Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I would have thought one of the major reasons for the Keating ads would be to take advantage of the current issues with Wall Street. Just as people are a bit annoyed with Wall Street fat cats, remind them of McCain's association to them.

Basically the same reasons Arles gives for Swift Boat above make sense for "Keating-Boat" right now.

After watching that McCain/Keating video, it's clear that the point of it is as much about attacking McCain's judgement on economics as it is about tying him to Keating and attacking McCain's integrity in the process.

It'll be interesting to see what the general themes are that McCain and Obama are trying to hit tomorrow - does McCain pick up the ball from Palin and continue the Ayers attacks, and if so, does Obama respond with counter attacks or does he attempt to re-direct the discussion back to other issues?

I agree with the idea that, since Obama holds a big advantage right now, he should avoid letting himself get dragged into a mud-wrestling contest. On the other hand, he can't completely ignore it either. I think as long as he lets the DNC and others pick up that fight for him while he keeps his talking points on the stump related to the economy and Iraq, he'll maintain his lead (if not increase it) as he appears to stay above the fray.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Radii

I agree and this worries me greatly, but for me at least, the concerns of having more supreme court justices nominated by the right is a much greater worry. This is important, and its going to bring about some stupidity, but secondary to the court IMO.

I can accept that except why swing it all the way over to the other extreme? Instead of Thomas and Scalia, we would have more Ginsberg and that is just as bad. Look, there are 5-4 rulings that should go right and other rulings that should go left. I don't want all rulings to go left any more than I want all to go right. Do you think an Obama-Reid partnership would want a Kennedy-like jurist?

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I can accept that except why swing it all the way over to the other extreme? Instead of Thomas and Scalia, we would have more Ginsberg and that is just as bad. Look, there are 5-4 rulings that should go right and other rulings that should go left. I don't want all rulings to go left any more than I want all to go right. Do you think an Obama-Reid partnership would want a Kennedy-like jurist?

Certainly not, because any suggestion that he's moderate is ridiculous and certainly not supported by statistical measures. Kennedy votes with Alito more than he votes with any of the liberals. Furthermore, the next two justices to go are likely Stevens and Ginsburg, so appointing a moderate in their places would make the court tilt to the right even more than it does now.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Dude, McCain's health plan is some of the scariest crap I've heard in a long time. He's going to tax worker-plans to give a $2500 health care credit.

a) $2500 does not come close to paying for health insurance. You are going to be paying a whole lot more than that

b) Private (non-group) health insurance sucks bad. They will not pay for anything, and drop you in a heartbeat if you get too expensive. Without the protection of a group (where they'd lose a lot more than your single policy), you better never get sick.

c) Companies (like mine I'm sure) are going to stop paying for insurance all-together because it is already very expensive. Add to it taxes and the fact that you now can supposely get your own with this health credit, there is no reason for small-medium size businesses to continue providing coverage.

d) McCain has already bragged to the insurance companies how he plans on deregulating them "like we did banking." Who-hoo! No regulations on an already crooked industry while giving us even less and less power by removing us for group coverages!

The good thing about this I guess is once more and more people get dropped from work coverage and learn how crappy indiviual coverage is, then maybe there will be enough outcry to actually help people instead of lining the insurance companies pockets.

I would say that neither McCain or Obama's health care plans stand a snow-ball's chance in the nether region of making it through congress. They're nice campaign ploys, but utterly meaningless when choosing the next president. The health care system has its hands in way too many congressmen for either plan to pass.

Also, as an aside, do people really think companies will stop providing health insurance? I thought this plan was just to cover those who currently lack coverage. Any major/medium company that pulls insurance will be killing themselves as no quality people would work there.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Arles

Any major/medium company that pulls insurance will be killing themselves as no quality people would work there.

Unless the majority of them do, in which case it becomes far less a factor in employment.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

a) $2500 does not come close to paying for health insurance. You are going to be paying a whole lot more than that

Agreed.

Private (non-group) health insurance sucks bad. They will not pay for anything, and drop you in a heartbeat if you get too expensive. Without the protection of a group (where they'd lose a lot more than your single policy), you better never get sick.

Disagreed. I've had a much better experience with private coverage (except for cost) than I ever had with any employer group plan. And I mean by such a wide margin that it isn't even close.

From a cost standpoint I wouldn't mind going back to some sort of group, but from a service standpoint we've done an exponentially better job selecting the right coverage for us than any employer ever did.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Unless the majority of them do, in which case it becomes far less a factor in employment.

I can't see McCain's plan having that effect on major employees. I could maybe buy that with Obama's, but the sense of entitlement that exists for employer health plans would make Enron look like it got "a little bit of bad press" for the first major company to pull coverage. And, until major companies do it, there's no way that medium sized ones can as most of the workers would leave for other companies. Unemployment in the skilled jobs isn't nearly to the point where people would stay in jobs that have no health care.

I can tell you that our company would have a max exodus tomorrow with people leaving for Intel, microchip, Motorola and American Express (all close nearby) the second we did.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Disagreed. I've had a much better experience with private coverage (except for cost) than I ever had with any employer group plan. And I mean by such a wide margin that it isn't even close.

From a cost standpoint I wouldn't mind going back to some sort of group, but from a service standpoint we've done an exponentially better job selecting the right coverage for us than any employer ever did.

Really- that refreshing to hear as it runs counter to everything I've heard with one exception (BCBS of KS was supposed to be quite good but you pay insane amounts for it). Who do you get yours through?

SI

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Really- that refreshing to hear as it runs counter to everything I've heard with one exception (BCBS of KS was supposed to be quite good but you pay insane amounts for it). Who do you get yours through?

Since we opened our own business 11 years ago, I believe we've been with three different companies. (Incidentally, that's fewer insurers than we had in the same time when insured through work). I believe the present one is Globe (although we may make a change after a bit of a rate bump in the latest premium cycle). The others I don't even recall the names off the top of my head to be honest, but never had a claim denied or disputed. Hell, even my cancer-survivor wife has gotten reasonable service from an insurer who took her on after her illness. They seem a little slower in processing claims at times but I've heard nary a whimper from any of the providers about that, they appear to be accustomed to it.

It's definitely not cheap, but there were ways to make it somewhat bearable in our case and they're head & shoulders better to deal with than the various insurers that I had the misfortune to inherit through work in the past. I wouldn't give you a bucket of warm spit for most of them, especially Blue Cross, who ought to just be taken out & shot one joint at a time if they give everyone as much headache as they gave us.

[larrymcg421]

More Fox News/Rasmussen state polls...

OH: McCain 48-47
FL: Obama 52-45
VA: Obama 50-48
CO: Obama 51-45
MO: Obama 50-47

McCain can't afford to lose any of these states.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

c) Companies (like mine I'm sure) are going to stop paying for insurance all-together because it is already very expensive. Add to it taxes and the fact that you now can supposely get your own with this health credit, there is no reason for small-medium size businesses to continue providing coverage.

The best argument, in my opinion, for Single-Payer Health Care is that it'll free up businesses to not have to worry about administering or paying for it anymore.

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Research 2000 has a new poll out for the Georgia Senate race which shows only a 1 pt lead for Saxby Chambliss. This confirms the SurveyUSA poll that showed a 2 pt lead for Saxby. Chambliss was up by 18 in mid-September so this is very encouraging.

Couldn't happen to a more deserving slimebag.

Originally Posted by Arles

Also, as an aside, do people really think companies will stop providing health insurance? I thought this plan was just to cover those who currently lack coverage. Any major/medium company that pulls insurance will be killing themselves as no quality people would work there.

You're thinking about it the wrong way. Companies aren't going to drop health coverage overnight. They will (and indeed many already do) slowly lower the amount of premium they're paying into the plan, and choose less costly (and less comprehensive) health plans.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Couldn't happen to a more deserving slimebag.

Heh. Still touchy because he took out his sorry excuse for a predecessor?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Heh. Still touchy because he took out his sorry excuse for a predecessor?

Not that he took him out, but the way in which he took him out. I would hope that even you would agree that attacking the patriotism of a triple-amputee veteran should be beyond the pale.

[QuikSand]

Hope dies hard.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

You're thinking about it the wrong way. Companies aren't going to drop health coverage overnight. They will (and indeed many already do) slowly lower the amount of premium they're paying into the plan, and choose less costly (and less comprehensive) health plans.

That's just a cost issue and will happen independently of any government plan. Health coverage (just like salary, bonus, upward mobility, hours flexibility) is simply a way to entice people to come work for you. If people start dropping or significantly reducing coverage, they will get worse people.

This isn't the 1930s mob where Microsoft, Walmart, IBM, Ford, McDonalds and Pepsi are all going to sit in a back room and conspire to all drop health coverage together. The first company to significantly reduce (and/or drop) coverage will be:

A. Plastered all over 60 minutes/media
B. Face a mass exodus on all their talented skilled labor/workforce

Given it would take around 400-500 companies to take the risk for A and B and I think that's not very likely anytime soon. Much more likely would be some "government sponsored" safety net plan to help offset the costs of cancer/life-saving drugs/catastrophic issues and thereby cut down the cost for businesses. But, I think it's a bit "boogeymanish" to think that we're going to have a bunch of businesses raising copays/premiums to huge amounts after either plan is enacted. When you take into account how neutered either plan would need to be to get through congress, chances are it will only impact self-employee/uninsured at this point (which isn't a bad thing).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Not that he took him out, but the way in which he took him out. I would hope that even you would agree that attacking the patriotism of a triple-amputee veteran should be beyond the pale.

Not one bit. His actions after getting himself blown the fuck up infinitely outweighed any claim to patriotism he may have ever possessed.

Or would you still paint Benedict Arnold as a "patriot" simply because he once served the right side?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Arles

That's just a cost issue and will happen independently of any government plan. Health coverage (just like salary, bonus, upward mobility, hours flexibility) is simply a way to entice people to come work for you. If people start dropping or significantly reducing coverage, they will get worse people.

This isn't the 1930s mob where Microsoft, Walmart, IBM, Ford, McDonalds and Pepsi are all going to sit in a back room and conspire to all drop health coverage together. The first company to significantly reduce (and/or drop) coverage will be:

A. Plastered all over 60 minutes/media
B. Face a mass exodus on all their talented skilled labor/workforce

Given it would take around 400-500 companies to take the risk for A and B and I think that's not very likely anytime soon. Much more likely would be some "government sponsored" safety net plan to help offset the costs of cancer/life-saving drugs/catastrophic issues and thereby cut down the cost for businesses. But, I think it's a bit "boogeymanish" to think that we're going to have a bunch of businesses raising copays/premiums to huge amounts after either plan is enacted. When you take into account how neutered either plan would need to be to get through congress, chances are it will only impact self-employee/uninsured at this point (which isn't a bad thing).

The scenario you paint was also the sentiment when companies started doing mass layoffs in the 70s, which was something that had never been done on a large scale before by companies that weren't shutting down. Sure the first few big companies to do it took a huge PR hit, but eventually it became an accepted way of cutting costs. I can easily see dropping health care following a similar path.

[larrymcg421]

Heh. I knew whatever Jon came up with would be pretty amusing. I'm certainly surprised anyone thought he would answer differently. I would've been shocked if he had.

Oh, and Saxby Chambliss is a racist, vile piece of putrid shit and I hope Georgia voters wise up and kick his ass all the way from Atlanta through Savannah and into the Atlantic ocean so the slimy, traitorous scumbag can float away and never be heard from again. Just in case anyone was wondering.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Saxby Chambliss is a racist, vile piece of putrid shit .............................................. so the slimy, traitorous scumbag

You don't like him then

[gkb]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Hope dies hard.

This should be the next Bruce Willis movie.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by cartman

The scenario you paint was also the sentiment when companies started doing mass layoffs in the 70s, which was something that had never been done on a large scale before by companies that weren't shutting down. Sure the first few big companies to do it took a huge PR hit, but eventually it became an accepted way of cutting costs. I can easily see dropping health care following a similar path.

Well, the media and job market are a completely different animal than in the 70s. Still, even if everyone dropped employer coverage tomorrow, guess what the number one business opening would be? Health insurance broker.

This doomsday of a large portion of our workforce going with no healthcare outside of a "cobra-esque" crappy plan is lunacy. I don't see companies dropping healthcare anytime soon and if it does ever happen, there will be an affordable industry (hopefully not the government) waiting with open arms for the people no longer under employer health care. Again, of all things to worry about in the next few years, losing affordable health coverage should rank slightly above the fear of meteor strikes.

Now, if you want to talk about better ways to cover small business and the millions of kids without health insurance, we can have a good discussion with some things that should be done. Still, employer health care isn't going anywhere until it can be outsourced to a similar cost/benefit private provider. And I don't see that happening anytime soon.

[JPhillips]

Arles: You're leaving out a critical part of the equation. If employers can't deduct health costs suddenly their tax burden is greatly increased. A lot of companies would continue to offer health care, but a lot couldn't afford to.

McCain's whole plan is based on the idea that many Americans, particularly young workers, have too much healthcare. He's trying to create a plan where people overall have less coverage.

[miked]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Not one bit. His actions after getting himself blown the fuck up infinitely outweighed any claim to patriotism he may have ever possessed.

Or would you still paint Benedict Arnold as a "patriot" simply because he once served the right side?

Reason #47 people are under the impression that southerners are an unintelligent and intolerant (yes, I've seen your sig).

FWIW, the reason he called him unpatriotic was because of a way he voted on a UN inspection issue, which Chambliss's party leader (Bill Frist) voted the same way. He won his campaign on nothing else other than smearing a person who gave up a lot to defend his country. He's a disgusting slimebag of a person and the only reason he's in office is probably because he got a bunch of rednecks all fired up about "American values" and the state flag. He's done absolutely nothing except listen to Rove. Since he's been in the house (since 1995), he's sponsered about 110 bills, 100 that have never made it out of committee. Though he was a sponsor of Res. 308, a resolution to congratulate the little league team from Warner Robbins. Reading his list of sponsored bills is like reading Mad magazine, but hey, they took yer flags.

Maybe we can get rid of Purdue as well, who's idea of creating solutions to problems is holding mass prayers on the capitol steps. Maybe that's why we still have no gas around here, he needs to hold another prayer service for shipments.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by miked

Though he was a sponsor of Res. 308, a resolution to congratulate the little league team from Warner Robbins.

I'm thinking that this wasn't the best move in regards to your argument. There's not a congressman who hasn't sponsored one of these do-nothing bills/resolutions during their time in Congress.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'm thinking that this wasn't the best move in regards to your argument. There's not a congressman who hasn't sponsored one of these do-nothing bills/resolutions during their time in Congress.

When that is one of the only things you've sponsored that has made it out of committee, it absolutely helps his argument.

[miked]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'm thinking that this wasn't the best move in regards to your argument. There's not a congressman who hasn't sponsored one of these do-nothing bills/resolutions during their time in Congress.

Absolutely it is. It is one of the few to make it out committee. If you read his sponsored legislation, most of it is crap. He's a racist, do-nothing scumbag that made it to office because he had the help of Rove and took advantage of a turning sentiment in Georgia that Sonny "they took yer flag" Purdue helped initiate.

I'd be shocked if Jon (without help of the interwebs) could tell me why Cleland is so unpatriotic and bad for Georgia, whereas Chambliss is so great (though I suspect he doesn't really hold Chambliss in high regard).

[lungs]

Originally Posted by miked

I'd be shocked if Jon (without help of the interwebs) could tell me why Cleland is so unpatriotic and bad for Georgia, whereas Chambliss is so great (though I suspect he doesn't really hold Chambliss in high regard).

I'd bet he could. The D next to Cleland's name is probably good enough for Jon.

[JPhillips]

It's funny that people still don't know what to expect with Jon.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Not one bit. His actions after getting himself blown the fuck up infinitely outweighed any claim to patriotism he may have ever possessed.

Or would you still paint Benedict Arnold as a "patriot" simply because he once served the right side?

Well, I do have a different definition of "treason" than you do.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by miked

Absolutely it is. It is one of the few to make it out committee. If you read his sponsored legislation, most of it is crap.

That's my whole point. There's plenty to point out on the negative side of his legislation.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Someone needs to tell Barney Frank to put a cork in it. The Dems have to be really careful about overplaying the race card, especially in a situation where he was so wrong.............

Frank says GOP housing attacks racially motivated

"They get to take things out on poor people," Frank said at a mortgage foreclosure symposium in Boston. "Let's be honest: The fact that some of the poor people are black doesn't hurt them either, from their standpoint. This is an effort, I believe, to appeal to a kind of anger in people."

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Not one bit. His actions after getting himself blown the fuck up infinitely outweighed any claim to patriotism he may have ever possessed.

Or would you still paint Benedict Arnold as a "patriot" simply because he once served the right side?

Okay, who else thought he was talking about McCain here?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Although it's obviously politically motivated, I do like the precedent that this sets. Any move that people can make to get more citizens to vote or get young people into the habit early on is a good idea IMO.

Can Falwell's University Tip Virginia To McCain? : NPR

[Butter]

Obama's people have been all over Ohio trying to get college students to register and vote at the same time during the late registration/early voting period over the last couple of weeks. I think yesterday was the last day of the register/vote-at-the-same-time combo. I guess time will tell how effective any of these pushes are. Although, cancelling classes seems unnecessary and over-the-top.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Obama's people have been all over Ohio trying to get college students to register and vote at the same time during the late registration/early voting period over the last couple of weeks. I think yesterday was the last day of the register/vote-at-the-same-time combo. I guess time will tell how effective any of these pushes are. Although, cancelling classes seems unnecessary and over-the-top.

I guess my point had less to do with the registrations and more to do with the idea that colleges and work locations should give people more options to vote.

[larrymcg421]

I think it'd be pretty funny to see how someone like Bill O' Reilly would react if a school with Democratic ties, say University of Miami, canceled classes on election day.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I guess my point had less to do with the registrations and more to do with the idea that colleges and work locations should give people more options to vote.

It would be better to move the vote to the weekend, but that presents its own unique set of logistical difficulties.

[albionmoonlight]

I don't think that it would hurt once every four years to make that day a holiday. You could even take away one of the other Federal holidays to make up for it. Columbus day maybe.

Of course, people would be pissed to lose a three day weekend once every four years in order to get that Tuesday off. And people might even try turning it into a four day weekend--though November isn't really the best time to be four day weekending.

Anyway, it might or might not help to make that a holiday. I like the symbolism of it--but I do wonder if it will get anyone else out to vote vs. the way it is now.

[larrymcg421]

Fire Saxby Chambliss

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I don't think that it would hurt once every four years to make that day a holiday. You could even take away one of the other Federal holidays to make up for it. Columbus day maybe.

Of course, people would be pissed to lose a three day weekend once every four years in order to get that Tuesday off. And people might even try turning it into a four day weekend--though November isn't really the best time to be four day weekending.

Anyway, it might or might not help to make that a holiday. I like the symbolism of it--but I do wonder if it will get anyone else out to vote vs. the way it is now.

I actually agree. I think election day in the country should be a holiday.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

I know I should agree with you all, but the thought of promoting those who can't be bothered to vote currently (which means, more likely than not, that they're probably more politically uninformed) doesn't seem like the best idea.

That's the other side of it. Even if given the opportunity, I don't know how many of Liberty University's kids will actually bother to vote that wouldn't have voted before. Perfect example was all the fuss about the Ohio 'same-day registration and voting'. There was a big fuss by Republicans about the possibility of voter fraud and the Democrats were trying to organize a huge effort to register a bunch of new voters (they said they would fill bus after bus with people and register them to vote). When the final tally was taken, it looks like no more than several hundred people registered and even less voted. All that effort provided very few additional voters.

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Someone needs to tell Barney Frank to put a cork in it. The Dems have to be really careful about overplaying the race card, especially in a situation where he was so wrong.............

Probably a good call. Leave race-baiting to the likes of Sarah Palin.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

When the final tally was taken, it looks like no more than several hundred people registered and even less voted. All that effort provided very few additional voters.

I think the truth is somewhere between the Obama campaign's wish of tens of thousands and "several hundred".

[Butter]

So, the 2nd debate is tonight. Given the utter sterilization of the format, is there anything either candidate can do in the debate to move voters? Are there more numbers for Obama to move his way, or is he at his peak with nowhere to go but down? Can McCain show his softer side and get the middle class to believe he is on their side?

In my opinion, McCain needs to come out and not look angry. I saw tape of him last night just essentially berating America for not looking at Obama's character more closely... and it did not look good. He looked angry and frustrated. That will not play well if he plays up that side tonight.

[Subby]

Turkey Neck University Students Too Stupid To Attend Classes, Vote on Same Day.

[larrymcg421]

The key thing now is that Obama is above 50% in most national polls and also in most of the battleground state polls. McCain is going to have to move those people. The undecideds won't do it for him. However, his negativity in the previous debate played pretty poorly, so he's got to be careful not to lose some of his own independents in the process.

[JPhillips]

Blaah, pre-screened questions with no possibility of followup by the questioner or Brokaw.

[molson]

I think making election day a federal holiday would kill turnout.

I for one would never vote again (expect possibly by absentee ballot).

You have 13-hours to vote for god's sake. If there's a problem with lines, the answer is more widespread electronic voting technology. Or more states could vote-by-mail like they do in Oregon.

[Butter]

From the Liberty U. story:

"North Carolina is going to go red," she says. "I'm not really too worried about that, and I am nervous about the outcome of Virginia. I feel like my vote may be a little more important here."

So, I guess she doesn't watch the polls too carefully, eh?

Even better than that is that the whole page when I got it is brought to you by the new movie "Milk". Awesome.

[molson]

LOL at people who think their vote "counts more" in a close state than a state who's outcome is more sure.

Nobody individually is going to be the deciding voter in any state. Vote what you believe no matter where you are.