it only proves he's unpatriotic and has no allegiance to this Great Country
I'm the one who asked the question. But I think this answer is just so shallow and silly. Hence why I asked.
Sure. No allegience to this country? I thought he was part of exactly what our forefathers...from George Washington on down...truly want for this country.
He's a proud card carrying tin foil hat Ron Paul fan. You know, the guy with some good ideas but gets a bad rap because his supporters are all beyond insane.
He's a proud card carrying tin foil hat Ron Paul fan. You know, the guy with some good ideas but gets a bad rap because his supporters are all beyond insane.
I was going to write...
Who would you support, RON PAUL?
But I didn't....
SOME good ideas, sure. But really...IMO...The last thing this country needs is MORE f*ing privatization. Holy crap.
He's a proud card carrying tin foil hat Ron Paul fan. You know, the guy with some good ideas but gets a bad rap because his supporters are all beyond insane.
sweet jesus, it's all making sense now. i forgot he was a paulsterbater.
"Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States, Barack Obama."
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
yep, he'd be my guy if he had a snowball's chance.
what does everyone think of voting for someone who has no chance of winning? is it worth it, to send a "message"? i guess the real question is, is that message even going to be HEARD?
>sigh<
"Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States, Barack Obama."
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
yep, he'd be my guy if he had a snowball's chance.
what does everyone think of voting for someone who has no chance of winning? is it worth it, to send a "message"? i guess the real question is, is that message even going to be HEARD?
>sigh<
That message will NOT be heard...but it's your vote and you should do with it as you please, even if your candidate has no shot.
yep, he'd be my guy if he had a snowball's chance.
what does everyone think of voting for someone who has no chance of winning? is it worth it, to send a "message"? i guess the real question is, is that message even going to be HEARD?
>sigh<
you vote for whomever you feel is the best candidate whether or not they stand a snowball's chance in hell. There will be another vote in a few months with only 2 major candidates and then you can rack your brain and wonder and agonize over your decision... until then you should vote for who you believe is the best choice, not who stands the best chance of winning.
This is your notice that there is a problem with your signature. Please remove it.
Admin
Social awareness does not equal political activism!
5/23/2011- An utter embarrassment... ticketing failures too many to list.
yep, he'd be my guy if he had a snowball's chance.
what does everyone think of voting for someone who has no chance of winning? is it worth it, to send a "message"? i guess the real question is, is that message even going to be HEARD?
>sigh<
This time around...I think no. Unfortunately.
That is why I posted my thought process...
I voted Obama...because in the BIG picture...I thought it was what needed to be done. The same (except opposite) logic that made me vote Nader in 2000. Concern for the big picture. Same yet opposite. This time I think it is very important for the Dems to appear as united as possible. I think my vote for Kucinich would have made us appear even that much more divided. I'm kind of hoping for an Obama/Edwards ticket. NOT SETTING THAT OPINION IN STONE. JUST THINKING ALOUD ON THE BOARD.
The principal policy division between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama involves health care. It’s a division that can seem technical and obscure — and I’ve read many assertions that only the most wonkish care about the fine print of their proposals.
But as I’ve tried to explain in previous columns, there really is a big difference between the candidates’ approaches. And new research, just released, confirms what I’ve been saying: the difference between the plans could well be the difference between achieving universal health coverage — a key progressive goal — and falling far short.
Specifically, new estimates say that a plan resembling Mrs. Clinton’s would cover almost twice as many of those now uninsured as a plan resembling Mr. Obama’s — at only slightly higher cost.
Let’s talk about how the plans compare.
Both plans require that private insurers offer policies to everyone, regardless of medical history. Both also allow people to buy into government-offered insurance instead.
And both plans seek to make insurance affordable to lower-income Americans. The Clinton plan is, however, more explicit about affordability, promising to limit insurance costs as a percentage of family income. And it also seems to include more funds for subsidies.
But the big difference is mandates: the Clinton plan requires that everyone have insurance; the Obama plan doesn’t.
Mr. Obama claims that people will buy insurance if it becomes affordable. Unfortunately, the evidence says otherwise.
After all, we already have programs that make health insurance free or very cheap to many low-income Americans, without requiring that they sign up. And many of those eligible fail, for whatever reason, to enroll.
An Obama-type plan would also face the problem of healthy people who decide to take their chances or don’t sign up until they develop medical problems, thereby raising premiums for everyone else. Mr. Obama, contradicting his earlier assertions that affordability is the only bar to coverage, is now talking about penalizing those who delay signing up — but it’s not clear how this would work.
So the Obama plan would leave more people uninsured than the Clinton plan. How big is the difference?
To answer this question you need to make a detailed analysis of health care decisions. That’s what Jonathan Gruber of M.I.T., one of America’s leading health care economists, does in a new paper.
Mr. Gruber finds that a plan without mandates, broadly resembling the Obama plan, would cover 23 million of those currently uninsured, at a taxpayer cost of $102 billion per year. An otherwise identical plan with mandates would cover 45 million of the uninsured — essentially everyone — at a taxpayer cost of $124 billion. Over all, the Obama-type plan would cost $4,400 per newly insured person, the Clinton-type plan only $2,700.
That doesn’t look like a trivial difference to me. One plan achieves more or less universal coverage; the other, although it costs more than 80 percent as much, covers only about half of those currently uninsured.
As with any economic analysis, Mr. Gruber’s results are only as good as his model. But they’re consistent with the results of other analyses, such as a 2003 study, commissioned by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, that compared health reform plans and found that mandates made a big difference both to success in covering the uninsured and to cost-effectiveness.
And that’s why many health care experts like Mr. Gruber strongly support mandates.
Now, some might argue that none of this matters, because the legislation presidents actually manage to get enacted often bears little resemblance to their campaign proposals. And there is, indeed, no guarantee that Mrs. Clinton would, if elected, be able to pass anything like her current health care plan.
But while it’s easy to see how the Clinton plan could end up being eviscerated, it’s hard to see how the hole in the Obama plan can be repaired. Why? Because Mr. Obama’s campaigning on the health care issue has sabotaged his own prospects.
You see, the Obama campaign has demonized the idea of mandates — most recently in a scare-tactics mailer sent to voters that bears a striking resemblance to the “Harry and Louise” ads run by the insurance lobby in 1993, ads that helped undermine our last chance at getting universal health care.
If Mr. Obama gets to the White House and tries to achieve universal coverage, he’ll find that it can’t be done without mandates — but if he tries to institute mandates, the enemies of reform will use his own words against him.
If you combine the economic analysis with these political realities, here’s what I think it says: If Mrs. Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, there is some chance — nobody knows how big — that we’ll get universal health care in the next administration. If Mr. Obama gets the nomination, it just won’t happen.
TRANSPLANTS SAVE LIVES www.UNOS.org Donate Organs and Save a Life
The principal policy division between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama involves health care. It’s a division that can seem technical and obscure — and I’ve read many assertions that only the most wonkish care about the fine print of their proposals.
But as I’ve tried to explain in previous columns, there really is a big difference between the candidates’ approaches. And new research, just released, confirms what I’ve been saying: the difference between the plans could well be the difference between achieving universal health coverage — a key progressive goal — and falling far short.
Specifically, new estimates say that a plan resembling Mrs. Clinton’s would cover almost twice as many of those now uninsured as a plan resembling Mr. Obama’s — at only slightly higher cost.
Let’s talk about how the plans compare.
Both plans require that private insurers offer policies to everyone, regardless of medical history. Both also allow people to buy into government-offered insurance instead.
And both plans seek to make insurance affordable to lower-income Americans. The Clinton plan is, however, more explicit about affordability, promising to limit insurance costs as a percentage of family income. And it also seems to include more funds for subsidies.
But the big difference is mandates: the Clinton plan requires that everyone have insurance; the Obama plan doesn’t.
Mr. Obama claims that people will buy insurance if it becomes affordable. Unfortunately, the evidence says otherwise.
After all, we already have programs that make health insurance free or very cheap to many low-income Americans, without requiring that they sign up. And many of those eligible fail, for whatever reason, to enroll.
An Obama-type plan would also face the problem of healthy people who decide to take their chances or don’t sign up until they develop medical problems, thereby raising premiums for everyone else. Mr. Obama, contradicting his earlier assertions that affordability is the only bar to coverage, is now talking about penalizing those who delay signing up — but it’s not clear how this would work.
So the Obama plan would leave more people uninsured than the Clinton plan. How big is the difference?
To answer this question you need to make a detailed analysis of health care decisions. That’s what Jonathan Gruber of M.I.T., one of America’s leading health care economists, does in a new paper.
Mr. Gruber finds that a plan without mandates, broadly resembling the Obama plan, would cover 23 million of those currently uninsured, at a taxpayer cost of $102 billion per year. An otherwise identical plan with mandates would cover 45 million of the uninsured — essentially everyone — at a taxpayer cost of $124 billion. Over all, the Obama-type plan would cost $4,400 per newly insured person, the Clinton-type plan only $2,700.
That doesn’t look like a trivial difference to me. One plan achieves more or less universal coverage; the other, although it costs more than 80 percent as much, covers only about half of those currently uninsured.
As with any economic analysis, Mr. Gruber’s results are only as good as his model. But they’re consistent with the results of other analyses, such as a 2003 study, commissioned by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, that compared health reform plans and found that mandates made a big difference both to success in covering the uninsured and to cost-effectiveness.
And that’s why many health care experts like Mr. Gruber strongly support mandates.
Now, some might argue that none of this matters, because the legislation presidents actually manage to get enacted often bears little resemblance to their campaign proposals. And there is, indeed, no guarantee that Mrs. Clinton would, if elected, be able to pass anything like her current health care plan.
But while it’s easy to see how the Clinton plan could end up being eviscerated, it’s hard to see how the hole in the Obama plan can be repaired. Why? Because Mr. Obama’s campaigning on the health care issue has sabotaged his own prospects.
You see, the Obama campaign has demonized the idea of mandates — most recently in a scare-tactics mailer sent to voters that bears a striking resemblance to the “Harry and Louise” ads run by the insurance lobby in 1993, ads that helped undermine our last chance at getting universal health care.
If Mr. Obama gets to the White House and tries to achieve universal coverage, he’ll find that it can’t be done without mandates — but if he tries to institute mandates, the enemies of reform will use his own words against him.
If you combine the economic analysis with these political realities, here’s what I think it says: If Mrs. Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, there is some chance — nobody knows how big — that we’ll get universal health care in the next administration. If Mr. Obama gets the nomination, it just won’t happen.
The fair and balanced Paul Krugman strikes again. That guy is so far up the Clintons ass it isn't funny.
Here's why I prefer Obamas plan. A lot of people don't want health care. Why? I have no idea, but lets force them to buy it and if they don't we will garnish their wages to cover their insurance even if they can't afford it?
The fair and balanced Paul Krugman strikes again. That guy is so far up the Clintons ass it isn't funny.
Here's why I prefer Obamas plan. A lot of people don't want health care. Why? I have no idea, but lets force them to buy it and if they don't we will garnish their wages to cover their insurance even if they can't afford it?
i think the reason alot of people don't buy healthcare is that they know they can get free care at their local emergency room. unfortunately, in poor communities that's a very popular approach.
of course, that leaves them- and their children- out in the cold when it comes to long-term or catastrophic illness. i feel that people should be forced to have insurance for their dependents. whether or not they cover themselves is up to them, but children and those who are not the working ones in the household (elderly, etc.) shouldn't have to suffer.
"Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States, Barack Obama."
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
i feel that people should be forced to have insurance for their dependents. whether or not they cover themselves is up to them, but children and those who are not the working ones in the household (elderly, etc.) shouldn't have to suffer.
Exactly, and Senator Obamas plan does cover children, even if their parents choose not to buy insurance.
Obama it is. I'd like to see him win the election. Feel he may be more electable than Hillary in November.
I pretty much feel this way too.
Even though I prefer the politics of some of the more left wing guys (Kucinich, Gravel and even Edwards...) I decided to cast a vote for Obama today...
Even though I prefer the politics of some of the more left wing guys (Kucinich, Gravel and even Edwards...) I decided to cast a vote for Obama today...
thank you, i didn't know that. but how does he propose to accomplish that, short of the garnishing-wages idea that clinton proposes?
I believe a lot of it comes from rolling back the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy. There is somewhere else where the funding would come from but w/ all the poll numbers in my head right now, I'm going to go on the record as officially "braindead" for the next 10+ hours.
The fair and balanced Paul Krugman strikes again. That guy is so far up the Clintons ass it isn't funny.
Here's why I prefer Obamas plan. A lot of people don't want health care. Why? I have no idea, but lets force them to buy it and if they don't we will garnish their wages to cover their insurance even if they can't afford it?
And by garnishing wages, the clinton plan ends up hurting poor folks more than it helps them. Couple that with the fact that hillary has failed to advance her plan for 15 years now. She can push it for 15 more and still not get it passed. Obama's plan, on the other hand, has a better than average chance of passing. All of this makes Obama's plan much better.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
Comments
I'm the one who asked the question. But I think this answer is just so shallow and silly. Hence why I asked.
Sure. No allegience to this country? I thought he was part of exactly what our forefathers...from George Washington on down...truly want for this country.
And who would you support?
He's a proud card carrying tin foil hat Ron Paul fan. You know, the guy with some good ideas but gets a bad rap because his supporters are all beyond insane.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
Dude I am still waiting for the call from the cops you told me about... did they take your complaint? My phone is charged too... Im waiting.
I was going to write...
Who would you support, RON PAUL?
But I didn't....
SOME good ideas, sure. But really...IMO...The last thing this country needs is MORE f*ing privatization. Holy crap.
dude, no offense, but anyone who is screwy enough to post this-
http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=5159381&postcount=27
i'm good without your input, thanks. :rolleyes:
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
sweet jesus, it's all making sense now. i forgot he was a paulsterbater.
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
have I ever threatened physical violence on you? of course not.
yep, he'd be my guy if he had a snowball's chance.
what does everyone think of voting for someone who has no chance of winning? is it worth it, to send a "message"? i guess the real question is, is that message even going to be HEARD?
>sigh<
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
That message will NOT be heard...but it's your vote and you should do with it as you please, even if your candidate has no shot.
you vote for whomever you feel is the best candidate whether or not they stand a snowball's chance in hell. There will be another vote in a few months with only 2 major candidates and then you can rack your brain and wonder and agonize over your decision... until then you should vote for who you believe is the best choice, not who stands the best chance of winning.
Admin
Social awareness does not equal political activism!
5/23/2011- An utter embarrassment... ticketing failures too many to list.
This time around...I think no. Unfortunately.
That is why I posted my thought process...
I voted Obama...because in the BIG picture...I thought it was what needed to be done. The same (except opposite) logic that made me vote Nader in 2000. Concern for the big picture. Same yet opposite. This time I think it is very important for the Dems to appear as united as possible. I think my vote for Kucinich would have made us appear even that much more divided. I'm kind of hoping for an Obama/Edwards ticket. NOT SETTING THAT OPINION IN STONE. JUST THINKING ALOUD ON THE BOARD.
My two cents...
Unless voting for a candidate with a shot means something to you right now.
That thinking is what pushed me to my vote.
Sell out.....maybe. Maybe not. But I did what my heart and head told me was the right thing for ME to do.
Good luck Sweetpotato. It's a tough decision.Hope you share what you decide!
holy shizzle, really?
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: February 4, 2008
The principal policy division between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama involves health care. It’s a division that can seem technical and obscure — and I’ve read many assertions that only the most wonkish care about the fine print of their proposals.
But as I’ve tried to explain in previous columns, there really is a big difference between the candidates’ approaches. And new research, just released, confirms what I’ve been saying: the difference between the plans could well be the difference between achieving universal health coverage — a key progressive goal — and falling far short.
Specifically, new estimates say that a plan resembling Mrs. Clinton’s would cover almost twice as many of those now uninsured as a plan resembling Mr. Obama’s — at only slightly higher cost.
Let’s talk about how the plans compare.
Both plans require that private insurers offer policies to everyone, regardless of medical history. Both also allow people to buy into government-offered insurance instead.
And both plans seek to make insurance affordable to lower-income Americans. The Clinton plan is, however, more explicit about affordability, promising to limit insurance costs as a percentage of family income. And it also seems to include more funds for subsidies.
But the big difference is mandates: the Clinton plan requires that everyone have insurance; the Obama plan doesn’t.
Mr. Obama claims that people will buy insurance if it becomes affordable. Unfortunately, the evidence says otherwise.
After all, we already have programs that make health insurance free or very cheap to many low-income Americans, without requiring that they sign up. And many of those eligible fail, for whatever reason, to enroll.
An Obama-type plan would also face the problem of healthy people who decide to take their chances or don’t sign up until they develop medical problems, thereby raising premiums for everyone else. Mr. Obama, contradicting his earlier assertions that affordability is the only bar to coverage, is now talking about penalizing those who delay signing up — but it’s not clear how this would work.
So the Obama plan would leave more people uninsured than the Clinton plan. How big is the difference?
To answer this question you need to make a detailed analysis of health care decisions. That’s what Jonathan Gruber of M.I.T., one of America’s leading health care economists, does in a new paper.
Mr. Gruber finds that a plan without mandates, broadly resembling the Obama plan, would cover 23 million of those currently uninsured, at a taxpayer cost of $102 billion per year. An otherwise identical plan with mandates would cover 45 million of the uninsured — essentially everyone — at a taxpayer cost of $124 billion. Over all, the Obama-type plan would cost $4,400 per newly insured person, the Clinton-type plan only $2,700.
That doesn’t look like a trivial difference to me. One plan achieves more or less universal coverage; the other, although it costs more than 80 percent as much, covers only about half of those currently uninsured.
As with any economic analysis, Mr. Gruber’s results are only as good as his model. But they’re consistent with the results of other analyses, such as a 2003 study, commissioned by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, that compared health reform plans and found that mandates made a big difference both to success in covering the uninsured and to cost-effectiveness.
And that’s why many health care experts like Mr. Gruber strongly support mandates.
Now, some might argue that none of this matters, because the legislation presidents actually manage to get enacted often bears little resemblance to their campaign proposals. And there is, indeed, no guarantee that Mrs. Clinton would, if elected, be able to pass anything like her current health care plan.
But while it’s easy to see how the Clinton plan could end up being eviscerated, it’s hard to see how the hole in the Obama plan can be repaired. Why? Because Mr. Obama’s campaigning on the health care issue has sabotaged his own prospects.
You see, the Obama campaign has demonized the idea of mandates — most recently in a scare-tactics mailer sent to voters that bears a striking resemblance to the “Harry and Louise” ads run by the insurance lobby in 1993, ads that helped undermine our last chance at getting universal health care.
If Mr. Obama gets to the White House and tries to achieve universal coverage, he’ll find that it can’t be done without mandates — but if he tries to institute mandates, the enemies of reform will use his own words against him.
If you combine the economic analysis with these political realities, here’s what I think it says: If Mrs. Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, there is some chance — nobody knows how big — that we’ll get universal health care in the next administration. If Mr. Obama gets the nomination, it just won’t happen.
www.UNOS.org
Donate Organs and Save a Life
Probably doesn't drink Natty Light either....
That's enough to get him my vote!
The fair and balanced Paul Krugman strikes again. That guy is so far up the Clintons ass it isn't funny.
Here's why I prefer Obamas plan. A lot of people don't want health care. Why? I have no idea, but lets force them to buy it and if they don't we will garnish their wages to cover their insurance even if they can't afford it?
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
even tho teddy k endorsed him??
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
Well, if Barrack states his intention to make ole Teddy the head of the DOT, I'll change my mind.
I say it's a primary vote idealistically with the hopes that future elections will be more free and idea based.
i think the reason alot of people don't buy healthcare is that they know they can get free care at their local emergency room. unfortunately, in poor communities that's a very popular approach.
of course, that leaves them- and their children- out in the cold when it comes to long-term or catastrophic illness. i feel that people should be forced to have insurance for their dependents. whether or not they cover themselves is up to them, but children and those who are not the working ones in the household (elderly, etc.) shouldn't have to suffer.
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
Exactly, and Senator Obamas plan does cover children, even if their parents choose not to buy insurance.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
I pretty much feel this way too.
Even though I prefer the politics of some of the more left wing guys (Kucinich, Gravel and even Edwards...) I decided to cast a vote for Obama today...
sad........
PEARL JAM~San Antonio, TX. 4~5~03
INCUBUS~Houston, TX. 1~19~07
INCUBUS~Denver, CO. 2~8~07
Lollapalooza~Chicago, IL. 8~5~07
INCUBUS~Austin, TX. 9~3~07
Bonnaroo~Manchester, TN 6~14~08
thank you, i didn't know that. but how does he propose to accomplish that, short of the garnishing-wages idea that clinton proposes?
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
Not really. I also chose a turkey sandwich today.
Could have had the fried oysters...but there are always a lot of factors to weigh when making an informed choice and an informed decision.
I believe a lot of it comes from rolling back the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy. There is somewhere else where the funding would come from but w/ all the poll numbers in my head right now, I'm going to go on the record as officially "braindead" for the next 10+ hours.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
And by garnishing wages, the clinton plan ends up hurting poor folks more than it helps them. Couple that with the fact that hillary has failed to advance her plan for 15 years now. She can push it for 15 more and still not get it passed. Obama's plan, on the other hand, has a better than average chance of passing. All of this makes Obama's plan much better.
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7