LOL.

It was a big deal going into the 2004 election that W got $25,000 in personal donations from people that worked for Halliburton. Seems that if people are going to criticize W for that, you'd atleast have to look at Obama's situation too, right?

I need more time to digest this whole argument before reaching a conclusion on it. I know most people will just dismiss it or embrace it wholesale based on their already-established position... but I'm doing my best to be open-minded in this election, and I *claim* to really dislike hypocrisy. I don't yet know where to place this on that particular scale.

It's possible, well conceivable, that a person has actually had his opinion altered as a result of a political thread at FOFC. No doubt a first, if true.

...and look how well that worked out for both Bush and Haliburton! ;)

Lot of bored Republicans in this thread.

Well, the Republican primary is kind of over ;).

I'm not trying to change anyone's mind here, but I think we should be consistent in our treatment of Obama like the others. This is where all the "free ride" stuff comes from. Obama's getting off because he's not really taking on a specific policy or policies to define him as a candidate. The overriding idea is that he is worth electing because he somehow brings a fresh, outsider perspective to the WH on all issues that's different than a third term of Bush (McCain) or Clinton would be. And yet he's campaigning with all the usual tricks of the trade.

Take Clinton's "experience" mantra. That's what she's defining herself as - ready from "Day One" to take action. I don't see this as any different than Obama's mantra of "change." And even if you throw out the Bosnia under fire stuff, her "experience" has rightfully come under scrutiny. The claim to have 35 years of experience, which dates back to when she got out of school, the fact that her calendars show that when major issues were going on, she was off doing non-substantive stuff, etc. (I love the one about when the WTC was attacked the first time, she went to a museum and caught a Broadway play that day while Bill was off doing substantive stuff). If she gets called out for that, what's the equivalent for Obama? It's scrutinizing just how much "change" from "politics as usual" we'd get if he was elected.

Not really. I have had my changed by pol threads here before. Too often you only hear one side of position (or even two extremly slanted sides), that is nice in some of these threads you read a more moderated view (once you chuck out the complete zealots). There have been many times I've read here a true arguement (not a processed sound-bite) that did make sense and changed my view on something. You, for one, are very good at pointing to something I've never thought of or read before.

Now, I could make a list of people that could stop posting in these threads to make them much better, but I'll refrain.

I don't really think she's gotten hit hard on her claims of experience. I have not yet heard one question as to why her time as a politician's wife counts as experience? You know, that Obama has more time as an actual elected official than she does. Maybe I'm missing it, but I have yet to see her have to defend her experience bit.

Admittedly, it wouldn't have been as much of an issue yet if the Bosnia thing hadn't come out, but since then, I've been hearing much more about it.

Really? As Ksyrup points out, after the Bosnia mess, it was all over the place. And of course it was mocked mercilessly on shows like the Daily Show and Letterman for months now.

Not really. No one ever addressed it directly. It's been implied during the whole race. But NO ONE has ever explicitly said "how is being First Lady really experience?" And even when they debunk it (i.e. Hillary didn't even have a security clearance and never carried a portfolio on her abroad visits) the myth that she's got all of this "experience" keeps just getting accepted.

If you're talking about her time as First Lady of the USA, I have seen that very question addressed quite a few times. If you're talking about her time as First Lady of Arkansas, that hasn't really been looked at too closely at all.

Interesting...

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...-going-public/


The interesting part of this is that Obama has said in the past that he would take federal matching funds if his opponent did. That would REALLY mess up Obama's advantage if he followed through (and that's probably why McCain is flirting with going public... Obama would look like "politics as usual" guy if he went back on his word).

Actually, I'm a registered Democrat who will be voting for a Republican presidential candidate for the first time.

I'm a registered Republican who will probably not be voting.

Really? What exactly about the past eight years has caused you to make the switch to the Republican party? I'm not being snarky, I'm genuinely curious.

FWIW, CamEdwards has changed my mind on a couple of things - nothing earth-shattering, but he has that effect on me ;)

Cam has that effect on his wife, too. :D :p

This article seems to touch on some of what Ksyrup is saying about Obama and the "hope" based campaign.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/20080...%2FuozJmsTs%3D

You make a good point.

My mind has been changed!

I voted for Clinton/Gore twice, and I don't regret it. They won in 1992 and 1996 running on the Democratic Leadership Council's (DLC) platform, which stated the the modern democratic party should shift away from traditionally populist positions. As "New Democrats", Clinton/Gore ran and governed as centrists in many areas like welfare reform, free trade, fiscal responsibility and smaller government. Tony Blair adopted a similar platform when he ran under the mantra of "New Labour", ousting John Major in Great Britain,

I voted for Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004, but I was becoming increasingly concerned about their move to the left and populist class warfare rhetoric. However, Bush was not a viable alternative, so I voted Democrat, although I would have seriously considered voting Republican otherwise.

In 2008, both Obama and Clinton's stand on the issues are about as far left as I can recall in my lifetime. I know this hasn't been fleshed out yet, but it will be during the general campaign when the candidates actually have to take stands on critical issues and the voting public begins to pay attention. So, I've already made up my mind, and I'll be voting for McCain. The Democratic party as I knew it in the 1990's is now controlled by the far left wing, and it has no appeal to me.

Thanks for the reply. It's interesting how people can see things so differently -- my feeling is that the left-right spectrum has steadily moved rightward since 1980 or so, so that positions that are now considered "far-left" were much more centrist positions back then.

I don't have time to find the link right now, but there was a recent Economist article that talked about the political differences between Europe and ourselves, and there was one thing in particular about the English Conservative party having positions that are now to the left of the American Democratic party.

Personally, I don't think that finding a way out of the Iraq mess, proposing a universal healthcare system, reinstating some of the tax cuts on the very wealthy in order to help both balance the budget, reverse some of the widening income disparity and repair some of the social services net that has been slashed over the past 20 years are far left positions at all. But of course that's just my two cents......and I'm not even getting into what has happened at the Department of Justice, etc.

I think the country drifted right during the 80's, but since Bush 41 took the reigns the drift has been slowly left. Bush 43 talks like a conservative, but pretty much everything he has done and advocated is right in line with Clinton's policies.

I don't know about that. The Supreme Court certainly seems to have continued it's rightward drift, and I haven't sensed a great lessening of the evangelical right since Bush 41 (a small lessening over the past year or two, but that's about it).

The country does seem to have become much more polarized since Bush 41 though.

:mad: Dammit, now you need to ask a FTB question that would allow me to refute you. :p

A healthy chunk of this perception is based on the fact that the candidates are still running in the primary, so the issues they are talking about are targeted directly at the spectrum that will be voting. Normally, this is all out of the way by now, and the presumptive nominee is already redrafting his/her message to appeal to the middle.

When the party finally has a nominee, they'll run back to the middle for the most part. But Path makes a good point. The electorate is shifting some to the left, in no small part as a reaction to this Administration forcing things so far the other way.

If you mean Bill Clinton, I don't think that's much of a measure of leftward trend. Bill Clinton was a very centrist Democrat, and spent most of his term pissing off progressives. I'm not sure that i agree with your assessment, but it would suggest a centrist trend, not a leftward one.

Left and right are relative terms. If you start out right of center, and move left, that is both a centrist drift, and a leftist drift.

They are both relative terms, and marks along a spectrum that represent real opinions about real issues. The position on the spectrum matters just as much as the direction of movement. You could say an obese person lost weight if they went from 455 pounds to 450 pounds, but to suggest that they're "becoming thinner" would not convey I think the truth of the matter.

My point only being that if we forget that Clinton was an extremely centrist Democrat, and he instead becomes the new standard of "the left" we'll have lost a lot of accuracy in our measurements of who is 'moving left' or 'moving right'.

"Very" centrist? "Extremely" centrist? Hypebolic words for a president that was all over the spectrum, from far-left to right-of-center.

I'm curious, Bucc. What policies did Clinton enact during his presidency that you would consider "far left"?

We really don't know about the SC yet. Based on confirmation hearings, that would probably be correct, but the jury is out regarding the body of actual rulings.

Since Bush41? He was no close friend of the evangelical right. But the so-called religious right is fracture, always have been. So I'm not what great generalization you are making.

More polarized? Yes. And will continue to be more polarized (it makes great press). But with that polarization, come a significant rise of independents and libertarians.

You have been around long enough, path, to know that American politics have and will always be used as a divisive yet ever-changing force. The next 4 years will be different than the previous 4, even with McCain. But many things will remain the same. Besides, it looks bad on you to act surprise that a (D) would even possible consider voting (R) based on the past 8 years. Vegas Vic gets it (in regards to actually thinking instead of going along with the red/blue crap). As one who did not support (R) the past 8 years, I'll be voting for McCain simply because of what I feel is the critical necessity of having a split Executive/Legislature.

I believe he tried the first two years to enact a few such policies but then a (R) Congress forced him to move centric. Besides, terms like "far left" and "far right" are laughable for we have not had such things in the country. I throw them out once in a while jokingly but mainly to counterbalance those that actually believe such positions exist.

But I was thinking more along the lines of speeches, rhetoric and the typical demonizing political opponents. Perhaps Hillary was worse at it but I could not and still do not separate the two.

However, you asked for specifics and I would have to dig up something from a few years back that placed certain people (politicos and otherwise) along the red/blue spectrum. In that article, Clinton was placed from a 2-6 (depending on the time of day) on a 1-10 point scale.

Yeah, I know it's a common opinion that the "republican congress" should get credit for things like the budget surplus of 1998, but The Deficit Reduction Act of 1993 (passed by a democratic congress) is now credited by CBO as one of the main factors in the economic growth and later budget surplus in 1998. Ironically, even though many people have the perception that the republican congress was the reason for the budget surplus of 1998, the CBO data shows that the combined fiscal effect of the laws enacted by the 104th and 105th Republican Congresses added $11,000,000,000 more to the deficit than it cut in Fiscal Year 1998.

"There's no question that the impact of bringing the deficit down through the 1993 budget bill set in place a series of events--a virtuous cycle, if I may put it that way--which has led us to where we are." Alan Greenspan - In testimony before the House Budget Committee, March 4, 1998.

Not sure if this was posted, but let's focus on the important issues here - such as how you can possibly vote for a man who bowls a 37? Or how you even bowl a 37. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...-pennsylvania/

I wasn't even thinking about the budget. I was thinking more along the lines of socialistic ideas, social engineering and expansions of federal powers at the expense of private entities and properties,

But it's Friday, long week. Got to start doing the yard thing tomorrow.

No joke, our 3-year old bowled a 54 a couple of months ago.

Vegas Vic, one of the authors that I read is Calebresi, founder of the Federalist Society, a somewhat libertarian organization that exposes and chides liberal judicialness (is that a word?). I recall something that I've read that looks back on the actual rulings of Clinton's judicial appointments in terms of Constitutionaliity. It wasn't pretty.

I think that's a valid point, Bucc. There's no question that both of Clinton's Supreme Court appointees -- Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer -- have been on the liberal side of virtually every court decision since their appointments.

Maybe so, but I don't think there's much debate that both Alito and Roberts will hew much closer to a Scalia/Thomas viewpoint than a Ginsberg/Breyer one.


I think you simplify my viewpoint, and for the record, I did not vote for Clinton either time, nor for Gore in 2000.

This is not about the "typical red/blue crap". This is about an administration that has been blatent in its disregard of the rule of law in favor of power, and as a libertarian I'm surprised you would even think of supporting the party that has grown government to a size never seen before. The irony is that as they have done this, they have also repeatedly boasted about how big government is bad -- and then gone and proved that boast to be true.

I have no great respect for politics as a whole, and certainly don't believe it is going to solve all of our problems, nor should it. But I do not believe in a government that spreads fear instead of hope, goes against the principles of honor that made this country what it is (via torture, cancellation of habeus corpus, etc), and besmirches our Constitution. Not one bit. We are less of a country because of the past eight years of this administration, and I think that is a sad thing.

One of the other boards I post at regularly is a music board based in Chicago. So as you can imagine, not only is the board almost entirely liberal, but the vast majority of them are huge Obama supporters. So I posted this info over there as an obvious joke, and this was the first response:

he only bowled 7 frames, so actually he was on pace to bowl 53... and as I understand it he stopped when he got a spare, presumably after 7 frames, so he likely would have broken 60, maybe even 70, which, while it still sucks, isn't too horrible for a non-bowler without any practice.

LOL at a serious response to this!

Hey, bowling is serious business! ;)

Really? After 1994, Clinton was a pretty laissez-faire President. Bush has been very meddling & hands-on (in the context of fighting with Congress). Their approach to military intervention is pretty different, though I suppose you could argue that 9/11 "changed everything". Their budget priorities (& sizes) are radically different. SC & federal bench nominations are also considerably different.

I don't want to sound snarky, as I'm honestly interested - where are the two in line with each other?


There are two problems with this:

1. Everyone views every candidate through a particular lens, based on their own impressions of them. For instance, while you think Obama's getting a "free ride", I have, at the same time, been trying to point out the various areas where McCain has been getting a free ride. Consistency and objectivity would be great, but since everyone has their own preconceived notions (even if they're unaware of them), these things are very hard to come by.

2. The media, which whether we like it or not influences us greatly, likes to pigeonhole candidates. Obama is the "inexperienced" candidate of "change". Clinton is the "truth-challenged" "democratic machine" candidate. McCain is either a "maverick" or "Bush's 3rd term". This stuff all feeds into our preconceived notions.


I have to say, though, if anyone's getting a free ride, it's McCain. Ever since Romney dropped out, almost all of the attention has focused on the Democrats, and increasingly in digging up and nitpicking all their faults. I mean, here's a guy who doesn't understand the difference between Shi'a and Sunni terrorists. Surely that's at least as relevant, if not more, than campaign donations, but it certainly didn't get equal time either in the media, or even amongst us.


As far as I can tell, the crux of the matter is this quote from factcheck.org:


Basically I'd disagree with factcheck.org that this is "a distinction without very much of a practical difference". One of the key problems with PACs is that they allow large donors (individuals or other entities) to give a huge amount to a candidate, but do so legally by distributing their contributions through various PACs.

Additionally, the argument about individual donors representing corporations is spurious. No campaign has the resources or manpower to check each donation for the donator's employer (or their spouse's employer). Watchdog organizations like factcheck.org do (although in this instance their data came from OpenSecrets.org), and the results are always invariably used by opposition partisans.

The idea that any campaign does this work on individual donations to the end of tallying them up so they can say "well, Company X gave $368,000 in total, so let's be nice to them" is risible. However, it's very well within the realm of possibility that the head of Company X would take aside a candidate and let them know that they'll be contributing $1 million through various PACs and individual donations.

I think the real problem here is that the Obama campaign is drawing a fundraising realities distinction that is simply lost on most Americans.

One is either going to:

A. Trust in Obama's motivations and ignore the details (which can be spun oh so many ways)

or

B. Be skeptical.

I don't support the party or any parties, never have. Do you actually think the federal govt will actually get smaller with a (D) Executive and (D) Congress (or substitute (R)) vs one that is split? If I knew that Congress (at least one of them) would go (R), then I would vote for (D) Obama for Executive. But from what I've read, that is very unlikely. As some have said here, the next president - regardless if (D) or (R) - will love the expanded powers, and Congress will continue to ensure its power to solve every problem by growing the legislations, budgets and bureaucracies. I am on record here opposing many of the expansions of power but for most Americans, the past 8 years were no different than the past 20 or past 40 years in watching the decline of home rule local govts at the expense of the federal powers.

I certainly understand the arguments for a divided government, and think there are absolutely times where that isn't a bad thing. But I believe we are in a delicate period of time right now where:

The energy source that is the backbone of our society is for the first time starting to show signs of scarcity, even more so with the rapid industrialization of China.

There is finally a solid scientific consensus that we are entering a period of atmospheric change, which will require new thinking.

The healthcare system is broken, with millions not covered and millions more living on the edge of a major illness or accident wiping them out, especially as we see the job loss numbers steadily creep up.

The problem with a divided government is that it does not lead. It keeps the status quo. I don't think we have time to keep the status quo at this point in our history.

Do I think the Dems have the stones and the leadership ability to actually solve these problems? I'm not terribly optimistic, though I at least see a possibility of leadership with Obama as opposed to the same old partisan ground-scorch approach of Clinton. But I know for a fact that the Repubs policies will not lead us forward, especially based on the stands that McCain has taken so far.

I think that's the key difference, path - what you consider forward progress. There are many evidences that when the federal govt tackles a major problem with good intentions of forward progress, they actually, at best, maintain a marginal level of progress at greatly increased costs. Most often, they make the problems worse at greatly increased costs, necessitating more legislation, deficit spending and bureaucracies. And now you expect things will be different all of a sudden??

You mentioned healthcare. For a majority of Americans, it is not broken. It is expensive and will get more expensive, but we demand better care, better drugs and more instant diagnosis and treatments. If you want care for those uninsured, first find out why they are uninsured and then find an acceptable level of care vs cost. For the rest of us, we still will demand what we have now (and more so as we get older). No way will we want a one-size-fits-all solution that will reduce the level of care but cost just as much.

That's just one example of what will be backwards progress but others are dreaming that it will actually be forward progress. Therefore, why would I want leadership when Washington DC is not smart enough to do many things right but instead, they need to cut expenditures and do things better, smarter and cheaper? I would measure forward progress if they would just think more Constitutionally and libertarianistic. But I don't expect that, and I certainly don't hear that from Obama or Clinton. What I do expect is more individuals, local and regional public and private entities, communities, churches and charity organizations to take much more personal responsibilites in making a difference within their sphere of influences.

Breyer might be on the liberal side of the hot button social issue cases, but is pretty conservative when it comes to corporate cases.

Mark Penn is stepping down from the Clinton campaign.

If Clinton can't control her people, how can she be the goddam president? Jesus, these are two "firings" in the past three months of her campaign manager and campaign strategist. These aren't people way down the totem pole from her.

So she can't control her husband, she can't control her campaign, and yet she wants to be the leader of the free world? Better yet, people vote for her?

I see it rather differently. Firing Penn is one of the first examples of good judgment I've seen from her campaign. If only it would have happened a year ago.

Any way you cut it, this being one of the first examples of good judgment at this point in the campaign isn't good either.

Mark Penn is the Arizona Cardinals of politics. Why he continues to run high profile Democratic races is a complete mystery to me.

He has only been fired in name only he is still on the campaign. I really wish he would have been tossed out on his ass properly.

He sure mucked this one up pretty good. Proves that all you have to do is get attached to a "high powered PR firm" and then hype yourself. And of course, make friends and influence people.

My friend Jim had an interesting post today. I recommend reading it from the site as there are a lot of links.

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.c...NkMDUwOTk3YjQ=


And speaking of words mattering, Michelle Obama made one of those statements that makes me say "uh-oh" today.

http://www.charlotte.com/112/story/572303.html


Step away from my pie, Mrs. Obama.

You mean the Obamas are not libertarians?!?!

FWIW, I make a pretty good living, and if I have to pay higher premiums so that children living in poverty get better health care, I'll give up some of my pie any day.

I can see why conservatives hear that and say "uh-oh". I imagine liberals hear it and say "all right" - that's why we want Obama to win.

Yeah, but the problem is when you give someone a pie, and they smash it in somebody's face rather than eat it.

The difference between the two parties right now seems to be (1) what they want to spend the money on, and (2) whether to borrow the money from our grandchildren or tax it out of us.

Apparently the pie you're already giving up isn't enough though. How much more are you willing to give up?

I'd like to be able to take care of my own children (two of whom were born into a family below poverty level) before the government demands more of my pie on another bloated government program. I mean, take a look at the thread about gov't employees using gov't issued credit cards to buy $13,000 dinners and lingerie. We really need to add more of this kind of bureaucracy considering how well it's working now?

But that's the key with the federal govt - they will take more of your pie for very little gain and many children currently living in poverty will still be living in poverty without adequate health care. You are much better off giving to local aid groups that can provide basic health care to those in need. But then again, many would just use this as a political tool instead of working at actually making a difference to those around you.

By the way, I will continue to put my money with my mouth is and will be giving a sizable donation this week to both our local Ecumenical Services Ministry and to the Marion House Soup Kitchen, both provides food, necessities and funds for basic health care needs to those individuals and families that are in dire situations. Better to feed them yourselves (esp. if you can volunteer) than to feed the federal bureaucracies.

The biggest problem I see in terms of cutting government spending (other than the obvious breads and circuses point) is that the parties go in and out of power.

Let's say that Bush had been a fiscal conservative and run balanced budgets. And let's say that Clinton or Obama wins in November. You could argue that all Bush would have done was save money so the Democrats could spend it on their programs. Instead, he spent the money on his programs. Can't say that isn't rational of him.

In contrast, let's say that, instead of trying to increase federal involvement in health care, Obama/Clinton spends their time and energy putting our fiscal house back in order. All that will happen is a Republican will end up spending the money when they get back in power.

Seems like a classic variation on the tragedy of the commons.

When it comes to health care, especially preventative health care, personally I think it'd make far more sense to have the government handle the use of my money to help poor folk rather than "local aid groups". I do at least know that the government will be less likely to discriminate or push their beliefs in giving out benefits at least.

Besides, some local aid groups (like the Salvation Army) are just freaking evil sometimes.

Does the federal government dole that money out directly to people living in poverty? Or does the federal government dole that money out to other groups to dole it out to people living in poverty? In my mind, the more hands the money passes through the greater a chance that those people will not see a dime.

I've also seen a lot of people live off welfare and they would welcome universal health care. Maybe if the government evaluated families properly, there would be enough money for the real poor people instead of the people living off the government.

++


Last I checked, we had some of the lowest, if not the lowest, tax burdens in the developed world.


Because most government employees engage in this type of behavior, obviously....

Depends on the plan, of course. I believe most plans have the government working as a basic level of insurance or helping people get very cheap insurance (rather than just giving $$ to the people) for preventative & catastrophic care.

It's amazing to me that those that have been crying about the "severe loss of liberties" (not to mention deficit spendings) these past 7 years are readily willing to give the federal govt more powers, more expenditures and more blackmail at the expense of states rights. Haven't you seen the results of "nationalized" programs and the various "War on ---" these past 40 years? Now you somehow expect them to do this right???

Buc: I'm actually for national healthcare because I think it's the single biggest thing we could do for business. I know HR folks that spends hours every week dealing with healthcare and not their business. Compared to the rest of the world it's a huge competitive disadvantage.

I'll freely admit it can be a disaster, but because it can be fucked up isn't a reason to say it must be fucked up. There are several examples of national healthcare working and the task would be to emulate what works as opposed to what doesn't. Will it be difficult, of course, but that doesn't mean I'm willing to say the current system is the best we can come up with. Currently we spend more per capita and get less than many other countries. Our high end care is the best in the world, but our day to day care is mediocre at best.

Healthcare also won't be much of a drag on states' rights as long as it's done well. Of course I'd easily sacrifice some theoretical states' rights for systems that cost less and work better. We pay for a national healthcare system already it's just that now over thirty percent gets spent n overhead.

Marginal tax rate for most people according to the National Bureau of Economic Research is 40%. Frankly, I don't give a damn how that compares to other countries.

And no, most government employees don't engage in that type of behavior. According to the audit, only 1 in 2 do. As Cartman pointed out:


Your answer, I'm presuming, would be to further increase the size of government in order to provide stricter scrutiny for the government employees and their use of government issued credit cards?

Sorry for threadjacking, btw. We can still talk about Obama's changing stance on public financing for his campaign. :)

If you can't see the difference between invading privacy of individuals and having the government help out those who cannot afford health insurance or prevent middle class folk from getting their savings wiped out by a catastrophic medical event, then we can't help you.

And as pointed out, plenty of examples around the world of national healthcare working. Are there craptastic systems? Sure... but that doesn't mean they all are or have to be.

I fail to see how "half the transactions" equals "1 in 2" government employees abuse the system. This argument by you, above, is called manipulating numbers... or you didn't notice the transactions part in the article (I'd imagine those who are scamming Uncle Sam are making far, far, far more transactions on their government card than those who are playing by the rules.

So, you have a middle-aged man paying $200 a month (pre-tax) for good health benefits through his employer for his entire family and he gets to choose his own doctor and specialist for a low copay and high quality of service. Somehow telling that man now that he must pay more in taxes for coverage not as good for his kids is LESS of an invasion than forcing certain people to go through extra inspections when boarding a plane?

According to the US Census, almost 85% of US citizens have health care coverage. Out of the remaining 15%, 12% are kids under the age of 18. 25% are people who make under $25,000. Why not start with a process to address those two areas and then take inventory after? If you found a way to take a bit out of those two areas, over 90% of Americans would have insurance. Then, take a look at options on improving catestrophic care.

Scrapping the whole system and starting over seems like a huge waste. It would be like saying because we have 5% unemployment, we should send welfare checks out to Bill Gates to make sure everyone gets a paycheck. Fix the areas that have problems and leave the vast majority of people that currently have quality coverage alone.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/10/us...0campaign.html



Are you fucking kidding me? Talk about "politics as usual"!

I'm opposed to nationalised health care, because I feel like the government has already mucked up almost anything it can get its hands on. The only thing I think that it can do is merge all of the federal health care programs it already manages into one bureaucracy and make that the program for health care for those who don't have it or can't get it. I think covering kids always makes the most sense, but if there are working adults who can't get coverage, then I feel like they ought to get some semblance of care too.

I do think getting companies out of the health care business would be super sensible, because with bloating student loan debts for many younger workers and shrinking retirements for many older ones, giving people more access to their money while they are healthy (rather than shifting it to paying for health care plans they never use) is just a smart way to motivate and invigorate a workforce.

I feel like we already have federal health care, between the VA system, the screwed up military system, the health care plan that federal workers get and of course, Medicare and Medicaid. If they can't find a way to envelope that junk into some sort of streamlined health care bureaucracy, then how do they expect us to buy that their new "Americare" would do just the trick to "helping the children" as they say.

It's my biggest quibble with the Dems, because I feel like any reasonable person would be fine with setting aside a small part of cash each year to help those who don't have health care. But to basically say that we all have to adopt some crappy plan that we don't want and that'll be forced out of our checks just like FICA, Income taxes and all of the other stuff they take out now are..is just unacceptable.

Like it or not, we are taxed ridiculously in this country and the "benefits" we receive aren't anything close to be comparable to "those in other countries."
The ones who are hurt the most by the tax burden aren't people who make over $100,000 a year or two-income families who earn over $75,000. It's people who are making less than that, who are working class and who don't know anything about shielding income, capital gains taxes or anything else.

But I guess the Dems are too busy fighting each other to get off the grid and think about that. Not that the GOP are lining up to do anything about it, either. Which exposed the fraud of the current political landscape.

More in taxes for basic coverage for those who cannot afford it. His kids may get just as good coverage through their jobs when they get older. They'd still be covered under his employer's plan until they reach the age when they get booted.

And yes, that is far less of an "invasion". The middle aged man is already paying taxes for social security, medicare, etc, etc. An increased tax burden to help the poor recieve preventative medical care and, perhaps, catastrophic medical care to be covered is not all that much of an imposition.

The other benefit, of course, is that hospitals that around said middle aged man may not have to close because they are getting too many emergency patients who don't have insurance (IIRC, a major hospital in NJ just closed because of that).


Um... the vast majority of people WOULD be left alone. I mean, do you really think that most people would leave their employer sponsored plan to jump on a very, very basic health plan, which may cover, what one doctor's visit a year and a few preventative measures?

I don't think any of the Democratic candidates since Kucinich dropped out were proposing a single payer system.

Hillary Clinton's is the most encompassing, IIRC, and her plan consists of offering the choice of government private health insurance plans (ie, what federal employees get). In addition, tax rebates to low income individuals and small businesses to make insurance affordable. And some more requirements for insurance companies (such as in coverage). I'm not sure how that's replacing anything really, or even scrapping the entire system and starting over.

Um... what? What benefits do you see, say, European citizens get that are far better than American citizens (based on the comparative tax rates, which are much higher over the pond)?

As Arles has said several times, let's start with looking at those without coverage and go from there. For the 85% of us, we are paying a lot (in part because of the lawyers) but we also demand good health care.

The "lawyers" thing is complete bullshit. Studies have shown that medical malpractice costs only account for an incredibly small amount of increased insurance costs. Most of it is due to insurance companies jacking up rates (even while they try to screw people on their plans).

And, apparently you aren't aware what the plans are, giving people the option of choosing an employer sponsored, private, or government sponsored plan with tax breaks for poor individuals for health care and small businesses to offer health care plans is a very effective way of providing health care to those without coverage. How else would you provide health care to those without coverage (and locate all of them as well)?

See, this is where I saw some double-speak on the side of the nationalized health care crowd. On one hand, a benefit is to get employers out of the business of managing heath care (like JPhillips says above), yet one of the fallbacks is "well, if they don't like the national care, they can just stay with their employer". What happens when many employers decide (esp for middle class jobs) that they really don't need to provide health care anymore because of the national plan already provided? So much for choices then...

Why stop at healthcare, then? Why not tax him for everytime he takes a crap to use the toilet so that better toilets can be built in other neighborhoods or everytime his kid uses a phone so that kids in other neighborhoods can have better phones? The problem with these nationalized health care plans is they stick it to people making 40-60K who have solid health care, but barely get by. Now, this guy making 50K has to keep his $200-300 a month coverage to get his kids good coverage, but also pay $200 a month in taxes so that other people can have health coverage when he's struggling as it is.

Uninsured cost is a major issue (esp out here in Arizona). That's why I said look at a way to cover kids under 18 and a base plan for people who make under 25K. We also need to find a way to get a better handle on illegal immigration. But none of these issues involve creating a blanket health care plan that can cover Bill Gates and Warren Buffet.

You really think that the moment this gets passed, a bunch of low to middle class jobs won't just drop health coverage for their workers? There are two reasons for an employer to offer health coverage: 1. entice people to work for them. 2. Public pressure to provide coverage. If you remove number 2, then there is no reason for every middle to low skill job (ie, easily replaced) to provide health coverage. Then, we have most jobs under 50K not offering health care. So, what happens if this government plan doesn't work out from a quality/cost standpoint?

Having the government cover people who already have solid insurance is a terrible thing to do. Not only is the cost an issue, but you risk losing the system that is currently working for much of the middle class. Just focus on the groups that don't have it (and really need it). If you find better ways (maybe through tax incentives) to help small businesses better afford coverage, cover kids and cover people under 25K, you've essentially solved the "health care crisis". Not to be heartless, but it's not the government's job to cover a 22-year old single guy who passes on health care coverage from his employer to have more beer money.

No, you're right. I should've edited that. Still, are you okay with "half the transactions" being improper? Is that a sign that the government bureaucracy is being managed well?

It isn't necessarily to get employers out of the business of managing health care, but making health care more affordable. Coverage of those in poverty will drive down hospital expenses (due to not losing a ton of indigent patients) and thus premium costs (though some regulation will also have to account for that). It has really been the rapid rise of health care premium costs which have hurt American business in competition with firms from the continent.

And some businesses may drop their health care plan, but then others that offer it will be more attractive for employees (benefits are, of course, a form of pay).


Because certain folks believe basic guarentees of healthcare is a basic human right, and we'd rather not have hospitals be stuck with the bill (and have to fold or charge insane hospital costs to recoup the lost money), but for it to be spread out over society.


You mean a mandated national health plan for kids under 18 and those under the poverty line? Why is an option for a government subsidized plan that much worse? I doubt many people who have jobs with decent health care are going to drop it for the basic government plan.


No, I don't think those jobs will just drop health coverage. First of all, they won't get the tax breaks for having a health plan and there will always be in competition to entice people to work for you and someone will be offering coverage.

As for the quality/cost standpoint, there are plenty of available insurance providers under government health care plans. If you don't like the quality/cost of one, transfer to another during the next open enrollment period.

Government health care is really just the government, using its bargaining power and economies of scale to get lower premiums from insurance companies. You realize that, right? Currenly I'm on the Federal Employees Program with Blue Cross / Blue Shield of Georgia. I'm quite positive that I probably pay a little bit more than plenty of large scale private employers.


A) You do realize that both the Clinton and Obama plans have a central piece tax incentives for small businesses, right?
B) The 22 year old single guy will still have to pay premiums, so if he passes on health care coverage from his employer, it isn't like he's going to paying all the less on a government sponsored health plan.

We have barely any problems with government charge cards in our agency. Though a few years back there was one guy who was gaming the system (he was fired and almost thrown in jail). Sometimes you have managers who are on top of the ball on these things and sometimes you don't. The only way to really deal with it is to do more thorough investigation of travel vouchers, really.

For what it is worth, whatever Cartman quoted was not what the report said, which is on my desk as I write this. The statistic being referred to is that 41% of the purchase card transactions audited by GAO were either not authorized properly by superiors or that the goods had not been received and signed for by someone other than the person making the purchase. The number of actual improper purchases -- the lingerie, iPods and big dinners -- is only a fraction of this. But still disturbingly high and needs to be addressed.

And, yes, the answer is to increase the respective Inspectors General in each agency to ensure that the cards aren't abused. Typical of this Administration and the past leadership in this Congress, they substantially cut back on the IGs accross the board. If no one sees it, it isn't a problem! In this case, adding to government increases efficiency.

Cam: The 40% number is right, but using it as you do is misleading. I'm not an expert on tax policy so I can't explain it well, but there is often a substantial difference between marginal rate and effective rate. Americans are not paying 40% of their income in taxes.

And as Chesapeake said, the credit card issue is a problem, but Republicans have spent a couple of decades wrecking government and then claiming that incompetence proves that government can't work. I'd also like to put those numbers in context by comparing them to private industry. At first glance I would guess that there isn't much difference.

On healthcare, I differ from Siddiqui and both candidates in that I would go for single payer or nothing. I think adding another layer of complexity onto our already impossible system will be much more likely to fail than starting over.

If I run a factory with a fairly high turnover rate or another low-skill job, why would I offer health care coverage? To me, the ones that keep it are the white collar jobs. Meanwhile, a lot of the middle class blue collar workers may be forced to join the federal plan.

That's great in theory, but how is it better for 2000 middle class workers to pay more so that one hospital can pay less?

For the same reason having unemployment available to unemployed people is OK, but having unemployment checks available to everyone is wasteful. Target the areas where most people need the help, then take another look. No need to throw the baby out with the bath water here in trying to address the 15% without coverage.


I think this is a good idea. Like I said above, targeted actions to improve certain areas through tax incentives is the way we should start this. Not come out with a blanket government HMO everyone has to pay for whether they need it or not.

No, but the point is if you think health care coverage is a major issue, you should focus on the high return areas like kids, small businesses and people making under 25K. There are plenty of single guys between the age of 18 and 26 not covered, but for many that is a choice they make. Citing the fact that they are not covered to justify a national plan is faulty, IMO.

I know people who prefer to be contractors rather than full-time employees, so they don't have to get company health care and get can get paid 20k more money. I didn't realize this was a practice by many, but have to come to understand that it is in high-growth industries or those where the money flows.

I'd much rather have a job that paid more and where I could secure my own health insurance plan. But right now? It's not even a choice. A national plan would just shift who steals the money from my check for coverage I might never use.

It's what Bush was talking about in his poorly worded part of his SotU address about 'gold-plated' health plans and how we need to shift this from employers to employees and make the market more competitive, by giving people real choices.

Government plans won't work, no matter how idealist and warm and fuzzy they make modern liberals. They already fail in the status quo and I can't see how Hillarycare (Pt. 2) or ObamaCare will do anything to make this situation better, short of giving us wispy platitudes about sick kids who can't get health care or parents who work lots and can't get it either.

A federal plan is simply not the way to go.

Where exactly does this idea come from? I think people are imparting what THEY believe a universal health care plan to be rather than looking at the ones advanced by Clinton or Obama.


And they can continue to not make that choice. They'll just have to help out a bit in paying for those who can't afford anything else.


A better analogy is the government offers a choice between offering unemployement checks from the government, or payroll checks from your employer. Even that fails at some level because any government plan gives you a wide variety of choice among different insurance agencies. It'd basically be treating those without coverage as they were getting employer health care and offering another choice to those who already have employer health care.


Why do they offer it now?

The problem with minimal heathcare policies is that when you need better coverage for a major accident or illness someone is going to have to pay. It isn't like home owner's insurance where you'd lose your house and be able to move on. We aren't going to let the 25 yaer old with leukemia die because he has minimal insurance.

In theory competition and shopping around sounds great, but if that policy isn't enough the hospital, which ends up meaning the patients, is going to get stuck with the costs of treatment. If we're going to look at the morality of forced insurance we need to include that side as well.

WHY?! does people on the modern left feel like everyone has to be entitled to stuff? Why do folks feel like there should be a bevy of government programs in place that many of the people who actually need them will refuse to use because of the stigma, feel like we need to create an extra layer of safety net for people who are on the absolute bottom?

What is the marginal benefit to another apparatus for what amounts to more and more government waste? Or is that part of the whole "greater good" element involved in "you get to live here, so you can contribute..."

As if that well-intentioned boondoggle entitled Social Security isn't enough of a fraud, trying to create another government sponsored ponzi scheme intended to help, when all it'll really do is fail to yield any effective results, given the track record of what's already out there in the status quo.

As an incentive to work there. The problem is if the government starts offering health care there are one of two things that happens:

1) The employee takes the system offered by his employer and pays for this program and the government program.

2) The employee declines the system and goes on the government program.

Neither case is really all that great in my mind.

What would be great, but would never happen, is that the government could put out three insurance programs. These are offered to uninsured families. One is $25 per month, one is $50 per month, and the other is $100 per month. Let he uninsured decide what they want. If they decline, screw 'em they wanted a free meal ticket.

DC: I truly believe that we can create a single payer system that provides the same level of care at a lower per capita cost. That doesn't mean that a piece of legislation won't fuck it up, but everything I've read makes it clear that we spend more for less than most other countries. Health care isn't anywhere close to efficient now as upwards of one third of every dollar spent goes to overhead. Just in the area of preventive care tracking and data management we could save billions, but there is little incentive for nay healthcare provider to invest in that when people switch coverage so often.

I'm also firmly of the belief that a single payer health plan will put billions into the bottom line for U.S. businesses. The time and money that's spent by HR departments on healthcare related work is staggering.

I'll freely admit that some people will pay more under a single payer plan then they do now, but overall I do believe that costs will be reduced if it's done well. The one area I'll agree with you and Buc is that there is too high a liklelihood that Congress will fuck it up. I just think that the possibility of failure isn't a reason to abandon hope.

This is an overlooked point. Insurers have little incentive to pay pennies for prevention in order to save dollars in treatment years down the line. Each insurer figures that the odds are good that someone will change jobs a few times and end up on some other insurer's plan when the costly treatment is needed.

Again, a tragedy of the commons. If we could (through whatever mechanism) make it likely that the insurance company in charge of your preventative care would be in charge of your treatment, then they would have an incentive to reduce costs in the system and invest more in prevention.

I don't have any answers. I just like saying "tragedy of the commons."

It isn't necessarily the "modern left". Public opinion polls have shown that a majority of Americans don't think our health care system is sufficient. There is a reason that every Democratic candidate had to have a health care system (or wanted a system) to be a viable candidate. That's the way the country is headed. Sure, it's about decades behind other Western industrialized countries, but too many horror stories and dealing with evil insurance companies have convinced folk that something needs to be done.

They don't want single payer (and hardly any Dem candidates actually offered that), but they do think people who can't go in for preventative health care should be offered a choice to be able to do so. Kind of like how food stamps are considered something we should do for people, that is why a reasonable oppertunity of health care should be offered.

As I said, some believe it is a basic human right. And plenty of people don't consider Social Security to be a failure, btw (now if they could only keep their grubby mitts out of the surplus that had come out of it in order to pay for higher costs during baby boomer retirement, things may have been easier).

I do know that tragedy of the commons is common in modern tragedy.

See, I think these polls are extremely faulty to draw conclusions from. Take the NYT/CBS poll done in March here:

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/CBSNew...ealth_care.pdf

1. 64% feel the government should guarantee coverage for all people.
2. 30% feel the government will do better than private, 44% think they will do worse.

Interesting logic. Basically, a large chunk of people in this poll feel they should have a system worse than the system they have right now - and that's their "solution".

3. 90% say they think fundamental changes need to be made or the health care system completely rebuilt. 38% are somewhat or very satisfied with the quality of care in the US.
4. 77% were either somewhat or very satisfied in their own personal coverage quality.

So, again, most feel the country is terrible at health care and we need fundamental changes. But, they are happy with the current system they have individually.

Again, this is like all the doom and gloom economy polls where people are happy with their financial situation, but worried about their neighbor. In essence, according to these polls, we get the following info:

People feel satisfied with their own coverage and don't think the government would do as well. But, major changes need to be made and that the government should run it.

Makes a ton of sense, doesn't it? All these polls reflect is the guilt people with good coverage have - so, we end up with these grand schemes to fix a problem that really isn't nearly as bad as most make it out to be.

Let's say you actually sat down with one of these mysterious survey respondents, and he said this to you:

I have a job, and I'm fairly secure. With my job I get health insurance, and that doesn't seem like it's going to change. So, my coverage is basically okay -- I might not love everything my HMO does, but I get the care that my family needs.

Meanwhile, my brother lost his job last year, and now he doesn't have health insurance any more while he is looking for real work. He got ill last month, and had to go to the emergency room, and he couldn't pay for it. As I understand it, the hospital basically just eats that cost, and basically send the bill to the people who do pay for their care -- people like me, even though it's supposedly my employer who is paying for my coverage. They could be giving me that extra money instead of spending it on inflated premiums.

I guess I'm glad that my uninsured brother got his emergency treatment, but it seems dumb that everyone else pays for it. It also seems dumb that he and his pregnant wife don't go to the doctor for checkups because it would cost them $100 to do so, and they don't have the $100. They aren't dirt poor, but times are tight and it seems they would be making better decisions if this were out of the day-to-day mix for them. I wonder what might happen to me if I lost my job... I might end up in just the same situation, and I'd hate to have to decide whether I pay the electric bill or take my kid to the doctor.

If that's a fair statement about a person's state of affairs... isn't it conceivable that such a person could indeed honestly respond to questions that:

-Yes, my current coverage is okay
-I still think this overall system should be better

I think you and I are far more close on the view of this than it seems.

I don't know we'll avoid some measure of a federal health care programme. I don't think people should have health care that shifts each time they change a job and the current economies of scale don't really allow anyone to have "portable" health care and neither the proposals on the Democratic or Republican side address the issues as I think they're being experienced by people who live in the "real world."

My personal position and my pragmatic political position on the issue are different. I realize the pragmatics behind altering the status quo and realize that it's going to result in some semblance of government managed health care. They're already in the business of it, so my position is, fix it and create a system that works...versus just slapping more layers and more taxes on trying to add a new layer to a bloated system that's not working very well to begin with.

I'd love to have a situation where we can lower the tax burden and begin to revolutionize the way Americans view personal responsibility and the role of government -- especially at the federal level.

But I see no indication of any sort of tide heading in that direction, which leaves me far more pragmatic about a solution that would at least get us to a place where what we have works efficiently (at least, as efficiently as one can expect a large federal bureaucracy to work)

I just have a hard time reading well-intentioned, but misguided logic that says "OMG, we have to HELP!?! Tax the people who have moved up the chain, because it's their fault?!"

I know that's not what's being said, but...in the end, I just can't rationalize any system that hitches its wagon to the most vulnerable of those in the middle class. We should do what we can to help those at the bottom have at least basic medical care and services and increase access to quality medical support around the country.

That would require an investment of private and public sector dollars in areas that we've just ignored. I don't know if a government health care system of any kind would help this, but if it were to be devised, it would have to be targeting more heavily the areas that need primary care the most, because that's almost as much of a problem as the lack of health insurance for people..is the lack of available care in rural or micropolitan areas.