Holy Convention Bounce Batman

[crb]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-07-poll_N.htm

McCain +10%



In the new poll, taken Friday through Sunday, McCain leads Obama by 54%-44% among those seen as most likely to vote. The survey of 1,022 adults, including 959 registered voters, has a margin of error of +/— 3 points for both samples.

In related news... Chris "Leg-Tingle" Matthews and Keith "my-head-is-going-to-explode" Olberman got demoted at MSNBC after NBC got pissed off at how biased they had become.... but no... I'm sure some of you will insist MSNBC was never biased...

http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/08/business/media/08msnbc.html&OQ=_rQ3D1Q26em&OP=682e1b7Q2FlQ51kLlHi8oxiinQ3ClQ3CQ5EQ5EalQ5EXlQ5 EalL6o,ZkooldkH,IlQ5EadoZL8EQ3AndT

[Ashliana]

"Among those most likely to vote." In other words, old people like old candidates! Hooray for spin!

In any case, if you can make the (moronic) argument that FOX News isn't conservatively biased, and simply that Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, etc, are, then you can make the same argument for Chris Matthews and MSNBC.

[Mabus]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-07-poll_N.htm

McCain +10%
It was a good bounce. Let's see if it continues, or expands.


In related news... Chris "Leg-Tingle" Matthews and Keith "my-head-is-going-to-explode" Olberman got demoted at MSNBC after NBC got pissed off at how biased they had become.... but no... I'm sure some of you will insist MSNBC was never biased...

http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/08/business/media/08msnbc.html&OQ=_rQ3D1Q26em&OP=682e1b7Q2FlQ51kLlHi8oxiinQ3ClQ3CQ5EQ5EalQ5EXlQ5 EalL6o,ZkooldkH,IlQ5EadoZL8EQ3AndT
I have taken to calling the network "MSDNC", and find the "news" just as offensive as calling many programs on FOX (which I often call FAUX) "news".

If you search the forums you will find that during the primaries I had said I believed Chris Matthews wanted to have Obama's lovechild. Olberman has always been far-left leaning, but it surprised me to hear pure commentary from Matthews at the time. It does not surprise me anymore, for either.

[Hulkein]

"Among those most likely to vote." In other words, old people like old candidates! Hooray for spin!

Until 'Likely Voters' is shown to be less accurate than 'Registered Voters' they should use it with more authority.

That being said, McCain still saw a double digit swing among Registered Voters and is up 4 in that poll among them as opposed to down 7 (6 or 7, I forget) pre-convention.

[Ashliana]

It's really depressing to think that the reason he's gone up is because of people really only interested in the culture war that Palin's being on the ticket represents. They want a fight on abortion rights, gay rights, and basically every wedge issue there could possibly be. This is what drives Republican voters to the polls. Great.

If they're successful--Four more years. The only difference is that Bush manipulated those people without actually acting on it. The GOP's very cynical in that way. Get the bigoted religious voters to the polls by suggesting marriage amendments, and immediately after the election cycle, stop talking about it until the next one.

A Palin administration, however, I see as the absolute most divisive, vitriolic clash between the secular and religious bases of the nation. Which is stronger, in 2008? We'll see..

[Hulkein]

I'm voting for McCain and am even happier to do so after the Palin choice and it's not because of any of the wedge issues you point out.

[Ashliana]

I'm voting for McCain and am even happier to do so after the Palin choice and it's not because of any of the wedge issues you point out.

Weren't you supporting McCain before, though? I'm just talking about the upswing in support that the news article/poll is. The "conservatives" flocking to McCain/Palin because it is now McCain/Palin.

[Mabus]

This is what drives Republican voters to the polls.
I find that overly general, and typical of a person that allows simple issues to "drive" them to vote in specific ways.


If they're successful--Four more years.
There is no incumbent running, so the "four more years" mantra is mute. Spouting campaign rhetoric as if was truth shows the hold Obama has on your mind.


Get the bigoted religious voters to the polls by suggesting marriage amendments, and immediately after the election cycle, stop talking about it until the next one.
In your view all people not voting for Obama have no reason to vote for McCain except "bigoted" views?

I see you skip the fact that he is the more experienced candidate, has worked more across party lines, has fought wasteful spending and earmarks, has worked on campaign finance reform (and has stuck to his word to stay on the public system), knows more about foreign policy and has demonstrated better judgment concerning the people in his life.

That is skipping a better energy policy, a better pro-business strategy, a plan for less taxation, a plan for cutting government programs, a sound Iraq strategy and a host of other issues that a voter could agree with.

But why look at reality when you can claim people are bigots voting for four more years?

[Mabus]

The "conservatives" flocking to McCain/Palin because it is now McCain/Palin.
Don't forget the 30%+ of Clinton supporters that polls have said will not vote for Obama. Maybe some of them see the Palin choice as a wonderful gesture, and fine pick, by McCain.

She does help shore up the GOP base, sure. But she also is "the new kid in town", which always generates excitement. I believe many strong, working women with families also see a bit of themselves in her, and not all of them are "conservatives".

[Ashliana]

I find that overly general, and typical of a person that allows simple issues to "drive" them to vote in specific ways.

You've yourself acknowledged that people vote on such simple issues. Why do you think a person claiming to have supported Hillary, would abandon the Democratic party when Obama represents nearly the exact same policies that she did? It makes little sense. Why would they support McCain, that takes the polar OPPOSITE of those issues that their preferred candidate, Hillary, supported? Because they're resentful Hillary didn't win? Because Palin's a woman?

There's your "simple issues."


There is no incumbent running, so the "four more years" mantra is mute. Spouting campaign rhetoric as if was truth shows the hold Obama has on your mind.

Regardless of your take on it, McCain has measurably and objectively shifted more to the right and flip-flopped on numerous issues to be more in line with Bush's type of Republican. Drilling and the Bush tax cuts are prime examples. It's not just campaign rhetoric.



In your view all people not voting for Obama have no reason to vote for McCain except "bigoted" views?

I didn't say that. At all. You can stop making gross assumptions because you're eager to jump on people that disagree with you in any way. The religious "conservative" base has been pandered to repeatedly over the last few elections. Republicans essentially manipulate them by bringing up these wedge issues like gay marriage and then forgetting about them once they get into power.

I'm NOT SAYING THAT MCCAIN HAS NO VALUE. I'm saying that a certain element of the Republican base has been the religious conservatives--the same type PALIN APPEALS TO and have resulted in "increased enthusiasm" on their ticket. I'm not TALKING ABOUT ALL REPUBLICANS. Understand? Just the people resulting in the "boost" from the convention.


I see you skip the fact that he is the more experienced candidate, has worked more across party lines, has fought wasteful spending and earmarks, has worked on campaign finance reform (and has stuck to his word to stay on the public system), knows more about foreign policy and has demonstrated better judgment concerning the people in his life.

That is skipping a better energy policy, a better pro-business strategy, a plan for less taxation, a plan for cutting government programs, a sound Iraq strategy and a host of other issues that a voter could agree with.

Again, you're simply talking about the McCain vs. Obama issue, which is NOT WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT. McCain is a fine candidate. I'm talking about the difference the PALIN ADDITION MADE TO THE TICKET.


But why look at reality when you can claim people are bigots voting for four more years?

Why bother reading my post when you can just ramble off about irrelevant things?

[crb]

"Among those most likely to vote." In other words, old people like old candidates! Hooray for spin!

In any case, if you can make the (moronic) argument that FOX News isn't conservatively biased, and simply that Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, etc, are, then you can make the same argument for Chris Matthews and MSNBC.
Bill O'reilly is a commentator with his own show sufficiently labelled as conservative, he does not anchor regular news broadcasts.

[crb]

You've yourself acknowledged that people vote on such simple issues. Why do you think a person claiming to have supported Hillary, would abandon the Democratic party when Obama represents nearly the exact same policies that she did? It makes little sense. Why would they support McCain, that takes the polar OPPOSITE of those issues that their preferred candidate, Hillary, supported? Because they're resentful Hillary didn't win? Because Palin's a woman?

There's your "simple issues."



Regardless of your take on it, McCain has measurably and objectively shifted more to the right and flip-flopped on numerous issues to be more in line with Bush's type of Republican. Drilling and the Bush tax cuts are prime examples. It's not just campaign rhetoric.




I didn't say that. At all. You can stop making gross assumptions because you're eager to jump on people that disagree with you in any way. The religious "conservative" base has been pandered to repeatedly over the last few elections. Republicans essentially manipulate them by bringing up these wedge issues like gay marriage and then forgetting about them once they get into power.

I'm NOT SAYING THAT MCCAIN HAS NO VALUE. I'm saying that a certain element of the Republican base has been the religious conservatives--the same type PALIN APPEALS TO and have resulted in "increased enthusiasm" on their ticket. I'm not TALKING ABOUT ALL REPUBLICANS. Understand? Just the people resulting in the "boost" from the convention.



Again, you're simply talking about the McCain vs. Obama issue, which is NOT WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT. McCain is a fine candidate. I'm talking about the difference the PALIN ADDITION MADE TO THE TICKET.



Why bother reading my post when you can just ramble off about irrelevant things?
This lady says it best:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/a_feminists_argument_for_mccai.html

[crb]

And the swing isn't fully from Palin.

Palin was a genius pick because she both appeals to women AND locks up and energizes the base.

With McCain no longer needing to worry about the base, he can then put his moderate hat back on and do what he does best, appeal to moderates and independents. With Palin locking up the base he is free to stop pandering to the right as much.

So much of the bounce is reflective of that.

[Mabus]

I think your caps-lock is sticking, or someone needs a hug!

:hug2:

[Mabus]

This lady says it best:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/a_feminists_argument_for_mccai.html

Great article. Thank you for posting it.

[Ashliana]

Virtually moments after the GOP announcement of Palin for vice president, pundits on both sides of the aisle began to wonder if Clinton supporters - pro-choice women and gays to be specific - would be attracted to the McCain-Palin ticket. The answer is, of course.

Somehow, I don't think gay voters that loved Hillary are going to jump on the McCain/Palin "My church supports ex-gay therapy!" bandwagon. Gays have generally been very Democratic, mostly because the Republicans enjoy persecuting them for political gain. Manipulating the unfamiliar, the ignorant, or the bigoted against a minority group for political gain. Despicable.

[Parkbandit]

"Among those most likely to vote." In other words, old people like old candidates! Hooray for spin!

In any case, if you can make the (moronic) argument that FOX News isn't conservatively biased, and simply that Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, etc, are, then you can make the same argument for Chris Matthews and MSNBC.


I didn't notice that Fox News made Bill the host of either convention. How did he do? And Sean must have been great hosting the Dems without Colmes.

[Parkbandit]

Somehow, I don't think gay voters that loved Hillary are going to jump on the McCain/Palin "My church supports ex-gay therapy!" bandwagon. Gays have generally been very Democratic, mostly because the Republicans enjoy persecuting them for political gain. Manipulating the unfamiliar, the ignorant, or the bigoted against a minority group for political gain. Despicable.

I really doubt that McCain/Palin are seeking the gay and pro-choice voting block. Unless you are somehow claiming that all of ex-Clinton supporters are consist of that demographic.

[Jesuit]

Somehow, I don't think gay voters that loved Hillary are going to jump on the McCain/Palin "My church supports ex-gay therapy!" bandwagon. Gays have generally been very Democratic, mostly because the Republicans enjoy persecuting them for political gain. Manipulating the unfamiliar, the ignorant, or the bigoted against a minority group for political gain. Despicable.

Gay voters might vote for McCain out of spite since Obama has been avoiding gay pride parades like the plague.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

And the swing isn't fully from Palin.

Palin was a genius pick because she both appeals to women AND locks up and energizes the base.

It appeals to women on a superficial basis-- specifically, simply because she is a woman.

She does not appeal to Pro-Choice voters and anyone who votes with concern to wanting to be socially liberal about issues. NARAL outright opposes Palin because of her rigidly Pro-Life political view. So she may appeal to women but not socially liberal women and therefore not really women that are gonna be stolen from Obama's campaign except for dumb cunts who vote out of spite for Hillary losing the primaries.

[Mabus]

Somehow, I don't think gay voters that loved Hillary are going to jump on the McCain/Palin "My church supports ex-gay therapy!" bandwagon.
There is a difference between Palin's religious beliefs and her political record.

What was one of her first acts as Governor?

She vetoed a bill denying same-sex benefits, stating it was against Alaska's Constitution.


Manipulating the unfamiliar, the ignorant, or the bigoted against a minority group for political gain. Despicable.
There you go again...

Might want to cut back on the coffee. Just saying.

[Ashliana]

Gay voters might vote for McCain out of spite since Obama has been avoiding gay pride parades like the plague.

I'd rather vote for someone who agrees on the issues, but doesn't want to be associated with them, rather than someone of a party that would gladly blast all of us (Yes! I'm gay!) out into space, or stick us in a mental hospital.

My theory? Both Obama and Clinton fully support gay marriage, I'm almost sure. They don't want to commit political suicide by saying that before they're elected, so they say they're simply in favor of civil unions. McCain has been hesitant to even embrace civil unions--and has, once or twice, argued against them. Palin has pretty much said she disagrees with even a legal arrangement that affords the same protections as marriage.

You might imagine why I rather dislike the Republican party as it is, despite being a fiscal conservative. The Republican party does not stand for me. They want to use me a wedge issue to drive out their ignorant, bigoted voters at my expense. They've given up on both fiscal responsibility and limited role of the government in everyday life, the things that attracted me to them in the first place. In their place? Government-enforced and supported religion, rampant spending and limited taxation. Not my paradise.

[Ashliana]

There is a difference between Palin's religious beliefs and her political record.

What was one of her first acts as Governor?

She vetoed a bill denying same-sex benefits, stating it was against Alaska's Constitution.


There you go again...

Might want to cut back on the coffee. Just saying.

What was her very first act as governor? Setting up the referendum on whether or not to amend the state constitution to address that very issue. I can source this if you're interested.

[Parkbandit]

I think gay rights is one of the DUMBEST platforms remaining on the Conservative agenda. Who the FUCK cares? Fuck the religious whackos IMO.

BTW: I'm even more attracted to you now (IF you are a lipstick lesbian)

[Mabus]

My theory? Both Obama and Clinton fully support gay marriage, I'm almost sure.

From the Saddleback transcripts:
__________________________________________________ _________________________________

WARREN: Define marriage.

OBAMA: I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian — for me — for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix. But –

WARREN: Would you support a Constitutional Amendment with that definition?

OBAMA: No, I would not.

WARREN: Why not?

OBAMA: Because historically — because historically, we have not defined marriage in our constitution. It’s been a matter of state law. That has been our tradition. I mean, let’s break it down. The reason that people think there needs to be a constitutional amendment, some people believe, is because of the concern that — about same-sex marriage. I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage, but I do believe in civil unions. I do believe that we should not — that for gay partners to want to visit each other in the hospital for the state to say, you know what, that’s all right, I don’t think in any way inhibits my core beliefs about what marriage are. I think my faith is strong enough and my marriage is strong enough that I can afford those civil rights to others, even if I have a different perspective or different view.
__________________________________________________ _________________________________

As you can see, your "theory" is likely incorrect. Unless you believe he "lied" for political gain during this event.

[Mabus]

What was her very first act as governor? Setting up the referendum on whether or not to amend the state constitution to address that very issue. I can source this if you're interested.
But your belief that her religion rules her political activity is incorrect.

If she allowed "god" to guide her, instead of the Alaska Constitution, she would have signed the bill into law, or allowed it to become law without her signature.

Instead she vetoed the bill.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Let's see..

McCain and Palin, Palin who thinks the solution to wanting gay marriage is re-classifying homosexuals as having a mental illness and McCain who's not correcting her.

Obama and Biden, Obama who thinks that gays should be afforded the same legal rights and protection as straight people when it comes to marriage.

That's real tough for a gay person to decide who they support! I think what Obama said was extremely tolerant and I don't get how he lied in any sense for political gain.. maybe he was reserved about it but that's being political, not outright telling a bald-faced lie. He supports gays having the same civil rights as straight people, just under a different name. So gay people can't be protected by the law to be married in a Catholic church, but they can get the tax benefits and next of kin benefits that straight couples do. Where's the fucked upness of that?

[CrystalTears]

I'd rather vote for someone who agrees on the issues, but doesn't want to be associated with them, rather than someone of a party that would gladly blast all of us (Yes! I'm gay!) out into space, or stick us in a mental hospital.
And I guess I don't understand how you could believe someone... anyone... would even allow this to go through.

[Ashliana]

As you can see, your "theory" is likely incorrect. Unless you believe he "lied" for political gain during this event.

I'm aware of what Obama and Clinton have both said. I repeat my earlier belief that Obama, and the Democrats at large, would actually support gay marriage. It would be politically difficult for them in the current environment to do so, though. Give it a few more years--attitudes towards gays are already making a real, significant change for the better in recent years. Maybe 10 years down the road there might even be a big enough majority to do something positive with it.


But your belief that her religion rules her political activity is incorrect.

If she allowed "god" to guide her, instead of the Alaska Constitution, she would have signed the bill into law, or allowed it to become law without her signature.

Instead she vetoed the bill.

She did, eventually, veto the bill. However she originally supported the referendum to amend the constitution, rendering the bill irrelevant. I respect her respect of the law, but disagree with the positions she's taken, especially on abortion.

[Ashliana]

And I guess I don't understand how you could believe someone... anyone... would even allow this to go through.

I don't, CT. But I do think the Republicans are willing to use gays as a scapegoat or wedge issue--at our expense--in order to get social conservatives out to vote for them.

[crb]

Gay voters might vote for McCain out of spite since Obama has been avoiding gay pride parades like the plague.
The Gay Republican (yes, it exists) group has endorsed McCain after refusing to endorse Bush. They don't see him as McSame, obviously. They cite his opposal to a federal gay marriage ban.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

The Gay Republican (yes, it exists) group has endorsed McCain after refusing to endorse Bush. They don't see him as McSame, obviously. They cite his opposal to a federal gay marriage ban.

I don't think McCain is really anti-gay or extreme.. I also don't think he'd seriously threaten women's rights on his own, if he became President. Despite what the media puts out I do view McCain as being relatively moderate on social issues.

The issue is more with Palin-- she is not a moderate in any sense of the word, not socially at least. While I can understand a gay person being okay with McCain I really don't get how they could be approving of Palin and her ideas about gay people and the like.

[Ashliana]

The Gay Republican (yes, it exists) group has endorsed McCain after refusing to endorse Bush. They don't see him as McSame, obviously. They cite his opposal to a federal gay marriage ban.

I'm guessing that also has a bit to do with the initial (widly mistaken) reports that Palin was a supporter, not an opponent of, gay rights. The Log Cabin Republicans.. aren't for me. It's essentially throwing your vote away for a party that doesn't want you (they only this election were seated at the convention), and face open hostility from members of their own party.

It boils down to which social issue is more important to me. My taxes or my civil rights and liberties. I'll take the latter. I don't think McCain is the worst Republican out there--in fact, I was rooting for him in the primaries. Mitt Romney would've been a disaster.

If the Republican party went back to its roots--limited role of government in the lives of its citizens, fiscal responsibility--both of which they've abandoned--I'd consider them again. As it stands now, they stand for big spending, little taxation to pay for it, and the advocacy of litigation by religious groups opposing freedom to choose abortion, gay marriage, etc. No thanks.

[crb]

I'm guessing that also has a bit to do with the initial (widly mistaken) reports that Palin was a supporter, not an opponent of, gay rights. The Log Cabin Republicans.. aren't for me. It's essentially throwing your vote away for a party that doesn't want you (they only this election were seated at the convention), and face open hostility from members of their own party.

It boils down to which social issue is more important to me. My taxes or my civil rights and liberties. I'll take the latter. I don't think McCain is the worst Republican out there--in fact, I was rooting for him in the primaries. Mitt Romney would've been a disaster.

If the Republican party went back to its roots--limited role of government in the lives of its citizens, fiscal responsibility--both of which they've abandoned--I'd consider them again. As it stands now, they stand for big spending, little taxation to pay for it, and the advocacy of litigation by religious groups opposing freedom to choose abortion, gay marriage, etc. No thanks.
You are incorrect, atleast with McCain.

McCain was against a federal ban on gay marriage much the same way Palin vetoed that law in Alaska.

That isn't enough for you though, apparently you have a problem with voter initiated proposals for banning gay marriage through ammendments to state constitutions. Am I right?

So... if the majority of people in a state decide that they do not want gay marriage in their state, who is any politician to stand in their way? For one, it'd be meaningless, in our system the will of the people trumps all. For two, it is fucking will of the people, it is democracy. You can't have ala carte democracy, only when it suits your needs.

You can bitch and moan and complain about it, but if the majority of citizens vote for something, they get it, and that is right. Your battle is against public perception, not any one politician or political party.

For all the fighting about gay marriage too you might as well pick a different battle. Fight for equal treatment under the law, fight for hospital visitation rights, fight for insurance sharing rights, fight for all these other things, rather than for a semantic label.

And in the end, if you care about civil liberties, you need to care about the party that stands up for State's rights. When the states retain power they keep the country moderate and prevent swings in one direction or the other. It may be comforting to think that a liberal Washington could sway things in your direction through a consolidation of power within the federal government at the expense of the states. However, you then take the risk than in 4 or 8 years the pendulum shifts and suddenly that federal power is attacking you.

What would you rather have? A strong and dominant federal government that has the potential for a complete ideological shift ever 4 or 8 years. Or a weak and declawed federal government that might "hate" you but in the end must yield in the most important matters to a diverse group of 50 different states. Assuring that while you may have problems in Utah, Calfornia provides a balance.

[crb]

We don't live in a pure democracy. Sorry, but if that's what you want, you picked the wrong country. Protection against persecution of the minority is precisely why our bill of rights exists. "Freedom of speech" means absolutely nothing if you're part of the majority. Our constitution is based around minority protections. Not the enforcement of the majority's will on the minority.

The constitution IS the will of the people. The people created it, ratified it, and if the people want to, the people can change it at any time. Duh. Why are you such a moron?



Except that the Republican Party is fighting for federal limitations on gay marriage. Bush advocated a federal marriage amendment. McCain was sane, and opposed it. As I recall, a great many republican lawmakers supported it, however. No thanks. As I said before, the Republicans have abandoned all of their original core values in pandering to the religious nuts and hysterical spending.

So, rather than support the guy who opposed it, you want to support his opponent.

Don't you see? The Republican party, with John McCain, is trying to change, reform, and become more moderate. If McCain is defeated they won't try again for a long time and the next republican nominee and victor will really be Bush 3.



Do you think that any issue is best left up to the states? For example, interracial marriage. In Loving v. Virginia, SCOTUS found that the government--federal or not--could not limit marriage based on race. Racial equality is part of public perception now, whereas sexual orientation has not yet made its way to that level of acceptance.

The Supreme Court (proper noun) being the supreme court (common noun) is not an argument for or against State's rights. Try again.

[crb]

It's built around its difficulty to change it for simply public opinion, instead focusing on swooping public will. The moron is you. The constitution is not changed repeatedly to suit moronic political winds, like the Republicans are trying to use it. The party's platform advocates an amendment to the FEDERAL constitution, despite that the country is growing more and more accepting--not the other way around.

So you're saying the constitution is not the will of the people?

So what? Donkey god from on high sent it down from Valhalla with his instructions?

The fact that it is hard to change doesn't make it not the will of the people, the people willed it to be hard to change.

Your problem is that you dislike the concept of democracy and the will of the people. You want government enforced equality to spite the will of the people. Once the will of the people has been twarted by an elite few in power, you're not a democracy anymore. Surely you must realize it?

Or is the fact that the issue on which the people would be thwarted and the government would use their very big stick to enforce something you want enough for you to piss away democracy?

[Hulkein]

So how about that bounce?

[Parkbandit]

So how about that bounce?


Winner...

[Mabus]

2) stop calling what they currently call "marriage" in the courts marriage, re-label it as a "civil union" and give it to EVERYONE--straight or gay--and let people get "married" in their own church/etc.

I will skip the inaccuracies, and all the things I disagree with in that post, and just say this:

I have advocated almost the exact same position for years. Government should not "marry" anyone. It should provide a means of obtaining, setting out the terms of acceptance, and enforcing, legal contracts. Let the social institutions decide who they hold their rice-throwing ceremonies for those they choose at their own discretion.


See? We can actually agree.

[TheRoseLady]

In related news... Chris "Leg-Tingle" Matthews and Keith "my-head-is-going-to-explode" Olberman got demoted at MSNBC after NBC got pissed off at how biased they had become.... but no... I'm sure some of you will insist MSNBC was never biased...


Why the hell do you care? Isn't that MSNDC? I read the statement, I'm glad they put Gregory up there as the anchor, now Olbermann and Matthews can tell us what they really think.

[TheRoseLady]

That is skipping a better energy policy, a better pro-business strategy, a plan for less taxation, a plan for cutting government programs, a sound Iraq strategy and a host of other issues that a voter could agree with.



I noticed that you completely ignored the number one issue that far surpasses any other: The economy.

Also not as important as the economy but in the top five: healthcare.

[Daniel]

Obviously, making life better for businesses is the same as making life better for everyone.

[crb]

What exactly are you referring to, as an "elite few in power"? We're a constitutional republic. I'm sure if you have a problem with the way our nation was founded and runs. But it is not a pure democracy, and you thinking so merely highlights your ignorance.

What a hoot, the most ignorant poster in this subforum calling me ignorant.

What we were discussing were state proposals to amend state constitutions to ban gay marriage.

Guess what? Those are voted on through direct democracy.

Also, representative democracy is not not democracy. People vote for their representatives don't you know. They aren't assigned them.

You hate republicans because they tend to support these state ballot proposals that rely on the will of the people to pass in as pure an example of direct democracy as you can find. Well fuck you, that is democracy, take it or leave it. I'm fairly certain though that in most authoritarian regimes (Where the government DOES have the power to overrule the will of the people) haven't been kind to gays either.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

I will skip the inaccuracies, and all the things I disagree with in that post, and just say this:

I have advocated almost the exact same position for years. Government should not "marry" anyone. It should provide a means of obtaining, setting out the terms of acceptance, and enforcing, legal contracts. Let the social institutions decide who they hold their rice-throwing ceremonies for those they choose at their own discretion.


See? We can actually agree.

:yeahthat:

[Mabus]

Obviously, making life better for businesses is the same as making life better for everyone.
Obviously, to you, making businesses less competitive through excessive taxation, and other backwards policies, will give everyone the ability to find a decent job.

Let's raise their taxes, force them to provide health care, regulate them close to bankruptcy and then just scratch our heads when they move their operations overseas.

[Tsa`ah]

So how about that bounce?

Eh ... polls again, national polls at that. A 10pt lead amongst those likely to vote nationally doesn't really do much in a state by state picture.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

In the electorate ... well it isn't pretty.

[Daniel]

The business world doesn't need us to regulate them into bankruptcy. In fact, they've done a remarkable job of that on their own, absent of regulation. Or have you missed the last year?

I guess it's possible, because I must have missed the memo where giving people health care was a bad thing. Nevermind it's people we're talking about and it does things like increase productivity.

It must be hard to argue about the real world when you don't live in it.

[crb]

The business world doesn't need us to regulate them into bankruptcy. In fact, they've done a remarkable job of that on their own, absent of regulation. Or have you missed the last year?

I guess it's possible, because I must have missed the memo where giving people health care was a bad thing. Nevermind it's people we're talking about and it does things like increase productivity.

It must be hard to argue about the real world when you don't live in it.
Giving away healthcare is a bad thing. See moral hazard. See lower quality of care. See lack of competition results in less innovation and no cost savings.

[Daniel]

News flash: Our quality of care is not exactly something to write home about see: The calls for healthcare reform.

[Mabus]

The business world doesn't need us to regulate them into bankruptcy. In fact, they've done a remarkable job of that on their own, absent of regulation. Or have you missed the last year?
This would get to the argument of free-trade versus fair-trade. I am for fair-trade. If we have businesses forced to act in specific manners (many of which I actually agree with) like not dumping toxic waste, allowing unions, enforced hourly wages, and a host of other issues then we should have a sliding scale of tariffs on countries where these conditions are not enforced.

We cannot compete if we allow others to pollute, use slave labor, child labor, pay poorly, have no worker rights, no unions, terrible worker safety and then allow them to openly enter our markets.

I guess it's possible, because I must have missed the memo where giving people health care was a bad thing. Nevermind it's people we're talking about and it does things like increase productivity.
McCain's plan to give a $3,000 tax credit for health care would allow people to purchase their own health care, and take the cost of it from businesses.

Businesses operate to make a profit. If we keep the cost of doing business in this country high, or make it higher (as Obama would), then many will close, or move to a more business-friendly environment.

Unlike McCain or Obama, I would also have tax credits for medical practitioners that worked at public health clinics for the poor. Working with public and private sectors, and having states provide additional funding, we could set up preventative and ongoing care for the needy, while cutting costs at hospitals by alleviating the emergency room usage and catching illness before it was at an advanced stage.


It must be hard to argue about the real world when you don't live in it.
Try harder. That line didn't even bother me the slightest, especially coming from you.

[Daniel]

This would get to the argument of free-trade versus fair-trade. I am for fair-trade. If we have businesses forced to act in specific manners (many of which I actually agree with) like not dumping toxic waste, allowing unions, enforced hourly wages, and a host of other issues then we should have a sliding scale of tariffs on countries where these conditions are not enforced. We cannot compete if we allow others to pollute, use slave labor, child labor, pay poorly, have no worker rights, no unions, terrible worker safety and then allow them to openly enter our markets.


I agree. However, I'll point out that we've been too interested in doing what's best for businesses and not people. The break down of the Doha talks were specifically related to these issues.

If you want to figure out why we don't (or rather, can't under existing international treaties) punish countries for not improving their standards of living, then look no further than the pro-business lobby.




McCain's plan to give a $3,000 tax credit for health care would allow people to purchase their own health care, and take the cost of it from businesses.

Businesses operate to make a profit. If we keep the cost of doing business in this country high, or make it higher (as Obama would), then many will close, or move to a more business-friendly environment.

Unlike McCain or Obama, I would also have tax credits for medical practitioners that worked at public health clinics for the poor. Working with public and private sectors, and having states provide additional funding, we could set up preventative and ongoing care for the needy, while cutting costs at hospitals by alleviating the emergency room usage and catching illness before it was at an advanced stage.


A tax credit is not going to help people buy insurance. Especially not those who need it most. This is just smoke and mirrors.

It's much more complex than simply saying "give everyone healthcare". You have to create the incentives that allow for people to get the care that they need. I would support the things you said as a part of that. However, we're not going to get there by just giving people a few bucks off their taxes and keeping the system the same.




Try harder. That line didn't even bother me the slightest, especially coming from you.

I wouldn't expect it to.

[TheRoseLady]

This would get to the argument of free-trade versus fair-trade. I am for fair-trade. If we have businesses forced to act in specific manners (many of which I actually agree with) like not dumping toxic waste, allowing unions, enforced hourly wages, and a host of other issues then we should have a sliding scale of tariffs on countries where these conditions are not enforced.

We cannot compete if we allow others to pollute, use slave labor, child labor, pay poorly, have no worker rights, no unions, terrible worker safety and then allow them to openly enter our markets.

I actually agree with this assessment.


McCain's plan to give a $3,000 tax credit for health care would allow people to purchase their own health care, and take the cost of it from businesses.

Businesses operate to make a profit. If we keep the cost of doing business in this country high, or make it higher (as Obama would), then many will close, or move to a more business-friendly environment.


Actually McCain's plan does offer up to $2500 for ind and $5000 for families, but he also proposes to start taxing us on those benefits. You probably realize that our health benefits are not taxed, unless you select some disability plans and want to pay taxes up front.

McCain has no plans to force the insurance companies to do anything. Obama wants to make pre-existing conditions a nonissue and want health insurers to have to report out on the amount of premiums spent on care vs. administrative costs.

I like Obama's plan on how to help the small businesses with healthcare.

[Mabus]

You might want to look into McCain's GAP (Guaranteed Access Plan) proposal as well. There are several specific areas he wants to coordinate with each state to help those that cannot afford traditional health care at current costs.

[Hulkein]

Eh ... polls again, national polls at that. A 10pt lead amongst those likely to vote nationally doesn't really do much in a state by state picture.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

In the electorate ... well it isn't pretty.

You need to look at the dates of those polls for the individual states. The quick ones I checked were all done pre-convention.

[crb]

News flash: Our quality of care is not exactly something to write home about see: The calls for healthcare reform.
I'd rather get cancer here in the US than in any other country.

Our quality of care is top notch - our life expectancy, that which those international organizations measure, is not. But that has relatively little to do with our quality of care.

The areas where we can approve quality of care it is because of government interference that it suffers already.

[crb]

Actually McCain's plan does offer up to $2500 for ind and $5000 for families, but he also proposes to start taxing us on those benefits. You probably realize that our health benefits are not taxed, unless you select some disability plans and want to pay taxes up front.


You are a retard, literally, if you don't realize how that is a good thing. RETARD. Not TheRoseLady. TheRETARDLady.

It is one thing to say you'd rather do something else, but to be so partisan as to lie about the policy, or to be so retarded as to not understand it, is just lame.

The only reason businesses provide health insurance is that a democratic president froze wages forcing companies to do other things to attract workers, so they started offering healthcare and other benefits. Thus started a very bad thing.

Now, if you lose your job, you lose your coverage. If you switch jobs, you lose your coverage. If your employer decides to drop your coverage, you lose your coverage. The way insurance works, if you have a preexisting condition, you'll have a hard time finding insurance unless you already have insurance.

Also, people who are self employed and do not get insurance from work in effect are penalized in the tax system for having to buy health insurance themselves.

By taxing benefits you get rid of the bias in the system for having your employer buy your insurance for you. This means more employers should stop buying it, or will allow you to opt out, which means you can buy your own, which means it is PORTABLE. Then the tax credit offsets this meaning at the end of the day the worker's taxes stay the same, but they gain portability.

IF you lose your job, you keep your insurance. If you switch jobs you keep your insurance. If your employer decides to drop your coverage, you keep your insurance. If you have a preexisting condition? Who cares, you've got insurance! THESE ARE GOOD THINGS.

Furthermore, by introducing millions of more consumers into the healthcare market, there will be increased competition among insurance providers for those consumers and prices will fall.

Of course, this isn't John McCain's only plan for healthcare, this is only part of it, but you literally have to be a retard to not realize how portable health insurance is a good thing.

Are you a retard RoseLady? Cause right now you're just reinforcing the steriotype that liberals know nothing about anything touching economics.

[Daniel]

I'd rather get cancer here in the US than in any other country.

Our quality of care is top notch - our life expectancy, that which those international organizations measure, is not. But that has relatively little to do with our quality of care.

The areas where we can approve quality of care it is because of government interference that it suffers already.

Care to qualify that last statement?

[crb]

McCain has no plans to force the insurance companies to do anything. Obama wants to make pre-existing conditions a nonissue and want health insurers to have to report out on the amount of premiums spent on care vs. administrative costs.

I always find it amusing how liberals have a hard time explaining economic policy without using the word "force." Hello, we don't have an authoritarian government.

So, Obama's plan is to force insurance companies to ignore preexisting conditions, allowing someone to say keep barebones insurance and then, when they get really sick, immediately switch and get coverage they didn't pay for. That won't raise premiums, no, not at all.

Then he wants to emphasize their administrative vs. medical costs by adding an additional administrative task for them to do. I applaud the concept, hospitals, doctors, insurance companies, all have ridiculous administrative costs because of existing government regulation. Adding more regulation isn't going to lessen those costs though. Again, you'd have to be a retard to think so.

[Daniel]

You are a retard, literally, if you don't realize how that is a good thing. RETARD. Not TheRoseLady. TheRETARDLady.

It is one thing to say you'd rather do something else, but to be so partisan as to lie about the policy, or to be so retarded as to not understand it, is just lame.

The only reason businesses provide health insurance is that a democratic president froze wages forcing companies to do other things to attract workers, so they started offering healthcare and other benefits. Thus started a very bad thing.

Now, if you lose your job, you lose your coverage. If you switch jobs, you lose your coverage. If your employer decides to drop your coverage, you lose your coverage. The way insurance works, if you have a preexisting condition, you'll have a hard time finding insurance unless you already have insurance.

Also, people who are self employed and do not get insurance from work in effect are penalized in the tax system for having to buy health insurance themselves.

By taxing benefits you get rid of the bias in the system for having your employer buy your insurance for you. This means more employers should stop buying it, or will allow you to opt out, which means you can buy your own, which means it is PORTABLE. Then the tax credit offsets this meaning at the end of the day the worker's taxes stay the same, but they gain portability.

IF you lose your job, you keep your insurance. If you switch jobs you keep your insurance. If your employer decides to drop your coverage, you keep your insurance. If you have a preexisting condition? Who cares, you've got insurance! THESE ARE GOOD THINGS.

Furthermore, by introducing millions of more consumers into the healthcare market, there will be increased competition among insurance providers for those consumers and prices will fall.

Of course, this isn't John McCain's only plan for healthcare, this is only part of it, but you literally have to be a retard to not realize how portable health insurance is a good thing.

Are you a retard RoseLady? Cause right now you're just reinforcing the steriotype that liberals know nothing about anything touching economics.


I love how you say someone is being partisan and then claim that it was democrats who froze wages. As if, republicans haven't been the ones fighting an increase in wages for forever and a day and if you weren't arguing *in this thread* that by raising costs you are discouraging business and thus chasing them away. A regular republican talking point when you discuss wage rates in America.

[crb]

Care to qualify that last statement?
Excessive government regulation in some parts causes excessive administrative costs, which drive up overall costs.

Frivolous lawsuits drive up costs and lead to a culture of defensive medicine where more tests are ordered than are needed to make sure all bases are covered, no matter how unlikely things are. This costs money, of course, and takes up time and resources, increasing wait times.

Insurance mandates like I posted about last week (the florida case) drive up costs.

Hospitals need countless personnel that provide no care and just either deal with complex billing issues and or compliance with government regulation.

All of these issues, of course, do result in more barebones staffing of even medical personnel. Doctor patient loads can be too high, resulting in lower quality of care. Just like class sizes in school.

There is almost no price competition due to moral hazard like issues and there is almost no quality competition due to lack of transparency and lobbyists in some cases.

All these are problems that can be fixed.

But still, we have the best healthcare system in the world.

[crb]

I love how you say someone is being partisan and then claim that it was democrats who froze wages. As if, republicans haven't been the ones fighting an increase in wages for forever and a day and if you weren't arguing *in this thread* that by raising costs you are discouraging business and thus chasing them away. A regular republican talking point when you discuss wage rates in America.
Ummm... you're way off base. So way off base.

A frozen wage means it is illegal for businesses to give a raise (or a cut). This is different from a minimum wage where businesses can't pay any lower, but can pay higher.

And... if you knew of which I was speaking, which you obviously do not, you would know that at the time there were various reasons why a business wouldn't, say, go overseas to find a better atmosphere.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=16171

Like... you know... bombs, and death camps, and the risk of being sunk by a U-boat when traveling to your new headquarters.

[Daniel]

Excessive government regulation in some parts causes excessive administrative costs, which drive up overall costs.

Okay. Lets see.



Frivolous lawsuits drive up costs and lead to a culture of defensive medicine where more tests are ordered than are needed to make sure all bases are covered, no matter how unlikely things are. This costs money, of course, and takes up time and resources, increasing wait times.

So, how do you change this with less regulation? It would appear that without some sort of regulation to go into place, you wouldn't be able to stop frivilous lawsuits. In fact, if you take away existing regulations you simply leave more room for people to argue in court.


Insurance mandates like I posted about last week (the florida case) drive up costs.

Can you explain this further? Wouldn't "insurance mandates" drive up the number of people in a market, thus creating the competition you are saying will bring down costs?



Hospitals need countless personnel that provide no care and just either deal with complex billing issues and or compliance with government regulation.


So? How is this exacerbated by more or less regulation? Every organization has administrative costs and even if you did away with insurance completely, and had people pay in cash you'd have this issue.


All of these issues, of course, do result in more barebones staffing of even medical personnel. Doctor patient loads can be too high, resulting in lower quality of care. Just like class sizes in school.


This has absolutely nothing to do with regulation, but rather with excessive demand and inadequate supply.



There is almost no price competition due to moral hazard like issues and there is almost no quality competition due to lack of transparency and lobbyists in some cases.

How are you going to *increase* transparency with less regulation? You are aware that increased transparency is obtained by regulations and mandates correct?

To say nothing of lobbyists. Unless you lay down some hard and fast rules, you aren't going to be done with them. I hate to break it to you.



But still, we have the best healthcare system in the world.

That's of course your opinion. You almost make, what is it? 300k a year? I doubt your situation reflects that of most of America.

[Daniel]

Ummm... you're way off base. So way off base.

A frozen wage means it is illegal for businesses to give a raise (or a cut). This is different from a minimum wage where businesses can't pay any lower, but can pay higher.

And... if you knew of which I was speaking, which you obviously do not, you would know that at the time there were various reasons why a business wouldn't, say, go overseas to find a better atmosphere.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=16171

Like... you know... bombs, and death camps, and the risk of being sunk by a U-boat when traveling to your new headquarters.

Oh my bad. I thought you were talking about something relevant today. Not something that happened two generations ago.

[Kefka]

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows the race for the White House is tied once again. John McCain and Barack Obama now each attract 46% of the vote. When "leaners" are included, it’s McCain 48% and Obama 48%.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Tied at Rasmussen

[crb]

Okay. Lets see.



So, how do you change this with less regulation? It would appear that without some sort of regulation to go into place, you wouldn't be able to stop frivilous lawsuits. In fact, if you take away existing regulations you simply leave more room for people to argue in court.



Can you explain this further? Wouldn't "insurance mandates" drive up the number of people in a market, thus creating the competition you are saying will bring down costs?



So? How is this exacerbated by more or less regulation? Every organization has administrative costs and even if you did away with insurance completely, and had people pay in cash you'd have this issue.



This has absolutely nothing to do with regulation, but rather with excessive demand and inadequate supply.



How are you going to *increase* transparency with less regulation? You are aware that increased transparency is obtained by regulations and mandates correct?

To say nothing of lobbyists. Unless you lay down some hard and fast rules, you aren't going to be done with them. I hate to break it to you.



That's of course your opinion. You almost make, what is it? 300k a year? I doubt your situation reflects that of most of America.
1. Not everything I posted was a way to fix healthcare with less regulation, they were merely all ways to fix healthcare. Some involve less regulation, some involve different regulation or regulation reforms.



So, how do you change this with less regulation? It would appear that without some sort of regulation to go into place, you wouldn't be able to stop frivilous lawsuits. In fact, if you take away existing regulations you simply leave more room for people to argue in court.

Not more or less regulation, merely changing existing rules for prerequisites before bringing a case and award limits.



Can you explain this further? Wouldn't "insurance mandates" drive up the number of people in a market, thus creating the competition you are saying will bring down costs?

You apparently don't remember the thread from last week. I'm talking about where government, at the behest of lobbyists more often than not, mandates all insurance must cover say... accupuncture. Causing additional cost to insurance companies that is passed on to the consumer who probably would just as rather not have accupuncture coverage.



So? How is this exacerbated by more or less regulation? Every organization has administrative costs and even if you did away with insurance completely, and had people pay in cash you'd have this issue.

If you cannot see how more regulation results in more administrative personnel to oversee regulation compliance you are a retard. Sorry, but it is the truth.



This has absolutely nothing to do with regulation, but rather with excessive demand and inadequate supply.

No, money is not infinite. Hospitals do their best to cut non medical personnel when they need to cut jobs, but eventually they have to cut medical personnel as well, and that results in worse doctor or nurse to patient ratios.



How are you going to *increase* transparency with less regulation? You are aware that increased transparency is obtained by regulations and mandates correct?

To say nothing of lobbyists. Unless you lay down some hard and fast rules, you aren't going to be done with them. I hate to break it to you.


You can do it without regulationt through the introduction of consumer driven competition. But some regulation would be needed here to foster competition and get it started, true.



That's of course your opinion.

No, its statistics.

People who shit on our healthcare system either take public opinion polls ("are you happy?") or look at life expectancy (which has genetic and lifestyle factors). It is better to look at things like...

wait times to see a specialist, or specialist accessibility
wait times and accessibility of life saving surgeries and procedures
accessibility of advanced imaging technologies
survival rates for diseases

On all those issues, we're the best. That isn't to say we can't be better, but it isn't right to say that Canada has a better system because people in Canada live longer or people in Canada are happier when in reality people in Canada face wait times for things like chemotherapy that are double or triple or more the wait times faced here.

[crb]

Oh my bad. I thought you were talking about something relevant today. Not something that happened two generations ago.
I was explaining when the problem started, as you could not dispute the rest of my post you latched onto the history lesson that was the first paragraph and ignored the rest to try to discredit my point? Bravo.

[Khariz]

The government should either:

1) grant equal marriage rights to all citizens

OR

2) stop calling what they currently call "marriage" in the courts marriage, re-label it as a "civil union" and give it to EVERYONE--straight or gay--and let people get "married" in their own church/etc

Win.

[TheRoseLady]

So, Obama's plan is to force insurance companies to ignore preexisting conditions, allowing someone to say keep barebones insurance and then, when they get really sick, immediately switch and get coverage they didn't pay for. That won't raise premiums, no, not at all.

Then he wants to emphasize their administrative vs. medical costs by adding an additional administrative task for them to do. I applaud the concept, hospitals, doctors, insurance companies, all have ridiculous administrative costs because of existing government regulation. Adding more regulation isn't going to lessen those costs though. Again, you'd have to be a retard to think so.

Refer to one of my other posts when I laid it out explicitly how the government regulation is at the STATE level. Are you that fucking stupid that you can't understand the difference between the two?

You are showing what a complete novice you are when it comes to understanding healthcare. The administrative costs are due to the lack of infrastructure. As far as the pre-existing condition is concerned, you show your knee-jerk reaction and inability to understand the nuances of insurance.

Let's talk when you know what the hell you're talking about.

[Warriorbird]

But, but, his wife's a conservative wacko just like him... and in medicine... and she comes homes and vents and thus he's an expert!

[TheRoseLady]

Giving away healthcare is a bad thing. See moral hazard. See lower quality of care. See lack of competition results in less innovation and no cost savings.

I ask you again, who is offering to give away healthcare? Are you talking out of your ass again?

[Warriorbird]

Visualize a Virilneus post on the officials. Realize these are on the same level.

[TheRoseLady]

CRB's post blathering on about healthcare....
i

The thrust of your argument is on portability? LOL. Really CRB?


You accuse me of having no clue? Seriously, you should have a base understanding of a topic before you spew your idiocy.

Do they include anger management in your health plan CRB?

[TheRoseLady]

Visualize a Virilneus post on the officials. Realize these are on the same level.

Truer words have never been spoken. I'll remember to cut my losses the next time.

[crb]

The thrust of your argument is on portability? LOL. Really CRB?


You accuse me of having no clue? Seriously, you should have a base understanding of a topic before you spew your idiocy.

Do they include anger management in your health plan CRB?
So, no response then?

You don't think health insurance portability is a problem for millions of american workers? Especially at a time when many are losing jobs or being forced to switch jobs?

You're naive, and yes, still a retard.

How hard it must be for you to go through life, trying to function as a normal person.

[crb]

I ask you again, who is offering to give away healthcare? Are you talking out of your ass again?
The Democratic Party.

We, in fact, already do to certain demographics.

[crb]

Refer to one of my other posts when I laid it out explicitly how the government regulation is at the STATE level. Are you that fucking stupid that you can't understand the difference between the two?

You are showing what a complete novice you are when it comes to understanding healthcare. The administrative costs are due to the lack of infrastructure. As far as the pre-existing condition is concerned, you show your knee-jerk reaction and inability to understand the nuances of insurance.

Let's talk when you know what the hell you're talking about.
How fucking stupid are you to accuse me of doing something I didn't do? Namely, confusing state vs federal. How did I do that? I didn't, cunt.

I'm sure I'm sure... I just don't understand healthcare. I can almost guarantee I have read more on the topic and talked with more healthcare professionals about it that you have. But I'm not going to get into a pissing contest over it. I'm sure some communist uppity up in North Korea's government would tell me I just don't understand why communism is better.

You're right, I don't understand why liberal positions would result in good things. I don't understand how changing who pays for health insurance could fix the problem of annual double digit percentage increases in costs. I don't understand how rationing healthcare due to limited resources brought on by moral hazard is acceptable. I don't understand how teacher::student ratios are so important and yet doctor::patient ratios tend to be ignored. I don't understand how less competition will result in lower prices. I don't understand how a healthcare monopoly is a good thing. I don't understand how how frivolous abusive lawsuits aren't a drain on the system. I don't understand how excessive regulation doesn't increase costs.

You're right, I really don't understand liberal positions. I also don't understand monkey screeches, doesn't make them a higher form of intelligence. Now go pet your cats and eat a pint of ben and jerrys and get back to me.

[Daniel]

The first part of your post

No where in that wall of bullshit did you prove that the democratic plan of making healthcare more accessible would increase regulations, administrative costs or produce more of a burden on the system that already exists. You seem to be stuck on stupid and assume that "democrats" don't understand that you can change or reform regulations to serve people better without neccessarily adding another layer of government.



No, its statistics.

People who shit on our healthcare system either take public opinion polls ("are you happy?") or look at life expectancy (which has genetic and lifestyle factors). It is better to look at things like...

wait times to see a specialist, or specialist accessibility
wait times and accessibility of life saving surgeries and procedures
accessibility of advanced imaging technologies
survival rates for diseases


Oh yea. Why obscure whether or not people feel they have better healthcare than looking at life expectancy and happiness with care.

Newsflash, Healthcare is not all about access to specialists. In some areas it's about access to general healthcare. Once again. Your expectations are probably not the same as the vast majority of the population due to your income.



On all those issues, we're the best. That isn't to say we can't be better, but it isn't right to say that Canada has a better system because people in Canada live longer or people in Canada are happier when in reality people in Canada face wait times for things like chemotherapy that are double or triple or more the wait times faced here.

This is just stupid. Why wouldn't you look at whether or not people live longer? Healthcare is much more than chemotheraphy.

[Daniel]

I was explaining when the problem started, as you could not dispute the rest of my post you latched onto the history lesson that was the first paragraph and ignored the rest to try to discredit my point? Bravo.

I'm sorry. If to prove your partisan bullshit you have to go back to the great depression then you've already lost the argument.

If you want to start the discussion from the assumption that companies offering health insurance was a *bad* thing, then you should probably just shut the fuck up because it's obviously you have no sense of reality.

[Parkbandit]

This is just stupid. Why wouldn't you look at whether or not people live longer? Healthcare is much more than chemotheraphy.

Much like healthcare is more than just longevity.

[Daniel]

Much like healthcare is more than just longevity.

I'm not saying it's not, but to arbitrarily dismiss it as a statistic when measuring quality of healthcare is just silly. Especially when you're comparing two nearly homogeneous countries like the USA and Canada.

[Mabus]

Especially when you're comparing two nearly homogeneous countries like the USA and Canada.
Care to expound on that statement?

[Daniel]

Care to expound on that statement?

There are not significant lifestyle differences that would have a significant impact on life expectancy between Canada and the US.

[TheRoseLady]

So, no response then?

You don't think health insurance portability is a problem for millions of american workers? Especially at a time when many are losing jobs or being forced to switch jobs?

You're naive, and yes, still a retard.

How hard it must be for you to go through life, trying to function as a normal person.

CRB, if you're trying to crawl to the top of the douchebag mountain, you'll never be as clever nor as effective at getting under people's skin as PB. He perfected the art long before your ass ever found this board.

Amateur.

[TheRoseLady]

So, no response then?

You don't think health insurance portability is a problem for millions of american workers? Especially at a time when many are losing jobs or being forced to switch jobs?



Why are we losing jobs CRB? Why are we being forced to change jobs? Could it possibly be the utterly screwed up policies of this administration of the past eight years? And the promise of THE SAME with McCain?

Portability is one small portion of the healthcare picture, you are simply too uninformed to understand how little you know.

[crb]

No where in that wall of bullshit did you prove that the democratic plan of making healthcare more accessible would increase regulations, administrative costs or produce more of a burden on the system that already exists. You seem to be stuck on stupid and assume that "democrats" don't understand that you can change or reform regulations to serve people better without neccessarily adding another layer of government.


Less competition != lower prices. More patients == more burden on the system. Or you could, you know, look at every other universal care system in the world.



Oh yea. Why obscure whether or not people feel they have better healthcare than looking at life expectancy and happiness with care.


We've had this discussion before, and I think you may have even conceded the point, did you stop taking your meds or something?

Life expectancy == lifestyle, genetics, culture.
Happiness == entirely arbitrary. Someone living in a hut in Africa can be happy, it doesn't mean we all need to live like that. happiness is about meeting expectations, and people in different countries have different expectations.



Newsflash, Healthcare is not all about access to specialists. In some areas it's about access to general healthcare. Once again. Your expectations are probably not the same as the vast majority of the population due to your income.


I judge healthcare success at how likely you are to live or die if you get sick. Call me crazy.

If you think lower income people get lower quality care... surpising statistics would show you wrong:



Burtless was understandably astonished when he assembled these data: they show that, on average, annual health spending per person—from all private and government sources—is equal for the poorest and the richest Americans. In 2003, it was $4,477 for the poorest fifth and $4,451 for the richest. (source (http://www.newsweek.com/id/157573))




This is just stupid. Why wouldn't you look at whether or not people live longer? Healthcare is much more than chemotheraphy.

Why would you?

http://www.reason.com/news/show/127038.html



Taking accidental deaths and homicides between 1980 and 1999 into account, they calculate that instead of being at near the bottom of the list of developed countries, U.S. life expectancy would actually rank at the top.

I could find you thousands of sources if I really wanted to waste a day pointing out how dumb it is to consider life expectancy as a measure of healthcare quality.

[crb]

I'm sorry. If to prove your partisan bullshit you have to go back to the great depression then you've already lost the argument.

If you want to start the discussion from the assumption that companies offering health insurance was a *bad* thing, then you should probably just shut the fuck up because it's obviously you have no sense of reality.
Excuse me for posting something comprehensive with a historical context. I forget that your infantile brain can only process so much input. Next time when I know the historical source of a modern day system I'll just keep my mouth shut and leave you as ignorant as you like.

[crb]

There are not significant lifestyle differences that would have a significant impact on life expectancy between Canada and the US.
Jesus Daniel, do you ever research ANYTHING before posting your shit?



31 percent of Americans are obese (body mass index over 30), whereas only 23 percent of Britons, 21 percent of Australians and New Zealanders, 14 percent of Canadians, 13 percent of Germans, 9 percent of the French, and 3 percent of Japanese have body mass index measurements over 30. (source (http://www.reason.com/news/show/127038.html)

[TheRoseLady]

I can almost guarantee I have read more on the topic and talked with more healthcare professionals about it that you have.

This is the sort of baseless shit that you spew and is the fodder for folks who laugh their asses off in PMs about you.

You have zero idea what I do for a living. Your assumption that you are more informed is simply another example of your own propaganda. I'll just let you continue to believe that you are an expert on all topics.

They offer anger management under your mental health plan. You might check up on that.

[crb]

Why are we losing jobs CRB? Why are we being forced to change jobs? Could it possibly be the utterly screwed up policies of this administration of the past eight years? And the promise of THE SAME with McCain?

Portability is one small portion of the healthcare picture, you are simply too uninformed to understand how little you know.
Between 2002 and 2007 we had the longest period of consecutive months of positive job growth in this nation's history. Unemployment under bush has been no worse than that under clinton, and clinton did not have 9/11, nor millions more illegal immigrants.

The 6% now is still historically low considering, you want recession unemployment you'll see double digits.

There are states and areas that are doing good too, Michigan isn't, we have a retarded democrat governor who thought she could get new autoplants here despite michigan being one of the worst states for business. So they built down in southern states, where the economy is much better.

The Democratic Party Slogan should be make the country Detroit! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNM6HHJTUMM)

And healthcare portability is a huge huge issue. 30 million citizens are uninsured, but that leaves hundreds of millions who have insurance but are at risk of losing it because it is tied to their job.

[crb]

This is the sort of baseless shit that you spew and is the fodder for folks who laugh their asses off in PMs about you.

You have zero idea what I do for a living. Your assumption that you are more informed is simply another example of your own propaganda. I'll just let you continue to believe that you are an expert on all topics.

They offer anger management under your mental health plan. You might check up on that.
I said I didn't want to get into a pissing contest.

I have, however, posted multiple sources, multiple detailed things. You, just keep saying I'm wrong, I don't know what I'm saying, I don't understand, and I need to look up anger management? Really, I have a smile on my face right now. I'm as laid back as anyone you know, I had surgery recently (paid for with my HSA by the way, a great tool) and my pulse was 38 and my blood pressure was like 100/70 or something really low like that.

:)

[Keller]

I said I didn't want to get into a pissing contest.

Could have fooled me you ignorant cunt.

[Warriorbird]

It's standard. He just is flabbergasted that folks all over the place don't share his views. Given that his primary source seems to be his wife complaining from a conservative doctor's perspective you can see why he's so bent.

I like the fact that I can actually criticize what he says on the PC. On the officials the slew of nonsense is endless.

[crb]

Could have fooled me you ignorant cunt.
Oh come on Keller, you might not agree with you but you know I back up my point.



It's standard. He just is flabbergasted that folks all over the place don't share his views. Given that his primary source seems to be his wife complaining from a conservative doctor's perspective you can see why he's so bent.

I like the fact that I can actually criticize what he says on the PC. On the officials the slew of nonsense is endless.

Again, if it makes you feel better to dismiss my points rather than address them, have at it. You just further steriotype liberals in that way. And you know, I have read multiple books on the topic (yes, whole books, and without pictures), read lots of articles, and my wife ISN'T my source for anything really other than hospital life, nor is she the only doctor, practice manager, or healthcare professional I know.

I'm still waiting for someone to say how healthcare portability isn't a big deal. I think I will be waiting for a very long time.

[Daniel]

Jesus Daniel, do you ever research ANYTHING before posting your shit?

I like how your "source" is some conservative rag.

Next time try going to an actual source:

http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/indicator.jsp?indicatorid=6&lang=en

# National Picture — In 2005, 35% of Canadian adults were overweight, and 24% obese.
# Gender — More men were overweight or obese than women in 2005.
# Age — In 2005, those aged 55 to 64 had the highest overweight rate at 44%. The obesity rate was the highest among those aged 65 to 74 years at 34%.


I'm sure you'll scroll down to the comparison chart to the US and Canada, please allow me to point this out:

Rates for the United Kingdom and the United States are based on actual measures. Age-standardized data were not available. Comparisons among G-7 countries should therefore be made with caution

[Daniel]

Excuse me for posting something comprehensive with a historical context. I forget that your infantile brain can only process so much input. Next time when I know the historical source of a modern day system I'll just keep my mouth shut and leave you as ignorant as you like.

You're forgiven.

[Daniel]

Less competition != lower prices. More patients == more burden on the system. Or you could, you know, look at every other universal care system in the world.



You seem to be under some ridiculous impression that republicans will somehow raise competition without more patients and that democrats will lower competition with more patients.

It's a matter of supply. If you can't see that then you're just fucking stupid.



We've had this discussion before, and I think you may have even conceded the point, did you stop taking your meds or something?

Life expectancy == lifestyle, genetics, culture.
Happiness == entirely arbitrary. Someone living in a hut in Africa can be happy, it doesn't mean we all need to live like that. happiness is about meeting expectations, and people in different countries have different expectations.


I'm pretty sure we haven't.

So basically, the effects of healthcare and people's perceptions are completely moot, more power to you. Good luck trying to convince people that they're problems are not real. This is kinda like how the economy is fine but people are too whiney to realize it?



I judge healthcare success at how likely you are to live or die if you get sick. Call me crazy.


Unfortunately, healthcare is much more than life threatening diseases.



If you think lower income people get lower quality care... surpising statistics would show you wrong:


That statistic doesn't show you everything. For one, tht's an average across the country. A more appropriate statistic, if we were going to use your criteria, is how much people have to spend when confronted with life altering or threatening illness or injury.




Why would you?



Because it makes sense?




I could find you thousands of sources if I really wanted to waste a day pointing out how dumb it is to consider life expectancy as a measure of healthcare quality.

By all means.

[Keller]

Oh come on Keller, you might not agree with you but you know I back up my point.

I've defended you on this forum quite a few times. I think you generally make reasonable points. Sometimes I agree, sometimes I don't.

What I think is repugnant is that you can't make those points without pejorative rhetoric or, in this case, outright angry remarks like calling someone a cunt. Why? It just makes you look petty and takes away from your credibility.

[crb]

You seem to be under some ridiculous impression that republicans will somehow raise competition without more patients and that democrats will lower competition with more patients.

It's a matter of supply. If you can't see that then you're just fucking stupid.



I'm pretty sure we haven't.

So basically, the effects of healthcare and people's perceptions are completely moot, more power to you. Good luck trying to convince people that they're problems are not real. This is kinda like how the economy is fine but people are too whiney to realize it?



Unfortunately, healthcare is much more than life threatening diseases.



That statistic doesn't show you everything. For one, tht's an average across the country. A more appropriate statistic, if we were going to use your criteria, is how much people have to spend when confronted with life altering or threatening illness or injury.



Because it makes sense?




By all means.




You seem to be under some ridiculous impression that republicans will somehow raise competition without more patients and that democrats will lower competition with more patients.

It's a matter of supply. If you can't see that then you're just fucking stupid.

No, you're fucking stupid. Republicans want to empower the individual to control more of their own healthcare dollars and make more of their own healthcare purchasing decisions. This results in more competition.

Democrats want to provide healthcare to more people, but they will not have control over their purchasing, so they will not be consumers. There government (or their proxy hybrid public/private insurance companies - those hybrids tend to work out right?) will be the consumer who makes purchasing decisions, the patient will not. IE - what we have now that has worked so well.

A patient isn't a consumer unless they direct their own healthcare spending and have an incentive to shop around because they aren't subject to moral hazard. It is more consumers that will create more competition, not just more patients.



..as for the rest, I can't argue with you daniel. If you won't acknowledge that life expectancy and public opinion are poor gauges of the success of a healthcare system there is really no where to go.

You could say "Look, the Chinese live longer, nevermind that asians have good genes, that they eat rice, fish, and veggies, that they're thin and active, and that their state run media keeps them happy by restricting access to bad information. They live longer, so chinese medical care must be superior."

(note, I'm not sure where China is on the scale, just tossing it out there).

For us americans the fact that we drive fast, have guns, have a violent culture, eat bigmacs, etc, probably has nothing to do with it -- nevermind that merely factoring out accidents & homicides results in us being at the top of life expectancy.

Now its true, socialized systems can be better at simple things like say sutures for a cut, or setting a broken bone, or general outpatient clinic things. Care for things you can actually die from though, advanced imaging, and access to specialists, sucks. Personally, I'm more concerned about medical problems that can kill me.

I would also agree that perhaps some aspects of preventative medicine could be socialized, such as birth control, mammographies, colonoscopies, anti-smoking treatments, general preventative things that save money in the long run.

[Daniel]

Okay. Let's look at mortality rates for cancer then. Since you seem so convinced that's the end all be all.

Canada 209 per 100,000 for males 147 per 100,000 for females

http://www.cancer.ca/British%20Columbia-Yukon/About%20cancer/Cancer%20statistics/Canadian%20Cancer%20Statistics.aspx?sc_lang=en&r=1

America:

234.4 per 100,000 men 159.9 per 100,000 women

http://www.seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/all.html

Oops.

[CrystalTears]

That's cause Canadians come here for treatment. :D

[crb]

Okay. Let's look at mortality rates for cancer then. Since you seem so convinced that's the end all be all.

Canada 209 per 100,000 for males 147 per 100,000 for females

http://www.cancer.ca/British%20Columbia-Yukon/About%20cancer/Cancer%20statistics/Canadian%20Cancer%20Statistics.aspx?sc_lang=en&r=1

America:

234.4 per 100,000 men 159.9 per 100,000 women

http://www.seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/all.html

Oops.
Again, you don't think lifestyle has anything to do with cancer? Think maybe a person with an unhealthy lifestyle has a greater chance of dying from cancer than a person with a healthy lifestyle.

Here two facts. All other things being equal cancer is much more survivable if you can catch it early and get treated early. The wait time to start Chemo in Canada and other such socialized countries is far far longer than here. Access to advanced imaging that can diagnose tumors is also far far more limited.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9400EFDE113AF935A25752C0A9669C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed072005b.cfm

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/06/09/newscoc-health050609.html

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006813

http://www.insure.com/articles/healthinsurance/canada-health-care.html

[Daniel]

so basically there are no statistics that can be used to show the american healthcare system is ineffective. Gotcha.

Nice

[Parkbandit]

so basically there are no statistics that can be used to show the american healthcare system is ineffective. Gotcha.

Nice


Statistics can be shown for both sides of any debate.

[Daniel]

Statistics can be shown for both sides of any debate.

I'm sure. However, it's disingenuous, at best, to say that the US healthcare system is better because you're more likely to survive things like cancer, and then say that mortality rate comparisons are not relevant.

If it wasn't already readily apparent that CRB is a partisan hack, I'd take the time to point out the similiarities in incidence rates and how that is more appropriate when considering lifestyle factors.

[Parkbandit]

I'm sure. However, it's disingenuous, at best, to say that the US healthcare system is better because you're more likely to survive things like cancer, and then say that mortality rate comparisons are not relevant.

If it wasn't already readily apparent that CRB is a partisan hack, I'd take the time to point out the similiarities in incidence rates and how that is more appropriate when considering lifestyle factors.

Let's be honest.. he's no more a 'partisan hack' than you are.. but for different teams.

[Daniel]

Which changes my point how?

[Parkbandit]

Which changes my point how?

Doesn't change your point at all.. some of which I agree with. Just makes you look retarded calling anyone else a partisan hack, since you are the Obama ass kissing poster child.

[Daniel]

Doesn't change your point at all.. some of which I agree with. Just makes you look retarded calling anyone else a partisan hack, since you are the Obama ass kissing poster child.

You think I'm retarded? I'm torn up inside. Really.

[Daniel]

I like how your "source" is some conservative rag.

Next time try going to an actual source:

http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/indicator.jsp?indicatorid=6&lang=en

# National Picture — In 2005, 35% of Canadian adults were overweight, and 24% obese.
# Gender — More men were overweight or obese than women in 2005.
# Age — In 2005, those aged 55 to 64 had the highest overweight rate at 44%. The obesity rate was the highest among those aged 65 to 74 years at 34%.


I'm sure you'll scroll down to the comparison chart to the US and Canada, please allow me to point this out:

Rates for the United Kingdom and the United States are based on actual measures. Age-standardized data were not available. Comparisons among G-7 countries should therefore be made with caution


Hey CRB. Since you found it so hilarious to add posts to your sig, I figured you get a kick out of this. Apparently, you missed it.

[Daniel]

Guess not :(

[Parkbandit]

You think I'm retarded? I'm torn up inside. Really.


I don't think you are 'retarded' in the sense that you are mentally disabled. But you calling out someone for being a partisan hack makes you look very, very hypocritical.. and stupid... since you do the same for Obama.

Of course, this was probably clear to everyone else and the fact that I had to explain it to you makes you less intelligent than most here.. but still probably above the retard threshold.

[Parkbandit]

Guess not :(


Statistics can be shown for both sides of any debate.

:shrug:

[Hulkein]

Eh ... polls again, national polls at that. A 10pt lead amongst those likely to vote nationally doesn't really do much in a state by state picture.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

In the electorate ... well it isn't pretty.

Let's take a look at your link now that many of the swing states have been polled post convention:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

McCain: 270
Obama: 268

Again, Holy Convention Bounce, Batman.

[Daniel]

I don't think you are 'retarded' in the sense that you are mentally disabled. But you calling out someone for being a partisan hack makes you look very, very hypocritical.. and stupid... since you do the same for Obama.

Of course, this was probably clear to everyone else and the fact that I had to explain it to you makes you less intelligent than most here.. but still probably above the retard threshold.

The difference between me and you and CRB is that I'm not some partisan hack who comes to the conversation with some inherent bias against the other political side. You dismiss arguments simply because they are "liberal" or from the democratic side. Unlike you, I look at the merit of the issues and determine where I should stand based upon my feelings and beliefs.

For instance, I did not believe in the democratic platform in 2004 on the issues that were important for me. So, I supported republicans. In 2008, Democrats have the platform that I believe in and thus I support them. You tried to play "gotcha" on this topic in another thread, and it's a good thing you left it alone.

[Parkbandit]

The difference between me and you and CRB is that I'm not some partisan hack who comes to the conversation with some inherent bias against the other political side.

My bullshit detector just buried it's needle. I'm relatively certain I can find more posts by me that actually support, agree and dismiss a conservative spun story than you can for your liberal cause. If you care to make a wager, I'm up for it.

You are the poster child of inherent bias. Don't kid yourself boy, because you aren't fooling anyone here but yourself.


You dismiss arguments simply because they are "liberal" or from the democratic side. Unlike you, I look at the merit of the issues and determine where I should stand based upon my feelings and beliefs.

Damn.. now you owe me a new bullshit detector. You look at the merit of the issue.. you mean how you claimed how Palin was booed? Seriously, you are looking pretty damn foolish right now. I realize you fabricate constantly, but seriously.. lying about yourself with all the political posts you have in this forum makes you look foolish and pathetic.



For instance, I did not believe in the democratic platform in 2004 on the issues that were important for me. So, I supported republicans. In 2008, Democrats have the platform that I believe in and thus I support them. You tried to play "gotcha" on this topic in another thread, and it's a good thing you left it alone.

Well that does it! YOU MUST BE UNBIASED! So are you trying to tell people you voted for Bush in 2004? Granted, I don't remember you being such a militant liberal back then as you clearly are now... but I certainly don't remember you voting for Bush in '04. And FYI.. a vote in '04 doesn't exactly mean you've been anywhere close to being unbiased. You've proven yourself to be anything but unbiased on this forum over the past 2 years. Look at your past 200 posts in the political thread for verification of this fact.

[Daniel]

Like I said: I'm real broken up about it.

[ElanthianSiren]

I was always under the impression you were more of an "All politicans are crooked bastards, so I'm not voting" kind of guy. Surprises arrive every day, I suppose.

[Daniel]

No. You're about right. I have very little faith in politics. How I've spent my entire adult life in the government is anyone's guess.

[ElanthianSiren]

Govnt: maybe you're a fixer/reformer. I can't remember your Jungian type. I could see you connecting with Obama's proposed platform well in that capacity though.

[Parkbandit]

No. You're about right. I have very little faith in politics. How I've spent my entire adult life in the government is anyone's guess.


I think you said it better than anyone.. you got lucky.

[Daniel]

Govnt: maybe you're a fixer/reformer. I can't remember your Jungian type. I could see you connecting with Obama's proposed platform well in that capacity though.

ISTP.

Let's start a thread.

[Daniel]

Let's take a look at your link now that many of the swing states have been polled post convention:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

McCain: 270
Obama: 268

Again, Holy Convention Bounce, Batman.

Let's take a look now:

McCain: 236
Obama: 282

Whoops.

[Khariz]

Let's take a look now:

McCain: 236
Obama: 282

Whoops.

To be fair, the whole idea of a convention bounce is that it's temporary, right?

This doesn't surprise me that much.

[Hulkein]

Let's take a look now:

McCain: 236
Obama: 282

Whoops.

Bounces are temporary generally, genius.

[Daniel]

Hey. If you guys are cool with that, that's fine with me.

[Hulkein]

If your candidate doesn't get a bounce then you're pretty much sunk. If McCain didn't get any bounce after his convention I'd say there was no shot of him winning.