McCain hits a home run

[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]

That's Corporal Adolf Hitler on the right
Josef Stalin (Commies can be militaristic, flag waving nationalists too)
Idi Amin (received his military training by the British)

Touche....

Young 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....

[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 gtown pulls; don't be a bag 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 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 gtown pulls; don't be a bag 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 bull . 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 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/election08/9...e_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 bull rather than substance.


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

[boutons_]

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

The justification and Powell's UN bull 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 bull . 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 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/...alth-care.html

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publ...?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/s...oryId=89651916

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=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/con...ull/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]

[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.