Vote Today

[Gan]

Its SUPER Tuesday!

Make sure you vote today. Let your voice be heard.

[Clove]

Remember. Osama and McCain for a party at Ilvane's.

[Gan]

W00T!

[Sean of the Thread]

Uhm yeah.. awkward. Florida's the only primary that matters and uhm we've already voted.

Too bad the Dems wasted their delegates this year. Tee hee

[Clove]

Florida's the only primary that matters and uhm we've already voted.

Assuming you know how to vote.

[Xandalf]

Good ol' Maryland - our primary is pretty much worthless.

I will still be out there - casting my vote - as I do for every single election.

[Sean of the Thread]

Assuming you know how to vote.

Unless you are 70 years old and can't read a plain as day ballot then yes Florida knows how to vote. One fucking retirement community is all it takes to crack the system. Retards could have done a better job.

[Beguiler]

My son's schools, since elementary through current high school not only provide courses in Government, they hold 'mini-elections' and the kids learn how to vote hands-on. And I can attest that the precinct personnel will go out of their way to help someone with the mechanics. So, no whining, get out there and cast your ballots. :unclesam:

And we get to do it again in November, choose wisely.. (why do I feel like I'm in an old Indiana Jones movie?)

[Arkans]

Remember to vote early and vote often!

- Arkans

[Parkbandit]

Good ol' Maryland - our primary is pretty much worthless.

I will still be out there - casting my vote - as I do for every single election.

How does that make you feel.. basically saying that Iowa > Maryland?

Our primary process needs a HUGE overhaul. It's complete bullshit that so much emphasis is placed on Iowa and NH. By the time it gets to other states, some of the better candidates have to drop out.

[Arkans]

I never saw Iowa and NH as super important. Didn't McCain do really well against George Bush at the start and then.. well, look what happened.

- Arkans

[Stanley Burrell]

When do we get rid of this stupid shit?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

When do we get rid of this stupid shit?

The answer to your question is when you stop posting.

[Parkbandit]

I never saw Iowa and NH as super important. Didn't McCain do really well against George Bush at the start and then.. well, look what happened.

- Arkans

The number of candidates pretty much got cut in half by the end of NH results... giving all other 48 states less choice because the hicks of Iowa and the liberals of NH decided they were not worthy. Thankfully, Florida moved up their primary to actually mean something. Hopefully more states will follow suit and we can continue to do this until we have primaries 3 years prior to the election.. THEN maybe we could have something like a Nationwide primary where each state can make the determination for themselves of who the best candidate for their party would be.

[Stanley Burrell]

The answer to your question is when you stop posting.

You have a vagina.

[Parkbandit]

You have a vagina.


You've never had a vagina. Well, a real human one. That plastic/rubber one you keep in your Mom's basement doesn't count. Neither does your dog's.

[Stanley Burrell]

You've never had a vagina. Well, a real human one. That plastic/rubber one you keep in your Mom's basement doesn't count. Neither does your dog's.

It's called "Plubber" kthnx.

[Stanley Burrell]

Smooth plubber groove. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=EjheiI0BFqg&feature=related)

Today is Will Smith day, not the primaries.

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o295/craigrow/will_smith.jpg

Blame Clove, btw.

[Arkans]

I wasn't aware of that, PB. I follow politics, but not to that extent. If so many did drop out then I could see a need for reform.

- Arkans

[FinisWolf]

Ok Gan, I was a good wittle boy and ran down and voted for todays election ... TWO WEEKS ago.

Do I get milk and cookies now? :)

Finis

[Gan]

Sure.

You can have two week old milk and cookies. Lets dig that up for you now. ;)

[CrystalTears]

You had cookies, but I eated them.

[Gan]

You had cookies, but I eated them.

Where do you think we'll be digging them up from?

[CrystalTears]

:(

[TheEschaton]

I sent my absentee vote for Hillary back to NY like a week and a half ago.

[Latrinsorm]

I wasn't aware of that, PB. I follow politics, but not to that extent. If so many did drop out then I could see a need for reform.None of the people who dropped out then were actually in the race to begin with. Dodd? Gravel? Richardson? Come on.

[TheEschaton]

I saw a statistic the other day that said 85% of campaign money goes to TV commercials.

That's the barrier, right there, to genuine politics in this country. That's bullshit.

-TheE-

[Arkans]

Sure, but is there a better medium than television to get the message out?

- Arkans

[Latrinsorm]

The problem isn't medium or advertising. If people want to be informed, they will be. If they don't, you can put CNN on 24/7 and they'll pick the person they think has the nicest eyes or the best ovaries.

[Blud]

The problem isn't medium or advertising. If people want to be informed, they will be. If they don't, you can put CNN on 24/7 and they'll pick the person they think has the nicest eyes or the best ovaries.

Haha, true.:)

[Ilvane]

My vote is in..one little vote for Hillary here in MA, whee!

Angela

[Sean of the Thread]

Which ovary are you voting for?

[Ilvane]

Duh, the left of course. :D

[Krendeli]

Huckabee wins West Virginia. Who let them even have delegates? Insert random in-breeding joke here.

[Bobmuhthol]

Fuck Hillary Clinton. Fuck the Democratic party for the next 4 years.

Republicans '08.

[Clove]

Huckabee wins West Virginia. Who let them even have delegates? Insert random in-breeding joke here.

They don't have many. It's all relative.

[Gan]

They don't have many. It's all relative.

Nice.

+100 for the relative(s) crack.

[The Ponzzz]

I just have to say, it's a mad house up here!

[crazymage]

I tossed mine in for Obama, if hes good enough for Ted hes good enough for me!

[Sean]

I'll be voting for Obama on my way home from work.

[Sean of the Thread]

Black people can't vote.

[Clove]

Black people can't vote.

Perfect example of the many voter misconceptions in Florida. Natch.

[Gan]

Where the fuck is ClydeR, Chillmonster, and the other merry gang of wackos?

This morning was a romp in hillarity; but I have to admit, its fucking slow on the entertainment scale this afternoon.

I wonder if ClydeR is at one of the voting stations for Huckabee...

:thinking:

[Clove]

Where the fuck is ClydeR, Chillmonster, and the other merry gang of wackos?

We have Blud now.

[Parkbandit]

Huckabee wins West Virginia. Who let them even have delegates? Insert random in-breeding joke here.

God.. I've become so disenfranchised with this entire process. For McCain to be able to fix this caucus for Huckabee cements my belief that this process is extremely flawed.

[Tea & Strumpets]

I tossed mine in for Obama, if hes good enough for Ted hes good enough for me!

Is this the one vote that Ted brought to Obama's campaign?

[BigWorm]

God.. I've become so disenfranchised with this entire process. For McCain to be able to fix this caucus for Huckabee cements my belief that this process is extremely flawed.

Hey dumbass, if McCain was going to fix the caucus, wouldn't he do it for himself? This just shows you don't understand how the caucus works. The Republican West Virginia caucus works like the Democrat caucus in Iowa, usually involving multiple rounds of voting. After the first vote, it was Romney - Huckabee - McCain, with McCain a distant third. Since McCain didn't have the necessary votes to be considered "viable" (I think 15%), his supporters got a chance to change their choice or make another case for their candidate. Realizing McCain probably wouldn't win, they chose to vote AGAINST Romney, which meant handing their support and thus the state to Huckabee.

Romney was being a little bitch about it. There was no "backroom deal" as he claimed; that's just how the caucus works. The worst part is that he knows that and is just trying to play to some of the right-wing conspiracy nuts and take advantage of people, like Parkbandit, who don't understand how the system works. I agree that it's fucked up and kind of hard to understand, but that doesn't mean the election was rigged.

Here's a link (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/05/super.main/index.html) to the CNN story that announced Huckabee's win.

[Bobmuhthol]

I don't see why anyone is surprised that there are more votes against Romney than for him.

[Gan]

I'm not suprised.

[Davenshire]

God.. I've become so disenfranchised with this entire process. For McCain to be able to fix this caucus for Huckabee cements my belief that this process is extremely flawed.

......

Wuh Parky.


:wtf:

[Parkbandit]

Hey dumbass, if McCain was going to fix the caucus, wouldn't he do it for himself? This just shows you don't understand how the caucus works. The Republican West Virginia caucus works like the Democrat caucus in Iowa, usually involving multiple rounds of voting. After the first vote, it was Romney - Huckabee - McCain, with McCain a distant third. Since McCain didn't have the necessary votes to be considered "viable" (I think 15%), his supporters got a chance to change their choice or make another case for their candidate. Realizing McCain probably wouldn't win, they chose to vote AGAINST Romney, which meant handing their support and thus the state to Huckabee.

Romney was being a little bitch about it. There was no "backroom deal" as he claimed; that's just how the caucus works. The worst part is that he knows that and is just trying to play to some of the right-wing conspiracy nuts and take advantage of people, like Parkbandit, who don't understand how the system works. I agree that it's fucked up and kind of hard to understand, but that doesn't mean the election was rigged.

Here's a link (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/05/super.main/index.html) to the CNN story that announced Huckabee's win.

Hey Dumbass.. this is my point. McCain lost WV.. so when it came to the 2nd round of 'voting', they collectively decided to vote for Huckabee.. thus giving Romney a loss.. which is a win for McCain. Sorry you were so confused... but not at all surprised.

[Sean]

How do you think McCain picked up so many votes to begin with? As more people drop out the more votes shift to McCain since he's so many peoples plan B.

[Snapp]

Add another vote for Obama here. Not that DE means much, heh.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<Hey dumbass, if McCain was going to fix the caucus, wouldn't he do it for himself?>>

He did. Or rather, the Republicans did, not McCain personally. Romney not receiving what would have been guaranteed delegates based on the voting trend is a win for McCain; it's pretty obvious that McCain did not fail to receive 1 in every 6 votes in West Virginia.

[Warriorbird]

I agree with Parkbandit. Looking at the superdelegates in the Democratic primaries is also enough to convince me this system has issues.

[Ilvane]

And Hillary wins MA...Hmm.

Hooray.

Angela

[Bobmuhthol]

Too bad winning a state doesn't mean dick for Democrats... you can win the nomination and lose in state count.

But Clinton is winning anyway; she'll lose to McCain in the general election.

[Snapp]

I think it's gonna be close with Obama vs Clinton.

But yeah, if Clinton wins, I think she'll lose in the general election too.

[Ilvane]

I'm not sure about that, but then I'm biased(I admit it freely)

Angela

[Stanley Burrell]

Add another vote for Obama here

Here too, wherever here is.

They need to do this shit on the days I have less classes.

[TheEschaton]

Wow, just finished watching returns for the night....Clinton and Obama are literally neck and neck with some interesting things to note:

1) Clinton won all the "major" states: CA, NY, NJ, MA, with the exception of Illinois, which is Barack's homestate.

2) Obama won, and this can't be ignored, traditionally red states, lending to the idea that he could be competitive in those states come general election time.

3) Obama won 6 caucuses (I think all of them that were up today). That tells me his organization is pretty damn good (which has traditionally favored Clinton) because winning a caucus involves having your people on the ground swaying people.

-TheE-

[Lyonis]

I voted for McCain.

Now what had me the most butt hurt about the whole thing was there were five booths/stalls/whateverthefuckyoucallits for the Dems and just one for the Repubs at my polling place.

[Sean of the Thread]

I voted for McCain.

Now what had me the most butt hurt about the whole thing was there were five booths/stalls/whateverthefuckyoucallits for the Dems and just one for the Repubs at my polling place.

Was there at least an outhouse near by?

[Clove]

Okay it looks like McCain is doing well... now we just need to get Obama in and it's a McCain party at Ilvane's.

[CrystalTears]

I seriously hope it's Obama. I really don't want to hear that woman talk all year.

[Parkbandit]

Yea.. at least when we listen to Obama.. I don't have the sudden urge to throw something through my TV like I do with Clinton. I seriously can't believe people are dumb enough to vote for her.

[CrystalTears]

I meant Ilvane.



j/k....kinda

[Lucas]

Almost all the polls indicate that a Hillary vs McCain race, Hillary will lose. A Obama vs. McCain race, Obama will win.

[Parkbandit]

Are those the same polls that had McCain out of the race less than a year ago?

You can't poll THAT far ahead and expect them to stand up. They haven't even started debating against each other yet.

There's still a shitload of election mud that hasn't been slung yet.

[TheEschaton]

Then there's the people like Rush Limbaugh who said he would rather vote for Hillary than John McCain.

[Tsa`ah]

1) Clinton won all the "major" states: CA, NY, NJ, MA, with the exception of Illinois, which is Barack's homestate.

More interesting is the margin of victory. Hillary won her home state by only 17 points. Where as Obama won his home state by 32. This results in Obama pulling twice the Illinois delegates while only being down 18% in NY delegates.

Also interesting is that Obama only lost MA by 13 points. Considering polls taken in January had him back by 30 and about the only campaigning he did in MA was through endorsements ... I'd say that's something the Clinton camp needs to take a good hard look at.

Obama did very well in what was largely considered Clinton territory.

[Latrinsorm]

If Obama wins more pledged delegates and loses because of superdelegates I'm pretty sure the Democrats are obligated to commit seppuku.

[Tsa`ah]

If Obama wins more pledged delegates and loses because of superdelegates I'm pretty sure the Democrats are obligated to commit seppuku.

Considering Bill is a superdelegate ... this could potentially happen.

[Gan]

If Obama wins more pledged delegates and loses because of superdelegates I'm pretty sure the Democrats are obligated to commit seppuku.

Seppuku: to (Al) Gore oneself with a sharp object.

At which time the people would/should stand up and cry foul over being cheated by the establishment (deja vu - 2000 presidential election).

Now that would be Deomcrat(ic) irony.

[Tsa`ah]

Well it's not like it hasn't happened before ... which is why I give the GOP some credit. They haven't put in a backup system as a safety net in the event of a close race and a candidate the party doesn't want to run.

[Parkbandit]

Am I the only one that believes that each state and party should have the same nomination process for the position of President of the United States? From rigged caucuses to these 'super' delegates.. the whole fucking things smells of greasy politician slime.

[Ilvane]

Or ironically if she somehow wins the popular vote, but doesn't win the delegates.

That would be depressing.

But as far as it goes so far, it's still close..no one ever said it would be easy.

And, Tsa'ah, I give her credit for winning Mass, considering both senators, the Governor, and JFK's daughter all gave endorsements, yet she still won after all that, by a good amount. It's pretty damned good.

I suppose if you are an Obama supporter(like you are) you would say he caught up, but he really should have trounced her if things like endorsements matter.

[Gan]

Am I the only one that believes that each state and party should have the same nomination process for the position of President of the United States? From rigged caucuses to these 'super' delegates.. the whole fucking things smells of greasy politician slime.

I would love to see uniformity in the election process for federal elections. This includes the delegate nominations as well as the actual election.

The individual states can have as much creativity as they want with their state officials - but anything federal should have uniformity befitting a federal level of responsibility.

Afterall, arent federal laws uniform across all states? Why not have that same uniformity with federal elections, federal identification (ID cards), etc. Damn skippy they have federal uniformity with the federal tax code.

[oldanforgotten]

Or ironically if she somehow wins the popular vote, but doesn't win the delegates.

That would be depressing.

But as far as it goes so far, it's still close..no one ever said it would be easy.

And, Tsa'ah, I give her credit for winning Mass, considering both senators, the Governor, and JFK's daughter all gave endorsements, yet she still won after all that, by a good amount. It's pretty damned good.

I suppose if you are an Obama supporter(like you are) you would say he caught up, but he really should have trounced her if things like endorsements matter.

As of this moment of the votes counted, she has NOT won the popular vote. He has more pledged delegates based off of votes as well. She's still winning though, so shouldn't it be depressing both ways?

A lot of people look at some of the margins, but the truth is 2 weeks ago, she was winning nationally by 10+ points, and other than the big win in California, she lost large gaps of her lead in other states, and outright lost a couple states she should have won (Connecticut, Missouri, New Mexico). Now we have 9 of the next 11 primaries in states where Obama is considered a heavy favorite, and only 2 that Clinton is favored (albeit heavily in Ohio, and presumably heavy in Texas). if Obama wins the next 5-7 outright as predicted, it will certainly be a big blow to Hillary's campaign.

Neither has any clear advantage, but momentum is favoring Obama due to which states are next, and the fact that he is projected to win them handily.

As for the superdelegate issue, it does reek. And it's a real possibility as well. Obama does much better than Hillary among independants, and most supporters of either candidate have favorable views of the other.
________
vapir oxygen vaporizer (http://oxygenvaporizer.com)

[Ilvane]

We'll have to see what happens, I think Obama is going to have to eventually talk more about issues, but then again..I was wrong with Bush too, and he got elected to 2 terms.

Sad part is Romney won MA.

Angela

[Sean of the Thread]

We'll have to see what happens, I think Obama is going to have to eventually talk more about issues, but then again..I was wrong with Bush too, and he got elected to 2 terms.

Sad part is Romney won MA.

Angela

Thank you cap'n obvious.

[oldanforgotten]

We'll have to see what happens, I think Obama is going to have to eventually talk more about issues, but then again..I was wrong with Bush too, and he got elected to 2 terms.

Sad part is Romney won MA.

Angela

Both have been talking about issues. if you arent crystal clear as to both of their stances (which are for the most part, identical), then I don't think anyone is going to be able to take the blinders off of your bias, because some of us are capable of reading articles that cover both as opposed to just one of them.

Regarding "talking about issues", you've been like a recording on auto-replay. There is not a single issue on the platform in which Obama's stance isn't just as public as Hillary's, with the potential exception of immigration reform, to which Hillary has flip-flopped and Obama has been noncommital.

All things aside, we're heading into a stretch in which Obama is expected to win at least 8 of the next 9 primaries, with the only one in potential doubt being Wisconsin (which still favors Obama), until we get the 2 Clinton strongholds of Texas and Ohio. If Clinton can keep the other contests close and remain in the spotlight come Texas, she'll pick up two delegate rich races, and likely the nomination. If she gets her ass blown out, she'll probably STILL win Ohio and Texas, but not by good enough margins to overcome 8 or 9 big losses. It will also bring the superdelegates into question, since in the end, that level of politics would bring shame to the party if they overrode the popular vote.
________
VAPORIZERS REVIEWS (http://vaporizer.org/)

[TheEschaton]

I don't exactly have the ear of Hillary Clinton, but as someone who volunteers with her campaign, if she won the delegate count, but lost the voted-on delegates, I'd tell her that she should command her superdelegates to support the popular vote winner.

Just so we wouldn't have the whole hypocrisy thing hanging over us..

-TheE-

[Parkbandit]

:rofl:

You really believe that Hillary cares about ANYTHING except winning the Presidency? She would look at you, give that canned cackle and tell you to go fetch her a coffee.

:rofl: @ your self importance.

[ClydeR]

I don't exactly have the ear of Hillary Clinton, but as someone who volunteers with her campaign, if she won the delegate count, but lost the voted-on delegates, I'd tell her that she should command her superdelegates to support the popular vote winner.

Just so we wouldn't have the whole hypocrisy thing hanging over us..

-TheE-

Then there's no reason to have super delegates in the first place. Actually, I think Jimmy Carter was the reason for super delegates. The Democrats changed their system after Jimmy Carter was elected to prevent another Born Again Christian from getting the nomination.

[Ilvane]

Regarding "talking about issues", you've been like a recording on auto-replay. There is not a single issue on the platform in which Obama's stance isn't just as public as Hillary's, with the potential exception of immigration reform, to which Hillary has flip-flopped and Obama has been noncommital.

I have read his website, I understand some of what he is saying, but have no idea how he's going to accomplish what he says he wants to do.

I at least feel(in my opinion) that Hillary Clinton knows what she wants to do, and has plans on how to do it. She explains it, she understands the work it takes. I like that she makes sure everyone has insurance, not just a bunch, like Obama's plan.

I like that she has a realistic approach to diplomacy in the Middle East and around the world. I like that she is much more realistic in general. I don't want surprises, and Obama is someone we just don't know enough to know what he's going to do for sure. He's been around too short a time. I know what I'm getting with Hillary, and I appreciate her.

I don't feel Obama has that same grasp, end of story.

Edited to add: I actually saw someone on TV talking about it the other day, and they said Obama speaks in soundbites..and Hillary speaks her entire issue, and sometimes it can be less exciting, but she has much more information in her speeches, rather than just making them sound eloquent.

It's not that hard to understand, but again, it's my opinion, you don't like it, go find another one you agree with.

Angela

[CrystalTears]

I have read his website, I understand some of what he is saying, but have no idea how he's going to accomplish what he says he wants to do.
Seems you're one of small few who have no idea. The country is basically torn between Obama and Hillary, so apparently their issues aren't THAT much different that they have to fight this hard to win over each other. Doesn't that make you wonder at all?


I at least feel(in my opinion) that Hillary Clinton knows what she wants to do, and has plans on how to do it. She explains it, she understands the work it takes. I like that she makes sure everyone has insurance, not just a bunch, like Obama's plan.
So you don't have a problem with people being forced to pay for coverage that they may not want, and possibly have their wages garnished in order to accomplish this goal?

[oldanforgotten]

I have read his website, I understand some of what he is saying, but have no idea how he's going to accomplish what he says he wants to do.

I at least feel(in my opinion) that Hillary Clinton knows what she wants to do, and has plans on how to do it. She explains it, she understands the work it takes. I like that she makes sure everyone has insurance, not just a bunch, like Obama's plan.

I like that she has a realistic approach to diplomacy in the Middle East and around the world. I like that she is much more realistic in general. I don't want surprises, and Obama is someone we just don't know enough to know what he's going to do for sure. He's been around too short a time. I know what I'm getting with Hillary, and I appreciate her.

I don't feel Obama has that same grasp, end of story.

Edited to add: I actually saw someone on TV talking about it the other day, and they said Obama speaks in soundbites..and Hillary speaks her entire issue, and sometimes it can be less exciting, but she has much more information in her speeches, rather than just making them sound eloquent.

It's not that hard to understand, but again, it's my opinion, you don't like it, go find another one you agree with.

Angela

One plans on opening a line of discussion with our enemies to work out differences, the other plans on enforcing law against those enemies and refusing to talk to them until certain concessions are made. I'm not sure how one is "more realistic", but I'd love the explanation.

Both plan on creating a health care budget for americans and subsidizing it with government funds. One plans on mandating all Americans with no other private insurance purchase the health care via a new payroll tax, the other is offering Americans the option to buy it, but not enforcing that they do. Further, they want to work to drive down health care costs as a whole through the process of elimination of middlemen and eliminating drug cost controls employed by current drugmakers if they accept government funding in researching the drug.

One plans on trying to find a way to cope with illegal immigrants by giving them some form of tracking in the way of a non-resident drivers license, which would be more expensive, and allow the government to use that tracking as a medium for dispersing of information, rules, and regulations, but has been noncommital to it based on voter desires, and the other supported a similar measure but has changed stances to deny any means of tracking and support unilateral deportation based on voter desires.

As for her track record, I'll leave that aside. She certainly is more realistic and less idealistic, because most of us, like her, certainly would abandon a plan for universal health care and cash in the check from Big HMO's like she did back when she was first lady.

She was definitely also realistic in that she was so willing to lie under oath regarding the 300+ hours she billed her law firm for regarding the Whitewater Land deal for her husband, and you're right, most people would lie for money and to protect their husbands, just as she did.

She was certainly also far more realistic in championing the lower middle class, because unlike Obama, who was actually a member of the middle class until his recent book deal, she has never been in the middle class, and it's far more realistic for a have to know exactly what the have-nots want than someone who has actually been in that situation.

Don't forget how realistic her being a fan of both the Yankees and Mets are, and how she just became a New Yorker. That was extremely realistic, and had nothing to do with politics. You're right, angela, Hillary is the most realistic candidate.
________
Toyota new zealand (http://www.toyota-wiki.com/wiki/Toyota_New_Zealand)

[Gan]

Damn.

:buttkick:

[Ilvane]

He's just cranky..As I had said previously..don't like my opinion, read something else.:P

Angela

[CrystalTears]

You can prefer and like her more, and choose to vote for her, that's fine.

It's when you say that you don't know where he stands for his issues when they're clearly presented, and that you'd vote for a Republican over him with contrasting issues than you, that boggles the mind.

[Ilvane]

Seems you're one of small few who have no idea. The country is basically torn between Obama and Hillary, so apparently their issues aren't THAT much different that they have to fight this hard to win over each other. Doesn't that make you wonder at all?


So you don't have a problem with people being forced to pay for coverage that they may not want, and possibly have their wages garnished in order to accomplish this goal?

I don't have a problem with wages being garnished, because first off, the plan is specific in that it says it will make it AFFORDABLE. There are people out there who make 75k a year who don't have insurance just because they don't feel like it. These are the same people who raise the health care costs by going to ER's and wracking up free care bills.

There's no accounting for people being cheap and not wanting to be covered by insurance. It's like this..people insure their cars, houses, etc..but they don't cover for health and make health care costs, and tax bills go up more? Bull, they should all have to be covered.

I'd rather spend a few billion making sure people have affordable and safe health care than spend a few billion saving Iraq and making sure they are given health care, and rebuilding them..that's for sure.

Angela

[Warriorbird]

I don't think she's worth arguing with about it. Her opinion is both illogical and unlikely to change... y'know, like most of the Republicans on the site.

;)

[oldanforgotten]

He's just cranky..As I had said previously..don't like my opinion, read something else.:P

Angela


There?s a difference between an opinion based on facts from both sides, reading actual stances and goals from both sides, and then coming to a decision. You have basically argued that Clinton is better on the issues, yet you have said nothing as to what actually seperates them and why that makes her stance better. You?re claiming that Obama is nothing but rhetoric and catch-phrases, yet you?ve been the same way.

She hasn?t gotten a damn thing done as a Senator. Neither has he. They are junior in the ranks. He?s a better public speaker, and she?s a more polished debator. His campaign has been generally positive the entire time, and hers has flip flopped between attacking and friendly depending on what she thinks will win her the vote. Based solely on that, she?s done a shitty job. And in terms of skeletons in the closet, she has more than any candidate in recent memory in any election.

You?ve talked about getting rid of corruption in campaign finance. Which candidate has more pork barrel projects? Which candidate accepts more special interest money?

You?ve mentioned her experience? She is precisely 1 1/3 Senate term more experienced than Mrs. Bush. As an actual legislator, what is her advantage in experience serving the country?

You?ve mentioned getting things done and having a clear plan. Her plan of mandated health insurance is the one that is more difficult to achieve, and she was very repetitive that universal health care is the way of the democrat at the debate. She must have neglected to mention her earlier plan fizzled behind closed doors and a nice hefty check from the HMO lobbyists. Harder to do with Obama?s plan to put the debate on the floor on C-Span where the public can watch. It?s an argument of rhetoric that goes both ways because neither has in truth, accomplished a damn thing by themselves.

You?ve said essentially the same thing over and over without a shred of evidence or proof. If you want to go ahead and just say ?I?m voting with my gut feeling and choosing Hillary?, that?s fine, but you?re not, instead trying to justify why she is better without actually saying a damn thing. If you would so much as humor us with the actual reasoning from a policy standpoint as to why it?s so much better, people might view you as something other than a half-witted douche.
________
DC MARIJUANA DISPENSARY (http://dc.dispensaries.org/)

[875000]

If Obama wins more pledged delegates and loses because of superdelegates I'm pretty sure the Democrats are obligated to commit seppuku.

Keep in mind, we may not have gotten the full picture yet.

There are a number of Superdelegates that are "unpledged" (have not declared their allegiance yet).

Most Superdelegates either tend to back the same person that won their state primary/caucus (which would favor the person winning more races) or split their support to match the distribution of their state's vote (which would help out someone who is winning races by a large margin in a Superdelegate rich state).

[Ilvane]

I have defended my choices in Hillary numerous times, I am not going to go over it again.

It's dull after a while. Seriously. Get off my tail.

I have read both sites, and my impressions are the way they are based on what I have read and heard from both of them.

End of story.

[oldanforgotten]

I don't have a problem with wages being garnished, because first off, the plan is specific in that it says it will make it AFFORDABLE. There are people out there who make 75k a year who don't have insurance just because they don't feel like it. These are the same people who raise the health care costs by going to ER's and wracking up free care bills.

There's no accounting for people being cheap and not wanting to be covered by insurance. It's like this..people insure their cars, houses, etc..but they don't cover for health and make health care costs, and tax bills go up more? Bull, they should all have to be covered.

I'd rather spend a few billion making sure people have affordable and safe health care than spend a few billion saving Iraq and making sure they are given health care, and rebuilding them..that's for sure.

Angela


Ok, so let's civilly debate this one out:

Hillary:
Objectives:

Mandate Universal Healthcare.
To be done via esatablishing a yearly budget, funded primarily by repealing the tax cuts to the top 1% of America (approximately 110 billion dollars over the next 10 years). These funds will be used as a form of provisionary subsidy to Americans not currently covered privately, and would take the rest from them in the form of a payroll tax. Also, formation and creation of a cap on increases in health care costs over time, to prevent unusually large increases in costs which might threaten the budget. Motto is "mandate universal healthcare"

Additional HMO and Drug Policy: none at this time. Has stated a desire to control drug costs, but also opposes the importing of cheaper foreign drugs.

Obama
Mandate Affordable Health Care.
To be done via esatablishing a yearly budget, funded primarily by repealing the tax cuts to the top 1% of America (approximately 110 billion dollars over the next 10 years). These funds will initially be used as a form of provisionary subsidy, offering Americans the option of having subsidized, reduced cost healthcare, and if they accept it, take the remainder out of their paychecks as a payroll tax. Motto is "Mandate Affordable healthcare and people will buy it"

Additional HMO and Drug Policy: HMO cost capping via indirect competitive government pricing options. Regulate drug company profits on any patented drug that does not have a generic substitute IF the company accepted any government funding to research the drug. Regulate HMO ability to deny claims based on "cost-of-lawsuit *number of claims" approach, by holding them with additional liabilities and penalties for using it. Attempt to reduce cost of health insurance for a single person by 25% over the next 4 years via cost controls (not likely, but some levels of cost cutting is realistic).

Now, to take exceptions with your 75k earners reaping free health care, because it is patently false. A hospital is a business institution, and has the right to file a claim for care against anyone. The mandated healthcare under either plan is not universal, because homeless people are not covered under either plan. Furthermore, those "free bills" are the result of very low earners who have little to no assets to go after getting health care, also, may not be served under either plan. People who are paid under the table, or as foreigners may not be eligible under either plan, so please give a more valid example of that one, because your example is incorrect and uninformed.
________
Buy Vapolution (http://www.vaporshop.com/vapolution-vaporizer.html)

[oldanforgotten]

Ah, before I forget, both plans provide universal care for all children under the age of 18, and mandate care for students up through the age of 25, with no exceptions.
________
Hot box vaporizer (http://hotboxvaporizers.com)

[Gan]

I don't think she's worth arguing with about it. Her opinion is both illogical and unlikely to change... y'know, like most of the Republicans on the site.

;)

:wtf2:

:talktohand:

[Parkbandit]

I don't think she's worth arguing with about it. Her opinion is both illogical and unlikely to change... y'know, like most of the Republicans on the site.

;)

LOL.. I find Ilvane to be pretty much the typical liberal on these boards... only slightly dumber. :shrug:

[Keller]

LOL.. I find Ilvane to be pretty much the typical liberal on these boards... only slightly dumber. :shrug:

And like WB said, that opinion is illogical and unlikely to change. (the part about her being typical, not dumber)

[Snapp]

Am I the only one that believes that each state and party should have the same nomination process for the position of President of the United States? From rigged caucuses to these 'super' delegates.. the whole fucking things smells of greasy politician slime.

Agreed.

Posted by oldandforgotten
As for her track record, I'll leave that aside. She certainly is more realistic and less idealistic, because most of us, like her, certainly would abandon a plan for universal health care and cash in the check from Big HMO's like she did back when she was first lady.

She was definitely also realistic in that she was so willing to lie under oath regarding the 300+ hours she billed her law firm for regarding the Whitewater Land deal for her husband, and you're right, most people would lie for money and to protect their husbands, just as she did.

She was certainly also far more realistic in championing the lower middle class, because unlike Obama, who was actually a member of the middle class until his recent book deal, she has never been in the middle class, and it's far more realistic for a have to know exactly what the have-nots want than someone who has actually been in that situation.

Don't forget how realistic her being a fan of both the Yankees and Mets are, and how she just became a New Yorker. That was extremely realistic, and had nothing to do with politics. You're right, angela, Hillary is the most realistic candidate.
OUCH! :lol:

[Clove]

I don't have a problem with wages being garnished, because first off, the plan is specific in that it says it will make it AFFORDABLE. There are people out there who make 75k a year who don't have insurance just because they don't feel like it. These are the same people who raise the health care costs by going to ER's and wracking up free care bills.


Wow. So you think that a significant number of people who make 75k or more a year choose not to have health insurance and THEN skip out on bills when they need health-care?

:wtf:


I don't think she's worth arguing with about it. Her opinion is both illogical and unlikely to change... y'know, like most of the Republicans on the site.

;)

Well said. Nevermind Angela, carry on.

[Sean of the Thread]

There are people out there who make 75k a year who don't have insurance just because they don't feel like it. These are the same people who raise the health care costs by going to ER's and wracking up free care bills.



Hey you dumb bitch. I'm one of those people that make 75k plus a year and don't have insurance JUST BECAUSE I DON'T FEEL LIKE IT... and pay for my own bills out of pocket.

Just like you and every other fucking American that's not an indigent/retiree should do... be responsible for your god damned self.

Stick a fucking tampon or two in your mouth and stfu for awhile. You're really getting annoying.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Don't you get that military insurance, I forget what it was called, for life?

[Ilvane]

Here, feel free to read this, it speaks for itself, in my opinion.

What additional costs are created by the uninsured population?

The United States spends nearly $100 billion per year to provide uninsured residents with health services, often for preventable diseases or diseases that physicians could treat more efficiently with earlier diagnosis (14).
Hospitals provide about $34 billion worth of uncompensated care a year (14).
Another $37 billion is paid by private and public payers for health services for the uninsured and $26 billion is paid out-of-pocket by those who lack coverage (14).
The uninsured are 30 to 50 percent more likely to be hospitalized for an avoidable condition, with the average cost of an avoidable hospital stayed estimated to be about $3,300 (14).
The increasing reliance of the uninsured on the emergency department has serious economic implications, since the cost of treating patients is higher in the emergency department than in other outpatient clinics and medical practices (11).

Getting Everyone Covered will Save Lives and Money

The impacts of going uninsured are clear and severe. Many uninsured individuals postpone needed medical care which results in increased mortality and billions of dollars lost in productivity and increased expenses to the health care system. There also exists a significant sense of vulnerability to the potential loss of health insurance which is shared by tens of millions of other Americans who have managed to retain coverage.

(Source 14--http://www.iom.edu/?id=12313&redirect=0)
(Source 11--Institute of Medicine. Care Without Coverage – Too Little, Too Late. The National Academies Press, 2002.)

[Sean of the Thread]

Don't you get that military insurance, I forget what it was called, for life?

Nope.

[Parkbandit]

Here, feel free to read this, it speaks for itself, in my opinion.

What additional costs are created by the uninsured population?

The United States spends nearly $100 billion per year to provide uninsured residents with health services, often for preventable diseases or diseases that physicians could treat more efficiently with earlier diagnosis (14).
Hospitals provide about $34 billion worth of uncompensated care a year (14).
Another $37 billion is paid by private and public payers for health services for the uninsured and $26 billion is paid out-of-pocket by those who lack coverage (14).
The uninsured are 30 to 50 percent more likely to be hospitalized for an avoidable condition, with the average cost of an avoidable hospital stayed estimated to be about $3,300 (14).
The increasing reliance of the uninsured on the emergency department has serious economic implications, since the cost of treating patients is higher in the emergency department than in other outpatient clinics and medical practices (11).

Getting Everyone Covered will Save Lives and Money

The impacts of going uninsured are clear and severe. Many uninsured individuals postpone needed medical care which results in increased mortality and billions of dollars lost in productivity and increased expenses to the health care system. There also exists a significant sense of vulnerability to the potential loss of health insurance which is shared by tens of millions of other Americans who have managed to retain coverage.

(Source 14--http://www.iom.edu/?id=12313&redirect=0)
(Source 11--Institute of Medicine. Care Without Coverage – Too Little, Too Late. The National Academies Press, 2002.)


When you put "in my opinion" after everything stupid you post.. it doesn't make you any less stupid.

[Lucas]

Ilvane just use your mod powers and strike down anyone who opposes you. Thats how a conservative would do it.

God Bless all conservatives:

A.) Greedy little sons of bitches.

B.) Very sensitive creatures.

C.) Don't like people with darker skin color then themselves.

Liberal leaning -

Bill Gates
Warren Buffet
Alan Greenspan

Conservative leaning -

Rush Limbaugh
Bill O'Reilly
Ann Coulter -> dear God save us.

------------------------------------------------

Be a Liberal, Work Hard, pay your taxes (and not siphon it to some non-American bank on some Island), play by the rules, and live by truth, tolerance, and love.

[diethx]

Ilvane just use your mod powers and strike down anyone who opposes you. Thats how a conservative would do it.

If by conservative, you mean dumbass who wants their mod privileges taken away, sure. You give shitty advice.

[Gan]

Ilvane just use your mod powers and strike down anyone who opposes you. Thats how a conservative would do it.

God Bless all conservatives:

A.) Greedy little sons of bitches.

B.) Very sensitive creatures.

C.) Don't like people with darker skin color then themselves.

Liberal leaning -

Bill Gates
Warren Buffet
Alan Greenspan

Conservative leaning -

Rush Limbaugh
Bill O'Reilly
Ann Coulter -> dear God save us.

------------------------------------------------

Be a Liberal, Work Hard, pay your taxes (and not siphon it to some non-American bank on some Island), play by the rules, and live by truth, tolerance, and love.

Quit being an idiot.

[Gan]

Here, feel free to read this, it speaks for itself, in my opinion.

What additional costs are created by the uninsured population?

The United States spends nearly $100 billion per year to provide uninsured residents with health services, often for preventable diseases or diseases that physicians could treat more efficiently with earlier diagnosis (14).
Hospitals provide about $34 billion worth of uncompensated care a year (14).
Another $37 billion is paid by private and public payers for health services for the uninsured and $26 billion is paid out-of-pocket by those who lack coverage (14).
The uninsured are 30 to 50 percent more likely to be hospitalized for an avoidable condition, with the average cost of an avoidable hospital stayed estimated to be about $3,300 (14).
The increasing reliance of the uninsured on the emergency department has serious economic implications, since the cost of treating patients is higher in the emergency department than in other outpatient clinics and medical practices (11).

Getting Everyone Covered will Save Lives and Money

The impacts of going uninsured are clear and severe. Many uninsured individuals postpone needed medical care which results in increased mortality and billions of dollars lost in productivity and increased expenses to the health care system. There also exists a significant sense of vulnerability to the potential loss of health insurance which is shared by tens of millions of other Americans who have managed to retain coverage.

(Source 14--http://www.iom.edu/?id=12313&redirect=0)
(Source 11--Institute of Medicine. Care Without Coverage – Too Little, Too Late. The National Academies Press, 2002.)

Where in this information is the "makes 75k a year or more" data?

PS. Your sources suck - you have to buy the damn report to see the comprehensive data. Do you have access you can post or are you just sourcing the abstract?

[CrystalTears]

Ilvane just use your mod powers and strike down anyone who opposes you. Thats how a conservative would do it.

God Bless all conservatives:

A.) Greedy little sons of bitches.

B.) Very sensitive creatures.

C.) Don't like people with darker skin color then themselves.

Liberal leaning -

Bill Gates
Warren Buffet
Alan Greenspan

Conservative leaning -

Rush Limbaugh
Bill O'Reilly
Ann Coulter -> dear God save us.

------------------------------------------------

Be a Liberal, Work Hard, pay your taxes (and not siphon it to some non-American bank on some Island), play by the rules, and live by truth, tolerance, and love.
Did your GM friend show you how to be a dimwit on forums as well?

[Parkbandit]

Quit being an idiot.


That's like going up to a retard and saying "Quit being an idiot"

Hope you feel bad now.

[Gan]

haha!

Not a chance.

[Ilvane]

If by conservative, you mean dumbass who wants their mod privileges taken away, sure. You give shitty advice.

Like I would do something like that to begin with.

I mean, I've always been crazy mod who deletes people I don't agree with, right? LOL

I got in trouble with these guys for deleting myself..:smirk:

Angela

[Tea & Strumpets]

I got in trouble with these guys for deleting myself..:smirk:

Angela

That's not really true. People gave you a hard time about deleting all your posts in a thread, which happens to any poster when they argue something for multiple pages and then go on a delete fest.

What made people accuse you of abusing your MOD powers was when you said you were going to start pulling posts because Khaladon was a good guy and your friend -- just clarifying.

[TheEschaton]

Did Lucas just call Alan Greenspan a liberal?

-TheE-

[Ilvane]

That's not really true. People gave you a hard time about deleting all your posts in a thread, which happens to any poster when they argue something for multiple pages and then go on a delete fest.

What made people accuse you of abusing your MOD powers was when you said you were going to start pulling posts because Khaladon was a good guy and your friend -- just clarifying.

For the record, and not on topic..I never pulled any posts because of Khaladon being my friend, and I didn't state that either. I admit, I would remove a post of someone attacking another personally, if it went too far..which sometimes on this site it does.

Angela

[Stanley Burrell]

Did Lucas just call Alan Greenspan a liberal?

-TheE-

Since he's a non-Zionist Jew, he's obviously the shrewd introverted business man type. I mean it's either "hold my AK-47 while I take a piss" or the American Jew. C'mon.

[oldanforgotten]

Where in this information is the "makes 75k a year or more" data?

PS. Your sources suck - you have to buy the damn report to see the comprehensive data. Do you have access you can post or are you just sourcing the abstract?

Nowhere. The 75k example was just a baseless claim based on her "opinion" of the plans, and has nothing to do with facts, or the actual matters at hand, and only clarifies the uninformed nature of her stance.

Nor does it say anywhere in the abstract about what percentage of those claims are the result of illegal immigrants, homeless people, and otherwise indigent people who have no health coverage anyway. The whole concept of preventative care, while noble, is flawed simply because it has nothing to do with having or not having universal health care, but instead has more to do with a)people being lazy and not taking advantage of entitled yearly checkups b)people who have no coverage currently who would not be covered under universal health care anyway.

Let's get something straight. Universal health care, as proposed by either side, does not cover homeless or illegal immigrants because they have no record, and medical care given for them is a writeoff for a hospital under any and all circumstances. Both plans provide universal coverage for all children under 18 and students under the age of 25. The gap would be in the 18/25-65 age category for people who would actively choose not to purchase health care even if given the option to purchase it at a more affordable cost. The cost of the "affordable health insurance" would still be in the neighborhood of over 100 dollars a month, which some people may not want to spend.

Furthermore, Obama brings up another interesting point. Right now, HMO's have the right to refuse coverage, even under group plans, to a new individual with a pre-existing condition. He wants to change that. Clinton doesn't (probably as a result of the huge check she cashed from them in her closed doors meeting as first lady). His changes also center around reform on the industry, while hers focus only on providing a mandated government coverage.
________
Hot box vape (http://hotboxvaporizers.com)

[Parkbandit]

For the record, and not on topic..I never pulled any posts because of Khaladon being my friend, and I didn't state that either. I admit, I would remove a post of someone attacking another personally, if it went too far..which sometimes on this site it does.

Angela


For the REAL record.. I could site AMPLE examples of someone attacking someone personally that were before Khaladon's thread and after that you never touched. What made those posts different? OH, IT WAS BECAUSE YOU CONSIDERED KHALADON A FRIEND.

This is probably one topic you don't want to bring back up, since you were dead wrong.

[Gan]

Nowhere. The 75k example was just a baseless claim based on her "opinion" of the plans, and has nothing to do with facts, or the actual matters at hand, and only clarifies the uninformed nature of her stance.

Nor does it say anywhere in the abstract about what percentage of those claims are the result of illegal immigrants, homeless people, and otherwise indigent people who have no health coverage anyway. The whole concept of preventative care, while noble, is flawed simply because it has nothing to do with having or not having universal health care, but instead has more to do with a)people being lazy and not taking advantage of entitled yearly checkups b)people who have no coverage currently who would not be covered under universal health care anyway.
I have to admit, the first demographic I thought of when reading the abstracts on the source cited were illegal immigrants. :yes:


Furthermore, Obama brings up another interesting point. Right now, HMO's have the right to refuse coverage, even under group plans, to a new individual with a pre-existing condition. He wants to change that. Clinton doesn't (probably as a result of the huge check she cashed from them in her closed doors meeting as first lady). His changes also center around reform on the industry, while hers focus only on providing a mandated government coverage.

Interesting that Obama wants to change the system from within and yet HIllary wants to broaden the available income base for the HMO's by mandating required coverage under the guise of 'a national healthcare'. If she does win and brings that change about (which it probably will never make it through Congress) I would say those checks she received (allegedly) were a good investment by the HMO lobby. :lol:

Having previously worked for an HMO (or some other type of insurance provider) it would be assumed that Ilvane would readily see that difference and be against it.
:thinking:

[CrystalTears]

But it's endorsed by Hillary! She knows everything! She has EXPERIENCE! Respect her authori-tay!

[Stanley Burrell]

But it's endorsed by Hillary! She knows everything! She has EXPERIENCE! Respect her authori-tay!

She is a Republican after all.

With a thrashing horny beaver.

[oldanforgotten]

In fact, Angela, the whole concept of you saying that you?re voting for Clinton because Obama is some big unknown/doesn?t know policy/doesn?t have experience, is nothing more than rhetoric, especially if the only example you can pull up (the 75k a year earner pillaging my taxes by getting free health care), is not only invalid, but completely uninformed on the topic.

Seriously, stick with ?I?m voting for her because she?s a woman?, or ?I?m voting for her because I like her?. You have not made a single valid factual argument separating the two based on actual stances, and showing why her approach is better.

I prefer Obama to Clinton because I agree with him on more of the differences than I do her. I agree in affordable health care, and would only support universal health care in a complete and proper implementation that drives down total costs by creating a hard cap on lawsuits. I agree with him in that his original stance on Iraq, which he spoke out on at the very beginning (when not many people were willing to do, since 75+% of Americans believed we should go in, while Clinton voted for it), which means he?s willing to follow his convictions and beliefs even at times when they may be unpopular. I agree in the methodology he states which led him to his decision, and as such, think he is the best candidate for foreign policy among the running democrats. I think Clinton?s explanation of her vote to go to war in the debate was both flawed, na?ve, and condescending to the average voter by claiming she was ?tricked?.

I like the fact that unlike Clinton, other people such as Obama, McCain, and even Giuliani actually READ the 9/11 report for THEMSELVES before commenting about it. If you want to try and back up an argument that she was otherwise busy or occupied with other things, I would happily tell you how any member of the House who did not read the report the day it came out has some seriously FUCKED UP priorities.

I dislike the fact that Clinton, despite being a junior Senator, is so earmark and pork-barrel project rich.

I dislike both of their plans regarding a pullout in Iraq. Given that unfortunately we decided to go in, I DON?T think the right move is to just pull out, because I think it will inherently cause the region to destabilize from what little stability is there.

I dislike Obama?s stance on illegal immigrants getting a version of a drivers license. I think it?s a pipedream, and since they will still be unable to obtain insurance or register the vehicles, they are still just as dangerous as before, except now they?ll have a nice ID to wave around. I don?t think using that as a route for dispersing information is effective either. On that topic, I agree more with Clinton.

The difference is, when you realize how similar they are in stances, experience, and views, it falls down largely to a judgement of character.

He was a member of the middle class even while serving in the Illinois state senate, she was never a middle class worker.
He outwardly opposed the war at the beginning, she didn?t.
He admits at least some of his mistakes, willingly calls them mistakes, but she does not.
She proposed a health care plan, and then backed down on it later after closed door meetings with the big pharmas, and now takes money from HMO?s.
She billed her law firm 300+ hours on the Whitewater case, in which her husband (at that time governor) was a central figure, and later recalled nothing under oath.
She claimed to be a New Yorker and a Yankees and Mets fan the day she arrived in New York. She has yet to attend a game, even during recesses.
He?s has co-sponsored 2 bipartisan compromise bills in his 4 years in the Senate (including the Obama-McCain immigration reform bill, which did not pass), she has done nothing of the sort.
Both have stated a profound desire to re-instate the inheritance tax. Since doing so, she has hired a tax lawyer, and moved much of her wealth into indirect wealth. She has also stopped providing any tax return information. Given her past stances, and ways of doing things (and yes, this part is my opinion), it is my belief that she is approaching America with a plan that says the inheritance tax is a good thing, and then doing everything in her power to make sure she pays as little of it as possible.
________
Cosmo (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Mazda_Cosmo)

[Clove]

...The whole concept of preventative care, while noble, is flawed simply because it has nothing to do with having or not having universal health care, but instead has more to do with a)people being lazy and not taking advantage of entitled yearly checkups...

I disagree somewhat with this. While it is true that you can "lead a horse to water..." and some people (maybe even a lot of people) don't take advantage of available preventative care; preventative care under private insurance is NOT as comprehensive or frequent as it could/should be.

Me and my wife have excellent health coverage- she gets an annual checkup because she's a woman. If I were PB's age, I'd qualify for an annual check-up (*Edit: which makes no sense, because what good is preventative care when you have one foot in the grave /Edit*) but as it is men in my age group are covered for a check-up once every three years.

Preventative care in the US is just plain lacking, in my opinion and more comprehensive preventative care accessible by most of the population would lower the cost of healthcare overall.

[oldanforgotten]

I have to admit, the first demographic I thought of when reading the abstracts on the source cited were illegal immigrants. :yes:


Interesting that Obama wants to change the system from within and yet HIllary wants to broaden the available income base for the HMO's by mandating required coverage under the guise of 'a national healthcare'. If she does win and brings that change about (which it probably will never make it through Congress) I would say those checks she received (allegedly) were a good investment by the HMO lobby. :lol:

Having previously worked for an HMO (or some other type of insurance provider) it would be assumed that Ilvane would readily see that difference and be against it.
:thinking:


The ONLY way to change the system is from within. The first and primary way to drive down health care costs as a whole is to put hard limitations on how much people can sue for. Specifically, limitations on pain&suffering awards. Malpractice insurance is prohibitively expensive and drives up costs for everyone. That alone would probably single handedly drive down health insurance costs by close to 20% or more.

Secondly, when it comes to people's health, they have to eliminate the HMO practice of denying groups/types of claims or rating claims as denyable based on the "amount of money saved - (number of lawsuits)*(average settlement amount) > 0 approach", and apply a hefty government penalty (a prohibitive fine) any time that approach is used. While this would probably result in an increase in health care costs overall, it would provide better health care.

Last, use a government sponsored health care alternative that has an administrative fee cap of say, 10%. While it would not be anywhere near as efficient a business unit as an HMO, it would inherently eliminate collusion within the industry to keep higher margins (which I honestly believe is going on right now), because they would get priced out of the market by the government. Granted, I don't support that approach for any other industry right now, but health care is one of the few industries I think the actual providing of effective health care is more important than stockholder profits.
________
BONG (http://glassbongs.org/)

[oldanforgotten]

I disagree somewhat with this. While it is true that you can "lead a horse to water..." and some people (maybe even a lot of people) don't take advantage of available preventative care; preventaive care under private insurance is NOT as comprehensive or frequent as it could/should be.

Me and my wife have excellent health coverage- she gets an annual checkup because she's a woman. If I were PB's age, I'd qualify for an annual check-up but as it is men in my age group are covered for a check-up once every three years.

Preventative care in the US is just plain lacking, in my opinion and more comprehensive preventative care accessible by most of the population would lower the cost of healthcare overall.


You?re right in that the option of preventative care is not sufficient in this country. You should have the option to get a yearly checkup, and the options for preventative care are lacking. However, I have no idea where I read it, it was a while ago, but you?d represent the less than 1 in 3 people who would actually take full advantage of the currently offered preventative checkups that were standard for you.

My point wasn?t that preventative care was a bad thing. Everyone should have the options to get all the preventative healthcare they need. But to state that injuries/illnesses driving up overall healthcare costs are partially attributed to lack of preventative care is false in my opinion, because very few people actually do take advantage of the preventative care options they already have. So few people are taking full advantage of preventative health care today that to suggest that mandated universal health care is going to fix the issue is not valid.
________
Vapor genie (http://vaporizers.net/vapor-genie)

[TheEschaton]

Jesus, Tamral, don't you have a cat to run over? I'm in school and I don't even have the time to read all that.

[Clove]

...you’d represent the less than 1 in 3 people who would actually take full advantage of the currently offered preventative checkups that were standard for you.

...So few people are taking full advantage of preventative health care today that to suggest that mandated universal health care is going to fix the issue is not valid.

It wouldn't fix all the problems but better access to prevantive care could improve the situation. Even if the overall health-care costs of the 1/3 that take full advantage of it drops significantly that would have to have an impact.

[Gan]

Better access to preventative care would help; however, because we're a free society, and not a nanny-state (yet), denizens of our society should not be required to take annual physicals if they choose not to. Much as in those in our society should not be made to NOT engage in activities that promote physical/mental health risk.

Requiring people to have healthcare, to have preventative checkups, etc. is just a step in the direction of a nanny state. The ONLY time, repeat: ONLY time, that the government should be allowed to dictate the healthcare plan/activity for an individual is if that individual is using direct government assistance in order to pay for said healthcare. And even then, there should be safeguards in place to protect the liberty, within a reasonable extent, of the individual utilizing said government healthcare assistance.

[Clove]

Better access to preventative care would help; however, because we're a free society, and not a nanny-state (yet), denizens of our society should not be required to take annual physicals if they choose not to. Much as in those in our society should not be made to NOT engage in activities that promote physical/mental health risk.

I agree. The question I have is:

If preventative healthcare is available and you don't utilize it

How much are we (as a society) obligated to pay to treat your advanced-state condition that could have been discovered had you used the preventative care provided to you?

In any case, my goal is to take steps to lower the general cost of health-care. Preventative care would be one step in that direction (even if some fools don't use it). It isn't he panacea Hill and Obama want to suggest it is, but it is a positive step.

[Gan]

With liberty comes responsibility. ;)

[Ilvane]

I understand what you are saying, Gan. My thoughts are more that if people were on insurance, they are more likely to go in before it gets too seriously.

Now, most people(according to studies) go to the doctor after things get serious, if they don't have insurance.

It's not so much being a nanny state as it is that they are trying to make the society healthier as a whole, with will also keep the costs down, which will also lower the amount taxpayers have to pay.

I don't see why conservatives don't see this as a positive thing, in the future. It takes time to stabilize, but the investment is worth it to save in the future.

[Clove]

With liberty comes responsibility. ;)

People don't want that. Ilvane DEFINITELY doesn't want that.

[Alfster]

For the record, and not on topic..I never pulled any posts because of Khaladon being my friend, and I didn't state that either. I admit, I would remove a post of someone attacking another personally, if it went too far..which sometimes on this site it does.

Angela

You lie as much as Hillary, you even probably believe yourself.

ROFL TROTCHFACE

[CrystalTears]

Now, most people(according to studies) go to the doctor after things get serious, if they don't have insurance.
Even if they have insurance, depending on the coverage, and how much the deductibles are.

Let's face it, people don't like going to their doctor if they can possibly help it, and it really doesn't have that much to do with whether you have insurance and/or if you can afford to go.

My mother has insurance for her parents but my grandfather refuses to go unless he is basically dying or unconscious. He doesn't like doctors, doesn't trust them, doesn't want to hear about anything else wrong with him to worry even more about. I'm sure he's not alone in behaving that way.

[Gan]

I understand what you are saying, Gan. My thoughts are more that if people were on insurance, they are more likely to go in before it gets too seriously.
I'm more inclined to believe the opposite. Much like a car, usually it doesnt make it to the mechanic's shop until something breaks. Especially with today's homeopathic (home remedy) market available for great health in the form of a pill.

Now, most people(according to studies) go to the doctor after things get serious, if they don't have insurance. [/quote]


It's not so much being a nanny state as it is that they are trying to make the society healthier as a whole, with will also keep the costs down, which will also lower the amount taxpayers have to pay.
Cant you see 'nanny' written all over government telling you how to live your life within the guidelines of society (laws)? Apply the slippery slope argument here.


I don't see why conservatives don't see this as a positive thing, in the future. It takes time to stabilize, but the investment is worth it to save in the future.
Fiscal conservatives hate the fact that it probably will cost more than the benefits projected.
Libretarian conservatives hate the big government feel this has all over it, in addition to the nanny state aftertaste.

[TheEschaton]

By the slippery slope nanny government theory, then, we shouldn't have laws making murder illegal. OMFG THE GOVERNMENT SHOULDN'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO!

Public health regulations TELL ME WHAT TO DO, OMFG!!!!!111


The main purpose of government is to preserve the human dignity, moral order, and bodily integrity of its citizens, and promote the rights of the individual.

If you can't tell, I've been reading for my Catholic Social thought and the law class.

-TheE-

[Parkbandit]

By the slippery slope nanny government theory, then, we shouldn't have laws making murder illegal. OMFG THE GOVERNMENT SHOULDN'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO!

Public health regulations TELL ME WHAT TO DO, OMFG!!!!!111


The main purpose of government is to preserve the human dignity, moral order, and bodily integrity of its citizens, and promote the rights of the individual.

If you can't tell, I've been reading for my Catholic Social thought and the law class.

-TheE-

LOL.. there is a HUGE difference between the government enforcing moral laws like murder.. and one where it manages the healthcare system of every American.

Nice try though.

[Ilvane]

I guess I must be different.

I go to the doctor twice a year to check on my diabetes, which is now controlled by 1 pill twice a day, rather than insulin. I go to the podiatrist to get my feet looked at, even though I am not having problems with them, but I want to avoid problems with them. I lost weight, I go for my regular woman exams even though I hate them!! I get immunized(gasp) to avoid getting the flu!

I'm happy to say I'm not sick. I have normal blood pressure, cholesterol, and iron levels.

I take the car for a tune up and for it's regular oil changes too. Bleh..I also get tune ups!! Eek!

....I should start slacking, huh?

[TheEschaton]

Oddly enough, the Catholic Church (and myself, since I happen to sometimes find myself outside the beliefs of my own religion) thinks that adequate health care for all is a moral issue.

-TheE-

[Parkbandit]

Well holy shit.. if it's good enough for the Catholic Church, it's good enough for me! SIGN ME UP!

Oh wait.. I'm an atheist... I guess I take whatever the Church states and I basically laugh at it.

Speaking of which.. watching the news today.. they were speaking with survivors of the twisters in TN.. and one of them said it was because of God they survived. WTF! "We would like to thank God for saving us from the tornado he sent to destroy us!"

[oldanforgotten]

Oddly enough, the Catholic Church (and myself, since I happen to sometimes find myself outside the beliefs of my own religion) thinks that adequate health care for all is a moral issue.

-TheE-

And you're free to believe that. The beauty of a free country at work. I happen to believe that affordable health care is more important than mandated health care that people should be forced into. I believe we should have a choice, but it should be available to all, and not priced at a point that health care can be impossible to obtain. In other words, everyone who WANTS health care should be able to get it.

At least your reasoning is based in belief and not some over the top bullshit about 75k a year earners taking free healthcare at everyone else's expense like the dribble Angela is putting out.

Believe whatever you want, and vote with it, while people may not agree, there's a difference in supporting someone based on your beliefs, and supporting someone based on some incorrectly extrapolated bullshit that's just an outright piece of lying propaganda.
________
Vi 5,5 (http://www.bmw-tech.org/wiki/BMW_VI_5,5)

[Arkans]

How can anyone argue against having affordable health care available for everyone?

Who cares if you take it or not? At least the option is there, though.

- Arkans

[Gan]

By the slippery slope nanny government theory, then, we shouldn't have laws making murder illegal. OMFG THE GOVERNMENT SHOULDN'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO!

Public health regulations TELL ME WHAT TO DO, OMFG!!!!!111


The main purpose of government is to preserve the human dignity, moral order, and bodily integrity of its citizens, and promote the rights of the individual.

If you can't tell, I've been reading for my Catholic Social thought and the law class.

-TheE-


Oddly enough, the Catholic Church (and myself, since I happen to sometimes find myself outside the beliefs of my own religion) thinks that adequate health care for all is a moral issue.

-TheE-
Thats great, but I dont perscribe to your set of morals - nor do they accurately represent everyone in the US (not even a majority even).

Push them off on someone else if you dont want to allow them the liberty to choose.

[Parkbandit]

How can anyone argue against having affordable health care available for everyone?

Who cares if you take it or not? At least the option is there, though.

- Arkans

That is the thing with liberalism... it all sounds great.. until you try and pay for it. I'm not against everyone having a Food, shelter, utilities, health care, transportation, etc.... the problem lies with having to pay for it.

[Gan]

Well holy shit.. if it's good enough for the Catholic Church, it's good enough for me! SIGN ME UP!

Oh wait.. I'm an atheist... I guess I take whatever the Church states and I basically laugh at it.

Speaking of which.. watching the news today.. they were speaking with survivors of the twisters in TN.. and one of them said it was because of God they survived. WTF! "We would like to thank God for saving us from the tornado he sent to destroy us!"

Blaming God and thanking Him for the same thing is quite the humorous paradox I find with our current brand of religion.

Sinners in the hands of an angry God anyone?

[Stanley Burrell]

That is the thing with liberalism... it all sounds great.. until you try and pay for it. I'm not against everyone having a Food, shelter, utilities, health care, transportation, etc.... the problem lies with having to pay for it.

Yeah. It must be real difficult mustering the trillions of Bush-approved money movements to snip at the edges in order to provide for that place called...

The United States.

[Arkans]

Fair enough, PB, but how do you fund healthcare then?

I mean, sure, we could have not pissed away money on invading Iraq and gotten a jump on it, but I won't say that as I was for the invasion at the start.

Then again, and you're entitled to this view, stand in the camp of, "Well, I would like people to have access to these facilities, but it's just not possible, so they must do without"

- Arkans

[Gan]

By working for it.

[Parkbandit]

Fair enough, PB, but how do you fund healthcare then?

I mean, sure, we could have not pissed away money on invading Iraq and gotten a jump on it, but I won't say that as I was for the invasion at the start.

Then again, and you're entitled to this view, stand in the camp of, "Well, I would like people to have access to these facilities, but it's just not possible, so they must do without"

- Arkans


Same way I have healthcare.. get a fucking job?

[Arkans]

You're lucky to have a job that provides health insurance at a reasonable rate.

Truth be told, so am I. Unfortunately, a lot of jobs don't provide healthcare options for their employees and just because these jobs might be "below" us, doesn't mean the people are any less entitled to affordable treatment.

Unless you advocate for major hiring corporations to pick up the tab, which I would be for, but then again, you leave out the people working for those small businesses.

- Arkans

[Stanley Burrell]

Same way I have healthcare

No.

That's just called Medicare.


.. get a fucking job?

I'm almost ready to start switching my B.S. in The Natural Sciences in exchange for working at The Ramada. Woop, woop. I just have to stop stealing from my parents and smoking Afghanistan's entire poppy seed agriculture.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

What did your mandatory drug tests cost you?

[Stanley Burrell]

What did your mandatory drug tests cost you?

I've never been tested.

How's the herpz bloodwork going, btw?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

See, that's a shame. I bet that's why you are an advocate for low cost/free healthcare though, so you can get your fix at the working mans expense.

[Stanley Burrell]

I've never worked the contour of an e-slut.

This speaks upon my work criteria further than any summer job you'll ever dream of having, beooootch.

[Stanley Burrell]

See, that's a shame. I bet that's why you are an advocate for low cost/free healthcare though, so you can get your fix at the working mans expense.

P.S. JKz, you know I :heart: you, Gayvin.

[Stanley Burrell]

See, that's a shame. I bet that's why you are an advocate for low cost/free healthcare though, so you can get your fix at the working mans expense.

(man's)

[Clove]

You can argue that providing health-care is a moral issue. Just as you can argue that feeding the hungry is. But how much health care and at what cost?

Being too poor to afford adequate nutrition might "entitle" you to the cost of a meal paid for by the rest of us- but it doesn't entitle you to lobster and caviar.

I may be willing to pay for adequate preventative care for all, but when do we draw the line and say "you're responsible to find a way to pay for this"?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Have you ever even had a job Stainley? Meth lab doesn't count.

[Arkans]

I'd say all the way up to experimental treatments.

- Arkans

[oldanforgotten]

You can argue that providing health-care is a moral issue. Just as you can argue that feeding the hungry is. But how much health care and at what cost?

Being too poor to afford adequate nutrition might "entitle" you to the cost of a meal paid for by the rest of us- but it doesn't entitle you to lobster and caviar.

I may be willing to pay for adequate preventative care for all, but when do we draw the line and say "you're responsible to find a way to pay for this"?


Cost is an issue. It is a common misconception that universal health care is central to the heart of the democratic party. It is an individual decision. Personally, I prefer to go with the basic premise that America should strive to be ?The land of opportunity?. That means everyone gets a fair shot;

If the healthcare industry was regulated and costs were kept down (lawsuits, etc.), to the point that healthcare could be universally applied to everyone in a fully funded manner, I?m all for it. If it is not 100% funded, and requires people to pay, I think people should have the right to determine whether or not they take advantage of that. The concept of thinking its right to garnish someone?s wages, or fine them because they chose to put food on the table over purchasing health insurance is insulting.

Fuck anyone who tells me what to buy and what not to buy for myself.
________
BISON (http://www.chevy-wiki.com/wiki/Chevrolet_Bison)

[Gan]

I can see the steps change under a mandated system.

1. All costs are regulated so now hospitals/physicians can only charge a certain amount.

2. Physicians/hospitals, in repsonse to less charges, cut back to only the basic required services and amenities. This leads to decreased measures on physician quality and facility quality not to mention increased safety risks from non-thorough examinations/evaluations/diagnosis because the scripted (mandated) evaluation fails to cover additional but necessary testing, dirtier and more unsafe facilities, less facilities available,

3. Due to the reduced benefit and the high cost of pursuing medical school, internship, residency, fellowship, surgeon, etc. Less students choose that career path. Thus a shortage of physicians occurrs in the medium to long run as existing professionals exit to another area of healthcare in order to sustain their current level of lifestyle.

4. Increased demand for healthcare due to greater number of insured far outweighs the existing physician/facility supply which creates huge shortages, high wait times, overworked medical professionals, instances of rushed training of new physicians in order to meet overburdening demand... etc.

5. Having the expectation that a government agency, especially one as huge as a national healthcare system, can move as efficiently as one modeled after a free market (competetive) economy one is idealistic thinking at worst and crazy thinking at best.

[Parkbandit]

I can see the steps change under a mandated system.

1. All costs are regulated so now hospitals/physicians can only charge a certain amount.

2. Physicians/hospitals, in repsonse to less charges, cut back to only the basic required services and amenities. This leads to decreased measures on physician quality and facility quality not to mention increased safety risks from non-thorough examinations/evaluations/diagnosis because the scripted (mandated) evaluation fails to cover additional but necessary testing, dirtier and more unsafe facilities, less facilities available,

3. Due to the reduced benefit and the high cost of pursuing medical school, internship, residency, fellowship, surgeon, etc. Less students choose that career path. Thus a shortage of physicians occurrs in the medium to long run as existing professionals exit to another area of healthcare in order to sustain their current level of lifestyle.

4. Increased demand for healthcare due to greater number of insured far outweighs the existing physician/facility supply which creates huge shortages, high wait times, overworked medical professionals, instances of rushed training of new physicians in order to meet overburdening demand... etc.

5. Having the expectation that a government agency, especially one as huge as a national healthcare system, can move as efficiently as one modeled after a free market (competetive) economy one is idealistic thinking at worst and crazy thinking at best.


Oh, you are such a negative Nancy.

SOCIALIZED HEALTHCARE FOR ALL IS A RIGHT! BE DAMNED THE DETAILS!

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I personally like paying a little extra to get served faster, better facilities, etc. But I also pay for my healthcare.

[oldanforgotten]

I can see the steps change under a mandated system.
1. All costs are regulated so now hospitals/physicians can only charge a certain amount.


This is happening today. The HMO's dictate what can be charged for certain services, and they rarely pay in full for any of them. Furthermore, malpractice insurance dictates a high percentage of the cost.



2. Physicians/hospitals, in repsonse to less charges, cut back to only the basic required services and amenities. This leads to decreased measures on physician quality and facility quality not to mention increased safety risks from non-thorough examinations/evaluations/diagnosis because the scripted (mandated) evaluation fails to cover additional but necessary testing, dirtier and more unsafe facilities, less facilities available,


HMO's do this already as well. Many tests that would otherwise be done as precautionary are no longer done, because they won't be paid for by the HMO.



3. Due to the reduced benefit and the high cost of pursuing medical school, internship, residency, fellowship, surgeon, etc. Less students choose that career path. Thus a shortage of physicians occurrs in the medium to long run as existing professionals exit to another area of healthcare in order to sustain their current level of lifestyle.


This is a serious issue that the Clinton camp won't address. Russia had this problem in the worst way.



4. Increased demand for healthcare due to greater number of insured far outweighs the existing physician/facility supply which creates huge shortages, high wait times, overworked medical professionals, instances of rushed training of new physicians in order to meet overburdening demand... etc.


Evidence actually points the other way on this one. If we establish a system by which preventative checkups WORK, the number of people needing health care will be reduced. More importantly, right now, many of the uninsured demand health care today as is, and hospitals are forced to bear the cost of servicing them. Under any kind of added blanket insurance program, hospitals actually get more money.



5. Having the expectation that a government agency, especially one as huge as a national healthcare system, can move as efficiently as one modeled after a free market (competetive) economy one is idealistic thinking at worst and crazy thinking at best.

Point noted and I don't think anyone would disagree. But considering 50+ cents of every dollar (and in some cases far more for smaller practices) spent on health care goes either into the pocket of lawyers, people suing, or HMO company profits (and not into actual health care), thats a large enough gap that even a government organization can make up, especially since there would be no profits involved. To insinuate that the implementation of strict award caps for pain and suffering, and the enormous administrative fees being charged by HMO's couldn't be made up by an inefficient, not for profit government group is equally crazy thinking.

The problem is primarily the doing of lawyers and HMO's here. They want a share of the profits, and in this industry, they are taking most of it.
________
DODGE DYNASTY HISTORY (http://www.dodge-wiki.com/wiki/Dodge_Dynasty)

[Gan]

Oh, you are such a negative Nancy.

SOCIALIZED HEALTHCARE FOR ALL IS A RIGHT! BE DAMNED THE DETAILS!

Yes, I'm a negative Nancy... ;)

Who used to work in the healthcare industry, who was a patient throughput consultant for major hospitals in the US and in Canada. I've seen how patients are cared for in US hospitals and how they are cared for in Canadian (socialised) hospitals. My wife is a nurse here in the US and her and I have both worked with nurses who have come from Canada to the US to further their nursing career - and have listened to the horror stories of Canadian healthcare from an insider's perspective.

If there ever was any truth to the saying "dont know what you got til its gone"... it would be so if you were to switch our quasi free market healthcare system over to a socialised medicine system. It would be like reverting all gasoline automobiles back to bicycles and saying it would be more efficient and cost attainable to all.

No thanks. And while I do agree that there is many areas in the realm of insurance that can use some cleaning up. I'd like to see, socialised medicine is not the answer. To repeat myself (as I've stated before) I would like to see the coverage pools opened up across providers so that people can take advantage of the power of numbers in any given area for policy rates, deductions, and coverages. Give the consumer the freedom to choose between large numbers of providers and let competition and equilbrium pricing set the rates and coverages rather than a hybrid of regulations/mandates and high barriers to entry limiting the number of providers available for coverage.

If there's to be any regulation it needs to be in the court system in limiting the gross amounts awarded (punitive assessed amounts) in malpractice suits. Frivilous suits should backlash back upon those who file them if they are proven unfounded in claim. Take the greed out of the court system so that malpractice insurance rates will go down, thus lowering the costs and reluctance of physicians to pay or work in that specific area (OB-GYN is one area losing physicians left and right due to outrageous malpractice insurance rates, Anesthesia is another area hard hit with insurance costs...).

/.end rant

[oldanforgotten]

I personally like paying a little extra to get served faster, better facilities, etc. But I also pay for my healthcare.

Many people do. Many people have employer subsidized healthcare that provides excellent coverage with minimal out of pocket costs. But even some of these programs are withering due to insurance costs.

I have no issue with paying more for better health care options. But affordable health care is something that everyone should have access to.
________
Michigan marijuana dispensaries (http://michigan.dispensaries.org/)

[CrystalTears]

Canadians would be pissed.

[oldanforgotten]

Yes, I'm a negative Nancy... ;)

Who used to work in the healthcare industry, who was a patient throughput consultant for major hospitals in the US and in Canada. I've seen how patients are cared for in US hospitals and how they are cared for in Canadian (socialised) hospitals. My wife is a nurse here in the US and her and I have both worked with nurses who have come from Canada to the US to further their nursing career - and have listened to the horror stories of Canadian healthcare from an insider's perspective.

If there ever was any truth to the saying "dont know what you got til its gone"... it would be so if you were to switch our quasi free market healthcare system over to a socialised medicine system. It would be like reverting all gasoline automobiles back to bicycles and saying it would be more efficient and cost attainable to all.

No thanks. And while I do agree that there is many areas in the realm of insurance that can use some cleaning up. I'd like to see, socialised medicine is not the answer. To repeat myself (as I've stated before) I would like to see the coverage pools opened up across providers so that people can take advantage of the power of numbers in any given area for policy rates, deductions, and coverages. Give the consumer the freedom to choose between large numbers of providers and let competition and equilbrium pricing set the rates and coverages rather than a hybrid of regulations/mandates and high barriers to entry limiting the number of providers available for coverage.

If there's to be any regulation it needs to be in the court system in limiting the gross amounts awarded (punitive assessed amounts) in malpractice suits. Frivilous suits should backlash back upon those who file them if they are proven unfounded in claim. Take the greed out of the court system so that malpractice insurance rates will go down, thus lowering the costs and reluctance of physicians to pay or work in that specific area (OB-GYN is one area losing physicians left and right due to outrageous malpractice insurance rates, Anesthesia is another area hard hit with insurance costs...).

/.end rant


TheE would cry in horror that the poor victim would no longer be able to sue for 45 million in punitive damages because they got coffee spilled on them. It can never happen.
________
VOLCANO VAPORIZER (http://vaporizer.org/reviews)

[Gan]

PPO > HMO

Thats why I like the option to choose, and the right to do so.

Not every physician and or hospital is created equal. And since my healthcare is important to me, I dont settle for second best, I pay more for the best I can have access to under the plans I have to choose from. ;)

Once I'm independantly wealthy I'll simply pay out of pocket for the best I can safely travel to... insurance plan be damned.

[BigWorm]

Gee, I wonder how we could pay for something like a national healthcare program. Obviously neither of the democratic candidates have offered anything that might work, such as not renewing the Bush tax cuts or ending the war in Iraq that cost $9BIL a month.

[Gan]

But affordable health care is something that everyone should have access to.


First you have to get everyone to agree on whats 'affordable'.

Second you have to get everyone to agree to what constitutes 'accessable'.

Good luck. ;)

[oldanforgotten]

PPO > HMO

Thats why I like the option to choose, and the right to do so.

Not every physician and or hospital is created equal. And since my healthcare is important to me, I dont settle for second best, I pay more for the best I can have access to under the plans I have to choose from. ;)

Once I'm independantly wealthy I'll simply pay out of pocket for the best I can safely travel to... insurance plan be damned.

PPO plans inherently provide a little less coverage in some cases. I went with a PPO as well simply because I like being able to see a specialist without a referral, or choose my doctor. But the penalties for choosing that option are getting worse every year. Instead of 10/10/10 for deductables, I have 15/30/30, and more importantly, they are encouraging people to go with the HMO by penalizing anyone in the PPO a 500 deductable immediately upon entering an emergency room, a deductable that doesn't exist for the HMO plan. Add on the extra 80 bucks a month for the plan as well.

I've been debating going back to the HMO plan simply because supposedly Bluecross has some decent ratings as a provider, and right now I only get sick like once a year.
________
Mark Viii (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Lincoln_Mark_VIII)

[Gan]

Gee, I wonder how we could pay for something like a national healthcare program. Obviously neither of the democratic candidates have offered anything that might work, such as not renewing the Bush tax cuts or ending the war in Iraq that cost $9BIL a month.

Great so instead of bitching about how the war has wrecked our economy, you can just replace it with our national healthcare program and instead of being stuck with it for a finite length of time (like the war) - we're stuck with it forever (like a national healthcare program would be).

And of course, lets just tax the hell out of everyone, damn curtailing spending practices currently running amok. As long as the government can write checks - its ok - we can just increase taxes to pay for it.

:clap:

Excellent thinking.

[Gan]

PPO plans inherently provide a little less coverage in some cases. I went with a PPO as well simply because I like being able to see a specialist without a referral, or choose my doctor. But the penalties for choosing that option are getting worse every year. Instead of 10/10/10 for deductables, I have 15/30/30, and more importantly, they are encouraging people to go with the HMO by penalizing anyone in the PPO a 500 deductable immediately upon entering an emergency room, a deductable that doesn't exist for the HMO plan. Add on the extra 80 bucks a month for the plan as well.

I've been debating going back to the HMO plan simply because supposedly Bluecross has some decent ratings as a provider, and right now I only get sick like once a year.


PPO plans vary by provider and by employer's selection of available plans to offer. I just moved off a really shitty PPO (Cigna) over to a pretty good one (Great West). I'm completely satisfied with the coverage and rates/deductables.

I do miss my old employer picking up 100% of the tab with their BCBS version they had. Of course, that cost was passed through to our customers who bought the software products we sold. ;)

Great idea, but its hard to sustain forever in a competetive market.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Gee, I wonder how we could pay for something like a national healthcare program. Obviously neither of the democratic candidates have offered anything that might work, such as not renewing the Bush tax cuts or ending the war in Iraq that cost $9BIL a month.

I love how people opposed to the war think that money could just be shoveled into another bucket.

[oldanforgotten]

First you have to get everyone to agree on whats 'affordable'.

Second you have to get everyone to agree to what constitutes 'accessable'.

Good luck. ;)

accessable is by far the easier to handle. Affordable is a problem, but then again, right now, any help would make it more affordable. Right now I pay about 1100 a year out of pocket, down to around 180 with the HMO plan because my employer subsidizes it heavily. Considering the cost of private insurance now is what? 4k a year or more for some? I think something that reduces and subsidizes it down to 1000 or less certainly would make it affordable.

I know you used to work in the industry, but I have plenty of friends on the other side of it that work as physicians. While I agree with you that socialized health care is not the answer, you're painting far far too rosy a picture of the HMO industry.

They actively practice the following:

Deny groups of claims until they, as a company, approve certain procedures. This approval process is driven by costs, not people's health.
Deny selective claims on the principle that the likelihood of lawsuit*cost to settle < cost of claim.
Deny or delay approval of selective preventative care, unless it is proven to them that the likelihood of illness due to lack of preventative care * cost of care < cost of preventative care.

it wasn't until just a 10 or so years ago that women were entitled to a yearly pap smear checkup for breast cancer, a checkup that is known to help early detection in over 80% of breast cancer cases, and significantly reduces mortality rates. The healthcare industry finally approved it not because it would save lives, or provide needed health care, but because it would help them drive down costs. There is no question in my mind that the organizations should be subject to criminal investigations for that decision.

On that, I am firmly with Obama on health care. The HMO industry, while serving a need of providing group insurance, is fucking with people's health to profit as well. I don't even have to have a religion to know thats immoral.
________
Henry Company (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Henry_Ford_Company)

[Warriorbird]

Alan Greenspan = Objectivist Republican

I'm not personally against most core Republican economic concepts. They tend to generate economic growth. The only problem is then they turn around and waste that growth on things like the Iraq War/aftermath and you've squandered all your gains. Add their hopeless deficit/debt habits and matters become even worse.

Both parties are going to waste your money on things they shouldn't. The Republicans are just far better at it these days than the Democrats. They're the not tax + spend party. Throw on the religious wacko contingent (I actually care about social policy) and things get worse.

On another note...

At least Mitt Romney made it farther in the primaries than his father did back in the day. I was looking into it and found that George Romney was the first modern candidate to quit over the results of an opinion poll... pre New Hampshire.

[BigWorm]

Great so instead of bitching about how the war has wrecked our economy, you can just replace it with our national healthcare program and instead of being stuck with it for a finite length of time (like the war) - we're stuck with it forever (like a national healthcare program would be).

And of course, lets just tax the hell out of everyone, damn curtailing spending practices currently running amok. As long as the government can write checks - its ok - we can just increase taxes to pay for it.

:clap:

Excellent thinking.

That is seriously how the current administration thinks. Lemme guess who you voted for in 2004...

[BigWorm]

I love how people opposed to the war think that money could just be shoveled into another bucket.

I never said that I was for immediate withdrawal, I just stated that BOTH candidates have offered ways to pay for (atleast part of) their plans.

[Warriorbird]

Universal healthcare is a bad idea.

[Stanley Burrell]

Have you ever even had a job Stainley? Meth lab doesn't count.

Worked in horsebarns and C-Town from the age of 13 to 19.

Since you're all about the red, white and blue. That means actually cleaning up animal shit and not spreading BethTDs to a nearby farm animal.

I could lift more limestone at 14 than you wish you could bounce a badonkadonk at any age, bitch!

[Latrinsorm]

Thats great, but I dont perscribe to your set of morals - nor do they accurately represent everyone in the US (not even a majority even).

Push them off on someone else if you dont want to allow them the liberty to choose.How come you didn't mention this when PB talked about governments enforcing "moral laws like murder"?

[Gan]

That is seriously how the current administration thinks. Lemme guess who you voted for in 2004...

I dont have to guess who you voted for in 2004.

Furthermore that still doesnt refute the fact that your thinking that replacing the expenditure of war with a national healthcare program based on real costs of war vs. projected costs of this mammoth program is completely illogical.

[Gan]

How come you didn't mention this when PB talked about governments enforcing "moral laws like murder"?

Because requiring healthcare based on a moral compass and preventing murder based on a moral compass are two totally different things to me.

[Latrinsorm]

Oh I totally agree that they're different. I'm curious though, if you're not against legislating morality in general (because only a twit would say murder should be legal and you're not a twit), aren't you then compelled to say that your moral compass is superior to Eschaton's in some way?

[Gan]

I'm not qualified to make that distinction.

I simply feel that there is a line that exists on what society should provide and what should be provided by the individuals within that society.

While I agree that everyone should have access to healthcare in an emergency, I do not agree that everyone should have access to general healthcare provided for them at the burden of society. Everyone needs to pull their own weight, so to speak.

The distinction is emergent healthcare versus generic/basic healthcare.

The purpose, in part, behind this is placing a degree of responsibility upon the member of society seeking the healthcare. The other purpose is to protect society from the tenuous nature of being an imperfect biological organism that is susceptable to defects, natural or unnatural, that society can not afford (resource wise) to fix through the healthcare system.

There is not in existance a blank check on society's resources (human, natural, etc.) that can simply be drawn up for every need of every individual. Furthermore I do not wish to see our precious resources taxed to the point that it inhibits the motivation of an individual's utility seeking behavior, or the destruction of the resources that are the vehicle of said utility.

If humans were without self interest then I would say that this ideal is possible. But since humans have self interest...

[Arkans]

I agree, Gan.

We should apply this same logic to law enforcement, fire protection, and education.

- Arkans

[oldanforgotten]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html

Obama up by 11 delegates in pledged delegates nationwide, Clinton is up by 83 superdelegates, giving her a current 72 delegate margin. Now they tread into 9 more primaries before Ohio and Texas, the first two she?s supposedly favored to win.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004168929_dems07.html

She?s getting 5000+ to her rallies in Seattle, but he?s filled out Arco Arena. The real question starts tomorrow. How is Hillary going to weather the storm of the next few weeks until she gets back into familiar territory like Texas and Ohio? Will she be able to steal a couple of the primaries Obama is favored in? How?s her fundraising going to look like with her current situation. Many of her donors are admittedly already tapped for their 2,300 maximum. Will she start taking more special interest and lobbyist money to cover the gap?
________
Vaporizer Answer (http://vaporizer.org/forum/vaporizer-questions/)

[Gan]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html

Obama up by 11 delegates in pledged delegates nationwide, Clinton is up by 83 superdelegates, giving her a current 72 delegate margin. Now they tread into 9 more primaries before Ohio and Texas, the first two she’s supposedly favored to win.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004168929_dems07.html

She’s getting 5000+ to her rallies in Seattle, but he’s filled out Arco Arena. The real question starts tomorrow. How is Hillary going to weather the storm of the next few weeks until she gets back into familiar territory like Texas and Ohio? Will she be able to steal a couple of the primaries Obama is favored in? How’s her fundraising going to look like with her current situation. Many of her donors are admittedly already tapped for their 2,300 maximum. Will she start taking more special interest and lobbyist money to cover the gap?

Not to mention she's been reported to have contributed 5m from her own finances to the campaign.

[TheEschaton]

Funny, I was going to post this last night, but I was pretty drunk. Not only is it echoed by the Catholic Church in Pacem in Terris, but it is in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, WHICH THE U.S. HAS SIGNED ON TO, that everyone should have healthcare.

Not religious, but making arguments from the natural law - that every person has a right to dignity in his or her own person, and that includes bodily health.

[Gan]

Funny, I was going to post this last night, but I was pretty drunk. Not only is it echoed by the Catholic Church in Pacem in Terris, but it is in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, WHICH THE U.S. HAS SIGNED ON TO, that everyone should have healthcare.

Not religious, but making arguments from the natural law - that every person has a right to dignity in his or her own person, and that includes bodily health.

Have healthcare? Have access to healthcare?

How much healthcare? Specifics man.

A generic idea is grand, but when you start applying arbitrary or self imposed amounts is where you get into trouble.

[TheEschaton]

The idea is that everyone should have full health care. There is an idea of subsidiarity, that if someone else can provide it, they should (not for economic reasons, but because gov't control of everything is itself oppressive), but if these alternative methods (IE, in this case, private insurers) did not cover EVERYONE, the government should make up the difference. This is probably more in line with Obama's plan than Hillary's.

-TheE-

[CrystalTears]

What do you define as full health care? How much do you give?

I'm all for preventative care, but once you get to the point of needing surgery, treatments, therapy, the country should just pay for this no questions asked, just for being a human being?

[oldanforgotten]

The idea is that everyone should have full health care. There is an idea of subsidiarity, that if someone else can provide it, they should (not for economic reasons, but because gov't control of everything is itself oppressive), but if these alternative methods (IE, in this case, private insurers) did not cover EVERYONE, the government should make up the difference. This is probably more in line with Obama's plan than Hillary's.

-TheE-


Given what you just said, I find it oddly curious that you support Hillary on healthcare.

Obama:
Provide affordable healthcare to everyone, and given them the choice to get health care if they otherwise cannot afford it, but give them the choice to purchase it or not.
Eliminate the legal loophole that allows someone coming into a group to be denied healthcare based on a pre-existing condition, such as diabetes, cancer, aids, etc..
Reduce the overall cost of healthcare by capping pain and suffering amounts.
Regulate the health care industry to penalize them for the practice of denying groups of claims based on the mathematical formula they use that number of lawsuits * settlement < amount of care rule.
Eliminate lifetime caps.
Create cost controls on drug companies that accept government funding for drug research.


Clinton:
Government mandated universal health care.



Clinton?s plan does nothing to address the fact that people with certain pre-existing conditions will still have no choice but to use government provided care, which does not include a prescription plan, meaning they can go see a doctor, but still not get drugs.

Clinton?s plan does nothing to eliminate the legal insurance and preventative lawsuit malpractice insurance that is currently spiraling costs out of control.

Clinton?s plan does nothing to control drug prices, something not covered under either mandated healthcare plan.

You tell Ganalon that shame on him for wanting to keep more of his own money instead of paying for someone else to have health care, but having the overall cost of healthcare go through the roof because of lawyer lobbying is supposedly ok to you. Pot calling the kettle black there. He wants to keep his money, you want to save your line of work.
Both mandate coverage for children and students

Both mandate coverage for veterans and seniors.
________
MEDICAL MARIJUANA (http://dispensaries.org/)

[TheEschaton]

I support Hillary Clinton. That does not mean I cannot find flaws with some of her plans, unlike what it means to support a GOP candidate, apparently, which seems to mean you accept everything that person says as Gospel.

-TheE-

[oldanforgotten]

I support Hillary Clinton. That does not mean I cannot find flaws with some of her plans, unlike what it means to support a GOP candidate, apparently, which seems to mean you accept everything that person says as Gospel.

-TheE-

yet from everything you've posted regarding health care, the greater good, the responsibility of society, etc.. falls in line with what Obama wants. Why not just say his stance on health care is better?
________
FORD FALCON (NORTH AMERICA) HISTORY (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Ford_Falcon_(North_America))

[Gan]

I support Hillary Clinton. That does not mean I cannot find flaws with some of her plans, unlike what it means to support a GOP candidate, apparently, which seems to mean you accept everything that person says as Gospel.

-TheE-

Right, because all of your arguments are unbiased and stance neutral when it comes to making evaluations on political candidates. And anyone who differs with your opinions and analysis are automatically blindly following their candidates.

Are you for real?

[TheEschaton]

LOL, his version of healthcare is better. I can say that. What matters is that it is universal.

As for you Gan, it seems like the right has started railing against John McCain, a guy who scores over 80 on the conservative index, because of a few big-name items which he was against - immigration, and the tax cuts.

-TheE-

[oldanforgotten]

LOL, his version of healthcare is better. I can say that. What matters is that it is universal.

As for you Gan, it seems like the right has started railing against John McCain, a guy who scores over 80 on the conservative index, because of a few big-name items which he was against - immigration, and the tax cuts.

-TheE-

Wait, so if his version is better, and this is one of the big driving needs for the lower middle class, why are you voting for her again?
________
Buy Vaporizers (http://vaporizers.net/vaporizers)

[TheEschaton]

This is my case:

If Obama was an idealist who had been in the Senate for a long, long time, and still hadn't had that idealism eroded by politics, I would vote for him. If he was Paul Wellstone, and I knew his idealism could withstand the fire, I would vote for him.

That being said, it's fine to be idealistic, but I don't know how his idealism will hold up under fire. I personally trust Hillary to stand up to fire from the other side of the aisle much more, so the choice for me was a (still pretty) liberal and (still pretty) idealist Hillary Clinton, despite being under fire for the past 16 years, versus a Barack Obama who has yet to face anything from the other side of the aisle in any form.

Edited to add: I bet Obama would make an amazing president, in 8 years. I'll support him then.

-TheE-

[CrystalTears]

So people are really voting for Hillary because she has the added experience being a First Lady. Check.

For me that doesn't mean one iota, especially with how crooked she was as a First Lady, but as long as it fluffs her resume it's all good.

[TheEschaton]

Well, considering Republicans threw 10s of millions of dollars at the Clintons and could only get an indictment for perjury about a blowjob in a civil suit, I'm gonna go with "she's not crooked", for 1000, Alex.

And she wasn't a Laura Bush type first lady, she was an Eleanor Roosevelt type first lady.

Of course, maybe you didn't agree with Elizabeth Dole running for senator/president because she was just the wife of Bob Dole for all those years.

-thee-

[CrystalTears]

Yeah she's not a sell-out or anything. /rolls eyes

Even though I was going through a really rough period in my life when Elizabeth Dole was running for office so I didn't give a rat's ass who was running, she was more than just Bob Dole's wife.

[oldanforgotten]

Well, considering Republicans threw 10s of millions of dollars at the Clintons and could only get an indictment for perjury about a blowjob in a civil suit, I'm gonna go with "she's not crooked", for 1000, Alex.

And she wasn't a Laura Bush type first lady, she was an Eleanor Roosevelt type first lady.

Of course, maybe you didn't agree with Elizabeth Dole running for senator/president because she was just the wife of Bob Dole for all those years.

-thee-

What about the 300+ hours she billed her law firm working on the Whitewater case and then not recalling any of it under oath in that investigation?

What about the locked door meetings for Hillarycare in 94 that killed universal health care and made the Clintons recipients of HMO money?

What about the opposal to the repeal of the inheritance tax, and then no longer disclosing finances and hiring a tax lawyer?

By your argument, OJ is an innocent poor man who never did anything wrong, it was just the state of California menacingly coming after him. Please.
________
Honda nu50m (http://www.cyclechaos.com/wiki/Honda_NU50M)

[TheEschaton]

Eh, I thought similarly as you when she was elected Senator in 2000 of my state. I have since been converted, because she was amazing to blue collar, upstate NYers.

look at the county results, I think HRC won all but 1 county in NY, and the more upstate you go, the wider the margins.

[TheEschaton]

What kind of time period was that 300+ hour billing spread?

-TheE-

[oldanforgotten]

What kind of time period was that 300+ hour billing spread?

-TheE-

Some of it was right in the middle of the investigation...

Here are some highlights. As a lawyer, you may enjoy reading how Hillary was less than forthcoming about the truth (whatever it may be), and refused to recall anything, a trait many admired people in your profession share, so I can see why you look up to her.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/stories/wwtr960619.htm

The Hearings End Much as They Began
By David Maraniss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 19 1996; Page A01

They were on stage even longer than their ancestral icons ? country Sam Ervin and his colorful cast from the Watergate hearings ? but now, finally, their show is over. The Senate Whitewater committee closed down yesterday after a 13-month run. Chairman Al D'Amato and his cacophonous crew had quizzed and quarrelled and drawn connect-the-dots scenarios and sometimes bored the living daylights out of everybody at 60 sessions, consuming 300 hours, taking 10,729 pages of testimony and 35,000 pages of depositions from 245 people.

And they ended much as they began: The Republicans, in their final report, accused the Clinton White House of stonewalling and obfuscating; and the Democrats, in a minority rebuttal, claimed that the president and first lady had been victimized by a modern-day witch hunt. Along with records set for length and breadth, if not depth, the Whitewater hearings utterly obliterated any notion of congressional objectivity.

No one broke party ranks this time. There was no Howard H. Baker Jr. asking someone of his own party what did he know and when did he know it. Democratic senators covered their president in a protective embrace, serving almost as defense attorneys, while Republican senators behaved like zealous prosecutors, searching for the hidden meaning of every telephone log and witness-stand lapse into forgetfulness.

Nor were there any witnesses comparable to John Dean, spilling the beans on White House higher-ups. Perhaps the closest anyone came to that ? and it was not all that close ? was when the former deputy attorney general sharply criticized the way White House officials held investigators at bay in the days after deputy counsel Vincent Foster's suicide. Philip B. Heymann asked whether the White House was "hiding something" and warned that they were making "a terrible mistake." Another rare against-the-grain moment came when a junior attorney at the Rose Law Firm surprisingly contradicted Hillary Rodham Clinton's account of how she came to represent James B. McDougal and his savings and loan. Troublesome, but not exactly the stuff of Dean's dramatic if monochromatic "there's a cancer on the presidency" utterance.

The Watergate drama in a sense has become a ghostly curse for every congressional investigation that has followed. Watergate lexicon is automatically passed along to the next set of circumstances, no matter how different, usually beginning with the "gate" suffix and ending with the search for a "smoking gun" ? all leading to a sense that nothing has been accomplished unless the hearings result in a dramatic White House shake-up. Both sides find it hard to resist the Watergate temptation. D'Amato, excited one day by a potentially provocative memo from Clinton's attorney, declared that the smoking gun might be at hand; when it proved less than lethal, the White House dismissed it as not a smoking gun but a "squirt gun."

It was left to Michael Chertoff, D'Amato's alter ego and committee counsel, to try to disabuse everyone of smoking gun expectations. A former prosecutor and trial lawyer from New Jersey, Chertoff had spent his career piecing together circumstantial cases. He would try to get inside the minds of defendants to determine motivations and then fit them into a logical chronology.

The long hearings and equally long final majority report are quintessential Chertoff products. In both cases he sought to establish motivations for the Clintons and the people around them, and then to show a pattern of how they withheld information and documents or claimed to forget things in a coordinated effort at damage control. Democrats said it was cynical and venomous of Chertoff to apply a sinister motive to every act. Complaining loudest was minority counsel Richard Ben-Veniste, who in a former career had prosecuted President Richard M. Nixon's men for Watergate-related crimes.

The partisan bickering tended to diminish the fact that the Whitewater hearings indeed disclosed curious patterns of behavior by the Clintons and the people around them, and put them out for public consideration. If not for the hearings, these patterns would have gone undetected or at least unknown to anyone but Kenneth W. Starr and his assistants in the independent counsel's office, who have been conducting a separate investigation on a more secretive track.

One pattern the Whitewater committee highlighted was the release of documents long after they were requested. The Rose billing records showing Hillary Clinton's work for Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan, Bruce Lindsey's notes on a 1993 meeting in which he and other White House aides discussed Whitewater with Clinton's private attorney and notes taken by Deputy Chief of Staff Harold Ickes, former communications director Mark Gearan and aide Michael Waldman on Whitewater meetings of the White House inner circle ? all these documents seemed to be discovered and turned over to the committee months or years after they were sought.

Chertoff and the Republican senators found similar patterns in Hillary Clinton's apparent reluctance to disclose the full nature of her actions as Madison's lawyer in the mid-1980s, and in her behavior, and that of her confidants, following the 1993 suicide of Foster, her longtime friend and former law partner.

By obtaining and publicizing logs showing a rapid-fire series of telephone calls between Hillary Clinton, her chief of staff, Margaret Williams, her close friend and legal consultant, Susan Thomases, and White House counsel Bernard Nussbaum, the Republicans raised the question of whether the first lady was trying to prevent investigators from combing through Foster's office in search of evidence.

In their final report, the Republicans concluded that was precisely what the first lady and her cohorts had tried to do. Democrats accused Chertoff of trying "to hammer evidence ? no matter how ill-fitting ? into the precast mold of its conclusions."

Slowly but surely as the year of hearings progressed, it became apparent that Hillary Clinton, the unelected first lady, was becoming the Republicans' central target, not her husband the president.

Bill Clinton at times seemed like nothing more than a bit player in the drama. Why? The Democrats concluded that it was because the Republicans could not get much on him.

"Having failed to tarnish the president, the majority has turned its attention to Mrs. Clinton," the Democrats concluded in their minority report yesterday.

"The venom with which the majority focuses its attack on Hillary Rodham Clinton is surprising, even in the context of the investigation. . . . Every act is portrayed in its most cynical light, every failure of recollection is treated as though the standard for human experience is total recall and photographic memory."

There was, from start to finish, an undertone of sarcasm and ridicule accompanying the overt partisanship of the hearings.

D'Amato, in his most earnest tones, would declare some statement by a White House witness "preposterous" or "disingenuous."

The White House would dismiss the chairman as "ethically challenged," pointing out the times when his own financial and legislative dealings had been questioned.

At times the hearings seemed to take odd diversions down lonesome Arkansas byways, delving into arcane actions tangentially related to the Clintons from more than a dozen years ago.

All along the way, the public was barely paying attention. Polls conducted during the year-long committee hearing process showed that it was considered a low-level scandal.

A majority of respondents said they thought the president and first lady might not be telling the whole truth about Whitewater but that it was not something that would determine whether they would vote for the president in 1996.

The Senate proceedings were often characterized in the news media as a "snooze" or a "box-office bomb."

The hearings were televised on C-Span but rarely made the evening newscasts until, just as Whitewater seemed to be evaporating, some new document or testimony would create new problems for the Clintons and the news media interest would temporarily revive.

Chertoff's deliberative style of questioning was occasionally harpooned by unfriendly witnesses.

Betsey Wright, Clinton's former chief of staff when he was governor of Arkansas, spent eight hours before the committee one day, bobbing and weaving with Chertoff in her sarcastic and colorful fashion.

"Go ahead and talk," she told Chertoff at one point, when he was asking an especially long and intricate question. "And then sometime next week I'll come back and answer."

Near the end of Wright's time in the chair, after she had responded to "nigh on a jillion questions," D'Amato asked how she was doing. "I'm tired and I'm bored," she said, leaning back and breathing a deep, mournful sigh. "But there's not anything you can do about it."
________
Yamaha rd350 (http://www.yamaha-tech.com/wiki/Yamaha_RD350)

[Gan]

This is my case:
That being said, it's fine to be idealistic, but I don't know how his idealism will hold up under fire. I personally trust Hillary to stand up to fire from the other side of the aisle much more, so the choice for me was a (still pretty) liberal and (still pretty) idealist Hillary Clinton, despite being under fire for the past 16 years, versus a Barack Obama who has yet to face anything from the other side of the aisle in any form.
-TheE-

So in other words, Hillary will be a divider in as much as Bush has stood up to the Democrat Congress we have today. So much for being the uniter.

Check.

[oldanforgotten]

Here's some more food for thought:

http://www.hillaryproject.com/index.php?/en/story-details/whitewater_v_rezko_the_battle_of_the_billing_recor ds/
________
Sexual Dysfunction Advice (http://www.health-forums.org/sexual-dysfunction/)

[TheEschaton]

I don't think I ever said Hillary would be a uniter. I don't think I ever said I wanted a uniter.

I believe the Democratic platform, for the most part, is far more correct than the Republican one. And I don't want them to budge one bit. Hillary is a person not to budge.

As for that article, it didn't answer my questions. If you interpret what it seems to be saying, it sounds like she billed those hours over years.

[CrystalTears]

So she billed hundreds of hours over several year period and didn't remember it, while Obama billed for what, 5-7 hours and he remembered the circumstances? That's convenient.

[oldanforgotten]

So she billed hundreds of hours over several year period and didn't remember it, while Obama billed for what, 5-7 hours and he remembered the circumstances? That's convenient.

Give hillary credit, she remembered it, she just lied under oath about not remembering it. 15 months, several hundred billed hours, and it was billed every month. Furthermore, one of the billed sessions was done after the investigation had opened. if anyone actually thinks she DIDN'T remember it, well then damn, you should talk to Ilvane or something and stay in that intelligence pool of conversation.
________
Chevrolet Trailblazer (http://www.chevy-wiki.com/wiki/Chevrolet_TrailBlazer)

[oldanforgotten]

One of the biggest prizes in the upcoming days, Virginia, due to its all or nothing proposition for 63 of its 101 delegates, now squarely behind Obama:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/va/virginia_democratic_primary-507.html

She'd better start matching Obama and at least try and keep that one close, or she'll end up being behind on delegates and outfundraised to boot in the coming weeks, usually a recipe for.. oh shit that's right, she's got a lot of money in her personal bank from all her husband's speaking engagements, corporate earmark checks, and whatnot. She'll be fine, just have to loan her own campaign 10 or 15 million more dollars, and then ask her staffers to go without pay.
________
Ladder day saints - mormonism forums (http://www.religionboard.org/ladder-day-saints-mormonism/)

[Latrinsorm]

stance neutralAm I the only one who was always really bothered that stance neutral in GS was in fact 40% offense and 60% defense and thus CLEARLY not neutral?
That being said, it's fine to be idealistic, but I don't know how his idealism will hold up under fire.You seriously think some Republican whining is more intimidating than growing up biracial or working in the slums of Chicago? "Fire" my ass.

[Gan]

Am I the only one who was always really bothered that stance neutral in GS was in fact 40% offense and 60% defense and thus CLEARLY not neutral?

LOL, you're not the only one.

[Warriorbird]

E... read up on triangulation. Hillary is poison.