Go Obama!

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
But it's conservatives who engage in violence and hate speech, right?

I'm assuming you mean neo-'conservative' here, as in all the posts of yours that I've read on this forum, I've never once seen you argue the genuine conservative case.

In answer to your question, neo-'conservatives' are indeed engaged in violence and hate speech.

Examples of violence include, but are not limited to, massacring hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq, and examples of hate speech include, but are not limited to, demonstrably false and fraudulent claims made by neo-'conservatives' regarding the independent democratic country of Iran- presumably on the say so of the puppet meisters, the Christian Zionists/Likudniks.

In my opinion, neo-'conservatism' should be treated as a psychopathic psychiatric disorder, rather than a genuine political movement.
 
Whats deranged is the continued ignorance about the threat Saddam posed to the region and the world, and the silly idea that Saddam was really micky mouse and the region and the world would be safer and better off today with him still in power in Iraq. Saddam will not be on the ballot in Iraq in January 2010, and the number of people who consider that to be a huge benefit to the security and stability of Iraq, the region and the world continues to grow.

The Iraq war proved to be the Republican Party’s Waterloo. Will the Af-Pak war turn into the Democrats’ Vietnam? The cultists compare Obama to John F. Kennedy, but aside from the glamour factor the resemblance may be closer to Lyndon Johnson, a liberal president with an expansive domestic agenda who let an overseas conflict escalate out of control, in spite of all the efforts of the Best and the Brightest.

‘Culturally Sensitive’ Imperialism by Justin Raimondo -- Antiwar.com
 
It was actually your posts a page or two back that got me thinking about this, because you sounded as incredulous about all this as I feel. I'm not sure that many US citizens realize that a great deal of the democratic world does seem to have a somewhat tempered at times, but ultimately innate trust in their governments that, worst case scenario, they won't completely fuck things up, and best case, that their government really does want to do what's best for its citizens, and make the nation as good and effective as it can be for most people. It's just such a different mindset than many of us are accustomed to.


what government has going for it is two things:

1. you can vote people out of office
2. there's a large, well-organized, and ultimately rather effective press covering the workings of the federal government who go into a feeding frenzy at the slightest whiff of corruption

this simply doesn't exist at the state level, save for a few large states with effective newspapers, and it certainly doesn't exist on the same level when it comes to business. in fact, most of the journalists who cover business -- Forbes, WSJ -- are cheerleaders. sure, you'll get a lone journalist like Bethany McLean who basically broke the Enron scandal, but Wall Street simply isn't policed by the press in the way that Congress is.

is Congress bloated and corrupt and wasteful? absolutely. but i think there's greater accountability there than in business.

but it does amaze me, too. coming from an uppity college where lots of my peers have gone on into business and to Wall Street, there is an irrational distrust of all things "government" that is kind of mind boggling.
 
demonstrably false and fraudulent claims made by neo-'conservatives' regarding the independent democratic country of Iran- presumably on the say so of the puppet meisters, the Christian Zionists/Likudniks.



you're going to defend the Iranian regime?
 
in fact, most of the journalists who cover business -- Forbes, WSJ -- are cheerleaders. sure, you'll get a lone journalist like Bethany McLean who basically broke the Enron scandal, but Wall Street simply isn't policed by the press in the way that Congress is.

I wouldn't necessarily agree with this. Forbes and WSJ are not good examples. Bloomberg is a good unbiased resource. MSNBC has a lot of shills but it also has Gasparino.
 
you're going to defend the Iranian regime?

Spare me the faux outrage. The Iranian government is democratically elected. Who the electorate chose to represent them, is really none of our business. How the elected government regulates life in that country is also none of our business. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's previous comments regarding Israel were mistranslated, for political reasons.
 
Will these scare tactics and hyperbolic nonsense actually be successful in blocking meaningful reform. I hope not--not because the Democrat's plan is a good one--but simply because the reasons being presented--the partisan crap that has been perpetuated right in this thread--for opposing it are ridiculous!

Has anyone posted the specifics of Obama's plan here? What about the different versions that were in committee in Congress?


The president's problem is not the Republicans. It's moderate Democrats stalling the bill.
 
I wouldn't necessarily agree with this. Forbes and WSJ are not good examples. Bloomberg is a good unbiased resource. MSNBC has a lot of shills but it also has Gasparino.



yes, there is some tough business reporting, but i think it pales in comparison to the scale and scope of tough political reporting that's available.

one could argue that the political reporting still isn't adequate, and i might be inclined to agree, but i think it's light years beyond the business reporting available.
 
Has anyone posted the specifics of Obama's plan here? What about the different versions that were in committee in Congress?


The president's problem is not the Republicans. It's moderate Democrats stalling the bill.




while i agree, it seems that the issues in the news the past 48 hours and the discussion now in here has been the so-called "protests" at these town hall meetings and the increased coverage of know-nothing Palinism in many of these protesters, i.e., "don't let the government take away my Medicaid."

agreed on Obama's relatively poor salesmanship so far. though i think that's about to change.

it seems to me that Obama wants to provide a government option for those who are uninsured and underinsured. (i was once underinsured, btw, and thankfully i had insurance when i had my own severe accident). it seems like doing this will cost $1T over 10 years. it's expensive. but it doesn't seem too much more expensive than, say, the Bush prescription entitlement passed by the GOP just a few years ago. and the $1T over 10 years might wind up saving more money by bringing down, for example, visits to the emergency room that are often made by the underinsured and the uninsured. it also seems that the long-term cost forecast for health care is that prices are going to continue to skyrocket, which is going to be a huge drag on the international competitiveness of US companies who have to provide increasingly expensive health care coverage compared to countries where people work for $.75 an hour and no bathroom breaks and the government takes care of health care. it seems like Obama wants the government to shoulder more of the burden of health care in order to help out the business sector. is that so awful?

the question, of course, is how to pay for it.

and now Obama has to kill the rabid, racist fear that's driving the Palin People. thank goodness he's about the most preternaturally gifted communicator in my (relatively young) lifetime. but that might not be enough. we'll see.

and that's my pretty elementary take on it. i've been in a deep dark hole for the past month or so. but that's what i've been able to glean from the news so far.
 
oh come on now.

you can't hate Israel this much, can you?

By that standard, Nelson Mandela and the entire anti-apartheid movement must have been motivated by hatred for South Africa.

I'm in favour of countries which face proximate threats from a close neighbour with a record of following through being allowed to arm themselves, if that's what you're asking.
 
By that standard, Nelson Mandela and the entire anti-apartheid movement must have been motivated by hatred for South Africa.

I'm in favour of countries which face proximate threats from a close neighbour with a record of following through being allowed to arm themselves, if that's what you're asking.


do you think that the past election was legitimate? that Ahmadinejad won with a resounding 60% of the vote?

do you think Iranians want nuclear weapons?
 
do you think that the past election was legitimate? that Ahmadinejad won with a resounding 60% of the vote?

I have absolutely no idea. As I said, I don't view it as any of my business. The question doesn't interest me in the slightest.


do you think Iranians want nuclear weapons?

Absolutely and completely. I certainly would, in their position. I'd want my government to provide protection from a threatening and militaristic neighbour, with a known record of starting aggression.

Let's get real here. If there's ever a nuclear war in the Middle East, and I hope there won't be, it won't be Iran than starts it.
 
It was actually your posts a page or two back that got me thinking about this, because you sounded as incredulous about all this as I feel. I'm not sure that many US citizens realize that a great deal of the democratic world does seem to have a somewhat tempered at times, but ultimately innate trust in their governments that, worst case scenario, they won't completely fuck things up, and best case, that their government really does want to do what's best for its citizens, and make the nation as good and effective as it can be for most people. It's just such a different mindset than many of us are accustomed to.

exactly. i was going to make a post before i stopped last night saying there was no point me carrying on in the discussion because of the complete ideological differences involved in the debate.

i put it to those in america, who disagree or agree with my opinion - if the point of government isn't to do the best for the people it supposedly governs, precisely what the fuck is the point of even having one?
 
What is the saddest thing is that the Right (and that includes INDY and 2861 right here) seem to have no intention of even providing a reasonable alternative to Obama's plan. That's sad, because I have a lot of reservatons about the current plan, but the Right has simply dropped the ball on providing any alternative beyond "everything's fine the way it is."

You guys have completely abdicated your responsiblity as citizens of this country to get involved in this process in a reasonable and informed way.

Will these scare tactics and hyperbolic nonsense actually be successful in blocking meaningful reform. I hope not--not because the Democrat's plan is a good one--but simply because the reasons being presented--the partisan crap that has been perpetuated right in this thread--for opposing it are ridiculous!

Not true at all. John McCain had a good plan, unfortunately he was a horrible salesman. Mitt Romney on the other hand had a terrible idea while governor of Massachusetts and that state's healthcare system is now falling apart. It's not a partisan attack it's a good ideas vs bad ideas attack.

Here's Indy's Healthcare bill.
1) Health insurance and healthcare are not the same thing.

Indy would eliminate all government mandates except one, catastrophic coverage must be provided and purchased by all adults. Let people shop anywhere in the nation for whichever type of insurance they want, be it comprehensive or low-cost, high-deductible coverage. Indy's plan would not require citizens to have coverage for in vitro fertilization, psychiatric care, gender-reassignment, chiropractic care or other less than life-or-death medical care unless they choose to pay for it.
Tax credits would apply if one doesn't get insurance through an employer. Health benefits would become taxable. HSAs (health savings accounts) would be encouraged under the Indy bill, they are outlawed under the House Democratic bill (wonder why?). The idea is to make health insurance like any other type of insurance, something you hope you DON'T need not something you try and use as often as you can.

A) This puts market forces back into insurance AND primary healthcare.
B) This gives patients MORE choices and actual portability while allowing more people to buy insurance that are now priced out of the system.

2) True tort reform. Not even addressed by the Democrats (wonder why?).

A) Lowers malpractice costs
B) Stops "cover-your-ass" tests and defensive medical practices.

I'm against the Democratic Bill because it contains NONE of this and in fact leads us in the exact opposite direction with more mandates, more government control of the markets and less options for consumers. In short, rationing under a government monopoly.

And if opponents of the bill are guilty of "scare tactics and hyperbolic nonsense," it's only in response to the crisis rhetoric of its supporters.

I come at this not as a partisan but as a healthcare provider and a conservative. Now, I don't pretend to have all the answers but nobody is telling me what to say or think either. Reform is badly needed but I'm looking for solutions. a cure if you will, not a retrogress.

(maybe it's time for a separate healthcare thread)
 
i put it to those in america, who disagree or agree with my opinion - if the point of government isn't to do the best for the people it supposedly governs, precisely what the fuck is the point of even having one?

that was the original point of government the founding fathers created. i dont think that's what we have today. i think it has become too big and looks after it's own interests, the corporations, the banks, and making money instead of the people.
 
A) This puts market forces back into insurance AND primary healthcare.
B) This gives patients MORE choices and actual portability while allowing more people to buy insurance that are now priced out of the system.

The fundamental problem that I have with your proposal, and Republican proposals in general, is that I don't understand why it is that you think that healthcare is something that should be dictated by market forces.

Are there some things that should operate outside of the capitalist ideas of profit? Perhaps healthcare, primary education, fire services, etc?

In fact, I find it appalling to even be discussing healthcare as a business model, and to be even more frank, I think that doing so actually amounts to a seriously sad social statement.
 
The fundamental problem that I have with your proposal, and Republican proposals in general, is that I don't understand why it is that you think that healthcare is something that should be dictated by market forces.

Are there some things that should operate outside of the capitalist ideas of profit? Perhaps healthcare, primary education, fire services, etc?

In fact, I find it appalling to even be discussing healthcare as a business model, and to be even more frank, I think that doing so actually amounts to a seriously sad social statement.


Exactly!!Bravo!:applaud::up:

Also, why aren't care givers given incentives and rewards for prevention and keeping their patients healthy?
Let's see, could it be that it's not profitable if people are healthy and don't need drugs that the drug companies sell?

My experience; I changed my OBgyn after I went in for a check up because she had posters all over her walls inside her office and examining room, advertising birth control drugs by such and such drug company. It was so blatant and completely offensive to me that I changed doctors and now go to a Naturalpath physician who sees me like a whole human being, mind, body and soul not just a bag of symptoms that are dismissed with a perscription for a one size fits all drug.
I also find it interesting that Naturalpaths are not covered under most insurance policies. Hmmm. Connect the dots ...GREED is what this is all about, not people.
So sad.
 
The fundamental problem that I have with your proposal, and Republican proposals in general, is that I don't understand why it is that you think that healthcare is something that should be dictated by market forces.

Are there some things that should operate outside of the capitalist ideas of profit? Perhaps healthcare, primary education, fire services, etc?

In fact, I find it appalling to even be discussing healthcare as a business model, and to be even more frank, I think that doing so actually amounts to a seriously sad social statement.

:up:

You still have very treatable, very affordable treatments being denied for certain pre-existing conditions that just will not be covered under these "market driven" Republican packages.
 
Not true at all. John McCain had a good plan, unfortunately he was a horrible salesman. Mitt Romney on the other hand had a terrible idea while governor of Massachusetts and that state's healthcare system is now falling apart. It's not a partisan attack it's a good ideas vs bad ideas attack.

Here's Indy's Healthcare bill.
1) Health insurance and healthcare are not the same thing.

Indy would eliminate all government mandates except one, catastrophic coverage must be provided and purchased by all adults. Let people shop anywhere in the nation for whichever type of insurance they want, be it comprehensive or low-cost, high-deductible coverage. Indy's plan would not require citizens to have coverage for in vitro fertilization, psychiatric care, gender-reassignment, chiropractic care or other less than life-or-death medical care unless they choose to pay for it.
Tax credits would apply if one doesn't get insurance through an employer. Health benefits would become taxable. HSAs (health savings accounts) would be encouraged under the Indy bill, they are outlawed under the House Democratic bill (wonder why?). The idea is to make health insurance like any other type of insurance, something you hope you DON'T need not something you try and use as often as you can.

A) This puts market forces back into insurance AND primary healthcare.
B) This gives patients MORE choices and actual portability while allowing more people to buy insurance that are now priced out of the system.

2) True tort reform. Not even addressed by the Democrats (wonder why?).

A) Lowers malpractice costs
B) Stops "cover-your-ass" tests and defensive medical practices.

I'm against the Democratic Bill because it contains NONE of this and in fact leads us in the exact opposite direction with more mandates, more government control of the markets and less options for consumers. In short, rationing under a government monopoly.

And if opponents of the bill are guilty of "scare tactics and hyperbolic nonsense," it's only in response to the crisis rhetoric of its supporters.

I come at this not as a partisan but as a healthcare provider and a conservative. Now, I don't pretend to have all the answers but nobody is telling me what to say or think either. Reform is badly needed but I'm looking for solutions. a cure if you will, not a retrogress.

(maybe it's time for a separate healthcare thread)

Thanks for proving me (somewhat) wrong, Indy. The crisis rhetoric is far less forceful, at least in my opinion, than the "scare tactics and hyperbolic nonsense." If you can give me an equivalent example of Democratic fearmongering, I'd welcome it.

That said, a couple of questions about your plan:

1. If your plan were put into place, my brother who takes medication for paranoid schizophrenia--what would happen to him? (I'll be honest and tell you I'm not sure how he gets his meds now--I know he gets social security but I don't know if he's paying out of pocket or has insurance or what).

2. Under your plan, would insurance companies still retain the right to deny any type of coverage to certain people? I have a friend who simply cannot buy insurance of any kind because of sports-related injury. No insurance company will take him.

3. What in your plan might result in a lowering of healthcare costs? Or is that important at all in your estimation?

4. What happens to those who can't afford any kind of health insurance? Would you keep Medicare and Medicaid around?

5. Tell me more about the benefits of taxing health benefits? I hate the idea of anything that doesn't reflect my actual income--cash in hand--being taxed.

I'd actually be interested in hearing from anyone, not just INDY on these questions. I have a lot to learn!
 
Yes, but the market-driven approach does help with innovation, research and development, and ultimately, new, improved products.

There are certain things that should be and are inherintly governmental, and market forces should have no bearing (public safety, etc...) I think parts of healthcare should be -- emergency services, immunizations, disease control, etc... but at the same time, I'd like to see some competition amongst providers to keep improvements and innovations happening.
 
The fundamental problem that I have with your proposal, and Republican proposals in general, is that I don't understand why it is that you think that healthcare is something that should be dictated by market forces.

Are there some things that should operate outside of the capitalist ideas of profit? Perhaps healthcare, primary education, fire services, etc?

In fact, I find it appalling to even be discussing healthcare as a business model, and to be even more frank, I think that doing so actually amounts to a seriously sad social statement.

Whether you are talking computers, lobsters, tomatoes or healthcare -- markets are the most efficient way to direct resources to where they are most urgently needed. Profit rewards innovation, efficiency, excellence, customer service and just plain hard work.

Making healthcare a "right" rather than a good or service only invites shortages through less incentives and complacency through less motivation, blows demand sky-high while squeezing off supply all with the ultimate outcome of higher costs and rationing.

And why stop at healthcare if profit as an engine of inducement is inherently bad?
 
Whether you are talking computers, lobsters, tomatoes or healthcare -- markets are the most efficient way to direct resources to where they are most urgently needed. Profit rewards innovation, efficiency, excellence, customer service and just plain hard work.

Making healthcare a "right" rather than a good or service only invites shortages through less incentives and complacency through less motivation, blows demand sky-high while squeezing off supply all with the ultimate outcome of higher costs and rationing.

And why stop at healthcare if profit as an engine of inducement is inherently bad?



why is there the assumption that the engine of profit is inherently good?

healthcare isn't a service or a good, it's a need. like education. it's not like lobsters or computers, and the comparison belies a lack of understanding of the issue.

i can understand the profit motive when it comes to specific medical products, but not when it comes to providing insurance and coverage to people who have a *need* to be covered -- what you guys don't get is that lots of people want to have insurance, but because of preexisting conditions, they are *refused* coverage, or coverage is so expensive they can't afford it. that's the result of a profit-driven system, and then what happens is someone gets sick, or injured, and they are bankrupted by the costs because they were denied insurance from said profit driven companies.

the market simply isn't the best way to address coverage for people who aren't going to be terribly profitable to cover.
 
Yes, but the market-driven approach does help with innovation, research and development, and ultimately, new, improved products.



and i think this Supply Side Jesus attitude is almost uniquely American in it's blind adherence to a magical "free hand" of the market place.

markets are magic?
 
:up:

You still have very treatable, very affordable treatments being denied for certain pre-existing conditions that just will not be covered under these "market driven" Republican packages.



i am very healthy, but i had an accident that has given me a pre-existing condition, one that has caused my premiums to go up and one that could, in theory, deny me coverage if i had to change policies or plans.

i don't suppose i present all that much of a profit motive to an insurance company.

likewise, i know people who have tested HIV+ and have had their coverage revoked.
 
Yes, but the market-driven approach does help with innovation, research and development, and ultimately, new, improved products.
True but not entirely. Alot of the research is happening in the University hospitals, and a lot, I mean A LOT of the product developments in big pharma and device companies are counter intuitive and extremely destructiveto healthcare.


but at the same time, I'd like to see some competition amongst providers to keep improvements and innovations happening.
The problem is, that even now this isn't happening. Yes they are competing, but they are also working as one in order to keep profits up. For example: the orthopedic industry developers lobbied with congress and insurance companies to negotiate the "retail" price of a certain device. The device is $5000, so insurance companies all pay this price, now of course the device costs no where near that ammount but you have to factor in reps, r&d, etc... still no where near that price. So the patient can't "shop around" for every competitor is the same price, nor can the insurance companies. So soon the private sector of insurance is going to be all one anyways and dictating the prices of everything, therefore they won't be able to compete much and it's all going to cost the same with them running healthcare.
 
Yes, but the market-driven approach does help with innovation, research and development, and ultimately, new, improved products.

I wasn't talking about pharmaceutical R&D. In "socialist" Canada, drugs are not covered except for low-income individuals. Most people have private drug plans, whether through their employers, their colleges/universities, or privately. The government plays a larger role in regulating the costs of pharmaceuticals, which is why it is lower here, and you are free to argue that this reduces the incentive for innovation, but you are free not to regulate that in the US in the same way if you wish.

We are talking about people's basic access to healthcare, to a primary physician, and even to relatively routine procedures that in your country can bankrupt a family, which happens nowhere else in the world. I am not sure why you are equating this to innovation and R&D.
 
^I really don't understand the reasoning behind people's reticence to a public health care system. As Irvine said just a few posts above, health care isn't a commodity or a product to be bought and sold. It's a basic human right. I was having a pretty heated debate with one of my best friends a few weeks ago about health care. He doesn't believe there's anything wrong with the current system and, doesn't understand why I'm so adamant about having a universal health care plan. One of his biggest arguments was, "If we have universal health care, the government will get to decide who gets care." He gave an example of cancer patients possibly having to go on a waiting list for chemotherapy because the government would have to approve every treatment. That's obviously totally false and (apparently learned from a right-wing wack job website) It's a terrible argument for the simple fact that insurance companies, in essence, do the exact same thing right now. Every doctor's visit, test, treatment, etc. have to go through insurance bureaucracy where it's decided what and how much will be covered by the insurance. His other argument was the old "Health Care as capitalism," argument which is just as ludicrous in my opinion. I fail to see how the current private health system drives innovation and research. Trying to make health care a profit driven business is what has ruined more people's financial lives; probably much more than have been saved by its supposed benefits. What good is the latest multiple sclerosis treatment, for example, if insurance companies have driven costs up so much patients can't afford it? What good is the latest diabetes drug if your company, desperate to cut costs, takes away your health care plan? The bottom line is, we need a basic public health care plan for every person in this country.
 
We are talking about people's basic access to healthcare, to a primary physician, and even to relatively routine procedures that in your country can bankrupt a family, which happens nowhere else in the world. I am not sure why you are equating this to innovation and R&D.

Here's my two cents on this issue, and then I'm out because I don't feel like getting into a never-ending argument:

Is there a health-care system in the world that doesn't have problems? Absolutely not. There is no fail-safe system in anything in life, in my opinion, as nothing in life is perfect because we, as humans, are nowhere near perfect.

And I include the Canadian system in that. That being said, however, given the context of the current health-care debate in the U.S. and Palin's use of the term "death panel", I'd like to share a story from someone I met last week.

At a barbeque last weekend, I met a young man in his 20s, and as is often the case with me, the conversation turned to sports. He mentioned the fact that he can no longer play anything over fear of getting a head injury because he recently had a brain tumour removed.

Long story short: in February he had a seizure and was admitted to hospital where the tumour was discovered. Within a day or two he had brain surgery to remove the tumour, and has been in recovery ever since. He received world-class care in an expeditious manner, a procedure that would have bankrupted him if he had no insurance in the U.S.

He's now back at work, thankfully, and doing well. No "death panel" there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom