What do you guys think about the super delegate "situation." - AnabolicMinds.com

What do you guys think about the super delegate "situation."

  1. bLacKjAck.'s Avatar
    Stats
    6'2"  241 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Age
    30
    Posts
    3,949
    Rep Power
    2082

    Reputation

    What do you guys think about the super delegate "situation."


    Looks like there is no way for Obama to have not won the popular and delegate vote before the DNC. But if Hillary can get these super del. to vote for her she could easily win in the end. Basically "stealing" the election.

    Are those delegates really ready to set off an absolute nuke into their own party?

    What you guys think?

  2. slow-mun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Age
    35
    Posts
    2,149
    Rep Power
    1173

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by bLacKjAck. View Post
    Looks like there is no way for Obama to have not won the popular and delegate vote before the DNC. But if Hillary can get these super del. to vote for her she could easily win in the end. Basically "stealing" the election.

    Are those delegates really ready to set off an absolute nuke into their own party?

    What you guys think?
    I personally believe that the Democratic party is sabotaging itself in this election by trying to manipulate the outcome. In the end, I bet that the Republicans will take the prize, due to the mistrust that the American people will have for the party.
  3. Jayhawkk's Avatar
    Stats
    5'8"  230 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Age
    39
    Posts
    12,790
    Rep Power
    11679

    Reputation

    Superdel. is just BS but that's my belief on most politics. We'll have to wait and see how the rest of this goes before saying if one choice over another will destroy the party. before it ends they will likely do enough damage to their [party, themselves.
    •   
       

  4. Chad's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  281 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Age
    31
    Posts
    4,605
    Rep Power
    0

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by bLacKjAck. View Post
    Looks like there is no way for Obama to have not won the popular and delegate vote before the DNC. But if Hillary can get these super del. to vote for her she could easily win in the end. Basically "stealing" the election.

    Are those delegates really ready to set off an absolute nuke into their own party?

    What you guys think?

    its like a 52%-48% lead for him. plus most of the votes he is getting are from people that are voting for him just to vote for him. 2 out of 3 Obama supporters cant name anything he has done in his time in DC.
    if they pick him there will be real good chance of pissing off the real Democrats and losing to the mccain.

    just my 2 cents.
  5. diminuendo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Age
    36
    Posts
    332
    Rep Power
    289

    Reputation

    I bet Elliot Spitzer won't resign until he has cast his SuperD vote for HillRod.
  6. dsade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Age
    43
    Posts
    21,349
    Rep Power
    770814

    Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Chad View Post
    its like a 52%-48% lead for him. plus most of the votes he is getting are from people that are voting for him just to vote for him. 2 out of 3 Obama supporters cant name anything he has done in his time in DC.
    if they pick him there will be real good chance of pissing off the real Democrats and losing to the mccain.

    just my 2 cents.
    This goes both ways...if they are dumb enough to nominate Hillary, then they will get the same, if not WORSE, abandonment of the party in favor of McCain.

    Kind of a no-win situation unless McCain does something monumental to ruin his rep.
    Evolutionary Muse - Inspire to Evolve
    BPS - Where Body meets Performance
    Flawless Skin Couture - We give you the tools to make you Flawless
  7. Chad's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  281 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Age
    31
    Posts
    4,605
    Rep Power
    0

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by dsade View Post
    This goes both ways...if they are dumb enough to nominate Hillary, then they will get the same, if not WORSE, abandonment of the party in favor of McCain.

    Kind of a no-win situation unless McCain does something monumental to ruin his rep.
    all three suck!!!! lol
  8. bLacKjAck.'s Avatar
    Stats
    6'2"  241 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Age
    30
    Posts
    3,949
    Rep Power
    2082

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Chad View Post
    all three suck!!!! lol
    Agreed. If you give me the choice though its McCain by a longshot. I don't like all his views, but if its between small governmet and low taxes vs big gov. and increased taxes that ONLY reward lazy ass people who do nothing with their life. I will take the initial.
  9. Nightwanderer's Avatar
    Stats
    5'6"   lbs.
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,307
    Rep Power
    733

    Reputation

    I just hope the democrats take office period. That way we can finally have either a black guy or a woman in office and can finally get over one more social issue as a nation. I mean, who really cares what color you are or what chromosome pair you ended up with as long as you can do a better job in office than your predecessor?

    Sadly sex and race will be influential as far as voting goes though.
  10. CryingEmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    3,080
    Rep Power
    1635

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Chad View Post
    all three suck!!!! lol

    Chad for president!
  11. DBinMD's Avatar
    Stats
    5'5"  174 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Age
    59
    Posts
    372
    Rep Power
    278

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by bLacKjAck. View Post
    Agreed. If you give me the choice though its McCain by a longshot. I don't like all his views, but if its between small governmet and low taxes vs big gov. and increased taxes that ONLY reward lazy ass people who do nothing with their life. I will take the initial.
    Similarly, I will not vote for Hillary or Obama and I’m not entirely comfortable with McCain and contemplated not voting all. But 2 things happened in the news last night that may have made me a lot more comfortable about McCain.

    The first was Obama’s pastor of 20 yrs, Jeremiah Wright. There were video clips of his sermons and they were extremely hateful worse than I imagined from earlier reports. Not much different at all from Farakahn. I would like to give Obama the benefit of the doubt and maybe I should. But if any clergyman in my parish said anything close to what he said, I would be gone from there immediately, let alone have a 20 year friendship. It sounded no different than what a Nazi or white supremesist would say. If any other candidate, past or present, had similar associations they’d be gone.

    The second was McCain’s interview on Hannity and Combs. He was able to explain why he opposed the original Bush tax cuts and admit that his position on immigration was out of touch with what people want. He also wants “originist” as opposed to “constructionist” judges and may really want to reign in federal spending. This last item, is rarely carried thru, but at least he’s not proposing any new big items like socialized medicine.

    BTW, I think the Dem’s delegate procedures (not just the super delegate) shows just how convoluted the Dem’s thinking is.
  12. Mo250's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    133
    Rep Power
    150

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by DBinMD View Post
    The second was McCainís interview on Hannity and Combs. He was able to explain why he opposed the original Bush tax cuts and admit that his position on immigration was out of touch with what people want. He also wants ďoriginistĒ as opposed to ďconstructionistĒ judges and may really want to reign in federal spending. This last item, is rarely carried thru, but at least heís not proposing any new big items like socialized medicine
    It will take a hell of a lot of reigning in if he wants to keep tax breaks for the wealthy and cut corporate tax rates AND have a hundred years war. Who was the last Republican to balance a budget? Eisenhower? How is it they get their reputation for being fiscally sound, anyway? Must be something about elephants having a long memory. They still remember Ike.
  13. neoborn's Avatar
    Stats
    5'7"  230 lbs.
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4,406
    Rep Power
    2360

    Reputation

    In all honesty, what does it matter what they parade in the media when they can just manipulate your votes electronically? Didn't they dispute the count last time and nothing came of it?

    Voting is a sham, the whole system is a farce.
  14. TripDog's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  201 lbs.
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    10,084
    Rep Power
    5550

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by neoborn View Post
    In all honesty, what does it matter what they parade in the media when they can just manipulate your votes electronically? Didn't they dispute the count last time and nothing came of it?

    Voting is a sham, the whole system is a farce.
    I agree!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    The LORD is my rock, my fortress, and my savior; my God is my rock, in whom I find protection. He is my shield, the power that saves me, and my place of safety.-Psalm 18:2
  15. DBinMD's Avatar
    Stats
    5'5"  174 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Age
    59
    Posts
    372
    Rep Power
    278

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Mo250 View Post
    It will take a hell of a lot of reigning in if he wants to keep tax breaks for the wealthy and cut corporate tax rates AND have a hundred years war. Who was the last Republican to balance a budget? Eisenhower? How is it they get their reputation for being fiscally sound, anyway? Must be something about elephants having a long memory. They still remember Ike.
    Re: have a hundred years war.
    Thatís a misquote. A presence is different than a war. Weíve been in Europe and Korea for over 50 years. Bush did a horrible job at the beginning, but things are turning around.

    But youíre right about the taxes, Iím not particularly hopeful either. Everyone can agree theyíre too high, but no one wants to do their share to reduce it. And thatís part of the problem. We seem to elect people (dem or rep) who are the most likely to pander to our whims, then we complain we have too much spending, or no energy policy, etc. Bush was a big disappointment here, too. But I think, now, we have a choice between one candidate who wants to give us socialized medicine which will be a huge cost, and one whoís goal is to reduce taxes. Iím not sure who was the last republican president to balance the budget, but Eisenhower was the last president to be elected under the old system without primaries, so maybe he was the last one. Clinton just got lucky because the economy at the time was really strong. Also, if Clinton did what he should have when Osama and Al Kaeda was smaller, we might not be in a war now, ďPeaceĒ at any cost is not peace, itís just putting off the inevitable.

    The other problem I have with the fedís handling medical benefits is that it is unconstitutional. Every time we ask the fedís for something new, it gives them more power. Our founding fathers had a big issue with that for good reason, power corrupts. I donít want the same people who have developed such a convoluted system of taxes, for example, to handle my health. The feds have way overstepped their boundaries too much already.

    Quote Originally Posted by neoborn View Post
    In all honesty, what does it matter what they parade in the media when they can just manipulate your votes electronically? Didn't they dispute the count last time and nothing came of it? Voting is a sham, the whole system is a farce.
    Maybe, voting has never been perfect. A couple hundred years ago in this country only white men with property could vote, senators were appointed by the governors, and probably had a few other shenanigans, too, but some how we muddled through. Which only goes back to my point about the founding fathers building a system in which you assume you canít trust those in power.
  16. Mo250's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    133
    Rep Power
    150

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by DBinMD View Post
    Re: have a hundred years war.
    That’s a misquote. A presence is different than a war. We’ve been in Europe and Korea for over 50 years. Bush did a horrible job at the beginning, but things are turning around.

    But you’re right about the taxes, I’m not particularly hopeful either. Everyone can agree they’re too high, but no one wants to do their share to reduce it. And that’s part of the problem. We seem to elect people (dem or rep) who are the most likely to pander to our whims, then we complain we have too much spending, or no energy policy, etc. Bush was a big disappointment here, too. But I think, now, we have a choice between one candidate who wants to give us socialized medicine which will be a huge cost, and one who’s goal is to reduce taxes. I’m not sure who was the last republican president to balance the budget, but Eisenhower was the last president to be elected under the old system without primaries, so maybe he was the last one. Clinton just got lucky because the economy at the time was really strong. Also, if Clinton did what he should have when Osama and Al Kaeda was smaller, we might not be in a war now, “Peace” at any cost is not peace, it’s just putting off the inevitable.

    The other problem I have with the fed’s handling medical benefits is that it is unconstitutional. Every time we ask the fed’s for something new, it gives them more power. Our founding fathers had a big issue with that for good reason, power corrupts. I don’t want the same people who have developed such a convoluted system of taxes, for example, to handle my health. The feds have way overstepped their boundaries too much already.


    Maybe, voting has never been perfect. A couple hundred years ago in this country only white men with property could vote, senators were appointed by the governors, and probably had a few other shenanigans, too, but some how we muddled through. Which only goes back to my point about the founding fathers building a system in which you assume you can’t trust those in power.
    why would 'socialized medicine' (by which i assume you're referring to public insurance as proposed by either democrat, not government-run medical facilities) be more expensive? pretty much every country with socialized medical insurance has lower costs than the US, and more relevant for this discussion medicare costs less to run than private insurance.

    under the present system, 35% of an individual's healthcare dollars go to insurance companies. The convoluted insurance bureaucracy, rather than your doctor, decides what care you will get. With Medicare, basic coverage is provided and less than 5% goes to overhead. You can't get every possible treatment you could ask for, just like with private insurance, BUT nothing stops a Medicare patient from buying more expensive healthcare. If Medicare were expanded so that everyone could get into it, would it be evil socialized medicine?

    I really don't see the benefit of private insurance companies siphoning off a third of what we spend on healthcare. I don't see the advantage of tying insurance to employment either. It makes employers not want to hire people, and makes them want to move work to countries with public healthcare. It makes it hard for workers to change jobs, since they are afraid of leaving because they may lose their healthcare. The present system is an inefficient mess that saps the competitiveness of the American industry.

    as for Clinton, he did go after al queda, and was attacked by GOP at the time, because they wanted to focus on the lewinsky scandal.When he did send in some cruise missiles, the Republicans accused him of a "Wag the Dog" scenario.The majority of Democrats opposed the war, although Hillary was for it. Virtually all Republicans were for it. There was nothing "inevitable" about it, that is until Bush got into office
  17. Chad's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  281 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Age
    31
    Posts
    4,605
    Rep Power
    0

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by bLacKjAck. View Post
    Agreed. If you give me the choice though its McCain by a longshot. I don't like all his views, but if its between small governmet and low taxes vs big gov. and increased taxes that ONLY reward lazy ass people who do nothing with their life. I will take the initial.

    i cant go with mccain.
    one, he wants to stay in iraq and second he is 71 years old!
    thats too old to deal with the stress of being president.
  18. DBinMD's Avatar
    Stats
    5'5"  174 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Age
    59
    Posts
    372
    Rep Power
    278

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Mo250 View Post
    as for Clinton, he did go after al queda, and was attacked by GOP at the time, because they wanted to focus on the lewinsky scandal.
    The scandal was his own doing, if he didnít want the issue then he shouldnít have been getting a head job in the oval office.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mo250 View Post
    When he did send in some cruise missiles, the Republicans accused him of a "Wag the Dog" scenario.
    Maybe, Iím not sure I remember the republican response, but that wasnít what I was referring to. A couple of missiles arenít much of an effort.
    How Clinton passed up an opportunity to stop Osama bin Laden in 1996. Wall Street Journal:
    http://opinionjournal.com/columnists...r/?id=95001289
    I believe the Washington Post ran a similar article.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mo250 View Post
    The majority of Democrats opposed the war, although Hillary was for it. Virtually all Republicans were for it. There was nothing "inevitable" about it, that is until Bush got into office.
    Iím talking about the general idea that we can placate a bully, and call that peace. Hitler, Ho Chi Minh, and Yassar Arafat come to mind. All were placated for the sake of peace; peace was the last thing we got. Hussein broke the treaty of the Gulf War by refusing to let the U.N. inspectors do their job. It was the opinion of most of the world (including the inspectors), that he still had weapons. In the mean time 1000ís were dying as a result of the oil for food scandal, I didnít find a link, but here are the rest of Husseinís atrocities:
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,239897,00.html
    Quote Originally Posted by Mo250 View Post
    why would 'socialized medicine' (by which i assume you're referring to public insurance as proposed by either democrat, not government-run medical facilities) be more expensive? pretty much every country with socialized medical insurance has lower costs than the US, and more relevant for this discussion medicare costs less to run than private insurance.
    under the present system, 35% of an individual's healthcare dollars go to insurance companies. The convoluted insurance bureaucracy, rather than your doctor, decides what care you will get. With Medicare, basic coverage is provided and less than 5% goes to overhead. You can't get every possible treatment you could ask for, just like with private insurance, BUT nothing stops a Medicare patient from buying more expensive healthcare. If Medicare were expanded so that everyone could get into it, would it be evil socialized medicine?

    I really don't see the benefit of private insurance companies siphoning off a third of what we spend on healthcare. I don't see the advantage of tying insurance to employment either. It makes employers not want to hire people, and makes them want to move work to countries with public healthcare. It makes it hard for workers to change jobs, since they are afraid of leaving because they may lose their healthcare. The present system is an inefficient mess that saps the competitiveness of the American industry.
    Health Care.
    Why I oppose it.
    1) It is NOT constitutional. It allows the federal government to further over step their authority. This put our rights at risk. Our founding fathers limited federal jurisdiction to interstate commerce and defense. They knew people in power cannot be trusted. Even if there were no other arguments this would be enough. If people want it badly, then let the states handle it. That would be constitutional.
    2) The federal government canít manage the money they collect now.
    3) If they handle health care they way they handle the Veterans Administration, weíre in trouble.
    4) I find it hard to believe only 5% goes to overhead. Charities where people work for stipends donít have that return. Can you point to some sources for private vs public cost.
    5) Much of the cost of health care comes from malpractice and cutting edge technology. Sky rocketing malpractice should be addressed first.
    6) http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/0...-cps/index.htm According to Dept HHS, 15.7% of the population are uninsured. Of the 15.7%, 21% are immigrants. I donít mean to be sound calloused, but they knew that before they came. Thatís the way it has always been. You come to this country because you believe you will be better off, not to be comfortable.
    19% of the uninsured declined coverage because they felt it too expensive. Itís not clear how many truly could not afford it or chose not to for personal reasons.
    We already have the most at risk on Medicaid and SCHIP.
    IMO it would be better to address the remaining 9% (or even the whole 15.7%) rather than turn an industry that essentially works into another bureaucracy. At least the insurance companies need to compete with each other.
    I honestly do not believe the countries that currently have government run health care to be superior to ours.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mo250 View Post
    The present system is an inefficient mess that saps the competitiveness of the American industry.
    Unlike the execs who give themselves 5 or 6 figure bonusí right before a layoff.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mo250 View Post
    I don't see the advantage of tying insurance to employment either.
    In a country that has to import immigrants to make up a labor shortage, why wouldnít every able bodied person be able to work. Or do we have excessive immigration that drives down the labor rate? Medical benefits are a part of the benefits of working. Just like putting food on your table and a roof over your head. Should they all be part of a government program, too? Most people work for compensation, not because they have a need to be stuck in a factory or office building 40-60 hrs/week.
  19. DBinMD's Avatar
    Stats
    5'5"  174 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Age
    59
    Posts
    372
    Rep Power
    278

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Chad View Post
    i cant go with mccain.
    one, he wants to stay in iraq and second he is 71 years old!
    thats too old to deal with the stress of being president.
    Most indications are the surge is working. So if we leave, Iraq becomes a bloodbath, and eventually Iran or AL Caeda, or somebody equally bad takes over. The world hates us more than ever (not that I care, but some do). The whole region comes unglued and we're back again worse off than before.

    He doesn't look particularly stressed now. In fact he looks pretty good for someone who was tortured for 5.5 yrs in a POW camp.
  20. Chad's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  281 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Age
    31
    Posts
    4,605
    Rep Power
    0

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by DBinMD View Post
    Most indications are the surge is working. So if we leave, Iraq becomes a bloodbath, and eventually Iran or AL Caeda, or somebody equally bad takes over. The world hates us more than ever (not that I care, but some do). The whole region comes unglued and we're back again worse off than before.

    He doesn't look particularly stressed now. In fact he looks pretty good for someone who was tortured for 5.5 yrs in a POW camp.

    there is NO point in being there!!!! and dont call me a left wing bleeding heart either!
    i was there and the sh!t wont EVER be fixed!
    almost 4000 dead because we were told there were WMD in iraq! WRONG! nothing! friends of mine are dead because Bush wanted to start a war to show off to daddy!

    the world will always hate us because they cant be like us.
    this war has cost us not only in American blood but also ablout $1 TRILLION. and what do we have to show for it?

    im not trying to start sh!t with you and im not trying to disrespect you at all but there is NO reason to stay in Iraq.

    FYI- i think we should just nuke the whole middle east.
  21. Mo250's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    133
    Rep Power
    150

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by DBinMD View Post
    In a country that has to import immigrants to make up a labor shortage, why wouldnít every able bodied person be able to work. Or do we have excessive immigration that drives down the labor rate? Medical benefits are a part of the benefits of working. Just like putting food on your table and a roof over your head. Should they all be part of a government program, too? Most people work for compensation, not because they have a need to be stuck in a factory or office building 40-60 hrs/week.
    The only reason we "need to" import immigrants is to keep wages down. (At least if you're talking about illegals.) Medical benefits are not a part of the jobs that illegals take.
  22. DBinMD's Avatar
    Stats
    5'5"  174 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Age
    59
    Posts
    372
    Rep Power
    278

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Mo250 View Post
    The only reason we "need to" import immigrants is to keep wages down. (At least if you're talking about illegals.) Medical benefits are not a part of the jobs that illegals take.
    I think the argument was:
    I don't see the advantage of tying insurance to employment either.

    Iím not sure why it shouldnít be tied to employment in a country with such a labor shortage that we need to import labor; that includes all immigration. IOW, even if it means taking a lower paying job, ISTM, most hardworking Americans should find work.

    I agree with the position that it is unfair for American labor to compete with countries that have no benefits, pollution standards, etc. Iím not sure what that answer is. I also agree the costs of medical care need to be addressed. I just donít agree the Fed. Gov. sponsorship of Health Care is the answer.


    Quote Originally Posted by Chad View Post
    there is NO point in being there!!!! and dont call me a left wing bleeding heart either!
    i was there and the sh!t wont EVER be fixed!
    almost 4000 dead because we were told there were WMD in iraq! WRONG! nothing! friends of mine are dead because Bush wanted to start a war to show off to daddy!

    the world will always hate us because they cant be like us.
    this war has cost us not only in American blood but also ablout $1 TRILLION. and what do we have to show for it?

    im not trying to start sh!t with you and im not trying to disrespect you at all but there is NO reason to stay in Iraq.

    FYI- i think we should just nuke the whole middle east.
    First off, I donít want to discount any of your experiences. Thereís a good chance I might feel the same way given the same circumstances. I agree Bush and Rumsfeld did a major screw-up. I think it can be intelligently argued about why we were there and I think it is obvious they didnít have a clue until recently how to execute the war. They deserve any appropriate ridicule and resentment they get, especially when they had talent such as Colin Powell at their finger tips.

    But weíre there and one human life is no more important than another. If we leave now, things will spiral out of control and odds are weíll be back and lose another 4,000. Weíre fighting a culture that sees nothing wrong with targeting civilians. When they're not doing it to each other, given an opportunity, they do it to everyone else they perceive as an enemy.
  23. MrBrightside's Avatar
    Stats
    6'3"  187 lbs.
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Age
    23
    Posts
    887
    Rep Power
    524

    Reputation

    In the end, I don't think the super delegates will play a role. Oddly enough, this is the first election I'd ever heard of them.

    Learn something new everyday.
  24. Mo250's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    133
    Rep Power
    150

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by DBinMD View Post
    I think the argument was:
    I don't see the advantage of tying insurance to employment either.

    Iím not sure why it shouldnít be tied to employment in a country with such a labor shortage that we need to import labor; that includes all immigration. IOW, even if it means taking a lower paying job, ISTM, most hardworking Americans should find work.

    I agree with the position that it is unfair for American labor to compete with countries that have no benefits, pollution standards, etc. Iím not sure what that answer is. I also agree the costs of medical care need to be addressed. I just donít agree the Fed. Gov. sponsorship of Health Care is the answer

    My point about immigration is that most immigrants in the US today are illegals, and most of them take jobs that don't have healthcare. Would it be more acceptable if we said that the government should replace the function of much of the health insurance industry, rather than being a provider of healthcare? That's really what we're talking about; instead of letting the insurance industry skim a huge percentage of our healthcare dollars, just get rid of most of them.
  25. DBinMD's Avatar
    Stats
    5'5"  174 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Age
    59
    Posts
    372
    Rep Power
    278

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Mo250 View Post
    Would it be more acceptable if we said that the government should replace the function of much of the health insurance industry, rather than being a provider of healthcare? That's really what we're talking about; instead of letting the insurance industry skim a huge percentage of our healthcare dollars, just get rid of most of them.
    Iím not sure what you mean. Does it mean, the U.S. government becomes the insurer and leaves the medical care facilities alone; if so my answer would still be no.

    One thing I would like to know is where you found the 35% overhead for the insurance companies. I found the 5% regarding Medicare, but frankly I donít believe it and would like to know how both numbers are arrived at.

    It can be argued that costs need to be reduced, but they have to be done intelligently. Hereís an article by the NY Times about the costs of health care. Iím not a big fan of the Times and expected it to validate the position that the government should be the health care provider:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/op...ewanted=1&_r=2

    Some of the costs go into research and if we reduced costs and research, the cure would be worse than the disease. The federal gov just doesnít have a good track record for reducing costs, and an even worse one for reducing costs without screwing everything up.

    I think the private insurance industry basically works well enough that I donít think the feds will do any better. Iím not sure how we should fix the situation. Maybe the auto insurance model would work. The auto insurers (maybe this is only in ĎNo Faultí states) are forced to take a number of high risk drivers. I wouldnít mind my premiums go up a small amount if thatís what it takes. Alternatively, the states could subsidize for those below a certain income. I havenít thought this one out enough to know what the pitfalls would be.
  26. dsade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Age
    43
    Posts
    21,349
    Rep Power
    770814

    Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by DBinMD View Post
    Alternatively, the states could subsidize for those below a certain income. I havenít thought this one out enough to know what the pitfalls would be.
    I think this is the only thing that could be implemented with little chaos, be somewhat effective, but also be easy enough to scrap should we figure out a better ultimate alternative.
    Evolutionary Muse - Inspire to Evolve
    BPS - Where Body meets Performance
    Flawless Skin Couture - We give you the tools to make you Flawless
  27. DBinMD's Avatar
    Stats
    5'5"  174 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Age
    59
    Posts
    372
    Rep Power
    278

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by dsade View Post
    I think this is the only thing that could be implemented with little chaos, be somewhat effective, but also be easy enough to scrap should we figure out a better ultimate alternative.
    I think that's part of the logic our Founding Fathers had in limiting the powers of the federal gov. If a state screws up it's easier to rectify and, otherwise, easier for an individual to move to another state. The feds are just one huge monoply.
  28. Brooklyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    182
    Rep Power
    206

    Reputation

    Completely superficial


    First, the idea of voting for a candidate simply because they are black or female is as bad as only voting for a white male. It's discrimination for the sake of advancing collectivist ideas.

    I don't care what race or sex the President is, I care what's happening to my country because of that person. That said, Obama, Hillary or McCain would all be disastrous to this country. Sorry, I'm a Ron Paul supporter and win or not, the man is the best candidate for president in at least a generation.

    Universal health care is an absurd idea. Where in the Constitution is the Federal government given any control over health care? Why should my tax dollars be allocated to pay for others' health care? Speaking of which, why should I be getting taxes taken out of my paycheck in the first place? Explain that one to me again.

    My money should not go to make military and medical companies wealthier and promote endless military aggression and occupation worldwide. Without the income tax and the "Federal Reserve", your money wouldn't be worth 3 cents compared to 1913. Under a free market, hard currency system, the government would be forced to control spending and the United States currency would be the highest valued in the world. You'd see prices decreasing, not inflation.

    Gas prices wouldn't be so high if we didn't invade Middle Eastern countries or fail to drill for more oil in parts of Alaska. If we build more refineries and stop devaluing our dollar, which is now worth less than a Canadian dollar, you'd see lower pump prices. I could go on all day.

    Clinton doesn't care about any of this, she has a socialist agenda. Obama is a radical leftist with his own agenda and even though I believe he understands much of the problem, his "solutions" will cause all kinds of havoc internally. As a Constitutional law expert, he's that much worse for knowing what he is doing is not Constitutional. McCain is Bush on steroids on foreign policy and "Homeland Security" and Bush in a wheelchair on every other policy. He will be a puppet economically- didn't you see this:
    [nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tu-tg1kQ8dk"]YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.[/nomedia]

    Any of these candidates are going to lead to increased socialism/fascism, more taxes and less freedom.
  29. Mo250's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    133
    Rep Power
    150

    Reputation

    Iím not sure what you mean. Does it mean, the U.S. government becomes the insurer and leaves the medical care facilities alone; if so my answer would still be no.

    Yes, that is essentially the single-payer model.



    One thing I would like to know is where you found the 35% overhead for the insurance companies. I found the 5% regarding Medicare, but frankly I donít believe it and would like to know how both numbers are arrived at.


    I heard the 35% number on a radio program about healthcare a month or so ago. I was surprised that it was that high. I just went googling for a reference for it, and found a paper by Himmelstein et al. that said that administrative overhead was 31% of healthcare spending in 1999. That appears to be a conservative estimate, so I could believe 35% today. But that is overall administrative overhead, which is different than insurance overhead. The insurance overhead is what's left out of premiums after all care is payed for. The 31% figure includes the people in the doctor's office (my doctor has a full time person just to handle insurance) and hospitals that deal with insurance, but it also includes other administrative people as well so I'm going to stop using that number; I now think it is too high. As a rough comparison, the total administrative cost in Canada in 1999 was 16.7% Canada has a single payer model, so using 1999 number it looks like overall we could save 14.3% by going to a single payer model. Possibly more today since our administrative costs have been rising faster than Canada's, so it's probably gone up more in the past 8 years. Some for-profit insurance plans have overhead as high as 20%, but the average in America is lower.



    It can be argued that costs need to be reduced, but they have to be done intelligently. Hereís an article by the NY Times about the costs of health care. Iím not a big fan of the Times and expected it to validate the position that the government should be the health care provider:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/op...ewanted=1&_r=2

    I'm not a fan of the Times either (All the lies that fit, we print) but the article wasn't pimping for single payer. It was pretty much status quo, saying there are no easy fixes.



    Some of the costs go into research and if we reduced costs and research, the cure would be worse than the disease. The federal gov just doesnít have a good track record for reducing costs, and an even worse one for reducing costs without screwing everything up.

    Well, the medicare overhead of less than 4% sounds like it's for real. Medicare's problem is that it is funded by working people, but drained by an increasing pool of retired people. A universal single payer plan would have a healthier pool of users. Again, most of the good research comes out of academia, not drug companies.



    I think the private insurance industry basically works well enough that I donít think the feds will do any better. Iím not sure how we should fix the situation. Maybe the auto insurance model would work. The auto insurers (maybe this is only in ĎNo Faultí states) are forced to take a number of high risk drivers. I wouldnít mind my premiums go up a small amount if thatís what it takes. Alternatively, the states could subsidize for those below a certain income. I havenít thought this one out enough to know what the pitfalls would be

    I think you raise a good point with the auto model. We don't use car insurance to pay for scheduled maintenance or little things; we only use it for catastrophic expenses. If we used that model for medical care, our insurance would cost a lot less. I wouldn't mind paying for regular care if I could get the "insurance rate". The uninsured get absolutely screwed on that- They pay up to five times as much as the insurance company pays for the same service! On the other hand, the car insurers charge you more if you are a higher risk driver, but a universal health plan would have a hard time doing that. Private insurers do it now and people get very upset about it. If you have a pre-existing condition, you are screwed. I have to admit that doesn't seem quite right, but I wouldn't have a problem with at least modestly higher premiums for smokers or fat people. (I'm sure I just pissed some people off... sorry about that. Sometimes life is fair.)
  30. DBinMD's Avatar
    Stats
    5'5"  174 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Age
    59
    Posts
    372
    Rep Power
    278

    Reputation

    Mo:

    Re: the Times. It was pretty much status quo, saying there are no easy fixes.
    Yes, but a big part of the issue is costs. Making it more affordable would help a lot.

    Re: auto model
    Yeah, itís not a perfect fit. Instead of premiums based on risk it would be based more on income. Iím not sure how, as long as the feds arenít involved. Also, there is a legitimate reason for restricting, to some extent, pre-existing illnesses. Low risk people can go cheap until they become high risk.

    Re: Higher premiums for smokers or fat people.

    The problem I have with that, especially if the feds are involved, is they may say, for instance, weight lifting is dangerous (well it has been for me) we should all do Pilates or something stupid like that.

    Brooklyn,
    Re: Any of these candidates are going to lead to increased socialism/fascism, more taxes and less freedom.

    You may be right. The unfortunate reality is that these people arenít forced on us, they are freely elected, so the problem is probably rooted in our culture. Itís funny, we havenít been happy with anyone since Eisenhower or JFK and it was one of these (I canít remember which, but I think Eisenhower) that was the last one elected by the party and not the people.

    I guess I fear fascism less, theyíve killed fewer people. Now, having said that, Iíll duck for cover.
  31. CNorris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,184
    Rep Power
    0

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Chad View Post
    there is NO point in being there!!!! and dont call me a left wing bleeding heart either!
    i was there and the sh!t wont EVER be fixed!
    almost 4000 dead because we were told there were WMD in iraq! WRONG! nothing! friends of mine are dead because Bush wanted to start a war to show off to daddy!

    the world will always hate us because they cant be like us.
    this war has cost us not only in American blood but also ablout $1 TRILLION. and what do we have to show for it?

    im not trying to start sh!t with you and im not trying to disrespect you at all but there is NO reason to stay in Iraq.

    FYI- i think we should just nuke the whole middle east.
    Yes us proving that we wont just crumble like cowards and permanently cementing an image of our country as weak and non-committal and a saber rattler that doesn't back it up for centuries to come in the middle east isn't a reason to win this war? If we lose now, no middle eastern person will ever respect our commitment to a terrorist free middle east again. It will haunt our nation until the day we fall apart.

    And yes Bush started the war for no reason and lied. Oh wait he just thought the same everyone else did.

    "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
    - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

    "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
    - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source

    "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
    - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

    "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
    - President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

    "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
    - Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

    "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
    - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source

    "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
    Letter to President Clinton.
    - (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

    "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
    - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source

    "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
    - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source

    "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
    - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source

    "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
    - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

    "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
    - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

    "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
    - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source

    "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
    - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source

    "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
    - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

    "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
    - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

    "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
    - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source

    And I have ton more statements just like them. Give up, you lose with the Bush lied lie.
  32. CryingEmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    3,080
    Rep Power
    1635

    Reputation

    There were quite a few whislte blowers that I recall saying the opposite, like Scott Ritter, Chief weapons inspector for UNSCOM, responsible for disarming Iraq after the first Gulf War.
  33. Bum Mahoney's Avatar
    Stats
    5'8"  194 lbs.
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Age
    45
    Posts
    234
    Rep Power
    198

    Reputation

    Another example of the 'enlightened' liberal view that they just know what is best for everyone else. In this case, while the members of the party may vote one way, the top brass have a back up plan where they can just over ride them.
    Four legs bad......
  34. dave12's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Age
    33
    Posts
    343
    Rep Power
    254

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by dsade View Post
    I think this is the only thing that could be implemented with little chaos, be somewhat effective, but also be easy enough to scrap should we figure out a better ultimate alternative.
    i know this thread is 2 weeks old but they are doing this in tennessee and mass. and its bankrupting both states alarmingly swiftly fyi
  35. oldscool63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    31
    Rep Power
    95

    Reputation

    I thought it was the PEOPLE who decided who won elections. Guess I was wrong....
  36. dave12's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Age
    33
    Posts
    343
    Rep Power
    254

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by oldscool63 View Post
    I thought it was the PEOPLE who decided who won elections. Guess I was wrong....
    You are wrong but only a lil bit. When this country was made it was made as a representative constitutional republic intentionally to dissuade the tyranny of the majority (T. Jefferson words). The Dems put their current system in place to prevent another nitwit getting the nod in nominations. Jimmy Carter to be specific. All that aside the democrat party is a private institution not a governmental body. I spose what im saying is that while it seems sort of unusual the dem party system is well based in republic style governance and something like 85 percent of those super delegates are in fact elected officials. (Either current or former office holders) If i were a Dem I would be more worried about the proportional distribution system, that seems to be the larger failing.
  

  
 

Similar Forum Threads

  1. "The situation" endorsing Nox Edge
    By Flaw in forum General Chat
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 10-24-2010, 09:04 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-12-2010, 10:36 PM
  3. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 07-25-2009, 11:25 PM
  4. can we have an "Ask the guys" or an "Ask the ladies" section
    By ABNRanger in forum Forum Suggestions and News
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-01-2008, 10:46 PM
  5. Replies: 144
    Last Post: 01-01-2008, 01:11 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Log in
Log in