Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

gasmandew

Clinton-Obama

Recommended Posts

So Hillary is doing the smart thing and suggesting an alliance with the younger Obama as her VP.

This makes sense. It would all but guarantee a DEM in the white house and Obama would get her support for his own run in (if he bargains well) in 4 years.

Its a slam dunk and Obama should agree for the sake of the DEM party and the country.

 

 

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/5593959.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope not. There is no way I could cast a ballot for Clinton, in any capacity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dislike the fact that people from 2 families (out of a nation of approximately 295,734,134) will have been in office since 1980, that's my main issue. I don't like her health care plan or the fact she voted for Iraq. I think if she wins, the country will become even more divided than it already is. I also think she is a cunt and I am tired of having a cunt in office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hilary is a republican with a democrat party line. Like our current POTUS, her time in office will be more focused on her profits than on the people. She is by far, the worse possible choice of the three front runners. I would choose not to vote before casting a ballot for her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

moot point. Clinton, Obama, and McCain are all republicrats with the practically the same agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I dislike the fact that people from 2 families (out of a nation of approximately 295,734,134) will have been in office since 1980, that's my main issue. I don't like her health care plan or the fact she voted for Iraq. I think if she wins, the country will become even more divided than it already is. I also think she is a cunt and I am tired of having a cunt in office.

You go girl! I'd like to see Obama get together with Bloomberg as an independent and a billion dollar budget and beat both hillary and McCain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I mentioned in the Bush endorsing McCain thread, my main gripe with Hillary is the Iraq vote, and her refusal to recognize that it was a mistake to delegate legislative power to the executive. This is compounded by her more recent vote on the Iranian guard terrorism issue, which shows me that either she still doesn't get it, or she is in the pocket of the defense lobby, or both. On top of that, she would be incredibly divisive. The only person the wing nuts hate more than Bill is Hillary.

 

On the good side, to take that last point a bit farther, it would be fun to watch those who cry about hate/blame Bush doing the same thing with Hillary. The fact that she has a bigger pair of balls than Carly, and doesn't lie quite as much, would drive him up the wall. That would be fun, and big fun at that, but still not worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
moot point. Clinton, Obama, and McCain are all republicrats with the practically the same agenda.

 

But 2 of the 3 are polarizing and agents of the past. We need change even if it's change for change sake. Obama is the best candidate to unite america - depending on how out of hand the bigot in the republican party get during the general election...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The fact that she has a bigger pair of balls than Carly

A turd has a bigger pair of balls than Carly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I dislike the fact that people from 2 families (out of a nation of approximately 295,734,134) will have been in office since 1980, that's my main issue. I don't like her health care plan or the fact she voted for Iraq. I think if she wins, the country will become even more divided than it already is. I also think she is a cunt and I am tired of having a cunt in office.

 

Your first and last point, in all candor, lack objectivity, as for her health care plan - its not too terribly different from Obama's and it begs the question - What kind of health care do you currently have? It will probably not impact you directly so are you concerned about an indirect tax increase to entitle someone less fortunate than you - health care? Chances are, it will impact employers - so I could see that it would be problematic if you are an employer.

 

I dont like that she voted for the Iraq war either but she has indicated that she would withdraw troops within 60 days of getting elected.

for what its worth - I disagree that the country could possibly be MORE divided than it is now and with a dem majority in Congress and a DEM in the WH - I think it would be a united rather than divisive election, albeit with a very vocal minority.

But thats just healthy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your first and last point, in all candor, lack objectivity, as for her health care plan - its not too terribly different from Obama's and it begs the question - What kind of health care do you currently have? It will probably not impact you directly so are you concerned about an indirect tax increase to entitle someone less fortunate than you - health care? Chances are, it will impact employers - so I could see that it would be problematic if you are an employer.

 

I dont like that she voted for the Iraq war either but she has indicated that she would withdraw troops within 60 days of getting elected.

for what its worth - I disagree that the country could possibly be MORE divided than it is now and with a dem majority in Congress and a DEM in the WH - I think it would be a united rather than divisive election, albeit with a very vocal minority.

But thats just healthy.

You didn't ask that I be objective. You simply asked why I wouldn't specifically vote for Hillary. What kind of health care do I have? None. I AM someone less fortunate than me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

see here is the thing.

 

I think Hillary has an ace up her sleeve. By hook or by crook she is gonna get those FLA and MI delegates counted. So at this stage of the game - It is to her advantage to lay her cards out on the table and show Obama that he can have a seat at the high stakes table as a VP or get busted out - and worse, risk losing the WH to McCain mo of the same. She then (IMHO) agrees to only be POTUS for 4 yrs and then throw her support to Obama in his run for the presidency in 4 yrs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You didn't ask that I be objective. You simply asked why I wouldn't specifically vote for Hillary. What kind of health care do I have? None. I AM someone less fortunate than me.

 

That is indeed unfortunate.

 

Who do you blame for your lack of insurance?

 

best of health to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is indeed unfortunate.

 

Who do you blame for your lack of insurance?

 

best of health to you.

I don't blame anyone for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't blame anyone for it.

 

good on you then if you have no dependents and manage your risks.

 

but arent you, by default, expecting the current health care system to bale you out if your health deteriorates?

 

And if so, the mandate for "universal health care" that Hillary proposes - may not be in your best interests, so I understand your position, but IS designed to cover you nonetheless.

 

I guess Hillary thinks more of you than you do of her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yea a merged ticket would be just the joint. So if you could only tolerate one or the other, you would then have good reason not to vote for both. Yep, a clear winner.

thanks for your submission - this would prove my hypothesis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yea a merged ticket would be just the joint. So if you could only tolerate one or the other, you would then have good reason not to vote for both. Yep, a clear winner.

Chuckle chuckle... But who is your party going to pick to run with McCain? Will they go to the center or to the right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chuckle chuckle... But who is your party going to pick to run with McCain? Will they go to the center or to the right?

To be clear it's not my party. I suggest the Republicans have to go right of McCain. Given McCain their going right choice could still be well left of center. They already have most of the center-left with McCain I don't think another RINO type would bring in additional support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How 'bout that pole smoker Lieberman? Two peas in a pod those two would be. Plus he's got the added bonus of having already been on a ticket that won the popular vote once already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How 'bout that pole smoker Lieberman? Two peas in a pod those two would be. Plus he's got the added bonus of having already been on a ticket that won the popular vote once already.

 

Yes, and Lieberman is pretty much to the right of McCain. Nice idea!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it a Dem dream ticket or is it just adding negatives to negatives?

 

Normally A presidential candidate picks a running-mate that will win a useful state but who is sufficiently unknown that they don't bing any negatives to the ticket.

 

I believe something like 50% have said there are no way in hell they will ever vote for Hillary, if there is a group that feels that same way about Obama and only 1% of those don't overlap the 50% against Hillary, then they will have a very hard time winning.

 

 

Poll Link

 

Another Poll Link

 

One More Poll Link

 

Even another Poll Link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who do you blame for your lack of insurance?

 

 

gassy that is a classic question

 

you have summed up many on the farr left and this site

 

congrats

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gassy that is a classic question

 

you have summed up many on the farr left and this site

 

congrats

But did you see the response?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
good on you then if you have no dependents and manage your risks.

No, it's not 'good on me' if I don't have insurance. 'Good on me?' Are you serious?

 

but arent you, by default, expecting the current health care system to bale you out if your health deteriorates?

I don't quite view it like that. I except the system to care for me if I am ill but I also understand you get what you pay for.

 

And if so, the mandate for "universal health care" that Hillary proposes - may not be in your best interests, so I understand your position, but IS designed to cover you nonetheless.

I don't think you understand my position. I think there should be universal health care. I stated I did not like Hillary's plan to achieve that.

 

I guess Hillary thinks more of you than you do of her.

Whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fine have it your way

 

your to blame for your mess

 

Maybe you should spend less time posting here and more time working to pay for insurance like the rest of us.

 

 

 

 

women - if they didnt have a pussy, their would be a bounty on their heads...............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fine have it your way

Thanks. I love America for the freedom to do it my way. It's like BurgerKing and Frank Sinatra all rolled up into one.

your to blame for your mess

True. As you are for yours.

Maybe you should spend less time posting here and more time working to pay for insurance like the rest of us.

You can't tell me what to do!

 

women - if they didnt have a pussy, their would be a bounty on their heads...............

maybe if you spent time getting some more pussy, you wouldn't be such an ass on the Internet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
She then (IMHO) agrees to only be POTUS for 4 yrs and then throw her support to Obama in his run for the presidency in 4 yrs.

 

I have to congratulate your drug dealer, because whatever you're smoking must be some first rate stuff!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

B)-->

QUOTE(Jeff B @ Mar 5 2008, 04:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I have to congratulate your drug dealer, because whatever you're smoking must be some first rate stuff!

I understand your frustration fly boy- the art of compromise is lost upon the egotistical - you may have to come home and get a real job... maybe flying tourists over the grand canyon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gassy that is a classic question

 

you have summed up many on the farr left and this site

 

congrats

 

Beat me to it , poops!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

B)-->

QUOTE(Jeff B @ Mar 5 2008, 11:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Beat me to it , poops!

Yep, and MSG beat you to the answer too. Funny how all y'alls preconceived notions about them dastardly liburuls don't work so well in the real world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
maybe if you spent time getting some more pussy, you wouldn't be such an ass on the Internet.

 

That's fucking classic. MSG, I knew there was a reason why I liked you so much! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your first and last point, in all candor, lack objectivity,

Where is the missing objectivity in observing the fact that control of the White House would sit with 2 families for at least 20 years, potential for 24? Makes me feel like I'm living in a frigging monarchy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where is the missing objectivity in observing the fact that control of the White House would sit with 2 families for at least 20 years, potential for 24? Makes me feel like I'm living in a frigging monarchy.

 

that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where is the missing objectivity in observing the fact that control of the White House would sit with 2 families for at least 20 years, potential for 24? Makes me feel like I'm living in a frigging monarchy.

Facts have a well-known liberal bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(Jeff B @ Mar 5 2008, 11:54 AM) Beat me to it , poops!

Yep, and MSG beat you to the answer too. Funny how all y'alls preconceived notions about them dastardly liburuls don't work so well in the real world.

 

I think MSGs attitude about "who's to blame" is the exception, not the rule and frankly its refreshing to hear someone NOT blame the system or society or whatever for their issues. gassy's question however is classic entitlement mentality thinking: "someone else MUST be to blame for you not having X".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
that

 

 

Facts have a well-known liberal bias.

There are facts, and then there are responses to facts. Separated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

B)-->

QUOTE(Jeff B @ Mar 5 2008, 05:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I think MSGs attitude about "who's to blame" is the exception, not the rule and frankly its refreshing to hear someone NOT blame the system or society or whatever for their issues. gassy's question however is classic entitlement mentality thinking: "someone else MUST be to blame for you not having X".

merely handing her the proverbial shovel to dig her own proverbial hole.

 

To her credit, she stepped up and admitted her complicity.

 

That notwithstanding, charm school may be the better investment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

B)-->

QUOTE(Jeff B @ Mar 5 2008, 12:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I think MSGs attitude about "who's to blame" is the exception, not the rule and frankly its refreshing to hear someone NOT blame the system or society or whatever for their issues. gassy's question however is classic entitlement mentality thinking: "someone else MUST be to blame for you not having X".

 

And I think you're wrong. Personal responsibility and the freedom that comes with taking it is a trait of all Americans, not just those on the right. The only thing exceptional about that is that its ubiquitous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

B)-->

QUOTE(Jeff B @ Mar 5 2008, 12:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I think MSGs attitude about "who's to blame" is the exception, not the rule and frankly its refreshing to hear someone NOT blame the system or society or whatever for their issues. gassy's question however is classic entitlement mentality thinking: "someone else MUST be to blame for you not having X".

As we see now, questions, as well as facts, have a liberal bias....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who heads the ticket?

 

Obama with Clinton as VP?

maybe, but I don't like the puppet on strings tone to it... we had enough of tha with Bush/Cheney.

Clinton with Obama as VP?

I'll go third party.

 

And even more interesting.. how would the DNC sell it if they chose one over the other to head the ticket against popular vote and/or primary delegates?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think MSG has definitely gotten the best of you on this thread, gassy.

Apologize for the sexist remark and she might even help you out of the hole you fell into.

 

Wake up, health care is NOT available or affordable to all Americans, regardless of their employment status. I work in the largest single industry in S. FL and we are one of the few companies in that industry with a health care plan. Reality is that if your company doesn't offer it, it's next to impossible to pay for privately.

I am also in complete agreement that having having the same family in office for 20 some odd years does just reek of monarchy. What part of that obvious situation don't you get?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who heads the ticket?

 

Obama with Clinton as VP?

maybe, but I don't like the puppet on strings tone to it... we had enough of tha with Bush/Cheney.

Clinton with Obama as VP?

I'll go third party.

 

And even more interesting.. how would the DNC sell it if they chose one over the other to head the ticket against popular vote and/or primary delegates?

I don't think either of them will be offered the veep slot. I'd bet either of them would look to balance the ticket with someone with more middle or conservative credentials. A 'Fighting Dem' like Jim Webb seems a much more likely pick to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
B)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jeff B @ Mar 5 2008, 05:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think MSGs attitude about "who's to blame" is the exception, not the rule and frankly its refreshing to hear someone NOT blame the system or society or whatever for their issues. gassy's question however is classic entitlement mentality thinking: "someone else MUST be to blame for you not having X".

merely handing her the proverbial shovel to dig her own proverbial hole.

 

To her credit, she stepped up and admitted her complicity.

 

That notwithstanding, charm school may be the better investment.

How did I dig my own hole? Because I won't vote for Hillary and gave you my reasons why? Because I don't have health insurance? Because I don't blame anyone for my lack of insurance? Because I think you're an ass on the internet?

 

Admitted my complicity in what? That fact that I live in a country without universal health care?

 

And just for the record:

Y'all ain't gonna catch me in no muthafuckin charm school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Y'all ain't gonna catch me in no muthafuckin charm school.

 

Glad to hear it. I'd have to stop hangin' out with you if I did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think MSG has definitely gotten the best of you on this thread, gassy.

Apologize for the sexist remark and she might even help you out of the hole you fell into.

 

Wake up, health care is NOT available or affordable to all Americans, regardless of their employment status. I work in the largest single industry in S. FL and we are one of the few companies in that industry with a health care plan. Reality is that if your company doesn't offer it, it's next to impossible to pay for privately.

I am also in complete agreement that having having the same family in office for 20 some odd years does just reek of monarchy. What part of that obvious situation don't you get?

 

how gallant of you to come to her defense... me thinks you wouldnt be so quick if it was

 

Mainsheetman you were defending

 

- hence proving my sexist remark.

 

All you guys are real quick to defend this persons right to go without insurance even when it will eventually cost you in increase health care premiums when she inevitably gets old and cant pay for the ever expensive procedures that will happen.

I reckon ya'' are looking for a virtual lay... good luck with dat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who heads the ticket?

 

Obama with Clinton as VP?

maybe, but I don't like the puppet on strings tone to it... we had enough of tha with Bush/Cheney.

Clinton with Obama as VP?

I'll go third party.

 

And even more interesting.. how would the DNC sell it if they chose one over the other to head the ticket against popular vote and/or primary delegates?

 

Clinton/Obama may be viable, if they don't continue to trash each other leading up to the convention. Clinton/Obama has major issues tho, MSG views are held by a large portion of the country. Clinton/someone else will end up disenfranchising much of the new dems. It would be a disaster for the dems.

 

I don't see Obama/Clinton flying. Hillary wouldn't be willing to be Veep. It's the least powerful job in the government. She would rather be Senator Clinton than VP Clinton.

 

Obama/Richardson would be a ticket that could win. Richardson brings in the latinos and tons of experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clinton/Obama may be viable, if they don't continue to trash each other leading up to the convention. Clinton/Obama has major issues tho, MSG views are held by a large portion of the country. Clinton/someone else will end up disenfranchising much of the new dems. It would be a disaster for the dems.

 

I don't see Obama/Clinton flying. Hillary wouldn't be willing to be Veep. It's the least powerful job in the government. She would rather be Senator Clinton than VP Clinton.

 

Obama/Richardson would be a ticket that could win. Richardson brings in the latinos and tons of experience.

I don't think the latino vote goes anywhere near Republican this time. Too much risk on the immigration front. That got pretty nasty over the last couple years.

 

Thinking about it more, I'd agree with ChuckD. Niether will go VP and such talk is mostly media driven hoo haw.

 

Jim Webb is a much better choice.. and that choice could nail the coffin closed on McCain.

I wonder if Webb would have any of it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
- hence proving my sexist remark.

Dude, did you ever consider that these people actually know eachother off the internet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dude, did you ever consider that these people actually know eachother off the internet?

Dude, well aware.

 

the sexist remark was: Women (that would be ALL women - not one in particuliar) - If it wasnt for their pussy - their would be a bounty on their heads.

 

its the truth - think about it. and then get back to me on your denial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dude, well aware.

 

the sexist remark was: Women (that would be ALL women - not one in particuliar) - If it wasnt for their pussy - their would be a bounty on their heads.

 

its the truth - think about it. and then get back to me on your denial.

First you have to explain your assertion - would they be giving birth through their mouths? Would they have penises (penii?)? I need all the info in gasmandew's bizarro world to construct my response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
how gallant of you to come to her defense... me thinks you wouldnt be so quick if it was

 

Mainsheetman you were defending

 

- hence proving my sexist remark.

 

All you guys are real quick to defend this persons right to go without insurance even when it will eventually cost you in increase health care premiums when she inevitably gets old and cant pay for the ever expensive procedures that will happen.

I reckon ya'' are looking for a virtual lay... good luck with dat.

Oh Jesus Christ! Hellhound was simply pointing out he thinks that you made a very sexist remark. Which you did.

 

Why do you bring up virtual lays? Are those the only kind you have been getting lately?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
how gallant of you to come to her defense... me thinks you wouldnt be so quick if it was

 

Mainsheetman you were defending

 

- hence proving my sexist remark.

 

All you guys are real quick to defend this persons right to go without insurance even when it will eventually cost you in increase health care premiums when she inevitably gets old and cant pay for the ever expensive procedures that will happen.

I reckon ya'' are looking for a virtual lay... good luck with dat.

 

Fucktard, I happen to be a friend of hers, sail with her, and hang out with her, as well as her male companion. In addition to that I am happily married to another woman on this forum, and we all hang out together. If YOU pulled the foreskin down from around your eyes and actually read posts for comprehension rather than quick comback you might be able to start responding with your grey matter instead of with your dick.

 

BTW, chivalry is not dead in my world either,although MSG doesn't need me for her defense. She's been giving you the proverbial ass kicking all day on her own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
She's been giving you the proverbial ass kicking all day on her own.

And Good Lord have I had fun! :lol: I love PA, especially on a rainy day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about a sandwich from My Market instead?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn, should have hooked up with you guys before I left. Just got done with the My Markey Sub Rosa. Good stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reality is that if your company doesn't offer it, it's next to impossible to pay for privately.

 

Sort of. As long as you don't have any nasty preexisting conditions you can get it. I'm self employed and it costs me about a car payment's worth of money every month. And of course, the older I get the more it costs.

 

There's really a two-fold problem here. Some working people just can't afford that kind of money. And then you have other self employed people who would rather spend that money on a shiny new car or other luxuries because they don't think they really "need" insurance. But at the end of the day the result is the same -- when these people have a catastrophic illness and default on their medical bills, the rest of us end up picking up the tab. From a purely economic standpoint, our system just doesn't make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sort of. As long as you don't have any nasty preexisting conditions you can get it. I'm self employed and it costs me about a car payment's worth of money every month. And of course, the older I get the more it costs.

 

There's really a two-fold problem here. Some working people just can't afford that kind of money. And then you have other self employed people who would rather spend that money on a shiny new car or other luxuries because they don't think they really "need" insurance. But at the end of the day the result is the same -- when these people have a catastrophic illness and default on their medical bills, the rest of us end up picking up the tab. From a purely economic standpoint, our system just doesn't make sense.

 

Well, the simple solution to that is to give catastrophic care to the poor who are honestly trying to get by but still can't afford HC and deny it to those who would rather spend their money on shiny new cars and other luxuries. Harsh? You bet, but for those that can afford it and don't buy it: you rolls your dice, you takes your chances. AMF!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fucktard, I happen to be a friend of hers, sail with her, and hang out with her, as well as her male companion. In addition to that I am happily married to another woman on this forum, and we all hang out together. If YOU pulled the foreskin down from around your eyes and actually read posts for comprehension rather than quick comback you might be able to start responding with your grey matter instead of with your dick.

 

BTW, chivalry is not dead in my world either,although MSG doesn't need me for her defense. She's been giving you the proverbial ass kicking all day on her own.

 

ok final hijack rebuttal: 1. She jumped down in the gutter first in post #4" I also think she is a cunt" - so ease up on protecting her virtue and my later sexist remark.

 

2. in post #17, I wrongly presumed that she was well off enough and therefore congratulated her on being self insured...

she responded derisively to my compliment.

"

No, it's not 'good on me' if I don't have insurance. 'Good on me?' Are you serious?"

 

this would also be her admission in complicity - that she is in effect - costing the rest of us higher health care premiums - and she has no problem with that apparently - nor do you. fine. your both more liberal than i thought.

 

the hole she dug was saying that she was unfortunate to not have insurance but was cool that when the big bills come.. she will be good with uncle sam (us) picking up the tab.

 

so fellas - I am sure she is a fine sailor - that as close to an apology as your gonna get from me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look! Up in the sky! It's a bird! It's a plane! No! It's OBAMA-MAN! "Fast than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, Obama-man is here to right the wrongs of the Neocons and restore faith in the American Way.."

 

Obama to Hillary: "Yo! You going down, bitch!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

B)-->

QUOTE(Jeff B @ Mar 5 2008, 10:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Well, the simple solution to that is to give catastrophic care to the poor who are honestly trying to get by but still can't afford HC and deny it to those who would rather spend their money on shiny new cars and other luxuries. Harsh? You bet, but for those that can afford it and don't buy it: you rolls your dice, you takes your chances. AMF!

 

Well, I suppose that could work in theory, but in reality our society won't accept it. If you crash your shiny new BMW bike and the ambulance takes you to the closest ER, they are going to patch you up whether you have insurance or not. Our society is simply not willing to have people bleeding to death by the side of the road because they don't have health insurance. Until we're willing to accept that (and I'm not saying that we should) your system is just not going to work, and the people who actually pay for insurance are going to keep subsidizing the free-riders.

 

Ultimately, single-payer makes the most economic and social sense in advanced economies that can certainly afford it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fault nobody for increased health care premiums other than the established system that keeps US healthcare organized the way it is. I'm fortunate enough to have it myself, but bet your ass I would do the emergency room bill dodge if I didn't. I fault our system of government that still remains too involved in big business and big finaince to do the right thing for its people. Why blame someone without the means for the inevitability that they may need medical attention some day? Many poor people use the emergency room as a clinic, because they can. It's our system that screws them out of other healthcare possibilities, not their income.

You are obviously one of those woman hating fucking freaks who wish the whole world was a Budweiser commercial and we all had dicks. I personally love women and treat them all with a certain level of respect and diference. Funny how you state that they would all have bounties on their heads without the pussy, then call one a cunt. You seem very sexually frustrated. Did your mother whack you with a spatula too often, or not enough? First girlfriend laughed at your little dick and then told her friends about it, making it really hard to get a date in college? Seriously, what's your problem with women? Do you just prefer dick? I mean, that's fine if you do. I am liberal enough not to have a problem with homosexuals. I just highly dislike misogonist pricks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

B)-->

QUOTE(Jeff B @ Mar 5 2008, 10:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Well, the simple solution to that is to give catastrophic care to the poor who are honestly trying to get by but still can't afford HC and deny it to those who would rather spend their money on shiny new cars and other luxuries. Harsh? You bet, but for those that can afford it and don't buy it: you rolls your dice, you takes your chances. AMF!

What an altruist.

 

How will you determine who is "the poor who are honestly trying to get by but still can't afford HC"?

 

"Harsh", my ass.

 

More like "completely out of touch with reality"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Single payer health care, equal coverage for all. It's the only way to go.

...and go ahead and call me a commie or socialist for that, i don't care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sort of. As long as you don't have any nasty preexisting conditions you can get it. I'm self employed and it costs me about a car payment's worth of money every month. And of course, the older I get the more it costs.

 

There's really a two-fold problem here. Some working people just can't afford that kind of money. And then you have other self employed people who would rather spend that money on a shiny new car or other luxuries because they don't think they really "need" insurance. But at the end of the day the result is the same -- when these people have a catastrophic illness and default on their medical bills, the rest of us end up picking up the tab. From a purely economic standpoint, our system just doesn't make sense.

 

On that I can agree. Perhaps a better way to look at it is that "health insurance" is not "insurance" in the traditional sense. Consider your car or home insurance. You purchase it with the fervent hope to never use it. On the other hand you expect to use your "health insurance" every time you visit the doctor or the drug store. It isn't rocket science to understand that health insurance in the US is not "insurance." It is primarily what it was when it became commonplace during WWII, a way for employees to increase their non-wage benefits without getting a direct pay increase. That was why, and is why, all employees get payouts from their "health insurance" every time they visit the doctor or drugstore. It is a direct non-wage benefit. Health insurance costs more because everyone submits claims all of the time and the money has to come from somewhere to pay the claims. To my point, how familiar are you with your employer's long term disability or life insurance plans? Would you give up one or both for lower heath insurance premiums?

 

The only real "health insurance" is catastrophic care insurance. These are polices that do not cover any routine care at all but kick in after a high deductible - usually in the neighborhood of $3,000 per year. These policies are very inexpensive as they are true "insurance."

 

So the first major cost issue is that you expect to get money from your insurance every time you visit the doctor or drug store. Obviously that has a huge impact on premiums.

 

A second major issue in cost of health insurance is state "mandates." Health insurance is regulated at the state level, not at the Federal level. Each state insurance commissioner gets to tell the insurance companies that operate in the state the minimum coverage required for any plan that is sold in the state (Note, for those of you that don't like executive power, that the state legislatures rarely require any legislative OK on these decisions, the state insurance commissioner is free to make up any rules he/she wants.) That is why pregency is a covered medical benefit (even if you are a guy, arent you lucky!) even though pregency is not a disease. It is a covered medical benefit because a state insurance commissioner said it had to be covered. Depending upon the state the premiums could be as much as 200% more than the premiums in states where the mandates are less onerous. Obviously states with long lists of mandates have much higher premiums. One last takeaway from this should be that you can't purchase the coverage you want because the state insurance commissioner has already told you what you have to purchase. [This is a big gripe in the Massachusetts plan - the State has defined the medical policies that employers are required by law to provide - even if the employees would prefer different coverages.]

 

A third major issue is litigation. States that have capped the medical malpractice lawsuit "take" have much lower premiums than those that have unlimited liability.

 

Another piece of the equation is how the state responds to "trusts." Most states have some form of law that prevents you from purchasing insurance that is not blessed by the state insurance commissioner. There are legal ways in some states of getting around this, for example allowing you to purchase the share of a trust that operates in another state. The purpose of the trust is to insure people under the rules of the state in which the trust is formed. If your state does not prohibit trusts you may be able to get lower premiums by avoiding the state mandates in your state and then getting a policy from another state.

 

Do I need to point out that the two mandates that raise premiums the most are "must issue" and "no exclusion for preexisting conditions." Obviously in a state with these mandates you do not purchase any health insurance until you have a major problem and then get full coverage without ever having paid a premium.

 

The problem with the debate about "universal health care" is it does not even speak to how the candidates would address each of these issues. It just promises that someone other than you will pay for your health care.

 

I guess I should point out again that lack of heath insurance does not equal lack of medical care. Every state has some form of "must treat" law. If you walk or are carried into a hospital sick they have to treat you regardless of ability to pay. Of course the states don't reimbuse the hospital for this care (this is called an "unfunded mandate") so the hospitals have to charge more to everyone else to make up for the costs. This is a serious problem where there are large numbers of illegal aliens such as CA.

 

There are ways out of this mess. Most all of them don't involve politicians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

B)-->

QUOTE(Jeff B @ Mar 5 2008, 12:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Well, the simple solution to that is to give catastrophic care to the poor who are honestly trying to get by but still can't afford HC

Already in place. Its called Medicaid. It has its own set of problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Single payer health care, equal coverage for all. It's the only way to go.

...and go ahead and call me a commie or socialist for that, i don't care.

how about "socialist commie"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(Jeff B @ Mar 5 2008, 10:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Well, the simple solution to that is to give catastrophic care to the poor who are honestly trying to get by but still can't afford HC and deny it to those who would rather spend their money on shiny new cars and other luxuries. Harsh? You bet, but for those that can afford it and don't buy it: you rolls your dice, you takes your chances. AMF!

 

Well, I suppose that could work in theory, but in reality our society won't accept it. If you crash your shiny new BMW bike and the ambulance takes you to the closest ER, they are going to patch you up whether you have insurance or not. Our society is simply not willing to have people bleeding to death by the side of the road because they don't have health insurance. Until we're willing to accept that (and I'm not saying that we should) your system is just not going to work, and the people who actually pay for insurance are going to keep subsidizing the free-riders.

 

Ultimately, single-payer makes the most economic and social sense in advanced economies that can certainly afford it.

I can't think of a worse solution. We already have single payer plan. It's called Medicare. We have a second single payer plan. Its called Medicaid. Neither works well for anyone involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just remember, the important thing is to blame the healthcare situation on those lousy democRAT lawyers, and NOT on those well meaning insurance companies. We must keep things in perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't think of a worse solution. We already have single payer plan. It's called Medicare. We have a second single payer plan. Its called Medicaid. Neither works well for anyone involved.

 

Says who? You'd rather have old folks going without medical care? Nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The obvious solution is to make healthcare costs a rebate in the form of a bottom line tax deduction for the entity that pays for it. Be it the employer or employee, they get to write it off their taxes. That keeps the government at arms length where they belong!

No. What it does is gives the health care industry more room to increase rates...

 

And government remains involved because a "tax rebate" is nothing more than another "subsidy".

 

"healthcare costs" in the form of employer-paid coverage is not even treated as income on the individual's income tax return. It is not currently taxed directly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Says who? You'd rather have old folks going without medical care? Nice.

 

I love how in PA you can get from A to insult in one line. Where did I say that I would rather have old folks going without medical care? Sorry, I keep forgettting that you are all just trolling and don't really have any interest in the topics discussed. You just insult people and make what you think are witty comments.

 

I don't have the energy to explain all the ways that Medicare is broken. You could Google on "medicare broken" and get about 6 months worth of reading. I don't know of anyone who thinks its working swimmingly well.

 

Why do I bother ... a moth to a flame ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now matter what happens this summer, here in March Hillary cleaned Obama's clock. We were expecting an Obama rout of the old women here in Texas and she kicked our black asses all the way to Ohio and then some. Her old windbag Bill swooned the little Mezikan senoritas here in Mexas and brought it out to the polls like roaches to a dark kitchen. Ah Carrumba! We got some strategizing to do here dudes or we're "burnt toast".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I love how in PA you can get from A to insult in one line. Where did I say that I would rather have old folks going without medical care? Sorry, I keep forgettting that you are all just trolling and don't really have any interest in the topics discussed. You just insult people and make what you think are witty comments.

 

I don't have the energy to explain all the ways that Medicare is broken. You could Google on "medicare broken" and get about 6 months worth of reading. I don't know of anyone who thinks its working swimmingly well.

 

Why do I bother ... a moth to a flame ...

 

OK genius.

 

1) Do you think that medicare is worse that what we had before medicare existed (ie nothing)

 

2) How do you think we should provide medical care for the elderly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't think of a worse solution. We already have single payer plan. It's called Medicare. We have a second single payer plan. Its called Medicaid. Neither works well for anyone involved.

You may criticize, but could the the private payers afford to take on the elderly or extend free care to the indigent? These lousy programs are what allows the private sector to turn a profit by large scale cherry picking.

 

They are expensive and they nickel and dime the providers, but I don't hear too many patients complaining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You may criticize, but could the the private payers afford to take on the elderly or extend free care to the indigent? These lousy programs are what allows the private sector to turn a profit by large scale cherry picking.

 

They are expensive and they nickel and dime the providers, but I don't hear too many patients complaining.

Yes, they are expensive. Yes, they nickel and dime the providers. Yes, they drive providers out of the network. Most providers that can maintain a practice without taking on Medicare and Medicaid patients do so. I would expect that you don't hear too many patients complaining because you are not in the industry. Perhaps that is wrong but I can tell you that in my work in the industry I heard lots of patients, providers, insurers, hospitals, pharms, etc. complaining bitterly and all the time.

 

To answer your valid question "could the the private payers afford to take on the elderly or extend free care to the indigent?" I would agree that in a pure "free market" the answer is no. On the other hand, could a private payer do as good or better a job with Medicare coverage if they had access to the premium stream during the lifetime of one's employment? I would suggest the answer is yes. Of course this would required transferability of the benefit between employers and a legal structure otherwise it would be the "Wild West."

 

So for the elderly I think you say it all when you say "these lousy programs." I am not in favor of "single payer" or "universal heath care" that will have you saying "these much bigger and lousy programs." Can we do better in design and execution? To quote Obama "Yes we can." As said above politicians don't have a role in any of my solutions other than to get the frig out of the way.

 

The indigent are in my mind a different problem. My attitude is that the indigent may well need charity. Charity in my mind is something offered without legal obligation out of a personal sense of morality. When you tax me so that I provide "charity" based on your definition of charity, not mine, I call that "theft." On my nice days I call it "income transfers." I don't have nice days so it is always "theft."

 

There is a another group that I don't characterize as "indigent." It is that group who truly can not care for themselves: mentally ill, orphans, etc. Here I do agree that leaving their care to private charity is just too "iffy" for my moral stance. So yes, I think that the government needs to step in and assure their care.

 

Where I do have a problem is when people engage in self distructive behavior rather than just gaming the system. There is a small group of people who gain Medicaid benefits that are truly screwed up - usually with substance abuse, the mental problems from substance abuse, etc. I really sit on the fence with these people - I know that if not for the governement they would most likely get little or no care, on the other hand they "did it to themselves" so where is personal responsiblity? In the end I fall on the "government has to provide" side of the fence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ok final hijack rebuttal: 1. She jumped down in the gutter first in post #4" I also think she is a cunt" - so ease up on protecting her virtue and my later sexist remark.

First, PA is already the gutter, there was no 'jumping down.' Going down, however, is something we can start another thread about.

 

2. in post #17, I wrongly presumed that she was well off enough and therefore congratulated her on being self insured...

she responded derisively to my compliment.

Presumed wrong on that one, eh? You sure did. And you have a fucked up sense of what a compliment is, apparently it's something invisible to you as I see no mention of anything complimentary in your post. Nor do I see anything that says Congratulations.

 

"

No, it's not 'good on me' if I don't have insurance. 'Good on me?' Are you serious?"

 

this would also be her admission in complicity - that she is in effect - costing the rest of us higher health care premiums - and she has no problem with that apparently - nor do you. fine. your both more liberal than i thought.

Really? Where do I say I have no problem with that?

 

the hole she dug was saying that she was unfortunate to not have insurance but was cool that when the big bills come.. she will be good with uncle sam (us) picking up the tab.

Wrong. That is your interpretation of what I said.

 

so fellas - I am sure she is a fine sailor - that as close to an apology as your gonna get from me.

Run that by Hellhound, he's the one who thinks you should apologize. Not that I disagree with him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sheesh, enough with the healthcare. I thought the question was Clinton-Obama ticket?

 

Never gonna happen. Obama would be stuck 4 years on trying to make lemonade from lemons. Clinton would never stoop to VP. In any case, I wouldn't vote for that ticket in either flavor.

 

2008, 11:21 AM' post='1579323']

Obama/Richardson would be a ticket that could win. Richardson brings in the latinos and tons of experience.

 

That would be a great ticket IMO. I think I heard somewhere that Richardson has some foreign relations experience. That and a good panel of economic advisors would be good. Mmmmm, affordable soul food and tacos!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I might even be able to get behind an Obama/Richardson ticket. I'm gonna run screaming from anything that has "Clinton" on it though. I think her husband did an okay job, outstanding job compared to the current POTUS, but she's a friggin' nightmare.

 

If Obama added an apostrophe to his name (O'Bama) we could dodge all the racial double talk and market him as an Irishman. Of course then he'd have to convert to Catholicism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I kinda like an Obama/Edwards ticket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about Obama and David Duke? Is he still alive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, they are expensive. Yes, they nickel and dime the providers. Yes, they drive providers out of the network. Most providers that can maintain a practice without taking on Medicare and Medicaid patients do so. I would expect that you don't hear too many patients complaining because you are not in the industry. Perhaps that is wrong but I can tell you that in my work in the industry I heard lots of patients, providers, insurers, hospitals, pharms, etc. complaining bitterly and all the time.

 

I'm not in the "industry", but I do talk to the same patients and care for my sick, elderly parents.

 

To answer your valid question "could the the private payers afford to take on the elderly or extend free care to the indigent?" I would agree that in a pure "free market" the answer is no. On the other hand, could a private payer do as good or better a job with Medicare coverage if they had access to the premium stream during the lifetime of one's employment? I would suggest the answer is yes. Of course this would required transferability of the benefit between employers and a legal structure otherwise it would be the "Wild West."

 

I certainly hope you are right, because I think we're headed toward a hybrid system where what you propose is going provide most of the insurance for the non-Care/Caid population. However, without mandates on all parties, adverse selection and pressures to maximize yields by excluding conditions and cherry picking will perpetuate the massive inefficiencies in care delivery that we currently have in the private sector. I take it you don't like mandates.

 

The indigent are in my mind a different problem. My attitude is that the indigent may well need charity. Charity in my mind is something offered without legal obligation out of a personal sense of morality. When you tax me so that I provide "charity" based on your definition of charity, not mine, I call that "theft." On my nice days I call it "income transfers." I don't have nice days so it is always "theft."

 

There is a another group that I don't characterize as "indigent." It is that group who truly can not care for themselves: mentally ill, orphans, etc. Here I do agree that leaving their care to private charity is just too "iffy" for my moral stance. So yes, I think that the government needs to step in and assure their care.

 

Where I do have a problem is when people engage in self distructive behavior rather than just gaming the system. There is a small group of people who gain Medicaid benefits that are truly screwed up - usually with substance abuse, the mental problems from substance abuse, etc. I really sit on the fence with these people - I know that if not for the governement they would most likely get little or no care, on the other hand they "did it to themselves" so where is personal responsiblity? In the end I fall on the "government has to provide" side of the fence.

 

By the time someone needs care, I think you would agree it doesn't matter why they're sick or whether they squandered their resources, we're going to treat them and we're not going to collect. The only way of avoiding the inefficiencies involved in providing emergency care to the uninsured is to insure them or offer comprehensive services for free. Providing freebees to the "undeserving poor" may not be your cup of tea, but it's a hell of a lot less expensive than the ad hoc system we have now. I hope this has been reasonably clear and respectful. I'm still very grateful for your offer of help with my electronics. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If Obama added an apostrophe to his name (O'Bama) we could dodge all the racial double talk and market him as an Irishman. Of course then he'd have to convert to Catholicism.

 

Great. Then all the O'BamaManiacs can create more parallels to the Kennedys....Would O'Bama's daughter have to change her name to John?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the context of the article - the motivation for Clinton to make this offer (which is just speculation) seems logical... it kinda reminds everyone that by most measures, she is the more experienced. She thinks she has momentum perhaps and if she makes this play ( knowing that she may yet get thos FLA and MI delegates)- it may force Obama to respond.

With the combined voter turnout for the two - I think barring any major scandals... it IS a slam dunk and on to the WH.

 

I dont think Obama would go for it regardless.

To me now - its either Clinton or Obama.

 

I cannot vote for Mccain due to his iraq position, his hawkish nature, the fact that he is 72 and somewhat out of touch with the 21st century (bet he never has found the internets).

The fact that he traded in his first wife for a trophy wife.

His flip flop on torture given his experience with same.

The keating scandal.

His temper.

and a few other GOP planks in general.

 

Obama/Edwards works for me....

Clinton/ Richardson works for me....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What ever happened to Lester Maddox? He made excellent fried chicken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't even know how to respond to that.

 

You think a single payer plan (i.e. fancy bureaucrat speak for government program) is going to check expenses? You do understand that health care lobbyists will be all over their elected representatives to raise fees, do you not? Only chance of checking costs at this point is through market forces vis-a-vis competition.

 

A "tax rebate" is a "subsidy"? Who the fucks money do you think it is in the first place?

 

And for the last gem, have you ever in your life read a P&L statement? Let me explain to you how they work. A company has an expense, this goes in the expenses column. Once you take all of you expenses and subtract them from your income column, you get your net income. Why should mid size or larger companies be able to handle employee health care costs as a deduction or expense while small business (the majority employer in America) and individuals are not allowed to (or able to) deduct or write off these expenses?

Individuals can write off health care costs when they exceed a certain % of income ( 3% or some such.. as I recall)

Technically, a "larger company" is not writing off "health care costs of employees" they are writing off the plan coverage expenses.

These are handled as different types of "expenses" in tax legalese... consult your tax specialist... and your posts does not delineate between them.

 

Small business can include health care plan coverage for employees as "expense", too.. but they are at a disadvantage to larger business in that they don't have the same access to larger less-expensive pooled plans. So their out of pocket is greater.. and in turn they see dimiinshed returns in the P&L statement.

 

Again you are fooling yourself in thinking that taxed dollars were ever yours in the first place. Once paid they are the property of the general fund. And if you don't pay them you are breaking the law. Wishful thinking that they are "yours".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again you are fooling yourself in thinking that taxed dollars were ever yours in the first place. Once paid they are the property of the general fund. And if you don't pay them you are breaking the law. Wishful thinking that they are "yours".

Perhaps you would like to take that up with Wesley Snipes lawyer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites