Hillary is done

[woot]

Originally Posted by Tex

Not that I really care what Cali thinks, but for those of you following along at home, this is a lie.



I don't think Obama is stupid, but his speeches are full of fluff.

"Yeah, Tex, but what politician's aren't?" None, but Obama's managed to get further with less, than most. And I think he is horribly undersized for the job. He is as unseasoned a national politician as we've seen in some time.

Go watch that Texas state senator Obama supporter interview with Chris Matthew. That says more about the Obama messiah cult than any CG post ever could.

Then you should go watch the video going around of a teenaged black kid at an Obama rally being ambushed by a camera man determined to embarrass him. He was much more informed than the guy Matthews interviewed. I don't see how you can claim to be intelligent and then in the same thread use the ignorance of a supporter as evidence against the candidate. That's just stupid.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Not that I really care what Cali thinks, but for those of you following along at home, this is a lie.

No it isn't.

I don't think Obama is stupid, but his speeches are full of fluff.

"Yeah, Tex, but what politician's aren't?" None, but Obama's managed to get further with less, than most. And I think he is horribly undersized for the job. He is as unseasoned a national politician as we've seen in some time.

Go watch that Texas state senator Obama supporter interview with Chris Matthew. That says more about the Obama messiah cult than any CG post ever could.

Ah, so clearly it is Obama's fault that some of the people who find him alluring are also stupid. Come on, Tex. Even you should know better than to attack a person for the qualities held by someone who likes that person. If not, everyone would point to you as a reason to vote Democratic.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Well, perhaps I'm wrong, but isn't socialism where the state controls and distributes wealth?

That sounds a lot like what both Obama and Mrs. Clinton are promising.

No, that isn't socialism. Socialism is where the government owns the means of production (think nationalization of industries) and then operates as the central planner. There is nothing socialist in Obama's agenda. It may be more liberal than you are comfortable with, but throwing around the word "socialism" is about as accurate as me saying McCain favors anarchy. It's cute, but not very helpful.

[woot]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Well, let's look at this way, the health care industry in the US is a trillion dollar per year industry. To place one third of our economy under the socialist controls is pretty damn controlling. In economic terms, that's a catastrophic change with cataclysmic results.

If you don't actually look at economic impact, you'd be correct, but looking at the actual fallout and you'd be dead wrong.

Well I don't really feel like rehashing this old topic, but I recognize that universal healthcare is a really big deal, and I have a big list of issues that I would want dealt with before adopting a universal system, none of which I am confident will be handled properly by any politician. While our legislative system is good in many ways, passing the sort of sweeping legislation that would be required for this change (immigration reform, for instance) would never happen all at once, so if it does happen it will come piece-meal and then be thrown together however it can be. Our current healthcare system is absolutely horrible (I'm really bitter about it, too, if you can't tell), but I'm not exactly excited for the change-over either.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by woot

Well I don't really feel like rehashing this old topic, but I recognize that universal healthcare is a really big deal, and I have a big list of issues that I would want dealt with before adopting a universal system, none of which I am confident will be handled properly by any politician. While our legislative system is good in many ways, passing the sort of sweeping legislation that would be required for this change (immigration reform, for instance) would never happen all at once, so if it does happen it will come piece-meal and then be thrown together however it can be. Our current healthcare system is absolutely horrible (I'm really bitter about it, too, if you can't tell), but I'm not exactly excited for the change-over either.

I beg to differ. It needs changes, piecemeal changes, but overall it delivers a high quality service and product. There are gaps, but there are gaps in every system.

We're just more aware of our gaps than in other systems. The gaps are for the under or uninsured. Some uninsured are purposeful.

And we have a wellness shortage in terms of health care or sickness prevention.

We don't need to rid ourselves of our hospitals.

We need insurance reform to start with.

[Venkman]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

No, that isn't socialism. Socialism is where the government owns the means of production (think nationalization of industries) and then operates as the central planner. There is nothing socialist in Obama's agenda. It may be more liberal than you are comfortable with, but throwing around the word "socialism" is about as accurate as me saying McCain favors anarchy. It's cute, but not very helpful.

Wrong. That's a very narrow definition. Socialism generally is the redistribution of wealth - "from each according to his means to each according to his needs".

[woot]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I beg to differ. It needs changes, piecemeal changes, but overall it delivers a high quality service and product. There are gaps, but there are gaps in every system.

We're just more aware of our gaps than in other systems. The gaps are for the under or uninsured. Some uninsured are purposeful.

And we have a wellness shortage in terms of health care or sickness prevention.

We don't need to rid ourselves of our hospitals.

We need insurance reform to start with.

You've had better luck than me, then. It doesn't matter how effective our care is when the insurance companies spend all their much time trying to prevent people from ever receiving any. Obviously, the insurance industry is where the changes need to happen. While I care about poor people, that's not my motivation for wanting healthcare reform. The insurance industry is absolutely corrupt and needs to nuked from orbit.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Venkman

Wrong. That's a very narrow definition. Socialism generally is the redistribution of wealth - "from each according to his means to each according to his needs".

Don't argue with me. Take it up with the dictionary.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism

Conservatives have called liberals "socialists" for so long, they don't even remember what the word means.

[Venkman]

Originally Posted by woot

And what every American politician is promising. Fixing a label on someone is meaningless unless the label can't also be applied to everyone else. If you mean that Clinton and Obama are slightly more socialist than McCain or Huckabee, you're right, but they're all socialists by your definition.

I think you're right in the sense that they all support socialism - Republicans generally at lower levels than democrats. I guess the difference is in the motivation. Many democrat politicians are true believers while republican politicians, though against socialism in principle, support these programs because they're popular and they want to get re-elected. Cold comfort to someone like me, but that's the reality I have to deal with.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by woot

You've had better luck than me, then. It doesn't matter how effective our care is when the insurance companies spend all their much time trying to prevent people from ever receiving any. Obviously, the insurance industry is where the changes need to happen. While I care about poor people, that's not my motivation for wanting healthcare reform. The insurance industry is absolutely corrupt and needs to nuked from orbit.

I agree that insurance reform is needed, and Indy has proposed some changes. Claims adjusters are often motivated to make bad choices, and ERISA protects the TPAs in a bad way. You'll get no disagreement with me there, and we have several cases where we're trying to make policy changes to that.

Right now, many self-insured delegate claims to TPAs who improperly deny care to increase profitability and there's not much you can do. I will be the first one to admit that claims adjustment needs significant reform measures.

But we don't need to jettison our current system for a universal system to solve this problem. Hillary and Obama are plain wrong about that.