Election Year!!!

[bobbob1313]

Stop the war.

I didn't realize it was that easy.

 

I'm really not trying to bait here, though I'm sure I won't get any real answers. Isn't Obama planning on being out of Iraq in 18 months? Even if he does, I can't see the defense budget being touched to pay for health care. I can't see that getting support from anyone.

[John Smith]

You know right now Dirty Dick is over In Georgia rattling his Saber and I sure as hell don

[Good Old Neon]

i

t's why, as good as obama is, i'm worried about we, his constituency, being the ones that do/say something to short citcuit his campaign and hand shit over once again.

 

But who handed what over? Putting aside the

[Central Scrutinizer]

My biggest question is how do we pay for that?

To an extent, same way we're paying for it now. Employers would pay into it just as they do with whatever health care plan. Because the plan would cover millions the buying power of the health plan would reduce cost per worker. And because of the size of the health plan provider (U.S. gov), they would be able to negotiate better terms on treatment, standardizing and holding down spiraling costs for services, removing profit incentive for hospitals -- as well as reduce malpractice and liability expenses for providers.

 

Short answer is tax/co-pay system for those who can afford it, based on earnings etc.

[fatheadfred]

Stop the war.

 

Exactly, especially since the civil war is getting ready to begin (again) over there. NPR had a good story on the Sons of Iraq (100,000 of them) and their new political power as a reason for the 'established' gov't to squash their movement, regardless of the good work they did recently to reduce the conflict. It was interesting to note that the Sons are the original 'insurgents' we faced initially. We are bankrolling them...now the Iraq gov't is against them. Stuck in the middle with you.

[John Smith]

I didn't realize it was that easy.

 

I'm really not trying to bait here, though I'm sure I won't get any real answers. Isn't Obama planning on being out of Iraq in 18 months? Even if he does, I can't see the defense budget being touched to pay for health care. I can't see that getting support from anyone.

 

It's not that easy and would have to be done in stages. First stage woudl be develop a plan for endign it as I am sure noen currently exist. Second stage implement the plan. While this process is going on they should review all contractor costs and provide oversight on these nobid cost plus beasts that are sucking cash out of our system at a record pace, and start recovering some of that cash to be put to good use. Third audit those contractor both the IRS and the GAO to recover any cash lost to fraud and any unreported taxable income.

[bobbob1313]

i

 

But who handed what over? Putting aside the “stolen election” argument, which, like bobbob, carries about as much weight with me as the 9/11 conspiracy nonsense (see Occam’s razor) – say what you will about Rove, he’s a brilliant, if often unethical and downright dirty, political strategist, and if anyone deserves credit for Bush’s reelection, it is he. Bush’s reelection was not handed over, it was taken, by republicans, using an effective strategy that capitalized on voter ignorance and general cluelessness. That the current race is as close as it is, is not necessarily due to anything Obama is doing wrong, it has more to do, again, with the imbedded ignorance of your typical, American voter. Who, unfortunately, can always be counted on to vote against his or her interests.

 

Well, they also nominated John fucking Kerry, one of the most bland people I've ever seen in my life. That was a fucking joke.

 

To an extent, same way we're paying for it now. Employers would pay into it just as they do with whatever health care plan. Because the plan would cover millions the buying power of the health plan would reduce cost per worker. And because of the size of the health plan provider (U.S. gov), they would be able to negotiate better terms on treatment, standardizing and holding down spiraling costs for services, removing profit incentive for hospitals -- as well as reduce malpractice and liability expenses for providers.

 

Short answer is tax/co-pay system for those who can afford it, based on earnings etc.

 

That seems a little pie in the sky, but I'd like to see it happen. I don't see how it would work, and I don't see how it would be supported. Aren't a bunch of companies cutting health care benefits because of cost as is?

 

And John, you just simplified a very complex thing. It's not that easy, and I don't think it's feasible to expect to be out even within the first term of whoever's presidency.

[Central Scrutinizer]

i

 

But who handed what over? Putting aside the

[Party @ the Moontower]

How do we pay for this war?

 

 

Stop the war and start focusing on issues at home. Obama will do this, not overnight, but he will.

[Analogman]

Stop the war and start focusing on issues at home. Obama will do this, not overnight, but he will.

 

That's what I want to happen also.

[bobbob1313]

I think most Americans want that to happen, but stopping the war is going to take time and I don't think there's any agreement on what issues at home need to be take care of. What is Obama going to do on the home front?

 

I'm not looking for a link to his website either. I want to know what he can, realistically, within the scope of the power of his position. You can make a ton of promises, but in the end, congress has just as much say on what happens as the president, so let's look at it realistically.

[Central Scrutinizer]

Well, they also nominated John fucking Kerry, one of the most bland people I've ever seen in my life. That was a fucking joke.

 

But that goes against your own arguments -- should we care about form over substance. We had a choice in 2004 before douche and turn sandwich. But other than a few core Republican values, I could not look at the two and see a rational choice of anyone but Kerry -- based on the issues, including health care. I mean you had bland but intellectual over an imbecile.

 

That may be why Democrats have "the man" syndrome, because rational doesn't usually work in elections.

 

That seems a little pie in the sky, but I'd like to see it happen. I don't see how it would work, and I don't see how it would be supported. Aren't a bunch of companies cutting health care benefits because of cost as is?

It won't work well, but even if it works as badly as the current system FOR EVERYONE it's better than the current system which sorta works for many but reaps huge profits for a few.

 

Private health care will still be available for those who have the means.

 

And John, you just simplified a very complex thing. It's not that easy, and I don't think it's feasible to expect to be out even within the first term of whoever's presidency.

I agree on this. I think if Obama does get elected, this will likely be the reason he doesn't get a second term. If he fails at it, the Republicans will sic balls.

[bjorn_skurj]

We'll see if the political will really exists to do anything about healthcare. I suspect it doesn't yet. As boomers start to need more of it, it might.

[bobbob1313]

But that goes against your own arguments -- should we care about form over substance. We had a choice in 2004 before douche and turn sandwich. But other than a few core Republican values, I could not look at the two and see a rational choice of anyone but Kerry -- based on the issues, including health care. I mean you had bland but intellectual over an imbecile.

 

John Kerry was a terrible candidate, and not just because he was bland. He was too afraid to attack, too afraid to defend, and he couldn't connect with anyone.

 

Sure, I'd like to have substance over superficiality in the election, but if we are examining why the Democrats lost in 2004, nominating John Kerry is the number one reason. I'm not saying it's right, but it is what it is.

[solace]

the issue with Universal Healthcare is moreso not about the $$, but to convince people how well it works in other countries (not all are perfect, but there are many countries we could use to help model ours after). if that happens, it would be much easier to "find" the money to make it work...

 

but the issue is, the insurance companies and privatized hospitals realize how much money they stand to lose, which is why they have more lobbyists than the oil industry

[bobbob1313]

Has privatized insurance ever been attempted on a country our size before? Scale is very important.

[bjorn_skurj]

I dunno. I think the only solution that will fly is some sort of safety-net type of insurance for people who don't have access to it now. Some people I talk to who work for school districts and suchlike have awesome health coverage and fear reform would erode that.

[John Smith]

I think most Americans want that to happen, but stopping the war is going to take time and I don't think there's any agreement on what issues at home need to be take care of. What is Obama going to do on the home front?

 

I'm not looking for a link to his website either. I want to know what he can, realistically, within the scope of the power of his position. You can make a ton of promises, but in the end, congress has just as much say on what happens as the president, so let's look at it realistically.

 

Between the two candidates only one is realistically expected to try and get us out of Iraq and refocused on AlQueda. So to turn issue so to speak we know McCain has no intention of ending Iraq. So whether Obama can make it happen or not he will at least try. And as things are turning out Bush and Maliki appear to be endorsing Obama's timelines for leaving.

 

My point being that if leaving Iraq is a goal of the American people, then you have to have an executive wwho has that as his goal. It is the bare minimum fr starting the process.

[sweetheart-mine]

John Kerry was a terrible candidate, and not just because he was bland. He was too afraid to attack, too afraid to defend, and he couldn't connect with anyone.

 

Sure, I'd like to have substance over superficiality in the election, but if we are examining why the Democrats lost in 2004, nominating John Kerry is the number one reason. I'm not saying it's right, but it is what it is.

i agree with you on this, bobbob. he was everything you say. it was painful to vote for him.

[Central Scrutinizer]

Between the two candidates only one is realistically expected to try and get us out of Iraq and refocused on AlQueda. So to turn issue so to speak we know McCain has no intention of ending Iraq. So whether Obama can make it happen or not he will at least try. And as things are turning out Bush and Maliki appear to be endorsing Obama's timelines for leaving.

 

My point being that if leaving Iraq is a goal of the American people, then you have to have an executive wwho has that as his goal. It is the bare minimum fr starting the process.

In his defense, in a recent interview I heard (I believe on PBS) McCain said he could have U.S. out of Iraq by the end of the first term, but hedged against the uncertainties of the battle, which is a fair enough point.

[sweetheart-mine]

And as things are turning out Bush and Maliki appear to be endorsing Obama's timelines for leaving.

interesting, isn't it? lately it seems the poisonous bush is trying to steal whatever thunder obama has (or more likely sully him) by agreeing with him on stuff -- more than he says out loud about agreements with mccain.

[solace]

i agree with you on this, bobbob. he was everything you say. it was painful to vote for him.

 

which i think is what's so great about this year's election... this year MOST people are voting for someone they like and want as president, vs. voting against McCain. whereas a good chunk of hard core conservatives (granted some have came on board more because of the Palin pick) are voting against Obama, not necessarily for McCain.

[John Smith]

In his defense, in a recent interview I heard (I believe on PBS) McCain said he could have U.S. out of Iraq by the end of the first term, but hedged against the uncertainties of the battle, which is a fair enough point.

 

But it is not at all a desire of his nor is it a goal. I believe any talk of withdrawl from McCain at this point is mere pandering.

[Central Scrutinizer]

John Kerry was a terrible candidate, and not just because he was bland. He was too afraid to attack, too afraid to defend, and he couldn't connect with anyone.

 

Sure, I'd like to have substance over superficiality in the election, but if we are examining why the Democrats lost in 2004, nominating John Kerry is the number one reason. I'm not saying it's right, but it is what it is.

That certainly supports your points of form over substance. But that doesn't make it right.

 

He came with oratory to Rove's knife fight. The bottom line is, in my heart U.S. voters had a clear choice: sound ideas in a package of ketchup, or a failed businessman, former coke fiend who everyone would love to party with, but without a clue. There was no smoke and mirrors.

 

And a few months before the election the argument is, "we know Bush is a train wreck but it was form over substance." There's no excuse -- (except you, because you weren't old enough to vote).

 

And we're at the same place again and the arguments are about Palin's looks and tone, and Obama's aura, and McCain's straight talk and we're at the same damned place.

 

It's like teaching a dog about the stove:

 

"Ow, fire hot ..."

"Ow, fire hot ..."

"ow, fire hot ..."

 

My accountant is a fuckwad, a smelly washrag, but he is excellent at what he does, knows the tax codes inside and out. Do you want a drinking buddy, a dreamy star, a maverick or an intercoursing president at the most dire of crossroads. I hope as a byproduct of this failed process we get the latter. But I think the reason why we don't is our own damned faults no matter how clever or sound our arguments are before or after whatever election.

[sweetheart-mine]

But it is not at all a desire of his nor is it a goal. I believe any talk of withdrawl from McCain at this point is mere pandering.

or one could even call it outright lying, because he has made his long-term warmongering vision very clear for a very long time. the reaction to his "100 years in iraq" gave him a scare.