FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


What can you say about Obama being the next president?





jdelfire
As of now Obama has the upper hand and i dont think hillary will ever make it, most of us does right?I think she just wants to withdraw to save money some money rather than spending for the campaign. The question now what will happen once obama gets nominated[/u]
SonLight
Yes, Hillary is out, and I don't think there is any chance she will be offered the VP spot. The bid for president is now a fairly even match between Obama and McCain. I don't see either of them winning by some impressive demonstration of ability, so I'd say the election will likely be lost by whoever blunders the most.

The Democratic primary season has established the fact that a woman and a black man can both be viable candidates for president. I look forward to seeing more highly-qualified candidates run in the future because we have lowered the racial/gender barriers a lot.
thadnation
let's not be so quick to rule out mccain. he has a strong history and many of the 40+ generation will likely vote for him.
pampoon
I don't know if it's so even matched. McCain has been going at Obama ever since it had been decided that Hillary could not win. He's been attacking the key discussion points and Obama has not done so well with responding to them.

Also, I think McCain has the upper hand in that Obama is a black man living in a still-majority white-controlled society. Sure, the racism has gone down over the pass few years, but there are still quite a few people in the country who simply refuse to vote for a black man.

I'm not racist. Or I don't think I am, anyways. However, McCain does have my vote over Obama. I just think that McCain is the much better candidate. Plus, I was always raised Republican. So I agree with his views.

That's just my 2 cents...

God bless Wink ,
Pampoon
danhayes
As someone outside of the US all I seem to be hearing about is Obama and to be honest his more socialist views reflect my own. I lost all respect for Hillary Clinton after watching Michael Moore's film 'Sicko' after I discovered that she had taken bribes from drug companies.
deanhills
Looks as though Obama is a strong candidate, young, brand-new, self-made, dynamic, brilliant, intelligent, different, nice fresh breeze, energetic, hard-working, enthusiastic, young family, beautiful and equally highly educated wife. Problem is that the election could become more about whether people are ready for a black president than whether Obama's qualifications and experience are right for the position. A number of rightest polical groups may cast protest votes by voting for McCain. So there is a good chance McCain may win through default.

Am also worried about the safety of Obama. Hope he has some very good security throughout the elections.
SonLight
pampoon and deanhills,

As you can see, there are many passionate people on both sides of this issue. Although two is a very small sample, you do back my position that the election might go either way.

Which ever way the vote goes in this election, I think ethnicity will play a much larger role than it should. Whatever happens in this election, I hope that in the future candidates will be judged more by their qualifications and positions. The 2008 election may convince people that gender and ethnicity should have a much smaller impact on future results.

danhayes, I am glad the world is watching us on this one. I expect the US will be looked on in a more favorable light as a result of Obama's candidacy, especially if the election results clearly show that issues were more important than personalities.
deanhills
SonLight wrote:
I expect the US will be looked on in a more favorable light as a result of Obama's candidacy, especially if the election results clearly show that issues were more important than personalities.


Agreed it would be nice if the election results will show that the issues are more important but I remember when Bush was first elected and in the end it had more to do with correct counting of votes than issues. I still cannot believe that he came in on that basis. I was so despondent after that. I am still waiting for a movie to come out about that election AND especially the counting of the votes at the end Smile
liljp617
SonLight wrote:
I expect the US will be looked on in a more favorable light as a result of Obama's candidacy, especially if the election results clearly show that issues were more important than personalities.

Are you saying people voting for Obama are voting more on issues rather than personality? Because even as an Obama supporter, I fully support the idea that many people are voting for him for any reason besides his stance on issues.
Cddhesh
As Hillary has taken quit from elections,Obama is now seems to be strongest candidate.Further i heard hat Hillary is supporting Obama,sso we can expect additional votes.
Moonspider
deanhills wrote:
Am also worried about the safety of Obama. Hope he has some very good security throughout the elections.


As the presumptive presidential candidate of the Democratic party, Obama has been under Secret Service protection since May.

Respectfully,
M
brokenadvice
I don't know about Obama. He (and mostly his website) look like they just stepped out of Hollywood. He just looks fake, like someone else is controlling his campaign and it is just all a big show.
ocalhoun
^Thats the way most campaigns are these days. If we're very lucky, the issues they are running with are the ones that they actually support, and not just media hype.
johnny_metronome
Obama needs to nominate Hillary. It's the safe way to win the election. She's got 18 million votes, but some of them (esp the women) are pissed and ready to jump ship unless he takes her on as VP. If he can't swallow his pride, he's going to go into the general election with only his own 18 million, when he could have gone with 36 million votes. it's simple math.
liljp617
johnny_metronome wrote:
Obama needs to nominate Hillary. It's the safe way to win the election. She's got 18 million votes, but some of them (esp the women) are pissed and ready to jump ship unless he takes her on as VP. If he can't swallow his pride, he's going to go into the general election with only his own 18 million, when he could have gone with 36 million votes. it's simple math.

Clinton comes with negatives as well. Taking her as his VP isn't going to automatically give him victory.

Not to mention that everyone who voted for Clinton isn't going to completely deny Obama and not vote for him if he doesn't take Clinton as his running mate. Most Democrats are going to vote for Obama regardless.
Stubru Freak
I don't live in the US, but I really hope Obama will win. I don't get why any educated person would want to vote Republican. Please don't see this as an insult, it's just that Republicans never seem to do anything good to the US. Their opposition to basic human rights such as abortion and gay marriage is just sickening. The Democrats are only a little better, but I hope Obama will make a difference. As he is black, he knows how it is to be part of a minority, so hopefully he will fight for minority rights.

And ocalhoun, I don't see why you say the Democratic Party is socialist? Actually, they're between the center and the right on the political spectrum (conservative liberals). The Republicans are far right (ultra-conservative). Socialists have a totally different opinion. If socialists had any power in the US, there would at least be (real) social security, more trade unions, creationism wouldn't be taught anywhere, abortion, gay marriage, ... I could continue for a while.

In my opinion, the best thing that could happen to America is a reformation to make the elections more fair, so there is potential for more than two parties. A good start would be one man, one vote, instead of the current system of winner-takes-all districts and states. This would finally get the US out of the current two-party system, where both parties have almost exactly the same political views. It would make politics in America more than the current popularity contest.
Moonspider
Stubru Freak wrote:
A good start would be one man, one vote, instead of the current system of winner-takes-all districts and states. This would finally get the US out of the current two-party system, where both parties have almost exactly the same political views. It would make politics in America more than the current popularity contest.


Firstly, no one will ever get rid of the electoral college system in the United States. That would severely penalize states with small populations. This is a nation made up of individual states who have more rights than traditional national sub-divisions. Given, the right to secede and the notion of the United States being a plurality of soveriegn states was arbitrated by the sword 140 years ago, but the fact remains that each state should have a say in presidential elections, not just individual U.S. citizens. Doing away with the electoral college is about as likely as doing away with the United States Senate, which exists for similar reasons.

Perhaps from the outside looking in the two parties seem very similar, but from where I am they are dramatically different.

Respectfully,
M
Stubru Freak
Moonspider wrote:
Stubru Freak wrote:
A good start would be one man, one vote, instead of the current system of winner-takes-all districts and states. This would finally get the US out of the current two-party system, where both parties have almost exactly the same political views. It would make politics in America more than the current popularity contest.


Firstly, no one will ever get rid of the electoral college system in the United States. That would severely penalize states with small populations. This is a nation made up of individual states who have more rights than traditional national sub-divisions. Given, the right to secede and the notion of the United States being a plurality of soveriegn states was arbitrated by the sword 140 years ago, but the fact remains that each state should have a say in presidential elections, not just individual U.S. citizens. Doing away with the electoral college is about as likely as doing away with the United States Senate, which exists for similar reasons.

Perhaps from the outside looking in the two parties seem very similar, but from where I am they are dramatically different.

Respectfully,
M


Yes, sorry, I forgot about the states a little. But I think my comment is still valid.
In Belgium we live in a slightly similar situation, two almost independent nations living in one country. In some ways they are even more independent than the American states. The language difference has resulted in two different cultures (with different radio and television stations, completely different education system, even different speed limits). We also have a very complex agreement involving a Senate which is 50/50, and a House of Representatives which is one man, one vote, and a separate government for every language community (3) and every region (also 3).
So I think in the US, the system could be changed so other parties have a chance. I'm not as accustomed to US politics as you are, but I'm sure an agreement could somehow be reached.
The biggest problem of course is that both current parties would lose voters in such a system, so there is absolutely no incentive to change it.

And I don't think there is actually a lot of choice in the US. The basic choice is conservative against liberal, which of course is different, but socialists (social-democrats) for example are out of luck. Also, when you vote you have to pick one of the two parties. If you want something in between, that's not possible. For example, in Belgium when you vote progressive, you can choose between liberalism, social democracy, communism, and social liberalism. That way, in theory, you can vote exactly what you want.
liljp617
Stubru Freak wrote:
This would finally get the US out of the current two-party system, where both parties have almost exactly the same political views.

How exactly are they the same? The two major parties are in separate poles on dozens of issues...just about every issue. And even the issues they do share similarities on, the goals, methods, and policies to fix those issues are generally drastically different.
gr8inferno
He's too young to be a President, wait a couple more years Obama!
Stubru Freak
liljp617 wrote:
Stubru Freak wrote:
This would finally get the US out of the current two-party system, where both parties have almost exactly the same political views.

How exactly are they the same? The two major parties are in separate poles on dozens of issues...just about every issue. And even the issues they do share similarities on, the goals, methods, and policies to fix those issues are generally drastically different.


There are differences, sure, but they agree on a whole lot of things, a lot more than they disagree on. Some examples include:
- Neither of the parties has any real leftist/socialist ideas at all. That's a whole part of the political spectrum that they agree on. Some members maybe do have those ideas, but the party doesn't support them.
- Both of the parties are Christian. You can't vote for a truly secular state, where the president doesn't openly show his Christian beliefs.
- Both agree on the right to carry a gun. Democrats are a little more progressive in this area, but still by far not as progressive as some other countries.
- You can't choose for the extreme choices, like communism or fascism. That could be seen as a good thing, but it supports my view that you don't have a lot of choice.

They agree on a whole lot of things. But exactly because they agree on them, you don't hear about them in the news, so you don't know those things can be disagreed on.
farsheed
Hope McCain can be the president, else country will go to a dark side.
liljp617
farsheed wrote:
Hope McCain can be the president, else country will go to a dark side.

lol

As if we're not already there...and McCain wants to make no major changes or move the track we're currently on. Think again.
Moonspider
Stubru Freak wrote:
And I don't think there is actually a lot of choice in the US. The basic choice is conservative against liberal, which of course is different, but socialists (social-democrats) for example are out of luck. Also, when you vote you have to pick one of the two parties. If you want something in between, that's not possible. For example, in Belgium when you vote progressive, you can choose between liberalism, social democracy, communism, and social liberalism. That way, in theory, you can vote exactly what you want.


True, it is the basic choice. However Democrat or Republican is far from the only choice. Let's take a look at the 2004 presidential ballot.


  1. George Bush & Richard Cheney - Reublican
  2. John Kerry & John Edwards - Democrat
  3. David Cobb & Pat LaMarche - Green
  4. Michael Badnarik & Richard Campagna - Libertarian
  5. Ralph Nader & Peter Camejo - Independent
  6. Michael Peroutka & Chuck Baldwin - Constitution


These are the candidates that could have won a majority of the electoral college. 17 candidates, including the above, appeared on the ballots of at least two states. Their parties include (among others) the Socialist, Socialist Equality, Socialist Workers, Workers World, & Peace and Freedom parties, all socialst or communist parties. So there's no shortage of choice in US presidential elections, just an extremely unlikely chance of anyone other than a Democrat or Republican winning the White House in the current politial and media climate.

If the United States lasts another few centuries, I'm sure that will change as it has in the past.

References:
Wikipedia - "List of candidates in the United States Presidential Election, 2004"
"Presidency 2004"

Respectfully,
M
Stubru Freak
Moonspider wrote:
Stubru Freak wrote:
And I don't think there is actually a lot of choice in the US. The basic choice is conservative against liberal, which of course is different, but socialists (social-democrats) for example are out of luck. Also, when you vote you have to pick one of the two parties. If you want something in between, that's not possible. For example, in Belgium when you vote progressive, you can choose between liberalism, social democracy, communism, and social liberalism. That way, in theory, you can vote exactly what you want.


True, it is the basic choice. However Democrat or Republican is far from the only choice. Let's take a look at the 2004 presidential ballot.


  1. George Bush & Richard Cheney - Reublican
  2. John Kerry & John Edwards - Democrat
  3. David Cobb & Pat LaMarche - Green
  4. Michael Badnarik & Richard Campagna - Libertarian
  5. Ralph Nader & Peter Camejo - Independent
  6. Michael Peroutka & Chuck Baldwin - Constitution


These are the candidates that could have won a majority of the electoral college. 17 candidates, including the above, appeared on the ballots of at least two states. Their parties include (among others) the Socialist, Socialist Equality, Socialist Workers, Workers World, & Peace and Freedom parties, all socialst or communist parties. So there's no shortage of choice in US presidential elections, just an extremely unlikely chance of anyone other than a Democrat or Republican winning the White House in the current politial and media climate.

If the United States lasts another few centuries, I'm sure that will change as it has in the past.

References:
Wikipedia - "List of candidates in the United States Presidential Election, 2004"
"Presidency 2004"

Respectfully,
M


The last president from a minor party left office in 1853. Other parties have almost no significance in American politics. The main reason for that isn't the political and media climate, but the voting system, which significantly disfavours small parties. People don't vote for minor parties, because they know it's a lost vote.
To demonstrate why the American system limits choice, let's take an example.
There are 5 parties, getting 30, 25, 20, 15 and 10 percent of the votes. When there are elections, the party that expects 30% of the votes knows that it will win in let's say 60% of the districts, and get an absolute majority. But two or three other parties decide to form a coalition, so they will also win in some districts. The first party also forms a coalition with another one. So in the end, instead of 5 choices, you have 2. The one who expected most votes will win this election, but after a while people will get angry at the current government, and vote for the other coalition. And then you're stuck with two parties with roughly the same amount of votes, and very similar views.

I really think a reformation of the system would be good for America. For example the House of Representatives could be reformed to be more fair. Those other parties could start getting some representatives (the Libertarian Party for example could get 3 or 4 with their amount of voters). People would see the point of voting for them, they could get more representatives, and in the end, the choice could be greatly increased.
The Senate could remain as it is. When there are more parties, it will get more balanced.
ocalhoun
Stubru Freak wrote:

And ocalhoun, I don't see why you say the Democratic Party is socialist?

(With one of Clinton's big issues being the creation of socialized medicine, you really don't?)

Perhaps you missed the point of the sig that you are referring to. I call the democratic party socialism and the republican party 'socialism lite'. The only question is "Who do you want to give your tax money away to?"

Which is a way of saying:
Stubru Freak wrote:
both parties have almost exactly the same political views.
Stubru Freak
ocalhoun wrote:
Stubru Freak wrote:

And ocalhoun, I don't see why you say the Democratic Party is socialist?

(With one of Clinton's big issues being the creation of socialized medicine, you really don't?)


A proper social security system, where everyone has access to healthcare, not only the wealthy, isn't socialism. It's a basic human right. It's immoral to let people suffer unnecessarily because they aren't as rich as you.
If you're Christian, even the Bible says so, even though socialists are normally anti-religious (Karl Marx for example said: "[Religion] is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness.").
Another consequence is that, if the Democrats were really socialist, they wouldn't openly promote religion. I'm not saying all socialists share Marx' view that religion should be abolished, but most socialists tend to at least stay religion-neutral.
You could find a lot of other things where the Democrats differ from socialists. I must admit that they are shifting more to the left, but their views are still not socialist.
And note that when I say socialist, I mean social democrat. I could interpret it as communist, but than your signature is even more wrong.

Quote:
Perhaps you missed the point of the sig that you are referring to. I call the democratic party socialism and the republican party 'socialism lite'. The only question is "Who do you want to give your tax money away to?"


I would give my tax money to the Democrats, if I really had to.
I don't see how Republicans can qualify as "socialism lite". Democrats could maybe qualify as that (really lite, though), but Republicans are way too far to the right.

Quote:
Which is a way of saying:
Stubru Freak wrote:
both parties have almost exactly the same political views.


They have, but those views aren't socialist. The Republicans are center-right to far right, the Democrats are center-left to right. So the difference inside the parties can be bigger than the difference between the two parties.
Bikerman
The idea that either of the US political parties is in any way socialist is frankly ridiculous.
A socialist system is one where the ownership of property and wealth production rests with the people as a whole (not specific people). This normally involves nationalisation of all (or at least key) industries. Neither the democrats nor the republicans have any such agenda.
There is no large-scale party in the US which advocates socialism in any way that would be recognisable. The nearest I can think of would be the 'new left' in the 1960s.
Both of the current parties are capitalist - the only real difference is in emphasis. The democrats favour more social provision (nothing to do with socialism - more a system of 'benign/liberal capitalism').
On healthcare, for example, a socialist agenda would be to take healthcare provision into public ownership and control (like the UK National Health system). Neither of the two US parties have any such agenda.

PS - I found Giuliano's outburst against the 'socialist' healthcare of the UK, France and Canada quite breathtakingly ignorant. Smile
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
The idea that either of the US political parties is in any way socialist is frankly ridiculous.
A socialist system is one where the ownership of property and wealth production rests with the people as a whole (not specific people). This normally involves nationalisation of all (or at least key) industries. Neither the democrats nor the republicans have any such agenda.
There is no large-scale party in the US which advocates socialism in any way that would be recognisable. The nearest I can think of would be the 'new left' in the 1960s.
Both of the current parties are capitalist - the only real difference is in emphasis. The democrats favour more social provision (nothing to do with socialism - more a system of 'benign/liberal capitalism').
On healthcare, for example, a socialist agenda would be to take healthcare provision into public ownership and control (like the UK National Health system). Neither of the two US parties have any such agenda.


That was well put. If you compare taxes per head in the US and Canada for example you probably have a good example of the country with the lesser amount of medical services, but that does not make the country with more services a socialist country. Just a country with more services, which by the way is paid for not only through taxes, but very annoyingly by way of rates as well. A choice will probably have to be made here. Do you want to pay more taxes or maintain the status quo, as one cannot have both. Presently medical specialists in the US who are good at their specialties can earn millions of dollars, the sky is the limit. But in Canada there are limits, as the medical schemes are mostly Provincial Government owned and are heavily regulated. Things are changing though. I wonder how willing the voters in the US would be to pay more taxes. Or for US doctors to have to contend with more regulations and rates/fees to pay. As that is the minimum that it would take to have equal access to medicare in the US.

It is also almost guaranteed that more regulation would bring down the high standard of medicare in the US. A choice would have to be made. If new regulations cap fees for tests, then possibly people would hesitate before they invest in more expensive equipment that can perform the test better. They would rather focus on a larger number of tests on the same equipment.
Stubru Freak
deanhills wrote:
That was well put. If you compare taxes per head in the US and Canada for example you probably have a good example of the country with the lesser amount of medical services, but that does not make the country with more services a socialist country. Just a country with more services, which by the way is paid for not only through taxes, but very annoyingly by way of rates as well. A choice will probably have to be made here. Do you want to pay more taxes or maintain the status quo, as one cannot have both. Presently medical specialists in the US who are good at their specialties can earn millions of dollars, the sky is the limit. But in Canada there are limits, as the medical schemes are mostly Provincial Government owned and are heavily regulated. Things are changing though. I wonder how willing the voters in the US would be to pay more taxes. Or for US doctors to have to contend with more regulations and rates/fees to pay. As that is the minimum that it would take to have equal access to medicare in the US.

It is also almost guaranteed that more regulation would bring down the high standard of medicare in the US. A choice would have to be made. If new regulations cap fees for tests, then possibly people would hesitate before they invest in more expensive equipment that can perform the test better. They would rather focus on a larger number of tests on the same equipment.


Yes, you would have to pay more taxes. But 80% of the population will be able to get back that tax money when they need healthcare. It's only the 20% richest people that will be a little less rich. Oh no, they might not be able to buy a third SUV.
Don't you find it a little disturbing that good doctors ask millions of dollars, and poor people get the bad ones? Doesn't seem like a good thing to me.

Who did almost guarantee you "that more regulation would bring down the high standard of medicare in the US." That man was a liar. I don't know why you think so, but the US does NOT have a high standard for medical care. Yes, it does when you compare it to Nigeria. It doesn't compared to any civilised country. Again, the 20% richest probably have good healthcare. But the other 80% have vastly inferior healthcare. But who cares about poor people?
Did you notice that, when there are fixed rates instead of a free market, price competition tends to reduce? Did you notice that most hospitals wouldn't have to lower their prices, and would have more money for good equipment. And not only for the lucky few, but for the whole population.
And don't worry, in most countries with a social healthcare system, private hospitals are still allowed. They're just not used by a lot of people, because even the rich found out their treatment isn't any better than that of a regular hospital. Why would it?
deanhills
Stubru Freak wrote:


Yes, you would have to pay more taxes. But 80% of the population will be able to get back that tax money when they need healthcare. It's only the 20% richest people that will be a little less rich. Oh no, they might not be able to buy a third SUV.
Don't you find it a little disturbing that good doctors ask millions of dollars, and poor people get the bad ones? Doesn't seem like a good thing to me.

Who did almost guarantee you "that more regulation would bring down the high standard of medicare in the US." That man was a liar. I don't know why you think so, but the US does NOT have a high standard for medical care. Yes, it does when you compare it to Nigeria. It doesn't compared to any civilised country. Again, the 20% richest probably have good healthcare. But the other 80% have vastly inferior healthcare. But who cares about poor people?
Did you notice that, when there are fixed rates instead of a free market, price competition tends to reduce? Did you notice that most hospitals wouldn't have to lower their prices, and would have more money for good equipment. And not only for the lucky few, but for the whole population.
And don't worry, in most countries with a social healthcare system, private hospitals are still allowed. They're just not used by a lot of people, because even the rich found out their treatment isn't any better than that of a regular hospital. Why would it?


I have to differ on your contra view about the high standard of medicare in the US. Belgium's standard may be higher in certain areas. For example a friend of mine in Canada had a hip replacement operation in Belgium as the procedure was unavailable in Canada and the best care was available in Belgium. But in Obstetrics & Gynaecology I do believe the US has made amazing advances to make the lives of women easier. In about every field you can imagine. Would like to have your input as to who you think would have a higher standard than the US in this field in the world? Another field would be plastic surgery. Not only for aesthetic purposes. Psychiatry. Naturopathy. I would welcome your views though in why you would think that the standard for medical care in the US is not that high.
Bikerman
One useful indicator is the infant mortality rate. By this measure the US is OK but not great. It scores worse, for example, than the EU as a whole and 42nd in the table of world countries (behind South Korea and Cuba).

There is no doubt that the US can offer a high standard of health care to those able to pay. The issue is how many are denied this standard of health care because they cannot pay - ie what is the average level of healthcare. Infant mortality statistics give one useful measure of this...
ocalhoun
Stubru Freak wrote:


Yes, you would have to pay more taxes. But 80% of the population will be able to get back that tax money when they need healthcare. It's only the 20% richest people that will be a little less rich. Oh no, they might not be able to buy a third SUV.
Don't you find it a little disturbing that good doctors ask millions of dollars, and poor people get the bad ones? Doesn't seem like a good thing to me.

Not very nice if you actually are one of the rich. If you want a communist country, there are still several to choose from.
Fact: there are not enough 'good' doctors for everybody to have one. How should they be distributed? Supposedly those who work harder to make their way in life will have more money and better insurance. Shouldn't those who work hard and contribute to the society be able to get the best care? How else could they be distributed that would be any better?
liljp617
ocalhoun wrote:
Stubru Freak wrote:


Yes, you would have to pay more taxes. But 80% of the population will be able to get back that tax money when they need healthcare. It's only the 20% richest people that will be a little less rich. Oh no, they might not be able to buy a third SUV.
Don't you find it a little disturbing that good doctors ask millions of dollars, and poor people get the bad ones? Doesn't seem like a good thing to me.

Not very nice if you actually are one of the rich. If you want a communist country, there are still several to choose from.
Fact: there are not enough 'good' doctors for everybody to have one. How should they be distributed? Supposedly those who work harder to make their way in life will have more money and better insurance. Shouldn't those who work hard and contribute to the society be able to get the best care? How else could they be distributed that would be any better?

May I ask you what we should do then? And what does universal health care have to do with communism?
ocalhoun
liljp617 wrote:

May I ask you what we should do then? And what does universal health care have to do with communism?

Reform the current system, and do something about insurance, which is the reason doctors can charge so high and still have business, but which leaves those who don't get insurance through work in a difficult situation. Why should your work give you health insurance anyway? If everyone had to pay real prices for it, prices would have to go down or they would go out of business. Also, lawsuits should be kept to more reasonable levels, which will help. No more malpractice lottery.
The whole take from the rich and give to the poor concept. Taken far enough that starts to look very much like communism.
liljp617
ocalhoun wrote:
liljp617 wrote:

May I ask you what we should do then? And what does universal health care have to do with communism?

Reform the current system, and do something about insurance, which is the reason doctors can charge so high and still have business, but which leaves those who don't get insurance through work in a difficult situation. Why should your work give you health insurance anyway? If everyone had to pay real prices for it, prices would have to go down or they would go out of business. Also, lawsuits should be kept to more reasonable levels, which will help. No more malpractice lottery.
The whole take from the rich and give to the poor concept. Taken far enough that starts to look very much like communism.

I know this is just a forum so it doesn't make much difference, but you basically stated what was wrong with the system and said reform it, fix it, or do something about it. We all know what's wrong with it and that something needs to be done Wink The problem lies in the "how" and "what EXACTLY do we do to turn these specific flaws around."
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
liljp617 wrote:

May I ask you what we should do then? And what does universal health care have to do with communism?

Reform the current system, and do something about insurance, which is the reason doctors can charge so high and still have business, but which leaves those who don't get insurance through work in a difficult situation. Why should your work give you health insurance anyway? If everyone had to pay real prices for it, prices would have to go down or they would go out of business. Also, lawsuits should be kept to more reasonable levels, which will help. No more malpractice lottery.
The whole take from the rich and give to the poor concept. Taken far enough that starts to look very much like communism.

I know this is just a forum so it doesn't make much difference, but you basically stated what was wrong with the system and said reform it, fix it, or do something about it. We all know what's wrong with it and that something needs to be done Wink The problem lies in the "how" and "what EXACTLY do we do to turn these specific flaws around."


It is a problem and I wonder how anybody can come up with a "how". Medical Care in the United States if of the most expensive in the world. In my opinion it is of the best too. If you can get it. To get medicare to everyone the prices will have to be lowered first. So how does one do that? Part of the reason why the service is so good, is that medical professionals earn lots of money. It is capitalist driven and very competitive. So start meddling with that, probably there will have to be a revolution of a kind first, but then who wants Government interference? As what can well happen is that the solutions will have to come with Government regulations, creating bureaucracies that will have to be financially supported and once they are in place, they will grow in size as the Government has. Medicines are going to become generic versions, all kinds of corners are going to be cut. In the end more people will be able to get medicare, but possibly still not every one. Quality of medicare will also not be equal to all.
Stubru Freak
ocalhoun wrote:
Stubru Freak wrote:


Yes, you would have to pay more taxes. But 80% of the population will be able to get back that tax money when they need healthcare. It's only the 20% richest people that will be a little less rich. Oh no, they might not be able to buy a third SUV.
Don't you find it a little disturbing that good doctors ask millions of dollars, and poor people get the bad ones? Doesn't seem like a good thing to me.

Not very nice if you actually are one of the rich. If you want a communist country, there are still several to choose from.
Fact: there are not enough 'good' doctors for everybody to have one. How should they be distributed? Supposedly those who work harder to make their way in life will have more money and better insurance. Shouldn't those who work hard and contribute to the society be able to get the best care? How else could they be distributed that would be any better?


You really think I should have compassion with the rich, because they might become a little less rich? Be honest, they can afford paying a little more taxes. And no, there isn't a good communist country, because they are internationally boycotted until everyone is equally poor instead of equally rich.

There actually are enough doctors. The original point was that good doctors can earn millions of dollars. That way, they almost don't have to work, so that causes a shortage. If they asked reasonable prices, poor people could also benefit, and the rich wouldn't lose anything.
There isn't anything to distribute, so your second point doesn't apply.

ocalhoun wrote:

Reform the current system, and do something about insurance, which is the reason doctors can charge so high and still have business, but which leaves those who don't get insurance through work in a difficult situation. Why should your work give you health insurance anyway? If everyone had to pay real prices for it, prices would have to go down or they would go out of business. Also, lawsuits should be kept to more reasonable levels, which will help. No more malpractice lottery.
The whole take from the rich and give to the poor concept. Taken far enough that starts to look very much like communism.


It's a very bad idea to abolish insurance. Actually, everyone should be entitled to free health insurance. It's just not fair that you get money troubles when you're ill. The disease is bad enough by itself.
Free health insurance will also lower prices. When doctors know exactly how much people get from their insurance, they will ask the same price, or a slightly higher one. Even rich people prefer paying less. For a practical example, look at Belgium.
And this would stop the ridiculous practice of not treating people without insurance. No more killing people because they're poor.

When taken far enough, the whole "everyone is different" concept starts to look like fascism. But it isn't. Everything is bad when taken too far.
liljp617
deanhills wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
liljp617 wrote:

May I ask you what we should do then? And what does universal health care have to do with communism?

Reform the current system, and do something about insurance, which is the reason doctors can charge so high and still have business, but which leaves those who don't get insurance through work in a difficult situation. Why should your work give you health insurance anyway? If everyone had to pay real prices for it, prices would have to go down or they would go out of business. Also, lawsuits should be kept to more reasonable levels, which will help. No more malpractice lottery.
The whole take from the rich and give to the poor concept. Taken far enough that starts to look very much like communism.

I know this is just a forum so it doesn't make much difference, but you basically stated what was wrong with the system and said reform it, fix it, or do something about it. We all know what's wrong with it and that something needs to be done Wink The problem lies in the "how" and "what EXACTLY do we do to turn these specific flaws around."


It is a problem and I wonder how anybody can come up with a "how". Medical Care in the United States if of the most expensive in the world. In my opinion it is of the best too. If you can get it. To get medicare to everyone the prices will have to be lowered first. So how does one do that? Part of the reason why the service is so good, is that medical professionals earn lots of money. It is capitalist driven and very competitive. So start meddling with that, probably there will have to be a revolution of a kind first, but then who wants Government interference? As what can well happen is that the solutions will have to come with Government regulations, creating bureaucracies that will have to be financially supported and once they are in place, they will grow in size as the Government has. Medicines are going to become generic versions, all kinds of corners are going to be cut. In the end more people will be able to get medicare, but possibly still not every one. Quality of medicare will also not be equal to all.

I know it's redundant, but again, I have to ask how do we fix it? Everyone goes around pointing out the flaws with universal health care but they never offer a better solution.

A) The systems is completely terrible the way it is. People going broke over treatments, people not being able to afford cancer treatments/kidney transplants, heart transplants, etc. People having to wake up every morning and go to a job they 100% despise, a job that's basically ruining any chance they have of being happy at all with their life just because if offers health care. People not getting any care what so ever for anything. So we've concluded that and I think people agree.

B) Universal health care MAY or MAY NOT offer a valid solution to this problem. Yes, some people will have to sacrifice. But I don't see how the sacrifice is more important than a man or woman dying of cancer who can't afford chemo or other treatments. If we can't learn to sacrifice a bit of money to help save someone's life we'd be better off dropping a nuke on ourselves tomorrow.

C) So why not give it a trial run? If it's put into place that doesn't mean it can never be touched again or reformed again. If it's REALLY as insanely bad as some people make it out to be, then we will change it. I find it hard to believe that if it was really complete crap as some people play it off to be, why are there so many countries that are doing it and why aren't they trying to get away from it immediately?

It might not work, that's correct. But it might work just fine with a few reforms once we see how it works in reality in the US. But instead we'll just sit here and argue about it for another decade while nobody puts forth any better suggestions and people will continue to sell everything they have to afford treatment, people will continue to work crappy jobs that make their lives unhappy just so they can get health care, and people will continue to die due to lack of treatment.
Bikerman
Universal health care is not 'communist', it is not 'crap' and yes, it does work. The US will never introduce it because it doesn't fit with a purely capitalist system (most European countries are mixed with capitalist and socialist elements to the economy). The UK system is often criticised (particularly by ignorant people like Giuliano) but the fact is that it provides a resonable level of healthcare (comparible in most regards to the US) which is FREE at the point of delivery to the user. This is funded by general taxation so every tax payer contributes, not just the rich.
If Guiliano were correct in his assessment of our system then you would expect to see politicians queuing up to propose private schemes to replace the NHS. You do NOT see this. The Tory party (the nearest thing we have to the Republicans) are in favour of private health schemes as an addition to the basic National Health system, (which we already have for those who wish to pay for more 'exclusive' treatment. They are staffed, however, mostly by NHS doctors/nurses), but they are well aware that any proposal to dismantle the NHS would result in massive voter rejection. People in the UK like to complain about the NHS but, when push comes to shove, the vast majority want to keep it.
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
I know it's redundant, but again, I have to ask how do we fix it? Everyone goes around pointing out the flaws with universal health care but they never offer a better solution.

A) The systems is completely terrible the way it is. People going broke over treatments, people not being able to afford cancer treatments/kidney transplants, heart transplants, etc. People having to wake up every morning and go to a job they 100% despise, a job that's basically ruining any chance they have of being happy at all with their life just because if offers health care. People not getting any care what so ever for anything. So we've concluded that and I think people agree.

B) Universal health care MAY or MAY NOT offer a valid solution to this problem. Yes, some people will have to sacrifice. But I don't see how the sacrifice is more important than a man or woman dying of cancer who can't afford chemo or other treatments. If we can't learn to sacrifice a bit of money to help save someone's life we'd be better off dropping a nuke on ourselves tomorrow.

C) So why not give it a trial run? If it's put into place that doesn't mean it can never be touched again or reformed again. If it's REALLY as insanely bad as some people make it out to be, then we will change it. I find it hard to believe that if it was really complete crap as some people play it off to be, why are there so many countries that are doing it and why aren't they trying to get away from it immediately?

It might not work, that's correct. But it might work just fine with a few reforms once we see how it works in reality in the US. But instead we'll just sit here and argue about it for another decade while nobody puts forth any better suggestions and people will continue to sell everything they have to afford treatment, people will continue to work crappy jobs that make their lives unhappy just so they can get health care, and people will continue to die due to lack of treatment.


Have to agree with Chris. In my own opinion you cannot have both a thriving capitalist system and equal medical treatment for all. Not only is the US a capitalist country, but a thriving capitalist country, so this would be a complete departure from its true character. Think the only way it would work is if the capitalists band together and volunteer medical services for people who cannot afford it. And foundations are started for providing free medication to people who cannot afford it, possibly along the food stamps route? Other possibilities could be free care by medical students doing their clinical rotations, in the same way that they are doing with dentistry students. Legislation and Government interference will go totally against the grain of capitalism.
Stubru Freak
deanhills wrote:
Have to agree with Chris. In my own opinion you cannot have both a thriving capitalist system and equal medical treatment for all. Not only is the US a capitalist country, but a thriving capitalist country, so this would be a complete departure from its true character. Think the only way it would work is if the capitalists band together and volunteer medical services for people who cannot afford it. And foundations are started for providing free medication to people who cannot afford it, possibly along the food stamps route? Other possibilities could be free care by medical students doing their clinical rotations, in the same way that they are doing with dentistry students. Legislation and Government interference will go totally against the grain of capitalism.


Of course you can have both. There are enough examples: the UK, Canada, France, Belgium, ...
They're thriving capitalist countries. Their economy is even doing better than the US economy right now.
Bikerman
PS - I didn't say the US couldn't have a national health system - I said it won't, because such a system is not PURELY capitalist (ie it doesn't work in a completely free-market scenario, it requires central control/resourcing through taxation).
deanhills
Stubru Freak wrote:

Of course you can have both. There are enough examples: the UK, Canada, France, Belgium, ...
They're thriving capitalist countries. Their economy is even doing better than the US economy right now.


There is a totally different economic culture in Canada than in the US. Look at the difference in taxes that is being paid and I think it will tell you all you need to know.
Stubru Freak
deanhills wrote:
Stubru Freak wrote:

Of course you can have both. There are enough examples: the UK, Canada, France, Belgium, ...
They're thriving capitalist countries. Their economy is even doing better than the US economy right now.


There is a totally different economic culture in Canada than in the US. Look at the difference in taxes that is being paid and I think it will tell you all you need to know.


Of course it's a different economy, but still a capitalist one. So your statement that a capitalist country can't have medical care for everyone is wrong.
ndalazdayz
I think a black president wouldnt be too bad...helll it cant get worst thatn bush...can it?
ocalhoun
Stubru Freak wrote:

You really think I should have compassion with the rich, because they might become a little less rich? Be honest, they can afford paying a little more taxes. And no, there isn't a good communist country, because they are internationally boycotted until everyone is equally poor instead of equally rich.

There actually are enough doctors. The original point was that good doctors can earn millions of dollars. That way, they almost don't have to work, so that causes a shortage. If they asked reasonable prices, poor people could also benefit, and the rich wouldn't lose anything.
There isn't anything to distribute, so your second point doesn't apply.



It's a very bad idea to abolish insurance. Actually, everyone should be entitled to free health insurance. It's just not fair that you get money troubles when you're ill. The disease is bad enough by itself.
Free health insurance will also lower prices. When doctors know exactly how much people get from their insurance, they will ask the same price, or a slightly higher one. Even rich people prefer paying less. For a practical example, look at Belgium.
And this would stop the ridiculous practice of not treating people without insurance. No more killing people because they're poor.

When taken far enough, the whole "everyone is different" concept starts to look like fascism. But it isn't. Everything is bad when taken too far.

^Indeed, most things turn bad when taken too far. Take big government for example...

Everyone becoming equally poor is a natural consequence whenever people share too much. They can't possibly all become rich can they? Therefore, they have to all be poor if they are to be equal. The same applies for the health care system if everyone had equal care, it would be impossible to get very good care, rather than just difficult.
If you can't make a lot of money at it, how many people would bother becoming really good doctors? Why not stay a mediocre doctor if you make the same either way?
Insurance is the reason for today's high prices. People got insurance from work that they didn't have to pay much or anything for, and so when they went to the doctor's they didn't care what the bill was, because they only had to pay a $10 copay anyway. Once the doctors figure this out, they raise their rates. This is fine for those who have insurance from work, but what about those without insurance, or who have to pay for insurance that is continually getting more expensive?

The problem is that the rules of supply and demand are being interfered with. If it were not so, then the high demand would cause high prices, but (and this is the part that hasn't happened yet) supply would rise to meet that demand and drive prices back down.
1: It should be easier to get a medical degree.
2: Everyone should pay equally for equal services; no free insurance that drives prices up for everyone else
3: The less expensive a doctor is, the less liable to lawsuits he should be.

One problem is that there is a big gap at the lower end of the quality spectrum.
If you are poor, you buy a low quality car. If you are rich, you can buy a high quality car if you want.
The same does not apply to health care. If you are poor, you have to try to afford the high quality product because the low quality product is illegal or too fraught with lawsuits to produce.
That could be a #4 for that list, but the other three should be tried first, because this one could cause problems.
Bikerman
ocalhoun wrote:
1: It should be easier to get a medical degree.
2: Everyone should pay equally for equal services; no free insurance that drives prices up for everyone else
3: The less expensive a doctor is, the less liable to lawsuits he should be.

So, the conclusions of this would be:
1) If you are poor you die unless you can borrow or steal enough to pay
2) Crap doctors abound and nobody can trust ANY doctor because they all have degrees
3) The really crap doctors kill the poor patients, who have managed to borrow or steal enough money to pay him/her, and get away with it.

I think I'll stick with the NHS thanks...

PS - You have not demonstrated that good treatment is impossible under a tax-funded scheme. The NHS is pretty good and if you want 'rolls royce' then you pay on top. Ironically the ones who do pay normally end up being treated by exactly the same doctors/surgeons who work for the NHS for the rest of the time - they get treated by the same people with the same kit, just quicker and in nicer surroundings with a private room.

You might be interested in a fairly recent surve that compares health care in the US with that in Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand and the UK.
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=482678

(The US ranks last on most indicators).
Stubru Freak
ocalhoun wrote:

^Indeed, most things turn bad when taken too far. Take big government for example...

Everyone becoming equally poor is a natural consequence whenever people share too much. They can't possibly all become rich can they? Therefore, they have to all be poor if they are to be equal. The same applies for the health care system if everyone had equal care, it would be impossible to get very good care, rather than just difficult.
If you can't make a lot of money at it, how many people would bother becoming really good doctors? Why not stay a mediocre doctor if you make the same either way?
Insurance is the reason for today's high prices. People got insurance from work that they didn't have to pay much or anything for, and so when they went to the doctor's they didn't care what the bill was, because they only had to pay a $10 copay anyway. Once the doctors figure this out, they raise their rates. This is fine for those who have insurance from work, but what about those without insurance, or who have to pay for insurance that is continually getting more expensive?

The problem is that the rules of supply and demand are being interfered with. If it were not so, then the high demand would cause high prices, but (and this is the part that hasn't happened yet) supply would rise to meet that demand and drive prices back down.
1: It should be easier to get a medical degree.
2: Everyone should pay equally for equal services; no free insurance that drives prices up for everyone else
3: The less expensive a doctor is, the less liable to lawsuits he should be.

One problem is that there is a big gap at the lower end of the quality spectrum.
If you are poor, you buy a low quality car. If you are rich, you can buy a high quality car if you want.
The same does not apply to health care. If you are poor, you have to try to afford the high quality product because the low quality product is illegal or too fraught with lawsuits to produce.
That could be a #4 for that list, but the other three should be tried first, because this one could cause problems.


Your first statement isn't true. In most developed countries, equality would not lead to poverty. This can be easily proven with the average loan. I don't know about the US, but in Belgium this is 2'703 euro (equals a purchasing power of roughly 3'500 US dollar). This means that when everyone would be equally rich, everyone would have a loan of 3'500 US dollar. That's not insanely rich of course, but I wouldn't call it poor either.

I don't understand your point about becoming a good doctor. What do you mean by this? How can someone become a good doctor? If you mean they have to keep learning, most systems have a solution for this. In Belgium for example, they have to collect points by attending congresses and courses. If they don't collect enough points, they can't ask the same amount of money for their work.

In the American system, insurance companies don't dare to lower their maximum price for doctors because they would lose customers to other companies. In a system where the state gives everyone insurance, doctors can't ask more than the price the insurance chooses. This price is chosen by both the government, representing the tax payer, and a professional body or trade unions representing the doctors. And don't worry, doctors get paid enough this way. Don't forget that doctors are also voters, and that the government wants it to be an attractive profession, to avoid shortage.
I agree that your view is also an option, but it's not optimal, and could be seen as even less capitalist. You want to make it illegal for a certain type of company, insurance companies, to exist, while they have been around for ages. This isn't really a good example of free market. Or you want to disallow only one kind of insurance, which is even more strange.

Bikerman has answered your other points.
I'd just like to add that healthcare in the US is a nice example of supply and demand. There is a lot of demand, so that makes prices high. If there were more doctors (supply) they wouldn't have enough work, so someone would start lowering his prices to get more customers. In no time prices would be lower. But there aren't more doctors. Supply and demand is the problem here, it makes healthcare a luxury good instead of a basic right.
Supply can't just rise, making a medical degree easier to get will not lead to good doctors. Supply and demand, while a good system in general, is not always the solution.

And yes, I agree, the US' biggest economic problem are lawsuits. And not only in this area of the economy. Something should be done about that, but that's a completely different story.
Zachk
I only see him being the next president if Hilly Clinton is his VP
ocalhoun
Stubru Freak wrote:
This price is chosen by both the government, representing the tax payer, and a professional body or trade unions representing the doctors.

So, they can charge as much as they feel like after making some well placed campaign contributions, eh?
Stubru Freak
ocalhoun wrote:
Stubru Freak wrote:
This price is chosen by both the government, representing the tax payer, and a professional body or trade unions representing the doctors.

So, they can charge as much as they feel like after making some well placed campaign contributions, eh?


Of course not, the government has a budget. Maybe they could take away some money from the weapon industry though, but that wouldn't really be a bad thing.
ocalhoun
Stubru Freak wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
Stubru Freak wrote:
This price is chosen by both the government, representing the tax payer, and a professional body or trade unions representing the doctors.

So, they can charge as much as they feel like after making some well placed campaign contributions, eh?


Of course not, the government has a budget. Maybe they could take away some money from the weapon industry though, but that wouldn't really be a bad thing.


And the health care professionals really care about the government budget, don't they? They'll just raise prices until the government is forced to raise taxes or cut other programs, and then after waiting for any discontent about it to blow over, they'll raise prices again.

And what makes you think taking government money away from the 'weapon industry' during a time of war would be a good thing? If by 'weapon industry' you mean arms development (You must, because I don't know any other weapon industry that gets government money...), then this is a very important budget item right now, as the military has to adapt to new ways of fighting against new kinds of enemies. What are they busy developing now? Improved anti-IED armor, better unmanned aerial surveillance planes, unmanned convoy vehicles, urban fighting gear for infantry... They are helping the military adapt from fighting huge, well equipped foes in the wilderness to fighting sneaky terrorists in cities, which is crucial to victory in Iraq. Certainly a place funding needs to be applied to.
Bikerman
ocalhoun wrote:
And the health care professionals really care about the government budget, don't they? They'll just raise prices until the government is forced to raise taxes or cut other programs, and then after waiting for any discontent about it to blow over, they'll raise prices again.

LOL..you really need to get your head around solutions that are not completely free-market sometimes. In the NHS, for example, doctors, nurses etc are paid a certain amount. This is negotiated between the professional body and the Government. If doctors wish to work in private medicine and earn more then they can do so but they cannot choose to 'raise prices' for NHS work - they are under contract, just the same as any other public employee (teachers, police, ambulance drivers, social workers, civil servants etc etc). I really don't see the problem..
satksri
I quite like Obama. I dont know how far it is true that he keeps a small monkey idol on his person as his good luck charm. If it is anything to do with Hanuman- the Indian God representing ultimate devotion to a high ideal.. I am all for him. May he succeed and bring good rule..
sachin
paskall
they say he is jew origined. I thin nothing will be chnaged. United States has been governed by jews, and they donT let others come and govern. Thas why kennedy was killed. And Clinton led Israel president to handshake with Yaser Arafat and that caused the Lewinsky scandal. W hoped obama was different but seems nothing changed.
liljp617
paskall wrote:
they say he is jew origined. I thin nothing will be chnaged. United States has been governed by jews, and they donT let others come and govern. Thas why kennedy was killed. And Clinton led Israel president to handshake with Yaser Arafat and that caused the Lewinsky scandal. W hoped obama was different but seems nothing changed.

All I can say is "lol." Quite some good conspiracy theories going there Razz In other words, the Jews are behind everything the US government does?
deanhills
paskall wrote:
they say he is jew origined. I thin nothing will be chnaged. United States has been governed by jews, and they donT let others come and govern. Thas why kennedy was killed. And Clinton led Israel president to handshake with Yaser Arafat and that caused the Lewinsky scandal. W hoped obama was different but seems nothing changed.

Laughing Well now we have another conspiracy story to add to the many for Kennedy. For me it is still one that has never been solved.
handfleisch
Obama was not my first choice, but he would be good for the country. The first Prez to come from the post-Baby Boomer generation, a positive example to the world, a fiscal conservative (compared to the neocons of the Bush-Reagan years), an hopefully a calming influence to all the racial strife in the USA.
bellebello
both obama and mccain would be miles better than bush. Who wins the election really depends on who obama chooses for his running mate. He needs a southern democrat to win over the ppl from the south.
Related topics
Not Voting is Reasonable for People Who Want Freedom
Alan Johnston 'set for freedom'
Hilary Clinton to be next President of U.S.
Obama: rumors of anti-patriotism?
The God Dellusion - Richard Dawkins
Will Obama become the next assasinated President of America
McCain's Worst or Dumbest Quotes
John McCain will really keep taxes low
Markets Responding to Possible Obama Win?
More about Obama's lies/distortions
Obama and Dems Hindering Recovery
Which US President was the 'sleaziest'?
Could Democrats loose Obama's former Senate seat?
Coming out and the people that come with it
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.