If given a chance, whom would you vote for?

[WakeCarver]

That is partly true. While I don't agree with McCain on everything I'll take him over Obama any day. Heck, I'd take Hillary of over Obama any day.

He's further to the left both socially and economically than I am comfortable with and than I think is good for the country. Hillary is further left than I am but not as much and I feel I could live with her in charge. She also seems to be adopting Bills policy of being a centrist in order to lead. I don't think Obama can or will do that. I like the fact that McCain is a centrist and not far to the right, in fact he is to the left of me on most issues. I'm ok with that.

Van Rumplelurk, that likeness does bear somewhat of a resemblance to me, at least as much as you can get with the on-line program. I've been using it for so long now that if I go away from it people get lost and don't recognize me on forums.

Part of the problem with Obama is that he is being compared to JFK way to much. He's following Bills strategy of "the man from Hope" and there isn't a lot of substance coming from his campaign. That is one of the things I like about Hillary, she's at least saying something besides "change" and "hope". Don't forget that after 8 years there were a lot of disappointed Bill Clinton fans too.

I don't miss Bill at all, I miss Ronnie.

To be frank, I could care less what the rest of the world thinks of ANY of them. The choice of who will be President should always be about what is best for America, not what the rest of the pansies in the world want. If the two happen to coincide, then that's fine but I can't imagine voting for a candidate just so the rest of the world will "like" us more and invite us to their group hug fest. In fact, that's just ludicrous IMO.

In your opinion.

I suspect his lack of experience would tell rather fast, especially if the Congress remains divided.

That's what I like about McCain. He's a pragmatist, has experience, is liberal on social issues and somewhat liberal on foreign policy issues. He's nowhere near as conservative GWB on most things and is likely better positioned to get things done with a split Congress. I don't agree with him on a number of things, but I think he is the best qualified candidate.

This is one of those areas where you and I see exact opposites. The last thing I want to see is universal health care forced upon us. If they want to make it a "safety" net for those in need, I might be able to buy off on it, but I should never have to pay for it via my taxes. If I could opt out and not pay any extra money, since I can afford to pay for my own, that might be acceptable. From my perspective, it is not the governments job to take care of me it's mine. The bureaucracy that would be required to implement a European style health care system here would make the Department of Homeland Security seem minuscule by comparison. The likely increase in the tax rate would be ruinous for most upper middle class and below families. For me, this would simply be the first big step to Socialism and a welfare state, something I never want to see here. Once you teach people that they are entitled to something, you can almost never take it away again. Living where you live, this POV may be completely foreign to you.



This one I can maybe see. However, I don't think that we should simply roll over because a lot of other countries don't happen to like how we choose to run our foreign policy. A lot of non Americans had a hard time understanding why Bush had so much support for his Iraq policy (and still does). It was simply because were tired of worrying about what the rest of the world wanted. The wisdom of the choice may be open for debate, but it was a choice we made. Since we are still the ones paying for it, it's up to us to decide how to deal with it. All in all, I'd rather my tax dollars go to keep troops in Baghdad than Universal Health care, but that's me.



I actually don't disagree with that at all. I noticed the Obama / Job similarities several months ago. It is like many of his supporters are walking around in a daze. What bothers me more now is that you find members of the press reporting on this phenomena vice the actual substance of what was said in his speech. Something similar happened with Bill Clinton in 92, but it was nowhere near the scale of this. This also ties in with the references to JFK. It's like some people are so desperate to relive certain moments in history that they will apply what is known as "temporary suspension of disbelief" in order to achieve it.

Where does it imply that you have the right to free healthcare? Last time I checked, nowhere. The Constitution guarantees you the right to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" not guaranteed healthcare. I believe that falls under the "pursuit of happiness" part, but note it does not "guarantee" you happiness, just the right to pursue it. You assume that you are entitled, I assume that you are not. You feel it is the governments job to take care of you, I do not. This is why we elect officials to make these decisions, or at least try to. All of that "little bit here, little bit there" adds up to one whopping tax bill every year. It doesn't matter if you ever use 911 or not, once the government mandated it, it's just another tax you have to pay. There are some things I can buy off on under "Social Contract" but universal health care is not one of them, that's just how it is. It's ok for you to not like it.

At some point you need to accept the fact that you are simply not going to sway my opinion. I have no illusion that I will sway yours and I'm ok with that. We can argue this for pages and pages but we are never going to agree. Don't take it personally, but I think you are wrong and I assume vice-versa.

Baggs, have you been in my head stealing my thoughts? You and I have almost identical political views. I agree with everything you've said above. Lets just hope McCain wins. When a country is fighting a war it needs some one who has been there to lead it. Like it or not we are in Iraq and we will be there for a long time. Anyone who thinks we can simply pull out at the drop of a hat is naive. Also I heard somewhere that Obama wants to pull us out of Iraq and send us to Africa. I can't remember where I heard this but can someone please clarify it for me.

 

[Dimitri]

At some point you need to accept the fact that you are simply not going to sway my opinion. I have no illusion that I will sway yours and I'm ok with that. We can argue this for pages and pages but we are never going to agree.

Quite true. Unless someone is truly moderate, I don't think their mindset will be swayed whether they're left or right.

That said, it would seem Hillary would be more likely to institute some kind of Universal Health Care, so McCain would seem the only logical choice for anyone dead set against this. I personally feel if it's implemented properly, and of course if private coverage is still available, it could be a benefit, and potentially lower our insurance premiums. But Hillary kind of scares me.

 

[cheesybanana]

I have been thinking about all of this.

Here are my thoughts:

The strength of our federalist system is in the ability for states to experiment with policy without affecting the whole.

With this in mind, would it not make more sense for states to implement their own health-care policy? Doing this, we could see real world examples of how various systems work. Plus, people would have more say in what their own state does with their tax money.

I don't know. Baggss does make some very good points...

 

[baggss]

I have been thinking about all of this.

Here are my thoughts:

The strength of our federalist system is in the ability for states to experiment with policy without affecting the whole.

With this in mind, would it not make more sense for states to implement their own health-care policy? Doing this, we could see real world examples of how various systems work. Plus, people would have more say in what their own state does with their tax money.

I don't know. Baggss does make some very good points...

I agree with your comments on the Federalist system. I expect this to happen and am surprised it has not happened already (didn't Mass. try?). Part of the problem with this sort of thing is it will somehow end up back in Federal Court because someone will object. In the end it will have to be mandated by the Federal Government. Unfortunately the Federalist way of thinking has been overrun by lawsuits that seem to force the Feds into setting policy that they should never have to.

While I am hesitant to bring this comparison up due to it's inflammatory nature, the abortion argument has this same problem. It probably SHOULD be left up to the states and not the feds. Because people can't seem to agree on either side of the argument it ends up with the feds having to set a policy that doesn't allow the states the to freedom implement the wishes of their respective citizens. This hearkens back to the Missouri Compromise of 1820 and the issue of what the sates should have the right to decide as opposed to the Feds. A more recent example is the 1970's era Speed Limit law imposed on states by the Feds. While it was eventually lifted there are still those who would like to the power taken away from the states. The use of certain Narcotics for medicinal purposes is also caught up in this "tug of war" as well.

The argument against this sort of policy is that while the citizens of certain states may disagree on issues if they get to far apart our society begins to fall apart due to different radical factions trying to push their views. At least in some respects the Feds stepping in can force the issue to be dealt with and apply the laws evenly. No one would deny that the feds strong arm policy on integrations and civil rights in the South during the 1960's -70's was a bad thing.

Quite true. Unless someone is truly moderate, I don't think their mindset will be swayed whether they're left or right.

That said, it would seem Hillary would be more likely to institute some kind of Universal Health Care, so McCain would seem the only logical choice for anyone dead set against this. I personally feel if it's implemented properly, and of course if private coverage is still available, it could be a benefit, and potentially lower our insurance premiums. But Hillary kind of scares me.

I don't disagree with pretty much anything said there. Interestingly, in every political spectrum test I take I tend to fall into the "centrist" category so i don't think I am to far off to the right. I will even admit that a voluntary universal system could make the private sector less expensive since it would take the burden of having to deal with the uninsured off the backs of those who can pay for insurance. The whole industry might stand to gain something from a "safety net" approach that is purely voluntary and not forced (by taxation or other means) on the populace as a whole. The downside is that unless the laws are written properly there will always be those who can more than afford their own who will simply take the easy road and take advantage of the system.

Hillary scares me in a creepy way, Obama scares me in a "Shadow of runaway Socialist big government" sort of way.

 

[JuanGuapo]

With this in mind, would it not make more sense for states to implement their own health-care policy? Doing this, we could see real world examples of how various systems work. Plus, people would have more say in what their own state does with their tax money.

Schwarzenegger actually tried (w/ House Leader Nunez and Senate Pro Tem Don Perata) to do it here in California, but would you believe it that the Dems were the ones who voted it down. The reason for voting it down was "lack of sufficient funds" which is hilarious b/c California spends 1/3 of its revenue on education (it's dirt cheap to go to comm. college here, too).

Taxes are something everyone who has an income has to pay, and to be honest I think the taxpayer should dictate what programs/institutions that his/her funds go towards.

We all agree on education and public safety, but somehow the idea of a safety net for healthcare is just out of the question.

Personally, if I were to pay $50 more out of my paycheck in taxes each month for healthcare that was 100% guaranteed, I would do it in a heartbeat because there is always a chance that I will need healthcare and not have a paycheck or insurance.

What I don't understand is...where are people supposed to get health insurance if they a) can't afford it or b) are ineligible. Are we supposed to simply say "No" to them as well?

It's very easy to say "I'm not paying for their healthcare" but let's be real about it....we're already doing it, and we're paying a fortune.

For example, anyone who lives in California can tell you about the influx of illegal immigrants; the cost of their healthcare is deferred to the taxpayers anyway because they cannot be refused medical care in the Emergency Rooms. Businesses that hire illegal immigrants defer the cost of a legal citizen's salary and benefits on to the taxpayers, and the remaining profit goes towards them.

So, again, the $25 Band Aid bill still gets subsidized by the taxpayers, except that the taxpayers cannot mandate what limits or costs because there is no Universal Healthcare system.

It is easy to say "I will not spend one cent" directly towards someone else's healthcare, but another when you're already spending a whole dollar on the backend.

All that needs to be done is expand MediCare to all Americans and regulate pharmaceuticals. That pretty much sums up about 98% of what proponents of Universal Healthcare are trying to do.

 

[JuanGuapo]

Where does it imply that you have the right to free healthcare? Last time I checked, nowhere. The Constitution guarantees you the right to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" not guaranteed healthcare. I believe that falls under the "pursuit of happiness" part, but note it does not "guarantee" you happiness, just the right to pursue it. You assume that you are entitled, I assume that you are not. You feel it is the governments job to take care of you, I do not. This is why we elect officials to make these decisions, or at least try to. All of that "little bit here, little bit there" adds up to one whopping tax bill every year. It doesn't matter if you ever use 911 or not, once the government mandated it, it's just another tax you have to pay. There are some things I can buy off on under "Social Contract" but universal health care is not one of them, that's just how it is. It's ok for you to not like it.

You missed the point I was making....we guarantee "Life, Liberty, and the Persuit of Happiness" in the Constitution; if we are to guarantee Life, then how can there be no way to sustain it? Enter Universal Healthcare--everyone is eligible, everyone is covered, and everyone can afford it. "You" have just as much right to medicine in this country as the lowest and richest person in the country.

I'm not trying to sway your opinion of the rights/wrongs of Universal Healthcare. I am simply making a point where sooner or later, you and I will end up at the doctor's office or the hospital, and each of us will have to pay something. It will all depend on which one of us has insurance, is eligible for insurance, or simply can afford the bill. Unless of course you are talking about "Class Warfare", where those who cannot afford the same healthcare must do without.

As I said before....the Post Office has not hurt FedEx or UPS. You have your choice of any of the three, but you can always mail a letter for $0.41. Why should healthcare be any different?

Last example.... Public Transit is funded by Local, State, and Federal dollars. I drive a car, so I don't use the bus or train. Should I be exempt from having to pay taxes on those things? Then again, if my car is in the shop, I can still (at the very least) take the bus to work.

 

[baggss]

I completely forgot about Arnie doing that. The cost of health care here in California is being deferred to the taxpayer, but the tax rate is not going up (yes, I live in California as well) and I am not seeing more coming out of my pocket to pay for it. Instead, they are slashing other budgets including education.

As I said before....the Post Office has not hurt FedEx or UPS. You have your choice of any of the three, but you can always mail a letter for $0.41. Why should healthcare be any different?

As I've already said, if it is offered as a choice and not forced upon the taxpayer, I might be ok with it. Sadly, I don't see Obama doing that. I see a massive system being forced upon us and burden of paying for it being placed upon us.

You missed the point I was making....we guarantee "Life, Liberty, and the Persuit of Happiness" in the Constitution; if we are to guarantee Life, then how can there be no way to sustain it? Enter Universal Healthcare--everyone is eligible, everyone is covered, and everyone can afford it. "You" have just as much right to medicine in this country as the lowest and richest person in the country.

That would make an excellent argument for the anti-abortion crowd, and it's one that has been made. Either way, I don't think that that can be successfully used as an argument for guaranteed health care anymore that it's been used to argue against abortion.

Last example.... Public Transit is funded by Local, State, and Federal dollars. I drive a car, so I don't use the bus or train. Should I be exempt from having to pay taxes on those things? Then again, if my car is in the shop, I can still (at the very least) take the bus to work.

If it was truly only dependent on State. Federal and Local taxes it would be free, but it's not. You get on the bus, you pay ~$1 to support the system. You don't ride, you don't pay the $1.

BTW, Double posting is frowned upon here.

 

[JuanGuapo]

The reason the taxes didn't go up is b/c we (Californians) pay some of the highest property taxes in the country. Since the housing crunch, Ahhnold is having to cut 10% off of the state budget....parks, beaches, etc., are the first to go.

As far as public transit, I wish that $1 per rider on OCTA (or $3 on Metro Link) was all you needed to subsidize the Public Transit system, but it isn't....it's subsidized by Local, State, and Federal taxes.

The $1.50 you pay (or $3 for Metro) is the subsidy that 'you' pay for a seat, not for the public transit. The "Free" part is the roads you drive on with the vehicle you drive, but it's not 100% free....you pay for it out of taxes on the Gasoline you buy, and with the cost of registering your vehicle.

Each way you look at it, it all boils down to the Social Contract Theory. So where is the exception for Universal Healthcare?

PS: I was responding to two different posts, so frown away.

 

[baggss]

Each way you look at it, it all boils down to the Social Contract Theory. So where is the exception for Universal Healthcare?

The exception for anything is when enough people disagree with the idea that it is not included. Just because you think it should fall under it doesn't mean that it should. I don't think it should, you do. That's ok. Again, we're not going to agree here no matter what. You can cite "Social Contract" all you want, I don't find it a convincing argument and I view it as just another vehicle to get the government to take care of care of you. The "Social Contract" shouldn't be used as a guise for creeping Socialism, but that appears to be exactly what you are advocating. The pervasive attitude that the government or society owes any of us anything is somewhat beyond my comprehension.

The $1.50 you pay (or $3 for Metro) is the subsidy that 'you' pay for a seat, not for the public transit. The "Free" part is the roads you drive on with the vehicle you drive, but it's not 100% free....you pay for it out of taxes on the Gasoline you buy, and with the cost of registering your vehicle.

Your not just "paying for the seat". If the cost of the buses was truly covered by taxes, then you should not pay for the seat. You are in fact paying to help maintain and operate the system, a supplement to the taxes you already pay for the system itself. I never said or even implied that the roads were free. I drive a car, I register it, I buy gas. Part of that tax goes to pay for the infrastructure that I use. That's ok. People who don't own cars don't pay nearly as much for that infrastructure as I do, people who own multiple cars pay more. I use it, I pay for it. If I don't use the Universal Health Care, why should I pay for it?

PS: I was responding to two different posts, so frown away.

It's not just me, it's considered forum courtesy. You can easily combine multiple responses into one post. You're relatively new here, and I'm just trying to give you a friendly reminder.

 

[JuanGuapo]

If I don't use the Universal Health Care, why should I pay for it?

The same reason I pay the 911 tax on my telephone; however, if in the event I do need it, it is there. Again, by your example: I never call 911, so I shouldn't have to pay for it.

Consider this: What if "you" were either ineligible for health insurance ("pre existing"), or could not afford it. What then?

Another question: If there were no other choice than to raise taxes (which there isn't), are we supposed to continue to keep people uninsured?

Throughout this entire conversation, I have not yet heard a plan from anyone to cover the uninsured who is against Universal Healthcare.

I keep hearing, "As long they don't raise taxes...." From that example, instead of paying $1 up front, you'd rather pay $3 later, and take it away from other social programs (like education).

 

[yogi]

It's bluntly put a social question. You can or can't (can't by my views) say that if it doesn't benefit me and me alone, I won't vote for it.

In the words of John F Kennedy: Don't ask what the country can do for you, ask what you can do for the country.

If one remains egoistic in every political choice, one might as well ignore gay laws if you're not gay yourself or gun laws if you don't own a gun.

 

[baggss]

The same reason I pay the 911 tax on my telephone; however, if in the event I do need it, it is there. Again, by your example: I never call 911, so I shouldn't have to pay for it.

To late, your stuck with it. We are arguing about a potential tax, not one that already exists. Contact your local or national representative about it if you don't like. Once again, that argument fails since it's a tax you already have to pay. Enough folks were willing to live with it under the "Social Contract" so it's there.

Consider this: What if "you" were either ineligible for health insurance ("pre existing"), or could not afford it. What then?

Then I would have to keep myself in a job that gave me insurance. My brother is in that exact position. Fortunately he has a job that keeps him insured.

Another question: If there were no other choice than to raise taxes (which there isn't), are we supposed to continue to keep people uninsured?

As far as I am concerned, yes.

Throughout this entire conversation, I have not yet heard a plan from anyone to cover the uninsured who is against Universal Healthcare.

I'm not a politician nor do I play one on TV. I don't have a plan, I don't care to have a plan. Some of what Yogi has mentioned intrigues me though. If your assumption is that if I disagree I should put forth an alternant plan, my alternate is leave the system as it is.

I keep hearing, "As long they don't raise taxes...." From that example, instead of paying $1 up front, you'd rather pay $3 later, and take it away from other social programs (like education).

Except we all know it won't be a $1 to $3 ratio, it will be more like a $!0 to $3 ratio once the system takes control of it. Pouring money into some giant black hole so that some people might benefit is just stupid.

You're still arguing this like you think your going to change my mind. We both know that's not going to happen in either direction. Are you simply unable to accept the fact that I have a different, and equally valid, point of view? I realize that this is somewhat of a personal issue for you, but you are not going to sway my opinion with your examples and I certainly don't expect to sway yours.

It's bluntly put a social question. You can or can't (can't by my views) say that if it doesn't benefit me and me alone, I won't vote for it.

In the words of John F Kennedy: Don't ask what the country can do for you, ask what you can do for the country.

I don't disagree at all.

If one remains egoistic in every political choice, one might as well ignore gay laws if you're not gay yourself or gun laws if you don't own a gun.

No, those are existing laws and therefore should be obeyed. I don't have to like them, I can protest them or work to have them repealed, but I have to follow them. What we are talking about is a law that does not yet exist and therefore it's shape and outcome can be influenced by the public. We are also talking about the idea that the state owes the individual something. I disagree with the idea to a limited extent, he thinks he is owed something.

 

[novicew]

Ralph Nader is back.
What's going on?

 

[baggss]

Ralph Nader is back.
What's going on?

I think he wants the Dems to lose for some odd reason.

 

[Kash]

Let's hope he gets the same number of votes he did in 2004, which was next to nothing. He knows very well that he's to blame for Gore losing to Bush, regardless of how much he tries to deny it. Which is clearly why practically nobody voted for him in 2004.

Though now that I think about it, if we have Clinton vs. McCain, then it could very well be possible that third party candidates will receive more votes than usual, which means Nader might muster up a few more votes than last time.

 

[dohidied]

I'm not worried about Nader. As Kash said, he got next to no votes in 2004. Also, since the primaries have been so hotly contested, it has gotten a lot more people involved in this election. I don't think we'll have the broad apathy that we've had in the last couple presidential elections.