McCain hits a home run

[T Park]

This would be the first time I ever heard that.

3rd grade, 8th grade, whatever, I know that they always reference him when talking about him not having a more than a ____ education. Can't remember what it is off the top of my head.

[whottt]

W barely passed his courses and it's obvious his daddy had a hand in it. "C" average... by the grace of daddy's money.

Obama was from a relatively poor family. He EARNED his way into Harvard and instructed at the University of Chicago, the latter of which is not well known but has always been one of the top 10 universities in the country. It's not a status-university, and if you don't know your shit there they will kick you out instantly.



I never said Obama wasn't smart....

[Nbadan]

i think it's funny how Wing-nuts always bring up absurd exceptions to make their point - like the whole white conservative thingy - but, but......Condi Rice is black -- get the fuck out of here.... you don't hear Demos pulling out token blacks...

[ducks]

I never said Obama wasn't smart....

I will say he is stupid

[whottt]

W barely passed his courses and it's obvious his daddy had a hand in it. "C" average... by the grace of daddy's money.


No shit...that's why I said I think it's where rich idiots go to get degrees to prove they aren't idiots.


Thank you for agreeing with me.

[ducks]

i think it's funny how Wing-nuts always bring up absurd exceptions to make their point - like the whole white conservative thingy - but, but......Condi Rice is black -- get the fuck out of here.... you don't hear Demos pulling out token blacks...

who cares what color your skin is

[timvp]

Apparently, he just got stupider.

My condolences.

:lol

Truthfully though, I don't think he got "smarter" than he was four years ago. He does have an impressive piece of paper now that cost I don't know how many tens of thousands of dollars.

Oh and yeah, the average Yale student would make Nbadan seem conservative.

[Cry Havoc]

3rd grade, 8th grade, whatever, I know that they always reference him when talking about him not having a more than a ____ education. Can't remember what it is off the top of my head.

:lmao

Way to prove how stupid those people who go to college are.

[ducks]

I bet it is close to $50,000.00

[Nbadan]

No shit...that's why I said I think it's where rich idiots go to get degrees to prove they aren't idiots.

It's also where the economists go that say that the Bush economy is growing and inflation is next to nothing...so you may have a point...

[T Park]

i think it's funny how Wing-nuts always bring up absurd exceptions to make their point - like the whole white conservative thingy - but, but......Condi Rice is black -- get the fuck out of here.... you don't hear Demos pulling out token blacks...

WTF are you babbling about now soldier hater?

[Kori Ellis]

Depends on how you decide to educate yourself.....you want a dime a dozen business degree? Psychology? Or a profitable science degree?

I'll agree with this (even though I have my dime-a-dozen MBA :lol). Some social science/liberal arts degrees are pretty useless unless you are planning to go onto grad school to teach. I know many people who go get an undergrad liberal arts degree and then get the same job that they could have gotten straight out of high school.

Though honestly I don't knock anyone for going to college because I think it's an great life-learning experience.

Obviously if you are getting into the sciences, medicine, law, etc, then those degrees are essential.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

3rd grade, 8th grade, whatever, I know that they always reference him when talking about him not having a more than a college education. Can't remember what it is off the top of my head.

Fixed it for you.

He was an unenthusiastic student, but he still graduated with a degree in physics.

[Mr. Peabody]

Timvp speaks the truth...


Bill Gates had no college education when he founded Microsoft....

Bill Gates went to Harvard University and was an exceptional student there. He also met many of his future business partners there. He eventually dropped out, but to say he had no college education is slightly misleading. He had a better college education most people.

I also think you have a slight problem with causality here, but I do understand the point you are trying to make.

[baseline bum]

3rd grade, 8th grade, whatever, I know that they always reference him when talking about him not having a more than a ____ education. Can't remember what it is off the top of my head.

You heard wrong. Einstein got degrees in math and physics.

[whottt]

What really scares me is that while Republicans knew Bush wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed(and that wasn't why they voted for him), the Democrats actually thought Kerry was intelligent. He was as stupid as Bush, worse at business...and more beholden to his Father.

[ducks]

romney said he would run in 2012 if McCain loses

[timvp]

Speaking of Bush, I thought it was interesting that McCain even acknowledged him. Many were expecting he wouldn't even say that word during his speech. Bush bashing has become so prevalent it now borders on cliche. McCain bit the bullet on that one and got it out of the way.

Come November, I might halfway root for Obama to win just because it'd be hilarious to see what those people who live life just to bash Bush end up doing. That outrage and hatred that is so hip to display vanishing overnight might be too much for some to handle. Where all that energy will end up going I have no idea.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

I'm already tired of hearing "hockey mom".

[whottt]

Bottomline is that Obama, McCain, Palin and Biden are all better communicators than the guys in 04 and smarter than the guys we had to choose from in 04...which was the worst group of candidates in American history. We're going to be better off(or at least more at peace) no matter who wins.

[T Park]

Speaking of Bush, I thought it was interesting that McCain even acknowledged him. Many were expecting he wouldn't even say that word during his speech. Bush bashing has become so prevalent it now borders on cliche. McCain bit the bullet on that one and got it out of the way.

Come November, I might halfway root for Obama to win just because it'd be hilarious to see what those people who live life just to bash Bush end up doing. That outrage and hatred that is so hip to display vanishing overnight might be too much for some to handle. Where all that energy will end up going I have no idea.


:lol

Ya know, theres a part of me that wants to see him elected, then he says something stupid or fucks up and then lets see what the Jon Stewarts and Bill Mahers of the world would do.

[whottt]

BTW timvp...I wasn't trying to take a shot your bro. Had no clue he is going to Yale when I made that statement. I imagine he's pretty smart.


You are one of the smartest dudes I know when the subject isn't basketball :toast

[T Park]

I'm already tired of hearing "hockey mom".

I'm tired of the BS "More of the same"

[T Park]

Bottomline is that Obama, McCain, Palin and Biden are all better communicators than the guys in 04 and smarter than the guys we had to choose from in 04...which was the worst group of candidates in American history. We're going to be better off(or at least more at peace) no matter who wins.

The only hope I have if Obama wins, is the Republicans gain some seats, their sanity and fiscal responsibility and we go back to the Clinton days.

[Whisky Dog]

I'm tired of election year. Wish it was over.

[timvp]

Bottomline is that Obama, McCain, Palin and Biden are all better communicators than the guys in 04 and smarter than the guys we had to choose from in 04...which was the worst group of candidates in American history. We're going to be better off(or at least more at peace) no matter who wins.Very true.

Obama >>>>>>>> Gore

Obama >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kerry

Bush made more than his share of mistakes but it's not like America made a horrible mistake re-electing him. The only thing Kerry had going for him was his last name wasn't Bush. That was about it.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

I'm tired of the BS "More of the same"

Well, McCain should say how it will be different.

They're running ads here where McCain says the exact same line about the economy that W did. To a T.

My question is simple: How?

[timvp]

BTW timvp...I wasn't trying to take a shot your bro. Had no clue he is going to Yale when I made that statement. I imagine he's pretty smart. Eh, he'd probably agree with what you said.


I hate Avery.

Fixed.

:hat

[T Park]

Well, McCain should say how it will be different.

They're running ads here where McCain says the exact same line about the economy that W did. To a T.

My question is simple: How?


For one he wouldn't sign every GD bill that comes across his desk like Bush did last year.

I also believe hes alot smarter than Bush so thats a step up too :lol

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

As it stands right now, I think Obama says too much and McCain doesn't say enough.

61 days and a third of that I'll be spending in the EU. Rather interested to see what their take is across the pond.

[DarkReign]

Fixed.

:hat

A hockey reference?

[whottt]

Bush made more than his share of mistakes but it's not like America made a horrible mistake re-electing him. The only thing Kerry had going for him was his last name wasn't Bush. That was about it.


Bush isn't near the demon everyone thinks he is, and he definitely loves America. I can't even believe people actually wonder about that. He wants to be John Wayne...that is who he is. Wannabe Cowboy/Texan to the Core...what pissed me off is when people said he was a stupid Texan. He's from Connecticut or something, he's a Yankee.


...but he is also definitely the idiot everyone thinks he is. And he is a horrible communicator which is why he's such an easy target.


But I am not kidding when I say Kerry is every bit the idiot Bush was, plus Bush had more ethics and was a smarter businessman. I watched Bush build the Texas Rangers from a de-facto minor league team to one of the most valuable baseball franchises, and he actually made them winners. And in the process he turned his 600 thousand dollar investment into probably 50 or 60 million dollars in about a 10 year period, and none of that was due to his Dad other than maybe the initial 600k investment. Kerry hasn't ever done anything like that...he married the ketchup woman.

[Kevin Blackistone]

PHOENIX, AZ—According to campaign sources, Joseph Chappel, a 38-year-old speechwriter for Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), has spent the last two weeks attempting to combine words and phrases in such a way as to not provoke a tight-jawed, dead-eyed smile from the presidential hopeful. Dreading a repeat of last month's speech to a group of businesswomen in Ohio, during which McCain followed a mention of his wife with an awkward and eerie smirk, Chappel has avoided personal anecdotes for the new speech, omitted any mention of "God" or "this great nation," and cut several phrases that had the potential to draw the 72-year-old candidate's mouth open in a horrifying display of teeth and gums.

"I've managed to make two out of every three sentences a question, but I'm not sure that will help," Chappel said shortly after deleting an introductory paragraph in which McCain welcomes the crowd. "Jesus, that [smile] makes me feel cold inside."

Chappel told reporters that if he is not able to write an appropriate, smile-free speech in time for the Republican National Convention, he will resign his position and return to his previous job, taking photographs of abused children for police reports.

Link (http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/mccain_speechwriter_trying)

[Kamala]

Bush going to Harvard was a great accomplishment.

It does not change the fact that he will most likely will be known as the worst president in modern history and Iraq is his legacy. If you're going to fuck things up might as well go all out.

[whottt]

The only hope I have if Obama wins, is the Republicans gain some seats, their sanity and fiscal responsibility and we go back to the Clinton days.



Obama is nothing like Bill Clinton fiscally...Bill Clinton was basically an economic genius and if anything his economic policies are conservative. Obama is basically a socialist...

He's Jimmy Carter...not Bill Clinton. Nontheless, he does seem to figure out stuff as he goes along.

Really he doesn't know shit about shit except how to get elected and he's been so busy doing that he's never actually had to do anything else.

[whottt]

It does not change the fact that he will most likely will be known as the worst president in modern history and Iraq is his legacy. If you're going to fuck things up might as well go all out.


Sometimes those unpopular Presidents turn out to be pretty important historically...John Quincy Adams may be the only President in history that rivals Bush in being villified...he was the son of a President just like Bush, and lost the popular election just like Bush...he's also the guy that made it possible for slavery to be ended in the United States by Abraham Lincoln.


America didn't fuck the ME up...Europe and the UN did(and they want to keep it that way BTW). IF Iraq holds up Bush is the guy the broke the first stone in that alltime clusterfuck...

[boutons_]

"Obama is basically a socialist."

slime, no evidence, EVER. just robotic Repug slime talking point

[Mr. Peabody]

And BTW, College is also liberal brainwashing...so you could say it makes you stupider.

So then Palin is 5x stupider.....?

VP hopeful Palin attended 5 colleges in 6 years

By NICHOLAS K. GERANIOS – 9 hours ago

SPOKANE, Wash. (AP) — Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin attended five colleges in six years before graduating from the University of Idaho in 1987.

Federal privacy laws prohibit the schools from disclosing her grades, and none of the schools contacted by The Associated Press could say why she transferred. There was no indication any of them were contacted as part of the background investigation of Palin by presidential candidate John McCain's campaign.

Hawaii Pacific University - fall 1982
North Idaho College - spring 1983 through fall 1983
University of Idaho - fall 1984 - spring 1985
Matanuska-Susitna College - fall 1985
University of Idaho - spring 1986 - spring 1987

[sabar]

And BTW, College is also liberal brainwashing...so you could say it makes you stupider. I'd say it takes some people decades to get over the stupidity hammered into their skulls in college.

Only if you go to "renowned" institutions. I haven't had any propaganda taught to me and I'll be graduating next year. Maybe it's because I took a real subject (math/science) instead of something like english/arts/business.

I'd say it's the period of time and the experience that makes so many 17-24 year olds lean so far to the left. You would think they got over being rebels after not being teenagers anymore. Nope. I get FAR more left-leaning propaganda from other students than I do professors. People asking to join their group, to read their handouts, etc, etc.

[Mr. Peabody]

Only if you go to "renowned" institutions. I haven't had any propaganda taught to me and I'll be graduating next year. Maybe it's because I took a real subject (math/science) instead of something like english/arts/business.


Would you necessarily know if you had any propaganda taught to you? Also, I would think that in realm of science you are taught some things that people on the right would consider to be propaganda.

[whottt]

"Obama is basically a socialist."

slime, no evidence, EVER. just robotic Repug slime talking point



Nationalized health care...community organizer...promising all the poor an asswiping state.


Sorry boutons, classic socialist beginning.


Why are you debating this as if you aren't pro socialist anyway?

[PixelPusher]

Setting partisan ideologies aside for a moment, if you really want to know what is at the rotten core of "our great national problem", it's exemplified by this "debate" over whether people should even bother with a college education. I love it when people always cite Bill Gates as their example for why it's cool to not bother with an education. Bill Gates dropped out because, well, he's really fucking smart - in fact, a hell of a lot smarter than you. And he's also an autodidact (someone who is self taught, often from reading copious amounts of books), so he's also a hell of a lot more knowledgeable about what is going on in the world beyond the corporate offices in Redmond.

But you keep on pretending some goddamn secret genius by not furthering your education. If nothing else, your contempt for education makes you more quintessentially American than anything else.

[whottt]

I still don't get why the party that is always talking about how fucked up and incompetent the government is wants to put them in charge health care.....that's ignorant. It's puts our health entirely at the mercy of a government...that's insane. What really gets me is you think the Democrats are more honest than the Republicans are or something.
The government is more rife with corruption than the Insurance companies are...the insurance companies have to stay somewhat legitimate to stay in business...the government doesn't.

Goddamn you guys are stupid.

[Mr. Peabody]

Nationalized health care...community organizer...promising all the poor an asswiping state.


Sorry boutons, classic socialist beginning.


Why are you debating this as if you aren't pro socialist anyway?

If by nationalized health care, you mean universal access to health care, then I guess you're right. What a terrible goal.

Also, I like the attacks on community organizers. Nothing like attacking those who try to help others for very little pay or recognition.

KGWthR7vdfI

[whottt]

Only if you go to "renowned" institutions. I haven't had any propaganda taught to me and I'll be graduating next year. Maybe it's because I took a real subject (math/science) instead of something like english/arts/business.

I'd say it's the period of time and the experience that makes so many 17-24 year olds lean so far to the left. You would think they got over being rebels after not being teenagers anymore. Nope. I get FAR more left-leaning propaganda from other students than I do professors. People asking to join their group, to read their handouts, etc, etc.


The most leftist indoctrination I ever got in college was at ACC by a French Teacher. Every other sentence was some socialist anecdote. And he was a likeable guy too. Effective as hell.

[whottt]

If by nationalized health care, you mean universal access to health care, then I guess you're right. What a terrible goal.

It is...governments are inherently corrupt. Every government, every form of government, every political party etc. You don't want them powerful dude, the more powerful they become, the less powerful we become.







Also, I like the attacks on community organizers. Nothing like attacking those who try to help others for very little pay or recognition.



Oh yeah...Obama was all in it to help others and doesn't care about recognition. That's why he stuck with it for so long.


He stayed with it long enough to register enough voters to get himself elected. Smart guy...no doubt about it.


I tell you what, you go check out how some of the great dictators of the 20th century got their start...

I am not saying Obama is that...but he is telling everyone what they want to hear, only a fool thinks he can keep all the promises he is making.


There is no fucking way he is going to raise corporate taxes and create jobs at the same time...do you expect corporations are going to hire more people when they are making less money?

Do you expect them to stay here and pay the highest corporate tax rates in the world?

You tell me how that works...you think the rich are going to have more venture capital when they are paying more taxes? How does that work?


And no new industries are going to appear just because Obama wants them too either.

[Mr. Peabody]

Oh yeah...Obama was all in it to help others and doesn't care about recognition. That's why he stuck with it for so long.

He did it for three years. Is there a minimum amount of time before such service is meaningful?

The fact is that he was a graduate of an Ivy League School and took a $13,000/year job for three years helping others. You can be cynical about it all you want, but the guy had other options available to him.


I tell you what, you go check out how some of the great dictators of the 20th century got their start...

Oh God. I've heard this BS used as an argument against atheism, patriotism, and increased national security measures.

If anything, you might want to look at how the American Revolution, Civil Rights Movement, and Chicano Movement got their start.

[PixelPusher]

I tell you what, you go check out how some of the great dictators of the 20th century got their start...

http://www.terrierman.com/hitlerterrier.bmpThat's Corporal Adolf Hitler on the right
http://br.geocities.com/camaradasadico/stalin.jpgJosef Stalin (Commies can be militaristic, flag waving nationalists too)
http://www.achart.ca/publications/images/amin_dada_lg.jpgIdi Amin (received his military training by the British)
http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0ahn2EN2Xuegx/340x.jpgYoung Saddam Hussein, didn't let his failure as an assassin for the Ba'ath Party get him down...

Obama was never a member of any military or para-military force. What's your point?

[Mr. Peabody]

Obama was never a member of any military force. What's your point?
:lol:toast:lol

[whottt]

He did it for three years. Is there a minimum amount of time before such service is meaningful?

No, there's not.




The fact is that he was a graduate of an Ivy League School and took a $13,000/year job for three years helping others.

And it was the fast track to starting a political career for a guy with no connections. It was smart....I'm not saying it wasn't altruistic, seems to be, but there's no doubt it was a quick and smart way to start a political career as well.





You can be cynical about it all you want, but the guy had other options available to him.


I'm not being cynical...


But I don't think Obama is some guy who got where he is because he's got a heart of gold either...this fucker is slick and I mean slick. That's actually one of the things I like about him. He is smart.

As timvp noted, some one with that kind of slickness can accomplish a lot.

Bill Clinton was slick, and so was Ronald Reagan. As much as Reagan's nuclear strategy is credited with ending the cold war...his dialogue and ability to make friends with Gorbachaev was probably the key.


I just don't know what Obama's going to use his slickness for...and yes, he's given me enough reasons, through his associations to where negative options are under consideration. He's got some leftist connections dude...and I don't mean harmless social ones either.


I don't like some of what I see...I don't like some of his comments and I don't like some of his wife's comments either, they don't fit with my view of patriotism.

At the same time...I've noticed that he is willing to change his stance and move to the middle to Americas benefit...like he did on Iraq after visiting it.


The thing is...he makes too many promises to too many people and I know he can't keep all of them. I just haven't figured out why he's doing it yet...naivete or something else.

But he is definitely making promises he can't keep...






Oh God. I've heard this BS used as an argument against atheism, patriotism, and increased national security measures.

If anything, you might want to look at how the American Revolution, Civil Rights Movement, and Chicano Movement got their start.


And how many of those were started by guys that were running for President a decade later?

[Mr. Peabody]

And how many of those were started by guys that were running for President a decade later?

Hmmm...George Washington, James Madison, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Patrick Henry, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson. I would say that some of them did end up in politics.

As far as the Civil Rights Movement, they were fighting just to be recognized as equals in this nation. Is it any surprise that none of them were able to run for president during this time period?

[whottt]

http://www.terrierman.com/hitlerterrier.bmpThat's Corporal Adolf Hitler on the right
http://br.geocities.com/camaradasadico/stalin.jpgJosef Stalin (Commies can be militaristic, flag waving nationalists too)
http://www.achart.ca/publications/images/amin_dada_lg.jpgIdi Amin (received his military training by the British)

Touche....




http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0ahn2EN2Xuegx/340x.jpgYoung Saddam Hussein, didn't let his failure as an assassin for the Ba'ath Party get him down...

LOL you owned yourself on this one...since when do lefties admit Saddam was a dictator?





Obama was never a member of any military or para-military force. What's your point?

My point now is you just are seeing what you want to see.


For instance with Hiltler you merely point out his military career....

You didn't mention he was also:

an anti-war draft dodger
a bohemian
a painter
and a community organizer.

No one goes insane like a lefty ;)


And since he's also the only righty on your list...that's problematic.

[Mr. Peabody]

Touche....

My point now is you just are seeing what you want to see.

For instance with Hiltler you merely point out his military career....

You didn't mention he was also:

an anti-war draft dodger
a bohemian
a painter
and a community organizer.



I also noticed that three out of the four had mustaches and wouldn't you know....

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v177/tortillini/john20McCain.jpg

[mrsmaalox]

Nationalized health care...community organizer...promising all the poor an asswiping state.

Sorry boutons, classic socialist beginning.

Why are you debating this as if you aren't pro socialist anyway?

Obama isn't really proposing gov't run healthcare. No one is even required to participate (unlike Clinton's and Edward's plans). If you have insurance you like, you can keep it. But if you don't have insurance, it will be made available to you. And you can not be turned away for pre-existing conditions. Everyone will have the opportunity to buy into a health insurance plan like all federal employees have. If you can't afford it, likely unemployed, you will recieve a gov't subsidy. But employers will be required to offer coverage, and then they will recieve the subsidy.

McCain's plan shakes things up a bit more. As it stands now, employer offered insurance isn't taxed for the value of the benefit. If you are self employed you also aren't taxed for the full value of the benefit. But if you are not self employed and buy your own insurance you don't get any tax break. What McCain will do is tax everyone's health care benefit, no matter how they recieve it, then turn around and give every family a $5000 tax credit. This will supposedly make insurance more affordable. Unfortunately the average cost to insure a family right now is $13,000. So that needs to be worked out a little better. Also I haven't heard anything about adjusting for inflation; health care costs traditionally rise faster than the rate of inflation.

I'm not saying which plan is better, I'm just trying to (quite simply) clarify each proposal. :)

[whottt]

Hmmm...George Washington, James Madison, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Patrick Henry, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson. I would say that some of them did end up in politics.


False. And Samuel Adams never ran for President.


Amazing how you over look the role of the Puritans and the Quakers.





As far as the Civil Rights Movement, they were fighting just to be recognized as equals in this nation. Is it any surprise that none of them were able to run for president during this time period?

Twice.

[PixelPusher]

LOL you owned yourself on this one...since when do lefties admit Saddam was a dictator?
You can't "own" someone for a belief they've never professed to have. That's the kind of shit gtown pulls; don't be a douchebag like him.


My point now is you just are seeing what you want to see.


For instance with Hiltler you merely point out his military career....

You didn't mention he was also:

an anti-war draft dodger
a bohemian
a painter
and a community organizer.

No one goes insane like a lefty ;)


And since he's also the only righty on your list...that's problematic.
Obama isn't a draft dodger.
Obama was never a member of the military.
Obama never joined a political party that espoused a militaristic "we were stabbed in the back" political narrative.
Obama isn't a painter. (or failed painter)
Obama isn't a conniseur of Wagnerian Opera.
Obama doesn't hold rallies in Beer Halls denouncing Jews and Intellectuals.

So once again, what's your point?


and FWI, authoritarian and totalitarian dictators transcend liberal and conservative ideologies, which is why conservatives despise Hitler the same way liberals despise Stalin.

[whottt]

Obama isn't really proposing gov't run healthcare. No one is even required to participate (unlike Clinton's and Edward's plans). If you have insurance you like, you can keep it. But if you don't have insurance, it will be made available to you. And you can not be turned away for pre-existing conditions. Everyone will have the opportunity to buy into a health insurance plan like all federal employees have. If you can't afford it, likely unemployed, you will recieve a gov't subsidy. But employers will be required to offer coverage, and then they will recieve the subsidy.

McCain's plan shakes things up a bit more. As it stands now, employer offered insurance isn't taxed for the value of the benefit. If you are self employed you also aren't taxed for the full value of the benefit. But if you are not self employed and buy your own insurance you don't get any tax break. What McCain will do is tax everyone's health care benefit, no matter how they recieve it, then turn around and give every family a $5000 tax credit. This will supposedly make insurance more affordable. Unfortunately the average cost to insure a family right now is $13,000. So that needs to be worked out a little better. Also I haven't heard anything about adjusting for inflation; health care costs traditionally rise faster than the rate of inflation.

I'm not saying which plan is better, I'm just trying to explain how each will work! :)





I think the government should maybe take over catastrophic health insurance but I think the rest of the industry should remain privatized. Or hell just get rid of the insurance companies and go back to community doctors like we used for the first 300 years we were here.

The US Government cannot even get their act togther on health insurance for US soldiers...they aren't going to be able to do it for the country. Nor should they be trusted to. And of course most everyone is going to go for that insurance...

[whottt]

You can't "own" someone for a belief they've never professed to have. That's the kind of shit gtown pulls; don't be a douchebag like him.


Obama was never a member of the military.

Never said he was....neither was Mao at first.



Obama never joined a political party that espoused a militaristic "we were stabbed in the back" political narrative.

Hmmm...



Obama isn't a painter. (or failed painter)
Obama isn't a conniseur of Wagnerian Opera.
Obama doesn't hold rallies in Beer Halls denouncing Jews and Intellectuals.

So once again, what's your point?

That you are looking at things that you want to look at....

You overlooking beginning community movements by appealing to the poor or disenfranchised youth. Movements being the key word.




and FWI, authoritarian and totalitarian dictators transcend liberal and conservative ideologies, which is why conservatives despise Hitler the same way liberals despise Stalin.


Yeah but the lies they tell or the associations they form to get support come from either the right or the left.

[PixelPusher]

That you are looking at things that you want to look at....

You overlooking beginning community movements by appealing to the poor or disenfranchised youth. Movements being the key word.


Thank God Mother Theresa died before she could fulfill her lifelong mission to be Dictator of Calcutta.

...and Bono, I've got my eye on you, you rockin' Irish devil...

[whottt]

Thank God Mother Theresa died before she could fulfill her lifelong mission to be Dictator of Calcutta.

True...there are virtually no female dictators in history...thanks you for making that point. It's a very good and relevant one.





...and Bono, I've got my eye on you, you rockin' Irish devil...


Obama isn't a musician.

[bobbyjoe]

Obama isn't really proposing gov't run healthcare. No one is even required to participate (unlike Clinton's and Edward's plans). If you have insurance you like, you can keep it. But if you don't have insurance, it will be made available to you. And you can not be turned away for pre-existing conditions. Everyone will have the opportunity to buy into a health insurance plan like all federal employees have. If you can't afford it, likely unemployed, you will recieve a gov't subsidy. But employers will be required to offer coverage, and then they will recieve the subsidy.

McCain's plan shakes things up a bit more. As it stands now, employer offered insurance isn't taxed for the value of the benefit. If you are self employed you also aren't taxed for the full value of the benefit. But if you are not self employed and buy your own insurance you don't get any tax break. What McCain will do is tax everyone's health care benefit, no matter how they recieve it, then turn around and give every family a $5000 tax credit. This will supposedly make insurance more affordable. Unfortunately the average cost to insure a family right now is $13,000. So that needs to be worked out a little better. Also I haven't heard anything about adjusting for inflation; health care costs traditionally rise faster than the rate of inflation.

I'm not saying which plan is better, I'm just trying to (quite simply) clarify each proposal. :)

Thank you. Calling Obama's plan "socialized medicine" is deceptive and not accurate; it needs to be clarified. I think many have this image (and I believe someone in the RNC implied this as well) that no matter who you are, you have to go through levels of bureaucracy to see a doctor which is just absurdly false. If you have quality insurance right now, under Obama's plan, you'll be able to see whichever doctor you want and maintain your current health insurance provider.

Essentially, it's an additional payroll tax to US businesses who don't provide health insurance to help cover a percentage of the currently 15% of Americans who have no insurance. So there's no question the negative consequence of this is an additional level of taxation to business. It will be quite impactful no doubt because the % of American businesses who don't provide health insurance right now is quite high. The net result is probably costs being passed on to consumers and/or lower wages so that businesses can absorb this extra level of tax.

Personally, I think McCain's plan is one of the most laughable ideas I've ever heard about healthcare. I currently own a small business. We recently hired a manager who we were extremely excited about getting onboard. Great resume, great interview, etc. We wanted to get him health insurance to help get him on board but he was rejected by every insurance provider we contacted when we tried to get him an individual policy because of a preexisting condition (Diabetes). Our original hypothesis once we learned of his Diabetes was that the cost of insuring him would be higher due to the higher level of risk. We never thought he would just be flat out uninsurable, something we found absurd quite honestly. We had budgeted a much higher amount than a typical insurance policy costs as worthwhile cost of business. We felt despite the cost, the investment in him for our long term future would easily, easily be worth it.

It ended up that the only way we were able to get him insurance was through a group company policy. This drove our costs up quite a bit obviously, but it was well worth it in our opinion. With group policies, basically the younger and healthier end up subsidizing the older and sicker.

McCain's plan will ultimately as you say end or at least significantly limit employer-sponsored insurance. It will shift the onus on individual's to purchase health insurance on their own dime, aided by the tax credit you cite.

As you mentioned, one problem with this is that McCain proposes 2% per annum increases in the amount of the credit. Over the past 10 years, health care costs rise at a rate 3-4 times that. I would point out, though, that when you mention the credit is $5,000 and the cost is $13,000 (which is correct) that the theory is that since companies don't have to pay for expensive health insurance policies that they will end up paying higher wages to employees, which would bridge the gap you mention. Of course one side issue with this scenario is that the result would be inflationary and our economy actually has some serious inflation concerns currently due mainly to energy and food price escalation.

But the real problem with McCain's plan is that the people who are the most sick and thus have the greatest NEED for health care (the manager we hired had his Diabetes under control, has been a great asset for our company and was not insurable as an individual) will simply NOT be able to purchase health insurance under the current rules insurance companies play by (permitted to deny coverage opportunity due to existing precondition). This would only exacerbate the current problems in our health care system.

I like John McCain, but it's simply an asinine proposal. This doesn't even mention that when large businesses or large governments are buying medicine, health insurance, etc they have serious buying power and can negotiate prices where individuals can not with near the level of success. McCain's proposal would never pass, but the mere fact that he really thinks this is the fix to our problems is very disconcerting to me and shows that on this particual issue he's seriously out of touch.

I would like to ask this question to those who say that "governments are inefficient, governments are corrupt" etc (much of which I completely agree with) and as such should be uninvolved with our health care crisis.

Please explain to me how other countries with UHC are able to provide a level of healthcare which meets or exceeds America's in every key health care measurable (life expectancy, infant mortality rate, preventable deaths, doctor/patient interaction) at a fraction of the cost?

Is our government inefficient? Obviously. But is it more inefficent than every other govt that offers UHC? Most countries spend 1/3 to 1/2 of what we do on a per capita and GDP basis, cover a higher % of their population than we do, and yet score better in key health care measurables.

By nature, I am a person who does not believe in excessive regulation or taxation. I'm very conservative economically. However, I also recognize that some level of government involvement and regulation can be beneficial. When the private sector acts unscrupulously in a way that results in a net negative for America, government must intervene and seek to solve problems.

And as great as it is in most areas, sometimes the private sector DOES fail (see the recent housing crisis spurred by ridiculously loose underrwiting from overzealous lenders) and it has when it comes to healthcare in America. I would argue that no issue in this year's election is more important when you look at how complex the problem really is to solve and the implications for our long term economy are huge.

Health care costs are a serious drag on the economy and are projected to increase to 20% of GDP in 3-4 years. In most countries they run about 6-9%. This hurts the ability of US businesses to compete globally and gives America the unfortunate distinction of having the highest % (amont wealthy, industrialized nations) of its' population deprived of the security of something so basic, fundamental, and vital as access to basic healthcare. What in life afterall is more important that one's health?

I don't propose that Obama's plan is the best route to go or even a fundamentally solid plan. But compared to McCain's, it's just a no brainer IMO. I don't stress about this in the sense that I think McCain's plan is such a joke it would never merit serious consideration, but I fear that if elected this means 4 years of just letting the problem get worse and worse (at least from the executive branch as I highly doubt Mrs. Palin will be a mover and shaker on this issue)...And we'll all be worse off for that, regardless of what party you belong to.

[bobbyjoe]

As I was watching McCain's speech, I predicted this would happen.

Last night's speech by Palin was basically a regurgitation of every Republican talking point we've heard the past few months, mixed in with some personal narratives to introduce her to America. It hardly was visionary or very original (just talking point after talking point) and it was obvious that it was written mostly by speechwriters. But Palin is attractive and she delivered it well. Plus the buildup to it was huge. So it's annointed by the media as some incredible, awesome speech.

Then you have McCain, who actually showed flashbacks to his true 2000 maverick self with some attacks on his own party, moments of introspection and admissions that are almost unheard of from a politician. He should be getting huge, huge kudos for originality, sincerity, and also for a mainly high-road, positive speech (very unlike the condescending, sarcastic, oh so typical of today's political climate speech by Palin). But of course McCain is "old" and awkward as a public speaker, so the speech is downplayed and written off as paling in the shadows to this "great" speech by Palin.

McCain's speech was very good and very surprising. It's unfortunate that style is valued so much more than substance right now...Maybe not a homerun, but a solid double or triple.

[rascal]

Golly, I never knew John McCain was a POW before the 172,726 mentions of it tonight.

No mention of how he dumped his first wife because of her appearance after her car accident.

[JoeChalupa]

The speech was a real snoozer and the teleprompter is a must for McCain. That being said I do think the Palin/McCain ticket is stronger than ever and it will very tough for Obama to win.

[whottt]

bobbyjoe, you can sit there and say that UHC works well in every Western country that practices it and I can find evidence to refute that. That's typical Michael Moore BS...

But the main thing I can point out...they don't have the US economy, they don't have it's number of people, and they don't have it's government.

First let's deal with just the government sponsored aspect of it...


Here's what I do know...the US Military, Medicare and Medicaid are the closest models we have for Government Sponsored Health Care and my experience with those three is as a bill collector for a few months, and that system sucks. It is a complete clusterfk. The doctors suck(and it's BS that the government is just going to foot a portion of the bill for whatever the doctor charges). IOW you will not be able go anywhere you want...that is complete bullshit. If it sounds too good to be true, it is...

But anyway...the main accounts for the company I worked for were medical debts and everyone one of them was hospitals wanting to collect huge bills from individuals believing they were covered by Champus, Medicare or Medicaid. Just because they tell you you're getting health insurance doesn't mean they're going to cover you for eveything. You can be denied service, you can be on the hook to pay for all of it. Basically the government wants to pay them a certain amount for those bills, and the doctors want more...guess who pays when the government decides it doesn't want to pay?

That's not really a socialized system..that's just a system where the US Government is the insurance provider...on a limited scale, and it sucks. It is a clusterfk.

Once you get into a couple hundred million people doing it, you will have people going to the doctor for everything...how long do you think that is going to last? You think that is going to be cheap? You think the wealthy are going to foot that bill for long?


That's when it becomes socialized...and that's when the doctors say fuck off.


The best policy and one I don't hear mentioned often is that the government sponsors some kind of catastrophic illness health coverage. That won't be abused, the government can sign contracts with doctors at set prices for certain surgeries, they can get wholesale cost on healthcare devices needed for catastrophic illness.

That takes the HMOs off the hook for the huge stuff which should lower their costs immediately and leaves the malpractice lawyers mainly squared off against the malpractice lawyers serving in congress...


Then you have to worry about the medicine..and anyone who wants the government to provide their pills is insane...that is the one area you never want to trust the government.

[boutons_]

"Number of sentences in John McCain's acceptance speech about his experience as a POW in Vietnam: 43.

Number of sentences about his 25 years in the House and Senate: 8."


http://www.alternet.org/election08/97667/mccain_uses_his_big_speech_to_give_us_a_tour_of_hi s_vietnamese_prison_cell/



WC was correct (Wesley Clark, not Wild Cobra). Being a tortured POW is no qualification for being head of the Executive branch.


"Some say" that McSame is unwilling to talk about his POW experience, but clearly his mentions his POW experience constantly, including heavily repeating it in the biggest speech of his career.


The tactic is to elicit sympathy for the POW, to create a fake HERO with an untouchable halo, rather than address problems facing USA. Emotional, fake patriotic Repug bullshit rather than substance.


And since being a POW has been McSame's core identity forever, he was correctly, patriotically, American-ly, honorably against torture for his entire post-POW life, until he turned chickenshit and caved into approving dubya/dickhead's torture program.

[boutons_]

Whott, where do lefties claim Saddam wasn't a dictator?

The justification and Powell's UN bullshit was to go after WMD, not to remove Saddam, which was just a obvious means to the WMD end. And of course, Saddam didn't throw the weapons inspectors out, dubya pulled them out so he could start his war-for-oil.

[florige]

The speech was a real snoozer and the teleprompter is a must for McCain. That being said I do think the Palin/McCain ticket is stronger than ever and it will very tough for Obama to win.


I think unless Obama/Biden really screws up bad, or the Rebub's dig up some more Jeremiah Wright type stuff on Obama the election is still the Dem's to lose imo..... I'm not sold on a few speeches.....

[bobbyjoe]

bobbyjoe, you can sit there and say that UHC works well in every Western country that practices it and I can find evidence to refute that. That's typical Michael Moore BS...

But the main thing I can point out...they don't have the US economy, they don't have it's number of people, and they don't have it's government.

First let's deal with just the government sponsored aspect of it...


Here's what I do know...the US Military, Medicare and Medicaid are the closest models we have for Government Sponsored Health Care and my experience with those three is as a bill collector for a few months, and that system sucks. It is a complete clusterfk. The doctors suck(and it's BS that the government is just going to foot a portion of the bill for whatever the doctor charges). IOW you will not be able go anywhere you want...that is complete bullshit. If it sounds too good to be true, it is...

But anyway...the main accounts for the company I worked for were medical debts and everyone one of them was hospitals wanting to collect huge bills from individuals believing they were covered by Champus, Medicare or Medicaid. Just because they tell you you're getting health insurance doesn't mean they're going to cover you for eveything. You can be denied service, you can be on the hook to pay for all of it. Basically the government wants to pay them a certain amount for those bills, and the doctors want more...guess who pays when the government decides it doesn't want to pay?

That's not really a socialized system..that's just a system where the US Government is the insurance provider...on a limited scale, and it sucks. It is a clusterfk.

Once you get into a couple hundred million people doing it, you will have people going to the doctor for everything...how long do you think that is going to last? You think that is going to be cheap? You think the wealthy are going to foot that bill for long?


That's when it becomes socialized...and that's when the doctors say fuck off.


The best policy and one I don't hear mentioned often is that the government sponsors some kind of catastrophic illness health coverage. That won't be abused, the government can sign contracts with doctors at set prices for certain surgeries, they can get wholesale cost on healthcare devices needed for catastrophic illness.

That takes the HMOs off the hook for the huge stuff which should lower their costs immediately and leaves the malpractice lawyers mainly squared off against the malpractice lawyers serving in congress...


Then you have to worry about the medicine..and anyone who wants the government to provide their pills is insane...that is the one area you never want to trust the government.

People not going to the doctor ENOUGH is one of the main problems with US Health Care.

Preventive medicine practices in America have fallen behind and are lacking.

When less people have access to healthcare and people feel they can't afford to go to the doctor, the opportunity for discovering ailments and diseases in early stages is greatly lower. Because of less interaction with doctors (which you seem to think is a good thing), people don't get as informed about lifestyle styles and traits they may have which are hurting their health.

The result is that many of these uninsured and marginally insured end up having much more extensive treatments and much more difficulty staying and keeping healthy. Too many don't go to primary care physicians regularly and instead wait until major problems hit when they are knee deep into real problems.

This spiral leads to much, much higher treatment costs. Because emergency rooms are federally required to accept all patients regardless of insurance status, the cost is born by the system one way or another. Hospital uncollectibles are shooting through the roof because many individuals end up opting for bankruptcy after realizing they are not covered by either the government or an insurance policy. All this means is that the healthy and proactive end up subsidizing the uninsured. The costs are flowing down to you one way or another.

We'd all be better off if a much higher % of Americans had health insurance, went to doctors regularly, and benefited from preventive medicine. We'd have a higher level of worker productivity. People who have health problems and issues and health related stress are distracted workers who can't maximize productivity.

You say you can find evidence to refute that countries that use UHC outperform America in quality? Here are some statistics of where we rank in life expectancy, infant mortality rate, costs as % of GDP, etc:

http://streetlightblog.blogspot.com/2007/03/some-statistics-on-health-care.html

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=692682

"Preventable mortality: The U.S. fell to last place among 19 industrialized nations on mortality amenable to health care—deaths that might have been prevented with timely and effective care"

Infant mortality rank: 26th among the world's top 30 industrialized nations

Life Expectancy: 42nd in the world (we were 11th just 20 years ago)

Again, it's a complete myth that UHC entails lack of choice among what doctors you go to (and no way would such a system ever happen in the US of all places). It all depends on how the system is structured (and you in fact, clearly misinterpreted the context of that comment from the previous post anyway as my point was under an Obama plan if you want to keep your current provider, you can go to whatever doctor you'd like which is undeniable fact)

Here are a couple examples of countries with UHC programs where you have complete freedom in what doctor you'd like to see. These countries both rank higher than America in almost every measurable health statistic and do so about 1/3 the cost on a % of GDP basis. How's that for a return on investment for US health care?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89651916

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89626309

Why isnt there revolt from the wealthy in any of the UHC countries about "footing the bill" (and how in the world did you arrive at that conclusion in the first place when the losers in a UHC system aren't the wealthy, but the doctors, insurance companies, and drug companies who typically face stringent regulation and price controls)?

Why do the citizens of UHC countries report a higher level of satisfaction in their health care system than Americans (across the board)?

This isn't about Michael Moore or any political movement. It's simply fact that we underperform and overspend when it comes to health care.

[whottt]

You said Western Countries...I can tell you the Asian diet is one far more healthy than the Western Diet...the health benefits of their diet, in particular Japan are legendary.


You want to go there bobbyjoe?


50% of Japanese men smoke cigarettes.....go check out their lung cancer rates.


It's easier for them to be happier, they're healthier, and it's not because of their healthcare system.


They also had no incidence of baldness prior to WWII before adopting a more Westernized diet.

[whottt]

http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/full/10/11/1193


Japan from 1992 to 1998. A total of 371 cases and 373 age-matched controls were interviewed in United States hospitals and 410 cases and 252 hospital controls in Japanese hospitals; 411 Japanese age-matched healthy controls were also randomly selected from electoral rolls. The odds ratio (OR) for lung cancer in current United States smokers relative to nonsmokers was 40.4 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 21.8–79.6], which was >10 times higher than the OR of 3.5 for current smokers in Japanese relative to hospital controls (95% CI = 1.6–7.5) and six times higher than in Japanese relative to community controls (OR = 6.3; 95% CI = 3.7–10.9).




American smokers have a 10 times greater chance of getting lung cancer than Japanese smokers...

Fishoil, seaweed and saki.

[whottt]

Meanwhile you got diabetes rates goint through the roof in the USA....not to mention heart disease...


And it's not because of our healthcare system...it's because of our diet.

[whottt]

Who knows...maybe getting nuked has longterm health benefits.

[JudynTX]

:lmao

-8BV8Dh8jGg

[cool hand]

You know the thread is coming and what the actual speech is like doesn't really matter so please start saying how McCain hit a home run right now. Lets stay ahead of the curve, imo.

:lol

[2centsworth]

Whott,

You must read "The End of Food", by Paul Roberts
http://www.houghtonmifflinbooks.com/books/EndOfFood.html

[fyatuk]

Start a thread showing a breakdown of how exactly McCain is going to get 270 electoral votes. Thanks.

Why would such a thing be necessary. We can pretty much say McCain starts out with 223, Obama 239 just based on states that don't really change (some get close, but rarely flip).

It's all going to come down to who gets Florida and Ohio again. McCain will take Florida since it's gone Republican the last two times, and McCain actually has some appeal with much of the Dems voter block there (retired people).

That leaves Ohio, which also has gone Republican the last couple times. Bush was Ohio by 3.5% in 2000 and 2% (with a majority) in 2004. Ohio will once again be completely innundated with political ads and will be THE battleground state. If McCain carries it as well as Florida (like he probably will), the rest of the swing states are meaningless because that gives him 270.

For the record, I predict a final tally of McCain 286, Obama 252.

[whottt]

When in doubt...find an honest doctor, who just so happens to be a politician...so how about Ron Paul:


In the days before Medicare and Medicaid, the poor and elderly were admitted to hospitals at the same rate they are now, and received good care. Before those programs came into existence, every physician understood that he or she had a responsibility towards the less fortunate and free medical care was the norm. Hardly anyone is aware of this today, since it doesn't fit into the typical, by the script story of government rescuing us from a predatory private sector.
Source: The Revolution: A Manifesto, by Ron Paul, p. 84 Apr 1, 2008

Private medical savings accounts, not government meddling
The most obvious way to break this cycle is to get the government out of the business of meddling in health care, which was far more affordable and accessible before government got involved. Short of that, and more politically feasible in the immediate run, is to allow consumers and their doctors to pull themselves out of the system through medical savings accounts.
Source: The Revolution: A Manifesto, by Ron Paul, p. 89 Apr 1, 2008

Insurance companies & gov't make healthcare unaffordable
Q: You say that insurance companies and government programs have made health care simply unaffordable. You objected so strongly to Medicaid that, as a doctor, I'm told, you simply treated patients on your own, at your own expense.
A: Well, we've had managed care, now, for about 35 years. It's not working, and nobody's happy with it. The doctors aren't happy. The patients aren't happy. Nobody seems to be happy--except the corporations, the drug companies and the HMOs.

Source: 2007 GOP primary debate in Orlando, Florida Oct 21, 2007


Socialized medicine won't work; nor managed care
You don't have to throw anybody out in the street, but long term you have move toward the marketplace. You cannot expect socialized medicine of the Hillary brand to work. And you can't expect the managed care system that we have today [to work, because it] promotes and rewards the corporations. It's the drug companies & the HMOs & even the AMA that lobbies us for this managed care, and that's why the prices are high. It's only in medicine that technology has raised prices rather than lowering prices.
Source: 2007 GOP primary debate in Orlando, Florida Oct 21, 2007

Managed care is expensive and hasn't worked
Q: What does your health care plan contain to address racial disparities in access to care?
A: We've had managed care in this country since the early 1970s, and it hasn't worked well. It's very, very expensive, and it's the fault that we changed our ERISA law and our tax laws that created this corporatism that runs medicine. Wall Street rakes off the profits. The patients are unhappy. The doctors are unhappy. And it's a monopoly now. Who lobbies us in Washington? The drug companies and the HMOs. They come. And now what is the cry for? Socialized medicine. That's not the answer. We need to get the government out of the way. Inflation hits the middle class and the poor the most. Those are the people who are losing it. We don't have enough competition. There's a doctor monopoly out there. We need alternative health care freely available to the people. They ought to be able to make their own choices and not controlled by the FDA preventing them to use some of the medications.

[whottt]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul339.html


Lowering the Cost of Health Care

by Ron Paul
by Ron Paul


DIGG THIS

As a medical doctor, I’ve seen first-hand how bureaucratic red tape interferes with the doctor-patient relationship and drives costs higher. The current system of third-party payers takes decision-making away from doctors, leaving patients feeling rushed and worsening the quality of care. Yet health insurance premiums and drug costs keep rising. Clearly a new approach is needed. Congress needs to craft innovative legislation that makes health care more affordable without raising taxes or increasing the deficit. It also needs to repeal bad laws that keep health care costs higher than necessary.

We should remember that HMOs did not arise because of free-market demand, but rather because of government mandates. The HMO Act of 1973 requires all but the smallest employers to offer their employees HMO coverage, and the tax code allows businesses – but not individuals – to deduct the cost of health insurance premiums. The result is the illogical coupling of employment and health insurance, which often leaves the unemployed without needed catastrophic coverage.

While many in Congress are happy to criticize HMOs today, the public never hears how the present system was imposed upon the American people by federal law. As usual, government intervention in the private market failed to deliver the promised benefits and caused unintended consequences, but Congress never blames itself for the problems created by bad laws. Instead, we are told more government – in the form of “universal coverage” – is the answer. But government already is involved in roughly two-thirds of all health care spending, through Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs.

For decades, the U.S. healthcare system was the envy of the entire world. Not coincidentally, there was far less government involvement in medicine during this time. America had the finest doctors and hospitals, patients enjoyed high-quality, affordable medical care, and thousands of private charities provided health services for the poor.Doctors focused on treating patients, without the red tape and threat of lawsuits that plague the profession today. Most Americans paid cash for basic services, and had insurance only for major illnesses and accidents. This meant both doctors and patients had an incentive to keep costs down, as the patient was directly responsible for payment, rather than an HMO or government program.

The lesson is clear: when government and other third parties get involved, health care costs spiral. The answer is not a system of outright socialized medicine, but rather a system that encourages everyone – doctors, hospitals, patients, and drug companies – to keep costs down. As long as “somebody else” is paying the bill, the bill will be too high.

The following are bills Congress should pass to reduce health care costs and leave more money in the pockets of families:

HR 3075 provides truly comprehensive health care reform by allowing families to claim a tax credit for the rising cost of health insurance premiums. With many families now spending close to $1000 or even more for their monthly premiums, they need real tax relief – including a dollar-for-dollar credit for every cent they spend on health care premiums – to make medical care more affordable.

HR 3076 is specifically designed to address the medical malpractice crisis that threatens to drive thousands of American doctors – especially obstetricians – out of business. The bill provides a dollar-for-dollar tax credit that permits consumers to purchase "negative outcomes" insurance prior to undergoing surgery or other serious medical treatments. Negative outcomes insurance is a novel approach that guarantees those harmed receive fair compensation, while reducing the burden of costly malpractice litigation on the health care system. Patients receive this insurance payout without having to endure lengthy lawsuits, and without having to give away a large portion of their award to a trial lawyer. This also drastically reduces the costs imposed on physicians and hospitals by malpractice litigation. Under HR 3076, individuals can purchase negative outcomes insurance at essentially no cost.

HR 3077 makes it more affordable for parents to provide health care for their children. It creates a $500 per child tax credit for medical expenses and prescription drugs that are not reimbursed by insurance. It also creates a $3,000 tax credit for dependent children with terminal illnesses, cancer, or disabilities. Parents who are struggling to pay for their children's medical care, especially when those children have serious health problems or special needs, need every extra dollar.

HR 3078 is commonsense, compassionate legislation for those suffering from cancer or other terminal illnesses. The sad reality is that many patients battling serious illnesses will never collect Social Security benefits – yet they continue to pay into the Social Security system. When facing a medical crisis, those patients need every extra dollar to pay for medical care, travel, and family matters. HR 3078 waives the employee portion of Social Security payroll taxes (or self-employment taxes) for individuals with documented serious illnesses or cancer. It also suspends Social Security taxes for primary caregivers with a sick spouse or child. There is no justification or excuse for collecting Social Security taxes from sick individuals who literally are fighting for their lives.





Paul's ideas aren't that far off from McCains.

[bobbyjoe]

You said Western Countries...I can tell you the Asian diet is one far more healthy than the Western Diet...the health benefits of their diet, in particular Japan are legendary.


You want to go there bobbyjoe?


50% of Japanese men smoke cigarettes.....go check out their lung cancer rates.


It's easier for them to be happier, they're healthier, and it's not because of their healthcare system.


They also had no incidence of baldness prior to WWII before adopting a more Westernized diet.

Actually, you mentioned Western countries, not me. I never differentiated between "Western" and "Industrialized".

The links I showed were to show that UHC doesn't inherently mean lack of freedom of choosing what doctor you want to see.

The increase of Diabetes in the US absolutely has to do with healthcare. Saying it's only about diet is just wrong.

It all goes back to lack of access. Diseases like Diabetes and High Blood Pressure are often asymptomatic until advanced stages of progression. They develop over time and are often thus referred to as silent killers.

If you have a higher % of your population without any access to healthcare (and we have a higher % than any industrialized (not Western), it's far, far, far, FAR more likely that Diabetes and HBP and such are going to be discovered at later stages, be harder to treat, and thus end up affecting more people.

People in other industrialized countries live longer and healthier than America not only because of lifestyle, but very importantly because they go to doctors more often, receive more preventive care, and are able to nip problems in the bud earlier.

There's also an obvious correlation between going to a doctor regularly and acquiring the knowledge to alter and improve lifestyle habits which may be injurious to one's health, so in many ways lifestyle can be argued as a function of health care.

Having the brightest doctors in the World (which America probably does) doesnt mean you have the best healthcare system...

Good organizations don't just defend poor performance or results to be arrogant or proud. They look at what other organizations are doing better and emulate those practices or even improve upon them given the resources they already possess.

The first step is admitting you have a problem and we most certainly do!

[JoeChalupa]

I think unless Obama/Biden really screws up bad, or the Rebub's dig up some more Jeremiah Wright type stuff on Obama the election is still the Dem's to lose imo..... I'm not sold on a few speeches.....

You are correct sir!! I believe that he'll hold on finish strong in the electoral count and bring it home!! His grassroots campaign needs to get out in force and get the people out to the voteing booths and together we'll take this country in the direction it needs to go. YES WE CAN!!!

[2centsworth]

Whottt,

The problem with private health insurance is adverse selection and ultra expensive treatments near the end of life. Health Insurance Companies do not want to insure unhealthy people because they are unprofitable. Healthy people do not want to be included in groups that contain unhealthy people, because it makes insurance more expensive.

The best solution I've ever read, and I've read quite a bit, is the following>
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2702858&postcount=1

[whottt]

Whott,

You must read "The End of Food", by Paul Roberts
http://www.houghtonmifflinbooks.com/books/EndOfFood.html



I'll check it out...thanks :tu

[sontinospurs]

it also might have saved your life

Oh. But I thought Osama was in Afghanistan near pakistan? right....

So lets see, McCain: I voted for Iraq, its fucked up, now I'm going to fix it!!
:bang:bang:bang

[florige]

You are correct sir!! I believe that he'll hold on finish strong in the electoral count and bring it home!! His grassroots campaign needs to get out in force and get the people out to the voteing booths and together we'll take this country in the direction it needs to go. YES WE CAN!!!


That sorta scares me some. But right now we are looking pretty good. Like I said barring some groundbreaking scandal of some sort, we should be fine.

[whottt]

Actually, you mentioned Western countries, not me. I never differentiated between "Western" and "Industrialized".

The links I showed were to show that UHC doesn't inherently mean lack of freedom of choosing what doctor you want to see.

The increase of Diabetes in the US absolutely has to do with healthcare. Saying it's only about diet is just wrong.

It all goes back to lack of access. Diseases like Diabetes and High Blood Pressure are often asymptomatic until advanced stages of progression. They develop over time and are often thus referred to as silent killers.

If you have a higher % of your population without any access to healthcare (and we have a higher % than any industrialized (not Western), it's far, far, far, FAR more likely that Diabetes and HBP and such are going to be discovered at later stages, be harder to treat, and thus end up affecting more people.

People in other industrialized countries live longer and healthier than America not only because of lifestyle, but very importantly because they go to doctors more often, receive more preventive care, and are able to nip problems in the bud earlier.

There's also an obvious correlation between going to a doctor regularly and acquiring the knowledge to alter and improve lifestyle habits which may be injurious to one's health, so in many ways lifestyle can be argued as a function of health care.

Having the brightest doctors in the World (which America probably does) doesnt mean you have the best healthcare system...

Good organizations don't just defend poor performance or results to be arrogant or proud. They look at what other organizations are doing better and emulate those practices or even improve upon them given the resources they already possess.

The first step is admitting you have a problem and we most certainly do!



I am sorry bobbyjoe...the American Government is such a massive bureaucracy, I just don't think it'll work. It's fools gold.

I know in many of these countries they have all sorts of fuck ups on it and in many fudge on their health stats too(and their employment rates).

It's not hard to find the flaws if you just look.

I personally don't want the government in charge of my healthcare and would rather not pay the taxes on it. If they can do it that way fine...and I'm not a tax freak either, but this is a tax I would rather not pay.


Like I say...if you want them to do it for catastrophic illness or something I could see it...but every day health care will be a clusterfk.

[boutons_]

Since the McSame (he will NEVER be McChange, nor McNonPartisan, nor McNonRancor) can't run on the disastrous record of the dubya debacle or run on issues and policies (see how many mentions the Repugs gave dubya and dickhead this week?), they've chosen Palin has extreme-right warrior with a pretty face to re-ignite the culture wars so beloved by the resentful sheeple and "Christian" supremacists, totally ignoring the real problems that people want addressed and solve.

The Repugs are very good at lying the country into a Alternate Reality that enriches the wealthy and corps, while fucking over everybody else.

We'll see if the polls next indicate if enough of the country has been enough to bend over and let the Repugs sodomize them for 4 more years.

[whottt]

boutson SFTU or I'm going to start bumping threads of you saying the surge wouldn't work.

[whottt]

I still say the Dems are going to lose because McCain just jumped straight to the middle last night while the Daily Kos is running on the Democratic Ticket. Plsu they are showing that bio about how McCain almost jumped to the Democratic party a couple of years ago...he's gone totally moderate right under your noses, and he's still going to get the Republican base.


You guys are sunk.


Especially now that Obama admitted the surge was a resounding success...that's your candidate saying that...not the conservatives.

[boutons_]

The surge didn't work, even McSame said there weren't enough soldiers to make it work. Petraeus buying off 80K Sunnis for $24M/month and completion of the balkanizing and ethnic cleansing of Bagdad reduced the violence, which btw is now increasing, made a much larger difference than the surge.

At the end of 2006, the violence was already declining, 2 months before the surge troops arrived and started kicking ass that produced a kickback that made 2007 have the highest death toll for US troops.

btw, handing over Anbar to the Iraqis is bullshit, since the US won't withdraw, leaving 25K troops to occupy Anbar. Like the US attacks across the Afghan/Paki border after 7 years of not attacking, the Anbar "handover" is part of the Repug re-election campaign.

[Findog]

Yeah, we will have a hammer and scicle instead of stars and stripes.

Goody.

Commie insults. How trenchant and incisive. You should be really pleased with yourself.

[Findog]

Anybody know how many people watched it last night?

[bobbyjoe]

I'm not a fan of the current effectiveness of American Government either. But they need to get their $hit together on this issue.

Even if that doesn't mean UHC, this issue has to be addressed with some serious thought, open mindedness, bipartisanship and creativity. The status quo sure isn't working. And I hate seeing this become such a partisan (Democrat vs. Republican, free market vs. UHC) issue.

Paul has some interesting takes. I definitely agree with his very liberal, progressive positions on medical marijuana and to a strong degree on his views about the level of criminal justice drug abusers should face (although I'm not sure if his views extend to drug traffickers, which I would strenuously disagree with).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul

However, I would point out that he does differ from McCain quite a bit in that his proposed policies when it comes to health care in most cases are government tax credits/subsidies to help the truly health care deprived and stricken (so both our taxes would still go up if he were elected, it's just that government red tape and regulation wouldn't become issues because they'd have a lower level of involvement; McCain's plan is very tax neutral because of his proposal to make health benefits taxable to employees and has been projected to hardly put a dent in the # of uninsured whereas with all of Paul's subsidies, I'm sure the # would be far greater). I vastly prefer his position to McCain on health...

[FromWayDowntown]

Only if you go to "renowned" institutions. I haven't had any propaganda taught to me and I'll be graduating next year. Maybe it's because I took a real subject (math/science) instead of something like english/arts/business.

I'd say it's the period of time and the experience that makes so many 17-24 year olds lean so far to the left. You would think they got over being rebels after not being teenagers anymore. Nope. I get FAR more left-leaning propaganda from other students than I do professors. People asking to join their group, to read their handouts, etc, etc.

I can only go by my own experiences, but I can tell you that during the time that I attended one such renowned institution, I was substantially more conservative than I am now. The only point during my time there that there seemed to be any hint of indoctrination via the classroom was my first-year writing instructor's insistence upon politically correct rhetoric. That provoked me to write an advocacy piece about the silliness of the p.c. movement. Outside of the classrooms, the campus was diverse and there were many "liberal" groups who were active, but I can't recall a single big event that didn't have a "conservative" analog to meet it. I was there when Desert Storm commenced and for all of the groups of peace protesters, there were groups who supported the war and the troops. Nothing about the institution or its structure bespoke indoctrination -- it was, looking back on it, an active marketplace of ideas.

Curiously, I'm far less conservative today than I was when I was attending such a renowned institution -- I'm far less conservative today despite having spent 3 years of my life toiling in a relatively-conservative graduate school in one of the most conservative portions of the country.

[2centsworth]

Only if you go to "renowned" institutions. I haven't had any propaganda taught to me and I'll be graduating next year. Maybe it's because I took a real subject (math/science) instead of something like english/arts/business.

i love the arrogance.



I'd say it's the period of time and the experience that makes so many 17-24 year olds lean so far to the left. You would think they got over being rebels after not being teenagers anymore. Nope. I get FAR more left-leaning propaganda from other students than I do professors. People asking to join their group, to read their handouts, etc, etc.

the indoctrination is to make these kids feel guilty about killing indians and having slaves. now we're killing the environment.

And It's all for Money.

[Thunder Dan]

he didn't hit a home run- it sounded like a speech from a creepy old man who can't move his arms or manage to keep the coffee stains off his teeth. He reminded me of Jack Palance from City Slickers.


And if I hear the term 'Mavrick' used to describe him one more time I'm gonna lose it

[clambake]

we are all prisoners of his POW stories.

i have now officially served my country.

[FromWayDowntown]

I post with a lot of cynicism about this election and, despite some appearances, am still not sure I've made up my mind about who to vote for -- I'd say I'm leaning Obama, but not completely sold on Obama.

With that, though, there's nothing about McCain as a leader that inspires me. When he speaks, I wonder if he believes what he says (particularly given his fairly dramatic right-ward shift in the last year or two) and think sometimes that he's speaking with pragmatic rhetoric more than real conviction in principles.

[2centsworth]

With that, though, there's nothing about McCain as a leader that inspires me. When he speaks, I wonder if he believes what he says (particularly given his fairly dramatic right-ward shift in the last year or two) and think sometimes that he's speaking with pragmatic rhetoric more than real conviction in principles.

With McCain you have to look at his record to get a sense of what he will do as president. He has continually gone against the grain. In fact, conservatives hated the guy and there were even questions whether he should change parties. His actions are very consistent with the speech he gave last night. He doesn't motivate and that frustrates him sometimes, but he does stick to his guns.

And no matter what the libs want to say about his military service, he is a real American Hero. Not to say that alone qualifies him to be president.

[Thunder Dan]

too bad none of you guys' votes count!

I'm in Ohio, my vote matters most so suck it! :lol

[Spurminator]

I liked McCain's speech for the most part. While most of it was still the standard rah rah convention speech, when he says he'll work with both sides I'm more willing to believe him than most politicians based on his history. It seemed like this was finally Senator McCain speaking, rather than Presidential Candidate McCain.

I felt that McCain's speech embodied "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" much better than Obama's speech.

As for the POW stuff... I think he's overused it in a lot of areas of his campaign but I think it's totally appropriate and relevant for this speech. Every bit as relevant as Obama referencing his upbringing and family history. Neither qualifies you for office, but it's a key insight into your character and personal development.

Anyway I still don't know who I favor since I disagree with both of them on so many issues but if we're to have another Republican in the Oval Office, we could do a lot worse than McCain.

[FromWayDowntown]

With McCain you have to look at his record to get a sense of what he will do as president. He has continually gone against the grain. In fact, conservatives hated the guy and there were even questions whether he should change parties. His actions are very consistent with the speech he gave last night. He doesn't motivate and that frustrates him sometimes, but he does stick to his guns.

Yet McCain now sells himself as a conservative -- I think much of that speech last night would have been different if McCain was the same guy who was on the campaign trail in 2000 or 2004. His rhetoric moves him to the right and I guess that leads me to wonder what he really believes -- is he really willing to sell out his principles by changing his political stripes to win an election, despite the clever line about preferring to lose an election than a war? I don't get the sense that one is a maverick (or mavrick) by acting pragmatically to appeal to a party in the hopes of winning election; in fact, I think just the opposite of the guy.

When Kerry did similar things, he was a flip-flopper.


And no matter what the libs want to say about his military service, he is a real American Hero. Not to say that alone qualifies him to be president.

I agree with that. I'll note that there are any number of enlisted men and women who are subjected to equal or worse hells than McCain endured in Vietnam, but I doubt too many would think them qualified to be President.

[Findog]

And if I hear the term 'Mavrick' used to describe him one more time I'm gonna lose it

Most of the guys in my office like to eat out for lunch and go to really nice restaurants. Me? I brown bag it and save money. That makes me a fuckin' Maverick!

One time I brought leftover Hamburger Helper to work and some of the guys said they were going to Jason's Deli. Hey, even though I already brought my lunch to work, I'm gonna switch course and take a risk and go against the grain by going to Jason's Deli. I'm a fuckin' Maverick!

[Findog]

Anyway I still don't know who I favor since I disagree with both of them on so many issues but if we're to have another Republican in the Oval Office, we could do a lot worse than McCain.

I think you could pretty much sum up his speech this way: "I know it's the GOP that has screwed up so badly the last 8 years, but don't worry, I'll turn that around. Don't ask me for details, I've got it all figured out. Go eat a Hot Pocket."

[boutons_]

"is he really willing to sell out his principles by changing his political stripes to win an election"

Already done, sealed, delivered.

Senator McSame is no more.

It's now Candidate McPander.

[Findog]

Also, anybody else last night pick up on how many times he said fight or fought? Fight what? You can't seem to get into specifics, old man. This is McCain's basic MO, always viewing things in terms of aggression, shooting first and asking questions later. It's well-established that beneath the "My Friends" veneer, the guy is a hothead with a hair-trigger temper. I don't want HIM answering the phone at 3 a.m. I don't want him talking about bombing Iran when Iraq and Afghanistan went so poorly.

Obama is a highly flawed candidate, but I don't see how this is even close. The Dems should go right at McCain's supposed strength - his "Maverick" tendencies, and argue that that is actually a detriment, not a strength, that his "Maverick" tendencies are impulsive and reckless, not principled sticking to convictions at the expense of easy political gain.

[2centsworth]

Yet McCain now sells himself as a conservative

please be more specific. If you mean clarifying his positions enough to garner support from conservatives and then fine, but there shouldn't be a conservative in the world who thinks McCain is going to change.



-- I think much of that speech last night would have been different if McCain was the same guy who was on the campaign trail in 2000 or 2004. His rhetoric moves him to the right and I guess that leads me to wonder what he really believes -- What Rhetoric? I have followed this guy closely over the years and do not hear the difference.



is he really willing to sell out his principles by changing his political stripes to win an election, despite the clever line about preferring to lose an election than a war? I don't get the sense that one is a maverick (or mavrick) by acting pragmatically to appeal to a party in the hopes of winning election; in fact, I think just the opposite of the guy.

you'll have to be more specific with the aove for me to reply.



When Kerry did similar things, he was a flip-flopper. when he voted for funding before he voted against it. You have an explanation for this?




I agree with that. I'll note that there are any number of enlisted men and women who are subjected to equal or worse hells than McCain endured in Vietnam, but I doubt too many would think them qualified to be President. suffering doesn't qualify you to do anything. How you handle yourself while suffering does give insight into someone's character. McCain showed courage, leadership, and most importantly Partiotism. Those are just some of the things we should look for in a president. Plus, his service does demonstrate he has the military experience needed in what i perceive to be a dangerous world.

[florige]

too bad none of you guys' votes count!

I'm in Ohio, my vote matters most so suck it! :lol




:lol Really! They are going to be all over you guys jock strap come the next couple of weeks...

[Thunder Dan]

:lol Really! They are going to be all over you guys jock strap come the next couple of weeks...

Obama's plane flew over my office twice this week

[florige]

Obama's plane flew over my office twice this week



Really? Every election normally ends with you guys. Well except in 2000 of course.

[Findog]

I'm a fuckin' Maverick! I just like saying that.

America, Fuck Yeah!

[JoeChalupa]

My vote counts to me so I'll be going to the voting booths and calling and asking for others to do the same. The time is NOW!! Don't be fooled by the rhetoric from the conservatives for we as AMERICANS can take this country back from the Bush administration and not allow it to have another 4 years under a different name with the same results. Join me and together...YES WE CAN!!

http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q283/mcctatas/1208476396703ol7.gif

[Thunder Dan]

Really? Every election normally ends with you guys. Well except in 2000 of course.

we are like the kids in school that need all the attention- that is why we wait till the very end. It makes us feel important

[Ocotillo]

I didn't read the whole thread because I don't have time at this time of day.

Did anyone comment on the "mansion on the hill"?

http://narcosphere.narconews.com/userfiles/getoffmylawn.jpg

Last night when this was in real time I was laughing my rear off thinking WTF is he showing us one of his houses? Then when they showed the close up of McCain, it was the lime green jello backdrop (the lawn in the photo) all over again when McCain made his woeful speech the day Obama clinched the primaries.

It turns out the above photo is Walter Reed Middle School in Hollywood, not a mansion at all. Evidently, some hapless advance person googled the wrong photo and probably wanted the Walter Reed Medical Center.

I guess at least it didn't have marble columns. :lol

[Oh, Gee!!]

Leave it up to McCain to bring the convention to a boring conclusion. I taped the speech in case I ever get insomnia. snoozerville all the way

[ggoose25]

Most of the guys in my office like to eat out for lunch and go to really nice restaurants. Me? I brown bag it and save money. That makes me a fuckin' Maverick!

One time I brought leftover Hamburger Helper to work and some of the guys said they were going to Jason's Deli. Hey, even though I already brought my lunch to work, I'm gonna switch course and take a risk and go against the grain by going to Jason's Deli. I'm a fuckin' Maverick!

:rollin
:lmao:lmao:lmao

[angel_luv]

Everybody knows that real Mavricks play the right way, hustle back on defense, make the extra pass, salute the flag and support a strong national defense, unlike those effeminate liberal elitist Mavericks up in Dallas.

:lol

[boutons_]

McSame misrepresented and outright lied while attacking HUSSEIN, without partisan rancor and so civilly, of course:

FactChecking McCain

September 5, 2008


He made some flubs in accepting the nomination.

Summary

We checked the accuracy of McCain’s speech accepting the Republican nomination and noted the following:

McCain claimed that Obama’s health care plan would "force small businesses to cut jobs" and would put "a bureaucrat ... between you and your doctor." In fact, the plan exempts small businesses, and those who have insurance now could keep the coverage they have.


McCain attacked Obama for voting for "corporate welfare" for oil companies. In fact, the bill Obama voted for raised taxes on oil companies by $300 million over 11 years while providing $5.8 billion in subsidies for renewable energy, energy efficiency and alternative fuels.


McCain said oil imports send "$700 billion a year to countries that don't like us very much." But the U.S. is on track to import a total of only $536 billion worth of oil at current prices, and close to a third of that comes from Canada, Mexico and the United Kingdom.


He promised to increase use of "wind, tide [and] solar" energy, though his actual energy plan contains no new money for renewable energy. He has said elsewhere that renewable sources won’t produce as much as people think.


He called for "reducing government spending and getting rid of failed programs," but as in the past failed to cite a single program that he would eliminate or reduce.


He said Obama would "close" markets to trade. In fact, Obama, though he once said he wanted to "renegotiate" the North American Free Trade Agreement, now says he simply wants to try to strengthen environmental and labor provisions in it.
Analysis
Sen. John McCain's acceptance speech (http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/conventions/videos/transcripts/20080904_MCCAIN_SPEECH.html?scp=1&sq=transcript&st=cse) to the Republican National Convention in Minneapolis-St. Paul on Sept. 4 was couched more in generalities than in specifics, offering fewer factual claims to check than we found in other speeches to the gathering. But we found some instances where the nominee strained the truth.


Insurance Claims


McCain mischaracterized Obama’s health care plan:
McCain: His plan will force small businesses to cut jobs, reduce wages, and force families into a government run health care system where a bureaucrat stands between you and your doctor.
http://www.factcheck.org/demos/factcheck/imagefiles/Image/2008_9_5_Factchecking_McCain/Senator%20John%20McCain%20Nomination%20Acceptance% 20Speech03-tn.jpgThe claim that “small businesses” would have to “cut jobs, reduce wages,” runs counter to Obama’s actual proposal (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/). Obama’s plan would require businesses to contribute to the cost of insurance for employees or pay some unspecified amount into a new public plan. But his proposal specifically says, “Small businesses will be exempt from this requirement.” And it offers additional help to small businesses that want to provide health care in the form of a refundable tax credit of up to half the cost of premiums. We’ll note that neither man has defined what exactly a “small business” is.

Furthermore, Obama’s plan (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/) wouldn’t “force” families into a “government-run health care system.” His plan mandates that children have coverage; there’s no mandate for adults. People can keep the health insurance they have now or chose from private plans, or opt for a new public plan that will offer coverage similar to what members of Congress have. Obama would also expand Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. His plan certainly expands government-offered insurance – and McCain’s doesn’t – but it’s not a solely government-run plan, as McCain implied. And if Obama's public plan turns out to be similar to what federal employees have, as he says it would be, we're not sure how "a bureaucrat" would stand "between you and your doctor." The possible exception would be persons covered by Medicaid or SCHIP.

McCain also made this boast:
McCain: My health care plan will make it easier for more Americans to find and keep good health care insurance.
Fair enough. But McCain's plan wouldn't do nearly as well as Obama's. One comparison (http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411750_updated_candidates_summary.pdf), by the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, finds Obama’s would reduce the uninsured by 18 million people in its first year, compared with a 1 million reduction under McCain’s plan. TPC made various assumptions about the plans to fill in details each proposal lacks, so those numbers aren’t definitive. We await more comparisons from other experts.

Oily Words


McCain attacked Obama for supporting "corporate welfare" for oil companies:



McCain: nstead of freeing ourselves from a dangerous dependence on foreign oil, both parties and Senator Obama passed another corporate welfare bill for oil companies.
The bill McCain is talking about here is the 2005 energy bill, which actually raised taxes on the oil industry a little bit overall – by about $300 million, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/07March/RL33763.pdf). Meanwhile, McCain himself proposes to cut the corporate rate for all companies – oil included – and that would result in an estimated $4 billion cut for the five largest U.S.-based oil companies, according to the Center for American Progress Action Fund (http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2008/pdf/oil_tax.pdf). Obama, on the other hand, is promising that he'll strip oil companies of "tax breaks" to the tune of an amount yet to be determined. It's true that Obama voted for the 2005 bill (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00213). He said he favored the $5.8 billion (over 11 years) that it contained in tax incentives for renewable energy, energy efficiency and alternative fuels. McCain voted against it on the grounds that the $2.6 billion it contained for oil and gas incentives was too much, even though the bill also took away $2.9 billion from the industry, for a net tax increase of $300 million. Describing such a complex measure as "corporate welfare" is misleading.


More Oily Words


We found other exaggerations in McCain’s claims about his plan for energy independence:
McCain: We are going to stop sending $700 billion a year to countries that don't like us very much.
In fact, the U.S. doesn't pay nearly that much for oil from hostile nations. According to the Energy Information Administration, the U.S. imported 4.9 billion barrels (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_a.htm) of oil in 2007. At today’s prices (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_spt_s1_d.htm), that works out to about $536 billion, still a hefty chunk of change, but considerably less than $700 billion. More important, that's what we pay to all exporting nations, not just those that “don’t like us very much.” We note that 32 percent of U.S. oil imports came from Canada, Mexico and the United Kingdom.


Just Wind


McCain also made sweeping claims about green energy that aren't actually backed up by his policy proposals:
McCain: We will attack the problem on every front. ...We will increase the use of wind, tide, solar and natural gas. We will encourage the development and use of flex fuel, hybrid and electric automobiles.
McCain has been quite specific about his proposals to clear the way for building 45 new nuclear power plants, opening offshore areas to oil drilling and spending $2 billion a year for so-called "clean coal" technology. He has also proposed a $300 million prize for developing the first practical plug-in electric car, although General Motors already is working on that and is aiming for delivery of the Chevrolet Volt (http://www.chevrolet.com/electriccar/) by 2010, prize or no prize. McCain has also proposed a $5,000 tax credit for consumers who purchase zero emission vehicles

But when it comes to power from wind and tide, McCain's words are blowing in the breeze. His energy plan, which he calls the Lexington Project (http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/17671aa4-2fe8-4008-859f-0ef1468e96f4.htm), proposes no new spending for renewable energy programs. Instead, he proposes to "rationalize the current patchwork of temporary tax credits," but hasn't said what he means by that. As we’ve written before, spokespeople for the wind and solar industries are unsure what this actually means (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/wind_power_puffery.html). Finally, we’ll note that McCain himself told supporters at a July town hall meeting (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OJnZ1iDEfo) that he doesn’t think that renewable energy is likely to be "as much of the solution as some people think." Perhaps not, but if McCain is right his own words are contributing to the public misperception.

Pig in a Poke


McCain repeated his vague promise to make spending cuts:



McCain: Reducing government spending and getting rid of failed programs will let you keep more of your own money to save, spend and invest as you see fit.
McCain has not said which programs he considers to be "failed programs." He thus makes the spending cuts sound less painful than they will be should he fulfill his previously stated promise to balance the federal budget by 2013 while also making all Bush tax cuts permanent and adding new cuts of his own. McCain repeated his promise to eliminate "earmarks" from federal spending bills, saying "the first big-spending pork-barrel earmark bill that comes across my desk, I will veto it." That drew applause, but the fact is that earmarks amount to only $16.9 billion (http://earmarks.omb.gov/resources/static_pdfs/2008_Earmarks_Summary_for_Website.pdf) in the current fiscal year, according to the Office of Management and Budget. Meanwhile, the deficit is expected to be more than $200 billion (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/90xx/doc9015/Selected_Tables.pdf) in 2009. And McCain's tax cuts will add billions more to future deficits unless offset by spending cuts, which he so far has not been willing to identify. What would he cut?

A McCain adviser, former CBO chairman Douglas Holtz-Eakin, has said (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/13/AR2008071301643.html) that McCain "will provide the leadership to achieve bipartisan spending restraint" and "will perform a comprehensive review of all programs, projects and activities of the federal government" to find programs to cut or eliminate. But that, of course, will come after people have cast their votes.


Trade Talk


McCain said, “I will open new markets to our goods and services. My opponent will close them."

McCain may be alluding to Obama’s threat earlier this year to pull out of the North American Free Trade Agreement if Mexico and Canada won't open the deal to renegotiation. Obama said at a Democratic primary debate (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/us/politics/26text-debate.html?pagewanted=all) in Cleveland in February:

Obama, Feb. 26: I will make sure that we renegotiate. … I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced. But that's far from a threat to "close" markets to U.S. exports.

An expert from a pro-trade group agrees. “It's a stretch to take the heated comment from the Cleveland debate to pull out of NAFTA if it wasn't revised as indicative of a protectionist policy,” Jeffrey Schott, a senior fellow and trade expert at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, told FactCheck.org. “In any event, the position on NAFTA has since been clarified."

In fact, Obama has said he thinks it's unwise to repeal the trade deal, (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4336481) because to do so "would actually result in more job loss ... than job gains." And in a June interview with [I]Fortune magazine, he stated that he didn’t plan on pulling out (http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/18/magazines/fortune/easton_obama.fortune/index.htm) of NAFTA. "Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified," he said.

It's true that McCain has been a stronger advocate of free trade agreements than Obama, who supported the trade deal with Oman (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00250) in 2006 and one with Peru (http://www.barackobama.com/2007/10/09/obama_says_only_outsider_can_b.php) in 2007 but opposed the one with Central America (http://obama.senate.gov/news/050630-why_i_oppose_cafta/index.php) and another with Colombia (http://www.barackobama.com/2008/04/02/remarks_for_senator_barack_oba_3.php). But saying he would "close" markets is nonsense.
Planet Plans


Finally, we note that McCain and the Republican delegates applied a different standard to the Republican nominee's lofty rhetoric than they did to Obama's.

McCain drew applause with this line:

McCain: We must use all resources and develop all technologies necessary to rescue our economy from the damage caused by rising oil prices and restore the health of our planet.
The previous evening, however, McCain's running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, ridiculed Obama for using similar high-sounding words:
Palin, Sept. 3: What does he actually seek to accomplish after he's done turning back the waters and healing the planet?That crack drew jeers and laughter. Perhaps Republicans see a distinction between "healing the planet" and "restor the health of our planet," but it escapes us.

[I]–by Brooks Jackson, with Viveca Novak, Lori Robertson, Joe Miller and Emi Kolawole




http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_mccain.html

[MannyIsGod]

Man, Joe's posts are almost enough to make me want to vote against Obama.

[boutons_]

http://www.alternet.org/images/site/logo.gif
Exposing Five Dangerous Lies in McCain's Big Speech

By , AlterNet
Posted on September 6, 2008, Printed on September 6, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/97813/

Editor's note: Much of the best information on the 2008 election can't be found in newspapers or magazines, or TV and radio, or websites -- it's on email. The article below is an email response sent out by critics of McCain's RNC speech singling out inaccurate statements the GOP nominee made to the nation on critical issues of the day.

False McCain Claim: "My health care plan will make it easier for more Americans to find and keep good health care insurance."

Facts: McCain's Health Care Plan Does Little to Reduce the Ranks of America's Uninsured and Would Erode the Employer-Based System

Under McCain's Plan, Health Insurance Benefits Would be Taxed For The First Time, Resulting In A $3.6 Trillion Tax Increase On Working Families.

McCain's health care plan would eliminate the payroll deduction on health care benefits, which would have the effect of raising taxes on working families by $3.6 trillion. [New York Times, 5/1/08]

McCain's Plan Undermines The Employer-Based Health Care System And Will Lead To Workers Losing Coverage.

McCain's health care plan would begin to dismantle the employer-based health care system, removing the incentives employers have to provide health care coverage, resulting in employees losing their health care. [New York Times, 4/30/08;Washington Post, 4/30/08]

The Health Care Tax Credit McCain Offers Would Cover Less Than Half The Cost Of An Average Health Care Plan.

The McCain health plan would give families a $5,000 tax credit to purchase health insurance. However, in 2007, the average family health insurance plan cost $12,000 - more than double the value of McCain's health care tax credit. ["Employer Health Benefits 2007 Annual Survey," Kaiser Family Foundation, 9/11/07; "'Call To Action' On Health Care Reform," John McCain 2008 press release, 4/29/08; Wall Street Journal, 10/11/07]

McCain's Health Care Plan Does Little to Help America's Uninsured.

McCain's plan does not focus on "reducing the ranks of the uninsured," of which there are about 47 million, or one in seven Americans. According to the New York Times, "The McCain campaign has no estimate of how many of America's 47 million uninsured would likely gain coverage under its plan." It "has been estimated to reduce the number of uninsured in the U.Sby three to nine million." [Wall Street Journal, 10/11/2007, 4/30/2008; New York Times, 3/2/2008]

McCain's Erosion Of Employer System Would Take Away Millions of Americans' Insurance.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, "158 million people nationally" had "employer-sponsored health insurance" in 2007. McCain's elimination of the employer tax incentive to provide coverage would put these 158 million Americans' coverage in jeopardy. According to an analysis conducted by the Center For American Progress, "business owners would no longer need to cover their workers to get tax benefits for their own coverageThe entire employer health insurance system could unravel, ending this as an option for Americans who prefer it." In addition, the McCain plan "would not require insurers to provide health coverage to people with pre-existing conditions." [Kaiser Family Foundation, "Employer Health Benefits 2007 Annual Survey (http://kff.org/insurance/ehbs091107nr.cfm); Center For American Progress Action Fund, "Analysis of McCain's Health Care Announcement," 4/29/2008; New York Times Political Blog, "The Caucus (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/mccains-health-care-plan/#more-4961)," 4/29/2008,

Oil Companies:

False McCain Attack: "Both parties and Senator Obama passed another corporate welfare bill for oil companies."

The Facts: Energy Bill Actually Raised Taxes on Oil and Gas Industry, McCain Supports Tax Breaks for Big Oil

AP Fact Check: Congressional Research Service Showed That The Energy Bill Actually Raised Taxes On The Oil And Gas Industry.

The AP reported, "Clinton is on shakier ground when attacking Obama for supporting "Dick Cheney's energy bill," and not just because it's a stretch to assign the vice president name - red meat to Democrats - to the legislation. The 2005 act that she describes as packed with billions of dollars in oil industry breaks actually raised taxes on the oil and gas industry by about $300 million over 11 years, according to the Congressional Research Service. The nonpartisan analysis found $2.6 billion in tax cuts for the oil and gas industry and $2.9 billion in tax increases. The bulk of tax breaks went to other sources of energy, including alternative fuels favored by both Clinton and Obama." [AP, 2/15/08]

McCain's Tax Plan Will Cut Taxes For Oil Companies by Nearly $4 Billion - Including $1.2 Billion for Exxon.

A study by the Center for American Progress Action Fund noted that the corporate tax rate cut included in the McCain tax plan "would deliver a $3.8 billion tax cut to the five largest American oil companies" - ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Valero Energy, and Marathon. According to their analysis ofExxon's financial statements, the company would receive a tax savings of $1.2 billion under the McCain plan. ["The McCain Plan to Cut Oil CompanyTaxes by Nearly $4 Billion," Center for American Progress Action Fund, 3/27/08]

McCain Spokesman: McCain Opposes A Bipartisan Compromise to Expand Domestic Oil Production Because of Provisions that Would End Tax Breaks for Oil Companies.

"A spokesman for Sen. McCain said that while he 'applauds the bipartisan effort,' he wouldn't support the proposal because 'he cannot and will not support legislation that raises taxes.'" [Wall Street Journal,8/2/08] ###

Trade

False McCain Attack: "I will open new markets to our goods and services. My opponent will close them."

The Facts: When Obama Negotiate Trade Deals, It Will Be With American Workers in Mind; McCain Supported Deals That Cost Americans Jobs

Obama Said That While "We're Not Going To Draw A Moat" Around The US, Trade Deals Had To Be Negotiated With American Workers In Mind.

"The AP reported, "Obama said he supports the foreign trade deal, which is especially important to labor and U.S. manufacturers. He said active trading is a key way to keep the United States competitive. 'We're not going to draw a moat around the United States' economy. If we do that, then China is still trading, India is still going to be trading,' said Obama, who voted against the recent Central American Free Trade Agreement and opposes the pending trade deal with South Korea. 'I think that NAFTA and CAFTA did not reflect the interests of American workers but reflected the interests of the stock owners on Wall Street, because they did not contain the sorts of labor provisions and environmental provisions that should have been embedded and should have been enforceable in those agreements,' he said." [AP, 10/10/07]

McCain Supported NAFTA, Which Contributed to Loss of a Million American Jobs, And CAFTA.

John McCain supported both the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). The Economic Policy Institute has estimated that NAFTA contributed to the loss of 1 million American jobs since it took effect in 1994. [Vote 395, HR 3450, 61-38, 11/20/93; Vote 170, S.1307, 54-45, 6/30/05; "Revisiting NAFTA; Still not working for North America's workers," The Economic Policy Institute,9/28/06]

McCain: I Am The Biggest Free Marketer And Free Trader.

"Well, obviously we should make sure that every nation respects human rights, and we should advocate that and try to enforce it. But I will open every market in the world to Iowa's agricultural products. I'm the biggest free marketer and free trader that you will ever see." [GOP Debate, 12/12/07]

McCain Praised NAFTA But Admitted That People Are "Gonna Lose Jobs."

"I know NAFTA was a good idea. It's created millions of jobs and it has helped the economies of all three nations. All you have to do is go to Detroit and see the thousands of trucks lined up every day or go to our southern border. There have been winners and losers and that's the problem but free trade is something I think is vital to the future of America. As a free trader, I will open up every market in the world to Iowa agricultural products. Have people lost jobs? Yes, they have. And they're gonna lose jobs although the overall gain in jobs is gonna be pretty impressive." [Des Moines Register, 11/27/07]

McCain: I Don't Care How Many Jobs You Outsource. Responding to a question about the economy during an appearance on Hardball, McCain said, "If we start seeing what a lot of us expect, and that is a strong economy cannot go forever without picking up jobs. I don't care how many of them you outsource, then I think the president is going to be helped by that." [MSNBC, "Hardball," 2/25/04]

McCain Acknowledges Trade Agreements Have Cost America Jobs, Still Believes Agreements Have "Been Very Successful."

"McCain has said the trade pacts have been a net positive. 'Overall, the free-trade agreements have been very successful, and I can prove that with economic data on job creation,' McCain said in an interview Monday with the Journal Sentinel. But he added, 'It has left people behind, and we must give those people and others opportunities.'" [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 4/16/08]

Taxes

McCain's False Attacks: "I will keep taxes low and cut them where I can. My opponent will raise them.”

The Facts: Obama Will Cut Taxes, McCain Will Raise Them -- David Leonhardt of The New York Times Wrote That, "For Most People, Obama Is The Tax Cutter In This Campaign."

Leonhardt wrote that, " The Tax Policy Center, a research group run by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, has done the most detailed analysis of the Obama and McCain tax plans, and it has published a series of fascinating tables. For the bottom 80 percent of the population -- those households making $118,000 or less -- McCain's various tax cuts would mean a net savings of about $200 a year on average. Obama's proposals would bring $900 a year in savings. So for most people, Obama is the tax cutter in this campaign." [The New York Times, 8/24/08]

Analysts Say That Obama's Tax Cut Plan "Offers Three Times The Break For Middle Class Families Than Proposals" Of McCain.

"The tax cut plan of Democratic nominee to be Barack Obama offers three times the break for middle class families than proposals of likely Republican nominee John McCain, according to analysts working for a left-leaning think tank. Families making between $37,595 and $66,354 of annual income with Obama would get an average tax cut of $1,042 per family while McCain's tax cut for this group would be $319, the report states." [Nashua Telegraph, 6/12/08]

Under Obama's Plan The Middle Of The Middle Class Would See Taxes Cut By $1,042 A Year; McCain's Tax Plan Would Give Them Only A $319 Tax Cut.

According to the non partisan Tax Policy Center's computations, "under Mr. Obama's plan, the middle of the middle class, or those earning $37,595 to $66,354, would see taxes cut by $1,042 a year. Under Mr. McCain's plan, taxes for people in that category would also fall, but by $319; the largest chunk of the benefits would go to those making $2.8 million a year or more." [New York Times, 6/13/08]

Washington Post: McCain's Approach To Taxes Is Far More Costly Than Obama's.

"There is a serious debate to be had in this presidential campaign about the fundamentally different tax policies of Barack Obama and John McCain. Then there is the phony, misleading and at times outright dishonest debate that the McCain campaign has been waging -- most recently with a television ad. The two candidates have very different positions on taxes. Mr. Obama wants to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans and cut them substantially for low- and middle-income taxpayers. He would cut taxes for more households, and by a larger amount, than Mr. McCain, who would give the greatest benefits to wealthy households and corporations. The McCain campaign insists on completely misrepresenting Mr. Obama's plan. The country can't afford the tax cuts either man is promising, although Mr. McCain's approach is by far the more costly. We don't expect either side to admit that. But neither side should get to outright lie about its opponent's positions, either." [Editorial, Washington Post, 8/31/08]

ABC Headline: McCain Health Credit Could Morph Into Tax Hike.

McCain's "health-care plan would replace the existing tax exclusion for employer-sponsored coverage with a refundable tax credit for all Americans. The tax change is intended to create a more equitable system that provides everyone -- including those who do not receive their health coverage from their employer -- with the same tax advantage. And since it is refundable, it would provide a cash benefit to those who earn too little to pay federal income taxes. But if the cost of health care continues to outpace inflation in the economy at large, McCain's health credit would morph into a tax hike for those who currently receive a tax exclusion for employer-sponsored coverage, according to a study released Wednesday by the liberal Center for American Progress." [ABC News, 7/2/08]

McCain's Health Care Plan Would Raises Taxes On Families By $1,169 In 2013.

According to a report by the Center for American Progress, the tax credit in McCain's health care plan would fall behind rising health premiums and would raise taxes for the average family by $1,169 in 2013. ["John McCain's Radical Prescription for Health Care," Center for American Progress Action Fund, 7/2//08]

McCain's Campaign "Acknowledged" That His Health Care Plan "Would Have The Effect Of Increasing Tax Payments For Some Workers."

"Though Senator John McCain has promised to not raise taxes, his campaign acknowledged Wednesday that the health plan he outlined this week would have the effect of increasing tax payments for some workers, primarily those with high incomes and expensive health plans. The campaign cannot yet project how many taxpayers might see their taxes go up, said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Mr. McCain's top domestic policy adviser. But Mr. Holtz-Eakin said in an interview that for some, Mr. McCain's health care tax credits would not be large enough to compensate for his proposal to eliminate the tax breaks afforded to workers with employer-provided health benefits. To end the disadvantage to those who do not buy insurance through employers, Mr. McCain proposes to eliminate the exclusion of health benefits from taxable income. In exchange, he would provide refundable tax credits of $2,500 to single people and of $5,000 to families, with the goal of stoking competition in the individual insurance market. The elimination of the exclusion would generate $3.6 trillion over 10 years, according to the McCain campaign, and that money would pay for the tax credits." [New York Times, 5/1/08] ###

Worker Training

False McCain Attack: "For workers in industries that have been hard hit, we'll help make up part of the difference in wages between their old job and a temporary, lower paid one while they receive retraining that will help them find secure new employment at a decent wage."

The Facts: McCain Has Repeatedly Opposed Vital Training for Workers in Hard-Hit Industries

McCain Opposed $1 Million In Job Training Programs For Young People.

In 2003, McCain sponsored an amendment to delete several provisions from the war supplemental spending bill, including $1 million for the Jobs for America's Graduates school-to-work program for at-risk young people for Training Employment Services. [2003 Senate Vote #118, 4/3/2003, McCain: Y]

McCain Voted Against a Pilot Program to Provide Low-Interest Loans to Workers in Job Training or Assistance Programs.

In 2002, McCain voted to kill an amendment requiring the Labor Department to establish a pilot program providing low-interest loans to workers in job training or job assistance programs to enable workers to continue making their mortgage payments. (CQ) McCain: Y [2002 Senate Vote #119, 5/21/2002]

McCain Voted Against Providing Additional $4.1 Million For Job Training And Other Domestic Programs.

In 1992, McCain voted against transferring $4.1 billion from defense to domestic programs, including Head Start, child immunization programs and the Job Corps program. (CQ) McCain: N [1992 Senate Vote #208, 9/16/1992, McCain: N]

McCain Voted Against Providing $1 Billion In Economic Assistance, Including Job Training.

In 1992, McCain voted against providing $1 billion for various programs designed to help those struggling economically, including job training funding. [1992 Senate Vote #146, 7/2/1992, McCain: Y]
AlterNet is a nonprofit organization and does not make political endorsements. The opinions expressed by writers are their own.

© 2008 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/97813/

[fevertrees]

Mccain ROCKS my world