly purchased insurance do not enjoy that advantage.

Mr. McCain would replace the exclusion with refundable health care tax credits of $2,500 per person and $5,000 per family in the hope of driving consumers into the individual insurance market. To help push down premiums, he would allow the purchase of policies across state lines.

Currently, those who buy insurance individually often face higher costs because their risks are not spread across broad groups of workers. Though insurers cannot discriminate against participants in group plans, they evaluate consumers seeking individual coverage case by case to determine if they are worth the risk of coverage, and at what price. Insurers contend that if they had to charge the same rates to all comers, many would wait until they were sick to buy policies.

The McCain campaign recognizes that in an invigorated individual market, even larger numbers of chronically ill people would go without the protection afforded by group coverage. High-risk pools would theoretically serve to fill the gaps.

Critics argue that, to date, insurers have benefited from the state pools as much as the uninsured. As long as premiums remain above market rates, the pools insulate commercial insurers from the greatest risks while giving customers little incentive to abandon their private policies.

“They are run in ways that protect the profitability of commercial insurers,” said Karen Pollitz, a professor at Georgetown University who has studied high-risk pools and who has served on the board of the Maryland plan. “They leave the illusion that there’s a safety net without there really being much of one.”

Mr. Obama’s plan differs from Mr. McCain’s in several ways. In addition to requiring insurers to accept all applicants, he would require that parents obtain insurance for their children. To make premiums affordable, he would create a Medicare-like government plan that would be open to all and pump up to $65 billion a year into subsidies. The money would come from repealing President Bush’s income tax cuts for those earning more than $250,000 a year.

When Mr. McCain unveiled his high-risk pool proposal, his chief domestic policy adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the former director of the Congressional Budget Office, estimated the federal cost at $7 billion to $10 billion. Mr. Holtz-Eakin said five million to seven million uninsured people would be singled out for coverage.

But in a recent interview, Mr. Holtz-Eakin emphasized that the projections “could change dramatically” depending on how the program was structured.

Mr. Holtz-Eakin and other McCain health advisers, including Thomas P. Miller, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and Stephen T. Parente, a health economist at the University of Minnesota, said premiums would probably be capped at twice the standard rates. They said subsidies might be available to those making up to four times the federal poverty level, or $41,600 for a single person.

Financial incentives would probably be provided to those who effectively manage their diseases. No decision has been made about waiting periods for pre-existing conditions, the advisers said.

Mr. McCain’s proposal would represent a huge increase over the $50 million a year that Congress now appropriates in grants to the state pools, in a program that began in 2002. But several analysts questioned whether even $10 billion would be nearly enough, given that the states now spend about $2 billion to insure 207,000 people.

“I do not for a minute think it will cost 7 to 10 billion dollars a year,” Ms. Pollitz said. “It may cost 7 to 10 billion dollars a week.”

In an admonition for Mr. McCain, Maryland’s five-year-old plan, like others before it, has quickly become a victim of its growth. As enrollment expanded by 30 percent in each of the last two years, actuaries forecast insolvency as soon as 2010 and compelled the plan’s board to apply the brakes.

Over the last two years, it has raised premiums, deductibles and co-payments, increased out-of-pocket maximums, lowered the lifetime cap on payments and added a waiting period for pre-existing conditions, which rose to six months from two months on July 1. It also increased the amount applicants must pay to buy their way out of the waiting period.

At the same time, the plan is making more people eligible for subsidies. To keep it afloat, the state is raising the assessment on hospital bills that provides two-thirds of its financing.

“It’s not easy when you see there is strong demand for something and you need to temper that demand,” Mr. Popper, the plan’s director, said. “But you either find a way to slow enrollment through economic forces or you close the plan and no one gets in, which is a solution that no one wants.”

#112 mike250

  • Guest
  • 981 posts
  • 9

Posted 15 July 2008 - 11:02 AM

Posted Image

Morning Edition, July 3, 2008

Mention European health care to an American, and it probably conjures up a negative stereotype — high taxes, long waiting lines, rationed care.

It's not that way in Germany. Very little tax money goes into the system. The lion's share comes, as in America, from premiums paid by workers and employers to insurance companies.

German health benefits are very generous. And there's usually little or no wait to get elective surgery or diagnostic tests, such as MRIs. It's one of the world's best health care systems, visible in little ways that most Germans take for granted.

Checking In With An Old Friend

Juergen in der Schmitten was a medical student when I first met him 17 years ago. Now, he's a 42-year-old general practitioner in a suburb of Dusseldorf.

On one particular night, Juergen was the doctor on call for the region. Any German who needs after-hours care can call a central number and get connected to a doctor.

Around 11 p.m., a woman with a fever called Juergen. She wanted him to make a house call. They talked for maybe five minutes, in the end agreeing that she would come into his office in the morning.

A situation like this would be unlikely in the United States. Americans might not get through to a doctor at all, let alone have a discussion about whether the physician should make a house call in the middle of the night to treat a case of flu.

The Patients' Perspective

Sabina and Jan Casagrandes say they've had really good care from the German health system. And they've used it a lot.

Sabina is American, Jan is German. They live in a fourth-floor walkup with their two little girls in Cologne, an ancient city on the Rhine in western Germany.

"I've probably been very expensive for the health insurance system here," Sabina says. "When I was 33 years old, I had a giant lump on my neck all of a sudden, where your thyroid is. And it was a big tumor."

It took two operations to remove her cancer. Luckily it was curable with surgery and radiation. Sabina says she had the best care she could imagine.

"Then I came home to my little daughter, who I couldn't really lift up because of my neck having been cut open," Sabina says. "So I asked my doctor, 'What can I do?' And she said, 'Well, your health insurance will pay for someone to come help you in the house.'"

Sabina's health insurer paid a friend to shop, cook and even help care for the baby until Sabina was back on her feet. That's not unusual in Germany. In fact, under the country's system for long-term care, family members can choose to be paid for taking care of a frail elder at home if they want to avoid nursing home care.

Coverage For All

The health care system that took such good care of Sabina is not funded by government taxes. But it is compulsory. All German workers pay about 8 percent of their gross income to a nonprofit insurance company called a sickness fund. Their employers pay about the same amount. Workers can choose among 240 sickness funds.

Basing premiums on a percentage-of-salary means that the less people make, the less they have to pay. The more money they make, the more they pay. This principle is at the heart of the system. Germans call it "solidarity." The idea is that everybody's in it together, and nobody should be without health insurance.

"If I don't make a lot of money, I don't have to pay a lot of money for health insurance," Sabina says. "But I have the same access to health care that someone who makes more money has."

But she acknowledges that nearly 8 percent of her salary is a sizable bite.

"Yes, it's expensive. You know, it's a big chunk of your monthly income," Sabina says. "But considering what you can get for it, it's worth it."

Actually, it's about the same proportion of income that American workers pay, on average, if they get their health insurance through their job. The big difference is that U.S. employers pay far more, on average, than German employers do — 18 percent of each employee's gross income versus around 8 percent in Germany.

More Added Benefits In Germany

Moreover, German health insurance has more generous benefits than U.S. policies cover. There are never any deductibles, for instance, before coverage kicks in. And all Germans get the same coverage.

For instance, the Casagrandes' insurance covers an expensive medicine Jan needs for a chronic intestinal problem. He says if they moved to America, they might not be able to buy insurance at all because of their pre-existing conditions — a nonproblem in Germany.

"He says for himself — or for us — the health care system in the United States is the major reason why we have never moved there, and never will move there. Because both of us have chronic illnesses that have to have a lot of medical attention, and we would go broke," Sabina says, translating for Jan.

Jan adds something else. "It's also the No. 1 reason in the United States that people personally go bankrupt," Sabina translates, "which would never happen here ... never!"

Coverage For The Family

On the other side of Germany, in Berlin, we meet another couple who know both the American and German health systems.

Nicole and Chris Ertl own Tip Toe Shoes, a children's shoe shop in a well-off area of the German capital. The Ertls sell high-quality European shoes — tiny Italian sandals, French and Danish boots and clogs in wonderful colors.

Chris is from San Diego, Nicole is German. She also works part time as a physician therapist and gets her health care through her job like the great majority of Germans. Like the Casagrandes, she's happy with her coverage.

"It's a good deal!" she says. "It's really good because it's a package."

It's a package many Americans might envy. Nicole pays a premium of $270 a month for insurance that covers her children, too. Nicole pays a single $15 copayment once every three months to see her primary-care doctor — and another $15 a quarter to see each specialist, as often as she wants. She pays no copayments for her children's care —-and her insurance even covers her daughter's orthodontia bill.

"They always have good care," Nicole says, "because for kids, everything is free. The drugs, it's always free" until they turn 18.

Different Rules For The Self-Employed

But even though her insurance covers the kids, it doesn't cover her husband. Because Chris Ertl is self-employed, he has to buy insurance on his own, from a for-profit insurance company.

About one in 10 Germans buy this so-called "private" coverage. It's not just for people who are self-employed. Civil servants and anyone who makes more than $72,000 a year can opt out of the main system. It's a kind of safety valve for people who want more and can pay for it.

But most people don't opt out. Chris says that's because there's a fundamental difference in the way Germans view health care and the government's role — which, in Germany, means refereeing the system and making sure it's fair and affordable.

"The general opinion in Germany is always that the government will do it for us, everything will be OK," Chris says. "In the States, I think you grow up knowing that no one's going to help you do anything. If you want health care, go get it."

It's important to remember that the German government doesn't provide health care or finance it directly. It does regulate insurance companies closely — the nonprofits in the main system and the for-profits where Chris gets his coverage. So Chris' insurer can't raise his rates if he gets sick or jack up his premiums too much as he gets older. The government also requires insurers to keep costs down so things don't get too expensive.

"Where am I better off medically?" Chris says. "I would probably say Germany."

In some ways, Chis Ertl's coverage is better than his wife's. He gets his choice of top doctors — the chief of medicine, if he wants. If he goes into the hospital, he gets a private room. When he goes to the doctor, he gets a free cup of coffee and goes to the head of the line. All this embarrasses him — and annoys Nicole.

"When he goes to the doctor, he has a lot more service," she complains.

Germans really hate any hint of unfairness in health care. The fundamental idea is that everybody must be covered and, preferably, everybody should get equal treatment. So the fact that 10 percent or so can buy some perks is an irritant — something Germans complain about but manage to put up with.

But it's unthinkable that 48 million people wouldn't have health insurance at all — the situation in America. As an American, Chris thinks that's shameful. "It's terrible," he says. "It's unbelievable. It shouldn't happen."

Germans, he says, would never tolerate that. And their system has been working pretty well for 125 years.

Radio piece produced by Jane Greenhalgh.


Link

My dad had a heart attack in his mid thirties and he lost his job. My parents had to declare bankruptcy. Only in America kids. Only in America do we socialize corporate losses e.g Fannie/Freddie but think it's evil to provide decent health-care and a safety net. Only in America can a man work his ass off, pay taxes and respect his country only to have his wife work two jobs to keep their home. I pray for those of you with pre-existing conditions with employer provided healthcare that you don't lose your jobs in this economy. My friend's dad just got diagnosed with prostate cancer and didn't have insurance - he had to use home equity (~20k) to remove the tumor. He is now paying $900/month and is living between the dread of the cancer coming back and the agony of paying every penny he earns on health insurance. This isn't right guys.


you think 18% is bad? come down here and you'll be paying more. sorry to hear about your dad friend's grim condition and your dad. Thats the exact same reason I'm saving money from now. So in the future I don't have to worry about some crappy health care service provided by the government-- which is displayed in some magically positive light here-- and the truth is far from that (8% is an unacceptable amount- you don't realize this until you get paid an income free of tax) and at the same time not have to rely on the health insurance companies.

Edited by mike250, 15 July 2008 - 11:50 AM.


#113 happy

  • Guest
  • 103 posts
  • 0
  • Location:So Cal

Posted 15 July 2008 - 04:38 PM

Dubai:

They've got low taxes and a free market unburdened by regulation! Any economics 101 student will tell you that means it must be utopia! /sarcasm

Yet cheating people on their contracts, and having a very selective enforcement of laws is by far not a free market.

In a free market, not just money and goods would be free to move, but people could open up companies (in any free country they want), or they could go to court to get the pay they were promised, they could strike...

Having studied the callous exploitation of human beings in Dubai that are constructing many of the new mega-duper sky scrapers, I would never in good conscious move to Dubai.

Money does not equate happiness in my life.

What does freedom mean to you?

#114 happy

  • Guest
  • 103 posts
  • 0
  • Location:So Cal

Posted 15 July 2008 - 04:41 PM

If you want to be educated and informed about the differences in health coverage in the United States and Europe please check out NPR's new section on "Health Care for All"

#115 inawe

  • Guest
  • 653 posts
  • 3

Posted 15 July 2008 - 09:08 PM

Many people think that calorie restriction is good for our health. After 4 years of a McCain administration most of us Americans, will be under forced calorie restriction. Plenty of other restrictions also.

#116 mike250

  • Guest
  • 981 posts
  • 9

Posted 15 July 2008 - 11:42 PM

Many people think that calorie restriction is good for our health. After 4 years of a McCain administration most of us Americans, will be under forced calorie restriction. Plenty of other restrictions also.


could be starvation under Mcbama. Its a lose lose situation either way.

#117 inawe

  • Guest
  • 653 posts
  • 3

Posted 16 July 2008 - 04:00 PM

Many people think that calorie restriction is good for our health. After 4 years of a McCain administration most of us Americans, will be under forced calorie restriction. Plenty of other restrictions also.


could be starvation under Mcbama. Its a lose lose situation either way.

This is an international forum. With members from all over the world. Too much space is devoted to the situation in the US (which is not
that good now). Might be instructive to look at better run countries. Let say Dubai.
Dubai is part of the United Arab Emirates. The president is Khalifa bin Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, right? Is it true that he became
president when his father died? So no need for elections, great.
Now, Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum is the prime minister of UAE and ruler of Dubai, right? He's the leader of the House of Al-Falasi that
owns the country. So no need of messy elections either. How many wifes this guy has? And concubines? He has 17 children.
Mike250: what do you think of these guys? What would happen to you if you criticize them?

#118 mike250

  • Guest
  • 981 posts
  • 9

Posted 17 July 2008 - 02:02 AM

Many people think that calorie restriction is good for our health. After 4 years of a McCain administration most of us Americans, will be under forced calorie restriction. Plenty of other restrictions also.


could be starvation under Mcbama. Its a lose lose situation either way.

This is an international forum. With members from all over the world. Too much space is devoted to the situation in the US (which is not
that good now). Might be instructive to look at better run countries. Let say Dubai.
Dubai is part of the United Arab Emirates. The president is Khalifa bin Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, right? Is it true that he became
president when his father died? So no need for elections, great.
Now, Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum is the prime minister of UAE and ruler of Dubai, right? He's the leader of the House of Al-Falasi that
owns the country. So no need of messy elections either. How many wifes this guy has? And concubines? He has 17 children.
Mike250: what do you think of these guys? What would happen to you if you criticize them?


what do I think of those guys? The same way I feel about the rest of the US-sponsored dynasties and regimes in the middle east. what will happen to me? nothing will happen to me don't worry. Now are you going to pretend the US government doesn't help and pander to corrupt guys like those inawe?

speaking of international issues, lets see what Obama has to say to the Jordanian "prince" when he visits Jordan. Will he pander to him and shine his "democratic" regime like Mr Bush did or will he raise the serious issues in front of his face (the case of Ahmed owaidi for example). I think I probably know the answer. I hope Obama proves me wrong.

Edited by mike250, 17 July 2008 - 02:49 AM.


#119 inawe

  • Guest
  • 653 posts
  • 3

Posted 17 July 2008 - 03:55 PM

what do I think of those guys? The same way I feel about the rest of the US-sponsored dynasties and regimes in the middle east.

Which is? Please enlighten us.

#120 mike250

  • Guest
  • 981 posts
  • 9

Posted 24 July 2008 - 06:54 AM

what do I think of those guys? The same way I feel about the rest of the US-sponsored dynasties and regimes in the middle east.

Which is? Please enlighten us.


I am sure your government can enlighten you. I trust you will find their "democratic" and "explosive" messages just as helpful as we have.
'

Edited by mike250, 24 July 2008 - 07:51 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users