Next US President: Wishes and Expectactions

[Onkel Neal]

All right, Bush is going into his last 2 years.

1. Who do you think you would support for President (US citizens only)?

2. Who do you think has the best chances (everyone)?

3. And who did you vote for last election (US and Canadian citizens only)?

1. Guliani
2. McCain, Guliani, Powell
3. Bush!

[Kapitan]

No one, no one deserves the right to dictate to the world what to do, so some one who can be spoks person for america and america only would do you guys some decent justice!

If you had another bush you guys are going to be labeld more, and frankly you dont want that.
So some one who stands for what your country feels and not some idiot that has his head too far up his own arse.

[Oberon]

*tries to decode message and fails*
Err...what he said... :hmm:

I don't know nearly enough about US politics to name names, but someone who's going to be strict but lenient on foreign policy, and a little bit less religious would get my vote.

Religion and politics...bad combination...very...very bad...

[Sea Demon]

1. For U.S. President - Tom Tancredo or George Allen (Absolutely not McCain or Hitlary).

2. Best Chances - George Allen, Rick Santorum (possibly Condi Rice if against the demon Hitlary Clinton).

3. Voted For Last Election - George W. Bush

[Skybird]

Hehe. Neal, you brother in mind: I do not know the constellation, but I have repeatedly thought for myself: why not Guliani for president? :) With a reasonable guy for defense matter: why not ->

McCain: for some security or military stuff.

Worst case nightmare: Rice. Cheney (any chance? hope not).

[JSLTIGER]

1. For U.S. President - McCain/Giuliani ticket (seems a little too moderate for the Republicans though :down: )

2. Best Chances - Hillary Clinton/John Edwards for the Dems :down: :down: :down: (Get the feeling I don't like either of these two? Well, I don't, but I think that this ticket would have a solid chance (unfortunately)), McCain or Condi for the Reps

3. Voted For Last Election - John Kerry

[Kapitan]

Personaly i think bush should do the world a favour, and you lot and resign now.

[JSLTIGER]

Personaly i think bush should do the world a favour, and you lot and resign now.

I wish... :shifty:

[Sea Demon]

Personaly i think bush should do the world a favour, and you lot and resign now.

I wish... :shifty:

Ain't gonna happen. So quit your whining, grow up, and live with it. :roll:

[Takeda Shingen]

This is a lot of speculation. No one has formally committed yet. All responses are assuming that everyone on the 'nominees list' is intending to run.

1. My vote for US President--Senator Joseph Biden (D, DE)

2. Most Likely List of Candidates--

D: Joe Biden, Russ Feingold, Hillary Clinton
R: Rudi Guliani, George Allen, John McCain
IND: Ralph Nader (again)
GREEN: Cynthia McKinney
LIB: Michael Badnarik, Lance Brown

3. I voted for Michael Badnarik (LIB, TX) in 2004

McCain splits the party, and is not likely to recieve the Republican endorsement. Guliani lacks the political credentials to hold up to scrutiny, despite his leadership during 2001. Thus, Allen is my pick for the nomination.

For the Democrats, Hillary is in the same boat as McCain, but suffers from the opposite problem. Whereas McCain will recieve the greater support from the national election system, Hillary would suffer there, but have a strong primary. Feingold is too far left, which leaves Biden as the centrist choice.

The Reform Party needs no examination. Nader will apparantly run until he dies. McKinney is the only Green Party candidate with credentials to make a presidential run, and I expect to see Lance Brown knock off Badnarik at the grass roots level.

[Kapitan]

I do but enough people back it he wont have a choice but to stand down, failing that some jerk might do a kennedy to him.

Dont say it cant happen its happend many times before can happen again, im not whineing just stating my opinion thats what america is supposed to stand for isnt it "free speech" well stop trying to put me down and then read into other people youll learn a hell of a lot.

[Sea Demon]

I do but enough people back it he wont have a choice but to stand down, failing that some jerk might do a kennedy to him.

Dont say it cant happen its happend many times before can happen again, im not whineing just stating my opinion thats what america is supposed to stand for isnt it "free speech" well stop trying to put me down and then read into other people youll learn a hell of a lot.

OK. So Bush resigns. Then we get Cheney as president. Sounds good to me. :up:

[Fish]

Not for now, but for later: Joey Cheek for president!
http://www.langkawi.dk/smileys/j17.gif

[Kapitan]

Id rather cheny than bush

[Sea Demon]

Removed by SD. Hopefully to get back on topic.

[DeepSix]

All right, Bush is going into his last 2 years.

1. Who do you think you would support for President (US citizens only)?

2. Who do you think has the best chances (everyone)?

3. And who did you vote for last election (US and Canadian citizens only)?
...

1. McCain or Powell. And for some reason I have this hunch that Lindsay Graham might be a running mate (maybe with McCain?).

2. McCain, Powell, and (unfortunately), Hillary.

3. Bush.

[Iceman]

It WILL be John McCain and whoever runs with him...watch and see.There is no other person who will even come close...mayor of NY is a nice thought but where is his experience in the bigger political arena?....I'll take any bets 5 to 1.

[CCIP]

Yea, my bets are with McCain.

Oddly enough, as far as personalities go, I like him the best. :hmm:

[Sea Demon]

It WILL be John McCain and whoever runs with him.......I'll take any bets 5 to 1.

The Conservative base will never elect McCain. When it comes to most issues, he's all over the map. He killed his own Presidential ambitions with his support for open borders/illegal immigration. If the GOP nominates McCain, we'll see a Democrat President (God Help US!!) The exception to that is if the Dems are idiotic enough to nominate the shrill, and always detestable Hillary Clinton.

[tycho102]

1. Who do you think you would support for President (US citizens only)?

2. Who do you think has the best chances (everyone)?

3. And who did you vote for last election (US and Canadian citizens only)?

1. I want anything other than a Democrat or a Republican. I would support Jesse Ventura if he was running (<< not a joke). I'd support Neal Boortz if he was running (the "Fair Tax" lawyer). In fact, I'd support Neal before Gary Coleman or the "porn for guns" lady.

2. If Hillary runs, Condi will run against her. Other than that, I'm not even remotely sure.

3. Bush. My state is totally awesome: there were only two parties represented on the ballot, and by God, you'll like it or we'll *make* you like it. And I find it HIGHLY OFFENSIVE that you did not include our undocumented workers in your questionare. They have just as much right to vote as we do, and probably twice the Canadians. Convicted felons should be allowed to vote, too.

[Onkel Neal]

This is a lot of speculation. No one has formally committed yet. All responses are assuming that everyone on the 'nominees list' is intending to run.

1. My vote for US President--Senator Joseph Biden (D, DE)

2. Most Likely List of Candidates--

D: Joe Biden, Russ Feingold, Hillary Clinton
R: Rudi Guliani, George Allen, John McCain
IND: Ralph Nader (again)
GREEN: Cynthia McKinney
LIB: Michael Badnarik, Lance Brown

3. I voted for Michael Badnarik (LIB, TX) in 2004



What about Lieberman? Of all the Democrats, I think he's the one I would be able to accept. What do you think, Tak?

[Onkel Neal]

I do but enough people back it he wont have a choice but to stand down, failing that some jerk might do a kennedy to him.

Dont say it cant happen its happend many times before can happen again, im not whineing just stating my opinion thats what america is supposed to stand for isnt it "free speech" well stop trying to put me down and then read into other people youll learn a hell of a lot.

Kapitan, aren't you getting a little off-topic here? :-? I wanna talk about who the next US President could be, not bash Bush. Feel free to start a topic on your warm thoughts of W :hmm:

[Torpedo Fodder]

I wonder how much chance Mark Warner has of getting the Democratic ticket. Given that he was a highly popular Democratic governor in a state that normally votes Republican (Virginia), He'd probably be the Democrats' best bet a making inroads in the "red" states. Of course, knowing the Democrats, they'll probably nominate some stupid Kerry-esque party hack who wouldn't stand a chance against an opponent without Dubya's baggage. :roll:

[bradclark1]

1. Support for President = Hillary (Would have been McCain but he flubbed it on the border issue).

2. Best chances = I have no idea.

3. Last election = Kerry. It was anybody but Bush.

I'm totally disenchanted with all sides.

[scandium]

Curious as to why so many seem to fear and loathe the possibility of Hillary as the Democratic nominee... I vaguely recall her promoting a national healthcare plan while First Lady but I'm not really that familiar with her voting record as NY Senator. Why is she so scorned by so many?

[TLAM Strike]

Well as a New Yorker I would say that Sen. Clinton has done an adequate job. She has done some stupid stuff (the Gandhi and plantation speeches) but she has done some good stuff (support of the military bases that faced closing).


Due to recent medical problems I’ve been having I’m starting to think having her as President supporting national healthcare might not be such a bad idea. :hmm:

[JSLTIGER]

Curious as to why so many seem to fear and loathe the possibility of Hillary as the Democratic nominee... I vaguely recall her promoting a national healthcare plan while First Lady but I'm not really that familiar with her voting record as NY Senator. Why is she so scorned by so many?

She comes across in a bad way because of how she ran for office (to me, anyway). Personally, I see her as potentially the most power hungry politician out there.

She bought a house in NY only a few weeks before the deadline for NY residency for Senate passed. She then decared her candidacy for the NY Senate seat. This declaration was also perfectly timed to coincide with the end of Bill's second term in office, when she would lose her national stage as First Lady. She easily won the Senate race as the democratic candidate (NY is a predominantly Democratic state), and took office 1/3/01, while her husband was still POTUS (until 12PM on 1/20/01). To me, this just seems to be her way of remaining in the national spotlight. There was talk of her running in 2004, but she didn't have enough experience in government to run, so she stayed out of the race. In 2008, she'll be in her second Senate term, so no one can level that charge at her, and she can still claim that she has not been in Washington long enough to have been a significant part of the logjam that is the US government. To me, this all seems engineered to gain as much power as possible in as short a period as possible.

Granted, none of what she has done is illegal, but I just feel that this behavior is that of someone specifically seeking to maintain and increase her power. Please note that although most of what I have listed is fact, my opinion on the subject certainly is not absent from my assessments, and I make no attempt to deny this.

[Torpedo Fodder]

The Dems better not nominate Hilary if they want to win, for the simple reason that she's far to polarizing. In my experience most Americans either love her or despise her: there is no middle ground. The Democrats will have little chance of making any real gains in the South or Midwest with her as their candidate, and they will need to do that in order to win.

[Deathblow]

Colin Powell all the way!! :yep: :up:

He's the only one of the bush administration that has consistently shown good judgement, imho. :yep:

[Deathblow]

Due to recent medical problems I’ve been having I’m starting to think having her as President supporting national healthcare might not be such a bad idea. :hmm:

Boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!
Boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!
Boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!

National healthcare programs suck!!! :down: :nope:... ok that's a strong statement, but a totally national program has a lotta pitfalls IMHO, and will probably be as much of a detriment to good healthcare as no national program. Its pretty much a "grass is greener on the other side" phenomena where sure it looks tempting but is it really better? Nope

[TLAM Strike]

Due to recent medical problems I’ve been having I’m starting to think having her as President supporting national healthcare might not be such a bad idea. :hmm:

Boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!
Boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!
Boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!

National healthcare programs suck!!! :down: :nope: Being in pain with no access to a doctor sucks more. :(

[DeepSix]

What JSLTIGER said. Hillary strikes me as nothing but power hungry. To me, she seems to espouse whatever cause seems noble mainly to further her own career. And before the orchestra starts tuning up and someone says, "But you could say that about any of them," I'd like to say that that may be true, but IMO Hillary seems to be the most obvious about it.

That and she just seems angry all the time. I forget what speech it was, but some speech of W's not too long ago, and seems like he actually tried to say something nice about Bill and his presidency. Cut the camera to Hillary - and she was just sitting there with this icy scowl on her face. C'mon - she had to know she'd be on camera - why the theatrics?

Anyway - just my opinion.

[Sea Demon]

Due to recent medical problems I’ve been having I’m starting to think having her as President supporting national healthcare might not be such a bad idea. :hmm:

Boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!
Boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!
Boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!

National healthcare programs suck!!! :down: :nope: Being in pain with no access to a doctor sucks more. :(

While I have sympathy for your situation....I gotta agree with Deathblow on this one. Healthcare is around 1/7th of the entire economy. Democrats/Socialists/Liberals want to control this for one reason and one reason only. Control of individuals. You control their healthcare, you effectively control that individual. No thank you.

The problem isn't access, the problem is the absence of competition into the free marketplace. Democrats/Liberals/Socialists live in abject fear of the word..."competition". They also despise and fear the concept of the individual controlling their own destiny. Individuals in control of their own destiny have little need for a liberal/Socialist.

Democrats know and fear that if private individuals ventured into the free marketplace to find health insurance they might just find that free market competition could deliver a superior insurance product at a reduced price. Seems to work in other sectors of the economy.

Edited to add: Come on guys. Get back on topic. Question #1, 2, 3. I'm curious what others here think.

[CCIP]

While I have sympathy for your situation....I gotta agree with Deathblow on this one. Healthcare is around 1/7th of the entire economy. Democrats/Socialists/Liberals want to control this for one reason and one reason only. Control of individuals. You control their healthcare, you effectively control that individual. No thank you.

That's ridiculous. Living in a country with public healthcare, I can safely tell you that you don't have to worry about healthcare controlling the individual. Far from.

What you do have to worry about is the system itself. I can tell you that in Canada... I'm far from impressed with it. Long lines, long delays, poor service, huge shortage of doctors. I don't even have a family doctor because I can't find one; I couldn't even get a skin infection treated because the doctor I went to didn't know what it was and suggested waiting for a couple of weeks.

But frankly, I think a poor, sick person in both systems would BEG the liberals or whoever else to control them - if only it'd get them help. An American friend of mine is stuck with a grandmother who has an advanced case of Alzheimer's, and it's a terrible situation for them too, because they're stuck with a person they can't take care of themselves, and yet cannot afford care for.

Both sides need some solutions there, no doubt.

[Sea Demon]

That's ridiculous. ... I can safely tell you that you don't have to worry about healthcare controlling the individual. Far from.

Long lines, long delays, poor service, huge shortage of doctors. I don't even have a family doctor because I can't find one; I couldn't even get a skin infection treated because the doctor I went to didn't know what it was and suggested waiting for a couple of weeks.


Looks like the system you describe controls you pretty good. You have no choice but to stand in long lines, waiting for poor service. If you controlled your own healthcare, you could seek access to a provider competing for your patronage. The politicians would have no control over you. Neither would you be held hostage to that doctor who couldn't treat you for 2 weeks. That's being controlled. But in a free market system, you have the power to be able to secure the type of healthcare you need at the fair market value cost. What you describe above is something I can live without. :down:

Edited to add: And the politicians control you because if they can provide it...they can take it away. They hold you hostage to voting to empower them. Social Security in the USA is a tool the Democrats/Liberals/ Socialists use to justify voting for them. How many times have we heard...." If you vote for Joe Smith (Republican).....he'll take away you're social security. That's a classic example of democrats controlling their constituencies dependant on them. Using fear of course. Control.

[CCIP]

I don't argue against that, but frankly, I don't feel like I'm controlled more than I would be down south - because of course the truth is, I'm so dirt-poor that I wouldn't be able to afford treatment for anything more major than a skin infection anyway.

Fortunately, so far I have to leave the benefit of the doubt to both systems; I'm yet to fall ill enough to test the public one. When I do, I'll tell you. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that if it turned out I had a serious cancer today, I'm confident I'd be equally dead within a few months in both arrangements (In Canada, because you have to wait for even an MRI for several months at least; in the US, because I wouldn't be able to pay for it) :dead:

Conversely, I'd heard good things about other more or less public health systems. Not so much Canada's.

[Bort]

1.For Prez- Gen. Wes Clark. I used to support John McCain but I lost a lot of respect for him over the past few years for not confronting Bush on his stupid decisions.

2.Best Chances- Wes Clark for the Dems, Bill Frist for the Republicans. The GOP base will never accept McCain in the primaries. As far as Hillary and Condi goes, that would be a nasty mess. Hillary is not a bad politician but is way too polarizing and Condi is a moron. President Rice? :rotfl:

3. Voted for John Kerry in 2004

[DeepSix]

* Bort]
...
Bill Frist for the Republicans. The GOP base will never accept McCain in the primaries.
...

Maybe, but don't be too sure. I'm looking forward to my primary vote. :D

[TteFAboB]

(...)because of course the truth is, I'm so dirt-poor that I wouldn't be able to afford treatment for anything more major than a skin infection anyway.

I don't know what depressive trash bands you listen to, but to me, you appear to be physically healthy (you seem to be able to stand up, read, think and type back an answer, etc.), you study something, whatever it is, you have access to some sort of information, first the best tool ever conceived, the internet, but you probably get to touch books every now and then too, did I say internet? You have access to it, then you have access to a computer, that's another powerfull tool. You have at least one change of clothes and if you are still alive as you read this, you've been eating and drinking something, maybe a squirrel you caught with a slingshot.

NEWSFLASH: How about some reality check? Or, reality shock? You seem to be pretty rich to me. I don't know how often you shower, so I can't comment about your dirtyness, but why the heck do you deny all of this and still consider yourself to be so poor? Masochist? Guilt? Fear?

[The Avon Lady]

The last 2 persons I would hate to see in the White House are Clinton or Rice. Heaven help us.

That being said, I cannot name a single person that I'm familar with that I could think of as a suitable candidate other than Bruce Willis. :cool:

[Sixpack]

Exercising the right to vote, eh ?

Pityful stuff when you think it through well enough :shifty:

Explanation: people need leaders because they can not conduct themselves properly. Silly sheep.

[Skybird]

The Dems better not nominate Hilary if they want to win, for the simple reason that she's far to polarizing.

And Bush is not?

[The Avon Lady]

The Dems better not nominate Hilary if they want to win, for the simple reason that she's far to polarizing.
And Bush is not?
I cannot speak for Torpedo Fodder but:

1. Bush is already in office, so what are you going to do about it?

2. I wouldn't describe Bush himself a polarizing. I would describe him as failing in his decisions. The fact that large swaths of US citizens have polarized opinions doesn't make the President himself polarizing. And I speak as one who voted for Bush, yet I do not approve of many of his policies.

[Torpedo Fodder]

And Bush is not?

Sure he is, and because of it he only won by both his terms by very thin margins. This was not as much the case back in 2000, because not as many Americans were familiar with him, and he didn't have the record he does today. Even then, he only won the electoral college by a a razor thin margin: He even got less of the popular vote than Gore. If Gore hadn't become one of the few presidential candidates in history to lose his home state, he would have beat Bush and the Florida recount brewhaha would not have been an issue. (even George McGovern carried his home state in 1972, despite losing every other state in the country to Nixon).

In 2004, if the Dems had run a "real" candidate instead of a bumbling cardboard cutout like Kerry, they would have won. Bush of course had become quite polarizing by then, and that was the only reason Kerry finished so close to to him. If Kerry had been running agaionst a more popular Republican candidate like Reagan or even Bush the Elder, he would have lost by a landslide.

And so we come back to Hillary: If you were running the Democratic Party, would you really want to run a candidate who cannot win except by a very thin margin?

[scandium]

And so we come back to Hillary: If you were running the Democratic Party, would you really want to run a candidate who cannot win except by a very thin margin?

I suppose it depends on whether you want to run a candidate on their merits, or on their "electibility" (pedigree, southerness, down home swagger, degree to which the voter would like to have a beer with the candidate, etc). The disaster that has been the Bush presidency shows what the latter gets you.

edit: that's not a Hillary endorsement by the way, as I see her being every bit as devisive as Bush simply because, rightly or wrongly, she's just as polarizing.

[Etienne]

(...)because of course the truth is, I'm so dirt-poor that I wouldn't be able to afford treatment for anything more major than a skin infection anyway.

I don't know what depressive trash bands you listen to, but to me, you appear to be physically healthy (you seem to be able to stand up, read, think and type back an answer, etc.), you study something, whatever it is, you have access to some sort of information, first the best tool ever conceived, the internet, but you probably get to touch books every now and then too, did I say internet? You have access to it, then you have access to a computer, that's another powerfull tool. You have at least one change of clothes and if you are still alive as you read this, you've been eating and drinking something, maybe a squirrel you caught with a slingshot.

NEWSFLASH: How about some reality check? Or, reality shock? You seem to be pretty rich to me. I don't know how often you shower, so I can't comment about your dirtyness, but why the heck do you deny all of this and still consider yourself to be so poor? Masochist? Guilt? Fear?

I can't speak for CCIP, but personnally, I had to pay 70$ for a medical exam, and it strained my budget.

ETA : I don't want to imagine an emergency surgery in the thousands of dollars. Even another 30 dollars a month of insurance premium would be a pain... And right now, 30$ a month of renter's insurance give me 15 000$ of coverage. That's good for what, the first three months of chemo?

Yet I eat, shower, have a roof to live in, study, etc.

Just because someone has an acceptable standard of living, that person might not be able to stretch it further. If my girlfriend expends her Epi-Pen and we have to replace it, we have to skip a grocery, as it won't be reimbursed by her private insurance until... Well, it could be a few months.

Canada's system isn't as bad as some people make it sound. Yeah, if you show up in the ER with a sunburn, it might take 12 hours before you get processed. But I've never had to wait in the ER (But then, I don't go for non-emergency stuff)... And the most I've waited to see a doctor was two hours, at a walk-in clinic. I don't have a familly doctor ; don't care to get one. Yeah, MRI's, elective surgeries and the like can have a good waiting list, but you're still free to fess up the money and go to the US or India, if you want to. And if you can afford it. I don't see where I'm being controlled.

The biggest healthcare problem in Quebec is the shortage of qualified personnel... And even if we had a private system, that couldn't be helped. Nurses don't fall from the sky.

What the government needs to do is get a grip of the doctor's college (Essentially, a supervisory board / licensing body / union) and force them to allow more doctors to be licensed every year. The current quotas are ridiculous.

As to question three, I voted for Duceppe (Well, I was planning to, then stuff happened and I didn't vote), but I'd vote for Harper now. The Bloc and the PQ are... Well, they aren't dead yet, but it's coming, and it'll be a real cold day in hell when I vote Liberal.

[bradclark1]

TteFAboB must of grown up in the 1930's. Thats the only reason I can think of for his stupid comments.

[Bort]

As far as healthcare goes, it seems absurd to me that the world's richest nation has citizens that go without basic medical or dental care. If you can afford healthcare, as I can, fine. But for those that cannot, our nation needs to provide for them.

[scandium]

National healthcare programs suck!!! :down: :nope:... ok that's a strong statement, but a totally national program has a lotta pitfalls IMHO, and will probably be as much of a detriment to good healthcare as no national program. Its pretty much a "grass is greener on the other side" phenomena where sure it looks tempting but is it really better? Nope

That's a myth. Here are the facts:

"TUESDAY, April 4 (HealthDay News) -- Even though the United States spends more than twice as much per capita on health care as some other western nations, it trails them in such measures as efficiency, equity, and patient safety and access to care, according to two new reports...

"What is disturbing about these findings is that while the U.S. ranked first on health-care spending in the world, we are often last in measures of quality of care," said Commonwealth Fund President Karen Davis. "Higher spending doesn't mean that we receive more or better care -- we simply pay more.""

Full article: http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=60890

[Konovalov]

TteFAboB must of grown up in the 1930's. Thats the only reason I can think of for his stupid comments.

I was thinking the same thing regarding his comments.

Personally I am a supporter of national healthcare programs. I do however support Government programs which encourage those who can afford it to go private. National healthcare to me is a safety-net for those who can't afford medical care. In a modern society no person should have to say I can't afford a visit to the doctor.

Not being a US citizen I will answer to question 2 only. I would say that Senator John McCain has a very good chance and if I was a US citizen then I would vote for him as I think he best represents my middle ground political conservitive views. Back in Australia I have always voted for the Liberal Party (conservative), with PM John Howard at the helm.

[Takeda Shingen]

What about Lieberman? Of all the Democrats, I think he's the one I would be able to accept. What do you think, Tak?

I would certainly accept Lieberman. I just think that he's going to be crucified in the pirmarys due to his moderate stance. The Democrats have been working for the past six years to re-energize their base, and will almost certainly seek to put up someone who will tow the party line. Biden is willing to do that, but seems to me to be more a moderate in leftist clothing.

Lieberman has the same problem as McCain: He speaks his mind, regardless of platform or consequences. This makes him popular in a national election, but, conversely, weak in the individual state races. In today's style of delegational voting, where candidates are cast aside early in favor of base unification, relatively honest politicians like McCain or Lieberman don't stand a chance.

[tycho102]

Curious as to why so many seem to fear and loathe the possibility of Hillary as the Democratic nominee...Why is she so scorned by so many?

a·mor·al (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=amoral) (a-môrl)
adj.

1. Not admitting of moral distinctions or judgments; neither moral nor immoral.
2. Lacking moral sensibility; not caring about right and wrong.

a·moral·ism n.
amo·rali·ty (mô-rl-t, -m-) n.
a·moral·ly adv.

[CCIP]

I think Lieberman has much the same problem as McCain - he's a bit too far from the centre of his party's platform and, conversely, a bit closer to the other's than his party would like. Given that the parties have been getting increasingly polarized over certain issues lately, it doesn't seem like a political advantage to be more moderate. :hmm:

[CCIP]

Hillary amoral? That's a bit too strong. She's not so much amoral per se as she is opportunistic.

That said, "moral" politics is a classic staple of conservative rhethoric.

But let's face it, Hillary isn't going to run around killing Jews or something. I'd rather focus on her political agenda, however she plans to get to it. What is her platform?

Frankly, I think her problem is that she still hasn't come up with any big "bright idea" yet, and she's being terribly "domestic" in her orientation (and not in the way everyone likes, either) - at a time when foreign relations seem to be the political thing-to-do.

[Sea Demon]

I'm so dirt-poor that I wouldn't be able to afford treatment for anything more major than a skin infection anyway.
.

CCIP, I understand where you're coming from. I was dirt poor in college myself. I believe everybody should have access to healthcare, but I prefer a system where the individual controls the healthcare, not the system controlling the individual. And like it or not, the private sector almost always delivers a superior product with less waste than government. The only real difference being military and some security services.

I would certainly accept Lieberman.

Lieberman is one of the only Democrats that don't scare me. Hillary's running around today trying to extend the Family Leave Act to include time off from work for participation in parental activities. The cost to employers will be huge. . More Socialist B.S. And some Democrats wonder why Businesses are leaving The CONUS. :roll:

[Onkel Neal]

I respect Lieberman for the way he will resist parroting the Democratic party line. If he had run against Bush last election, he would have gotten my vote.

[Bort]

Lieberman is one of the only Democrats that don't scare me. Hillary's running around today trying to extend the Family Leave Act to include time off from work for participation in parental activities. The cost to employers will be huge. . More Socialist B.S. And some Democrats wonder why Businesses are leaving The CONUS.
Isn't that just terrible. Giving parents more time to raise their children, what a nightmare! How could she? And the weekend, what's the deal with that? Two days when you don't have to work? Come on! And overtime, getting paid extra for working more than you're supposed to! Geez! What is this country coming to?

[JSLTIGER]

There is, of course, another issue with Lieberman that has not been mentioned here, probably due to its sensitivity, but is certainly a factor holding him back from being successful in a bid for the presidency: his religion. As a member of the Jewish faith, he'd have an incredibly hard time being elected in the hardcore-Christian Bible Belt states, and elsewhere. As much as this country attempts to hide it, discrimination against people of minority religions and races does still occur here on a regular basis. For example, the sole president that was not protestant: JFK, a Roman Catholic. It is quickly approaching almost fifty years since that election, and not a single other Roman Catholic has won the presidency. In fact, I can only think of two Roman Catholic candidates other than JFK to even win their party's nomination: Al Smith (D) back in 1928, and John Kerry (D) in 2004.

[Deathblow]

National healthcare programs suck!!! :down: :nope:... ok that's a strong statement, but a totally national program has a lotta pitfalls IMHO, and will probably be as much of a detriment to good healthcare as no national program. Its pretty much a "grass is greener on the other side" phenomena where sure it looks tempting but is it really better? Nope

That's a myth. Here are the facts:

"TUESDAY, April 4 (HealthDay News) -- Even though the United States spends more than twice as much per capita on health care as some other western nations, it trails them in such measures as efficiency, equity, and patient safety and access to care, according to two new reports...

"What is disturbing about these findings is that while the U.S. ranked first on health-care spending in the world, we are often last in measures of quality of care," said Commonwealth Fund President Karen Davis. "Higher spending doesn't mean that we receive more or better care -- we simply pay more.""

Half of those "measures of quality" have nothing to do with access to healthcare. Last in the the leaving the doctors office with lingering questions? Last in weekend doctor's visits? And of course we spend the most money per capita... we have the most unhealthy population with the fattest populous and probably the most unhealthy lifestyles of any western nation. Added to that is the fact that we spend the most money of elective procedure (plastic surgery, botox, etc) and its hard to see how we wouldn't be spending the most money per citizen. Our incidences of heart attacks, high cholestrol, and generalized bad habits probably surpass all.

I can tell you this. I'm a senior medical student at a Texas medical school. I've seen and worked in every aspect of medical care (its part of our medical school training), and I've seen, talked to, and participated in the care of every type of patient; from those with insurance who can choose any doctor they want, to those without a dime to their name and can't pay for anything... from those with minor coughs and colds, to those with terminal illnesses...from the primary care clinics to the ERs to the operating rooms to the intensive care units...... and I can tell you this after seening all that...... institulized healthcare will stink to high heaven.

btw, don't forget that we already have established healthcare programs in place to certain individuals in our country: medicare for those over the age of 65, and medicaid for children and needy families (qualification varying per state)...

What I've seen shows me that government funded healthcare are subject to constant waste and abuse. I would say that probably 50% of all the medicaid funded doctors visits are friviolus and really didn't warrant a doctors visit at all, but the fact that the bill is on the governement prompts many to come in for stuff that not even treatment worthy... waiting rooms are often packed with the insignificant and frivilous complaints and doctors constantly sorting thru what really warrents treatment and what's a waste of time. But heck even when the medical complaints don't warrant treatment, the doctors visit itself cost money (billed to the taxpayers), and what worse whenever the doctor comes around to figuring out that this "whatever medical complaint/ache/sore/etc" probably doesn't need any treatment at all, the fact that "heck they're already going to get charged for the doctor's appointment, might as well give them something... they're on medicaid" happens more often than not. The patient gets the satisfaction of getting something, the doctors get to charge for it, and the governement (and tax payer's) get stuck with the bill. Its a sad fact but its the reality. Of the government healthcare programs that we have already.... staggering amounts of money are probably wasted and abused (such is the nature and reality of all of "government programs" not just healthcare). The larger a healthcare program gets, the more it will be abused and money wasted.

And even when the program isn't being abused, half of the policies and bueracracy doesn't make sense... there are some medicare and medicaid policies that force doctors to provide X drug instead of Y drug... even when X drug is actually 3-4 times more expensive than Y drug and doesn't work any better. And as ridiculous as that sounds the doctors are actually forced to provide the more expensive drugs when the cheaper drugs are the smarter choice... not because it makes sense, but because the incredibly slow and cumbersome beuracracy can't change its policy, or even approve the use of paper clips, without what seems like an act of congress. If you think healthcare is bad when decisions are taken away from the patients, think how bad it would be when decision are taken away from even the doctorss... decision making now controlled by a large, faceless, nameless beuracratic government agency...

... be afraid my friend... and I haven't really even started with the detriment to the quality of doctors that it would produce.

Yes their is no perfect solution... those that would benifit from UHC suffer detriment without it, and those the benifit without a UHC would suffer detriment with it. For those that don't have healthcare there are options and a lot of programs are in place to help. For example, my hospital is one of the largest indigent care hospitals in the state of Texas... in fact the hospital went 25million dollars in the hole last year for all the free patient care we dished out, last year to those that couldn't pay. In fact, almost all hospitals, county's, or regions have some sort of indigent care program to take care of those that can't afford health insurance.

Government controlled healthcare sucks

[Sea Demon]

* Bort]
Isn't that just terrible. Giving parents more time to raise their children, what a nightmare! How could she? And the weekend, what's the deal with that? Two days when you don't have to work? Come on! And overtime, getting paid extra for working more than you're supposed to! Geez! What is this country coming to?

Well somebody's got to pay for it. Truth is companies will have to pay for it through lost productivity and higher costs. You know, I have a child myself. What happens when this tripe that Hillary is promoting becomes law and companies figure out that the best way to save on lost productivity is to prefer applicants with no children? Hillary's "good" intentions become hell for those of us who wouldn't abuse the system but have chosen to have kids.

But it doesn't end there. Hillary's policy is to give time off for aging parents, parental activities, etc. Where does this B.S. end? Not that those things aren't important, but people should fit these things in on their own time. Of course it's all about the "good" intentions and screw the results......right? More proof that people in the House and Senate like Hillary are hostile to business, and detest the concept of a responsible individual in control of their own life.

Most Americans (Left and Right) are concerned about outsourcing jobs. This is one of the reasons why companies are doing it.

[Iceman]

Great points JSLTIGER...

one on Hillary seemingly opportunistic and two... the predjudice factor...No Women,No Jews,Nothing that goes too much against the grain...I don't say McCain will win only because I am familiar with him coming from Arizona, I say it simply because of the Lack of Choices with the known pre-determined mindsets of people....pretty sad huh?

[Sea Demon]

Great points JSLTIGER...

one on Hillary seemingly opportunistic and two... the predjudice factor...No Women,No Jews,Nothing that goes too much against the grain...I don't say McCain will win only because I am familiar with him coming from Arizona, I say it simply because of the Lack of Choices with the known pre-determined mindsets of people....pretty sad huh?

Iceman, you are spot on, dude. Despite what some people think of me, I'm no die hard Republican. In fact, I'm registered Independant. But I'm also stuck voting for the lesser of two evils... :cry: ....quite sad that third parties can't seem to get a leg up during election time to force better decision making from the two major parties.

[scandium]

Half of those "measures of quality" have nothing to do with access to healthcare. Last in the the leaving the doctors office with lingering questions? Last in weekend doctor's visits?

The measures in this study have everything to do with the quality of the healthcare and the public health as well. Its not a unique study, nor are its findings. If you look at any study that seeks to comprehensively measure the quality of healthcare and its cost, you will consistently find that its most expensive in the US, which despite that doesn't measure up well next to other industrialized countries - all of which have some kind of comprehensive national healthcare program. And I'm sorry but Medicare/Medicaid doesn't count as neither program has Universal access (which is a pillar of any national healthcare program). Not that they aren't helpful to the people who need them and qualify, just that when we're talking about national healthcare they don't meet fundamental criteria to be counted as such and are therefore not relevant to it.


What I've seen shows me that government funded healthcare are subject to constant waste and abuse. I would say that probably 50% of all the medicaid funded doctors visits are friviolus and really didn't warrant a doctors visit at all, but the fact that the bill is on the governement prompts many to come in for stuff that not even treatment worthy... waiting rooms are often packed with the insignificant and frivilous complaints and doctors constantly sorting thru what really warrents treatment and what's a waste of time. But heck even when the medical complaints don't warrant treatment, the doctors visit itself cost money (billed to the taxpayers), and what worse whenever the doctor comes around to figuring out that this "whatever medical complaint/ache/sore/etc" probably doesn't need any treatment at all, the fact that "heck they're already going to get charged for the doctor's appointment, might as well give them something... they're on medicaid" happens more often than not. The patient gets the satisfaction of getting something, the doctors get to charge for it, and the governement (and tax payer's) get stuck with the bill. Its a sad fact but its the reality.

It would be if it were reality. However I seriously doubt that it is. Just because one doesn't directly pay for something doesn't automatically equate it being abused. I live in a country with nationalized healthcare and I can tell you that I see a doctor no more than I absolutely have to, even though I'm not billed for the visits. Not to burst your bubble but people don't like visiting the doctor. Unecessary doctor visists rank up there with unecessary dental visits for unecessary tooth fillings.

And even when the program isn't being abused, half of the policies and bueracracy doesn't make sense... there are some medicare and medicaid policies that force doctors to provide X drug instead of Y drug... even when X drug is actually 3-4 times more expensive than Y drug and doesn't work any better. And as ridiculous as that sounds the doctors are actually forced to provide the more expensive drugs when the cheaper drugs are the smarter choice... not because it makes sense, but because the incredibly slow and cumbersome beuracracy can't change its policy, or even approve the use of paper clips, without what seems like an act of congress.

You're identifying a real problem but assigning the blame to the wrong culprit. Its a fact that generic drugs are often difficult to impossible to aquire in the US, even where available elsewhere, but that has rather little to do with Medicare/Medicaid and rather a lot to do with a powerful pharmaceutical lobby whose efforts (and campaign contributions, etc) to restrict consumer choice to more expensive brand-name drugs have been very successful.

Similarly, I might add, your undergoing medical training for a career in medicine makes you one of these same vested interests as doctors are part of another powerful lobby who, fearing their income may somehow be impacted, are vocal opponents of any national healthcare system. Which is probably what all of your arguements are really motivated by: you oppose national healthcare, along with the rest of your future profession, for one reason only and that is because you fear it would impact your future earnings. Which is fine, but it makes your other arguements rather disengenous.

[DeepSix]

Not to burst your bubble but people don't like visiting the doctor. Unecessary doctor visists rank up there with unecessary dental visits for unecessary tooth fillings.

Not to burst yours, but people make unnecessary visits to the doctor all the time. Have you ever been in an American ER waiting room? Many of the waiting patients are not emergency cases, but they all have to be seen.

Deathblow's comments, examples, and facts are spot on. He isn't preaching an agenda and he's not sniping at everything your country does.

I agree with you completely about generics, but that complaint should be addressed to the Food and Drug Administration and the pharmaceutical companies, not doctors. It's the FDA that restricts generics.

As far as medical professionals having a "vested interest," I find that remark to be *WAY* out of line, insinuating as it does that American doctors have no ethical standards. My father is an opthalmologist and I've known dozens of doctors well. To be sure, they all want job security, but they don't fleece people to do it. Staying in practice is incredibly expensive and taxing of one's personal energy. You have overhead in the form of staff salaries, building maintenance, and equipment purchasing and maintenance. You have malpractice insurance. You have the costs of staying certified. Nowadays, most new doctors in practice also have to pay for the money they've already spent on their education - that comes out of earnings, too. You (and your family) have ungodly hours. You have uncooperative insurance companies. Medical professionals do not choose the career because it's easy (it's not) or because they want to "get rich," or because they only want to help some people but not others.

I can't tell you how many times my dad never charged patients who could not pay for their treatment. I've also seen him unable to collect from tightwads who could have afforded it ten times over. When he started in practice, his hours were from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. He took call at least one week a month, and very often every week a month because no one else was available. He took call and performed surgery for 30 straight years and in all that time I can think of two days he missed because he was sick. Weekend outings planned weeks or months in advance were cancelled at the last minute because a patient "had to be seen." More often than not, they weren't really emergencies, but after a week and a half of ignoring their problem, they finally decided they had to be seen, "right now!"

Excuse me for going off on an anecdotal tangent, but I FIRMLY believe that your characterization - entitled to your opinion though you are - of the U.S. healthcare system is grossly oversimplified and in part inaccurate. If you (the general "you," not you personally) aren't involved with it you don't have a complete enough picture to be able talk about the reality of it.

[scandium]

Not to burst yours, but people make unnecessary visits to the doctor all the time. Have you ever been in an American ER waiting room? Many of the waiting patients are not emergency cases, but they all have to be seen.

You're confusing cause and effect. These non-emergency "unenecessay visits" are due to the country having millions of uninsured people who cannot afford to see a regular doctor, therefore they wind up in ER waiting rooms where they have to be seen. They're not there because they have nothing better to do, or because they enjoy hanging out in ER waiting rooms, they're there because its the only care they can get.

Deathblow's comments, examples, and facts are spot on. He isn't preaching an agenda and he's not sniping at everything your country does.

His facts ecompass many myths. They coincidentally are part of an agenda against a national healthcare policy that the American Medical Association is very much opposed to (and who coincidentally promote these very same myths). And his lengthy post on 'why national healthcare sucks' was a response to my mentioning Hillary Clinton's promotion of a national healthcare policy while First Lady. Nobody was "sniping" at anyone's country.

I agree with you completely about generics, but that complaint should be addressed to the Food and Drug Administration and the pharmaceutical companies, not doctors. It's the FDA that restricts generics.

I hadn't placed the blame for that on doctors.

As far as medical professionals having a "vested interest," I find that remark to be *WAY* out of line, insinuating as it does that American doctors have no ethical standards.

Of course they have a vested interest. To believe otherwise is naive. Likewise they also have ethical standards, but the two aren't mutually exclusive. The world, after all, is not a black and white place.

[TLAM Strike]

* Bort]And overtime, getting paid extra for working more than you're supposed to! Geez! What is this country coming to? You should work at a DOT repair shop like my dad. He gets 'Time plus a little' for overtime not 'Time and a Half' like the most of men, only because he can fix county trucks and buses. Yea they can do work others can't so they get paid less. :damn:

[kholemann]

Huge 'dittos' to you Sea Demon! No idea who Tom Tancredo is but where I am from Bobby Jindal would be a great VP candidate. Here in Louisiana, the folks here keep electing idiots and hopefully Katrina and Rita have shown them up for what they are, incompetent! So...

Democrats should nominate Liebermann for Pres and Hillary for VP because it would grab the votes of the most number of voters that haven't a clue.

Republicans should nominate George Allen with an excellent young VP candidate like Bobby Jindal.

If the Democrats could just do everyone a great favor and nominate Hillary Clinton for President, they would ensure a Republican victory in '08.

[bradclark1]

Talk about a rabid republican. :yep:

[TteFAboB]

TteFAboB must of grown up in the 1930's. Thats the only reason I can think of for his stupid comments.

Are you dirt-poor?

I don't know about the lot of you, but I come from a family of immigrants, only. Most of my family came to the new world late, but no I didn't had to convince a captain at the age of 14 to take me aboard in pitty and cross the Atlantic ocean alone, arriving at a strange land, without speaking the language or knowing anyone to seek for help back in the 1930's, without anything at all in his pockets. And that's only one of them.

What I know is that we had to settle and survive starting from scratch, from what to eat, to what to wear, to how to stay alive. Yes, I believe someone who has shelter, clothes, warm food and whines of being dirt poot doesn't know poverty nor misery. Glad someone as poor as that doesn't have the money to pay a visit to the 3rd world, eh? To some, it is better to live in illusion, it's comforting, oh look how poor I am! Also gives you plenty of excuses right? I will die of cancer -> because I'm poor.

I suppose this is some sort of big secret, never spoken before in the Poor's Club, well, who am I to spoil your party and tell you a man is only as rich as he can tell, and that if you put all your pennies on modern medicine for health you deserve to die, because a hospital can't cure your leukemia or your basketball-sized brain tumor, nor will it rescue you when you have a heart-attack alone with no one to dial 911. I won't tell you any of that, have a nice death and live in poverty.

[bradclark1]

You are living in the U.S.A. in the year 2006. You are not living in a third world country. You did not come into this country at the age of 14 in the 1930's so stop being ignorant and imagining you are.
How much does the internet cost monthly? Not much so stop acting like it's criminal for someone to be on the internet when they say they are poor.
Being poor in a third world country is obviously different then being considered poor in the U.S. If you feel that much about the third world poor go live their.
Speaking of the internet, in the high school in the town I live in you have to have access to the internet, a word processor and a printer or you will be dropped points from your assignment. To me thats bs but thats the way it is. So here being poor is not an excuse not to have internet access. If you don't have access you have to go to the next town over to use their library set-ups. But wait! Public transportation doesn't go their.
You have to have a car. But if you are too poor to own a car then you will have to pay over $30.00 for a taxi to get their and back. So tell me smart guy is it cheaper to have internet access or is getting a taxi however many times a month to get to the library.
This country has a different standard of living then one of your third world countries so take a damned reality check.
Or in your opinion should poor people be kept down and trod on to meet your expectations of what poor means.
You have issues pal.

[TteFAboB]

I have issues because I'm not getting an off-topic derail medal.

My reply will arrive in your PM box.

I apologize to those actually interested in the next presidential candidate.

[Deathblow]

Half of those "measures of quality" have nothing to do with access to healthcare. Last in the the leaving the doctors office with lingering questions? Last in weekend doctor's visits?

The measures in this study have everything to do with the quality of the healthcare and the public health as well. Its not a unique study, nor are its findings. If you look at any study that seeks to comprehensively measure the quality of healthcare and its cost, you will consistently find that its most expensive in the US, which despite that doesn't measure up well next to other industrialized countries - all of which have some kind of comprehensive national healthcare program. And I'm sorry but Medicare/Medicaid doesn't count as neither program has Universal access (which is a pillar of any national healthcare program). Not that they aren't helpful to the people who need them and qualify, just that when we're talking about national healthcare they don't meet fundamental criteria to be counted as such and are therefore not relevant to it.

Read my wording. "The markers of quality have nothing to do with *access* to healthcare." You've read poorly. Also did you even look at the data in these studies? The US ranked #1 in the "effectiveness" of healthcare, the bottom line of medical care. The second largest spender in healthcare, Canada, is the 2nd best healthcare in "effectiveness". The country that spent the least in healtcare had the least effective healthcare. Interesting to note that the country that is the best and "patientcenterness" probably a rough measure in "bedside manner" was the 2nd worst in equity. Thank you for failing to provide that data and proporting half-truths.

http://www.cmwf.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=364436

But anyway, these types of data are often over-interpreted, and only so much can be assumed from rough, subjective estimates. Even more quantitated estimates of "quality of care" (for example life expectancy, death rates, etc) can be easility misskewed because they depend significantly on the characteristics of the population, cultural beliefs and lifestyles, environments, etc.

What I've seen shows me that government funded healthcare are subject to constant waste and abuse. I would say that probably 50% of all the medicaid funded doctors visits are friviolus and really didn't warrant a doctors visit at all, but the fact that the bill is on the governement prompts many to come in for stuff that not even treatment worthy... waiting rooms are often packed with the insignificant and frivilous complaints and doctors constantly sorting thru what really warrents treatment and what's a waste of time. But heck even when the medical complaints don't warrant treatment, the doctors visit itself cost money (billed to the taxpayers), and what worse whenever the doctor comes around to figuring out that this "whatever medical complaint/ache/sore/etc" probably doesn't need any treatment at all, the fact that "heck they're already going to get charged for the doctor's appointment, might as well give them something... they're on medicaid" happens more often than not. The patient gets the satisfaction of getting something, the doctors get to charge for it, and the governement (and tax payer's) get stuck with the bill. Its a sad fact but its the reality.

It would be if it were reality. However I seriously doubt that it is. Just because one doesn't directly pay for something doesn't automatically equate it being abused. I live in a country with nationalized healthcare and I can tell you that I see a doctor no more than I absolutely have to, even though I'm not billed for the visits. Not to burst your bubble but people don't like visiting the doctor. Unecessary doctor visists rank up there with unecessary dental visits for unecessary tooth fillings.

No Scandium, your showing complete and utter igorance here,... child-like ignorance even. I *live* the reality of healthcare, I work the clinics, cure the sick, and listen to the complaints of the not-really-sick. I see their pain, and symptoms, or complete lack of it, and provide their treatments, working long 80+hour work weeks doing so. I'm not telling you what *might* be going on, I'm telling you *is* the reality. I hate to burst such child-like naivity, but you don't see what managing a doctors office is like, all the wasted doctor's visits, frivilous complaints, and probably never will. And reading a few poorly written newspaper articles won't inform you to the naunces of patientcare. Billions are wasted each year, that is fact. And expanding federal control over everything will amount to wasted sums many times greater. That is reality, and anyone that thinks otherwise is foolish.

And even when the program isn't being abused, half of the policies and bueracracy doesn't make sense... there are some medicare and medicaid policies that force doctors to provide X drug instead of Y drug... even when X drug is actually 3-4 times more expensive than Y drug and doesn't work any better. And as ridiculous as that sounds the doctors are actually forced to provide the more expensive drugs when the cheaper drugs are the smarter choice... not because it makes sense, but because the incredibly slow and cumbersome beuracracy can't change its policy, or even approve the use of paper clips, without what seems like an act of congress.

You're identifying a real problem but assigning the blame to the wrong culprit. Its a fact that generic drugs are often difficult to impossible to aquire in the US, even where available elsewhere, but that has rather little to do with Medicare/Medicaid and rather a lot to do with a powerful pharmaceutical lobby whose efforts (and campaign contributions, etc) to restrict consumer choice to more expensive brand-name drugs have been very successful.

No, your failing to comprehend. I'm not talking about the *availability* of generic drugs, I'm talking about choices between drugs that are already equally available. Make sense? Your reaction will problably be... "But that doesn't make sense? Why would the government force doctors to use a more expensive drug when an equally effective, but cheaper drug is available?"...Exactly, it doesn't make sense at all. They are policies handed down by a large government agency that is so many ways is inefficient and inflexible and should not be in ultimate control of all things healthcare. Your assumption that giving beuracratics more control of healthcare will result in an improvement of trends like the ones reported about is like believing that the FDA should take direct control of all pharmacies and will do a better job. Maybe FEMA should take over local law enforcement?(j/k)

Similarly, I might add, your undergoing medical training for a career in medicine makes you one of these same vested interests as doctors are part of another powerful lobby who, fearing their income may somehow be impacted, are vocal opponents of any national healthcare system. Which is probably what all of your arguements are really motivated by: you oppose national healthcare, along with the rest of your future profession, for one reason only and that is because you fear it would impact your future earnings. Which is fine, but it makes your other arguements rather disengenous.

No, your assumptions about my motivation are unfounded and incorrect. I like many doctors will probably pursue positions of healthcare that are already government funded and have been for years. I train at a large state hospital, in which the doctor's are state employees and hospital salaries are government controlled/state funded. My own personal aspirations are to work for a large state run hospital with a large indigent care program (something that's important too me); the institution of federal control will not likely effect my income much, whether my salary will be state controlled as they are already or become federally controlled is not particularly significant and is not the real issue. But thank you for your poor, unfounded assumptions about my character.

Deathblow's comments, examples, and facts are spot on. He isn't preaching an agenda and he's not sniping at everything your country does.
His facts ecompass many myths. They coincidentally are part of an agenda against a national healthcare policy that the American Medical Association is very much opposed to (and who coincidentally promote these very same myths).

No, the *greatest myth* is proported by those that believe giving federal government control of their healthcare won't be without detriment or consequences. Second, I don't know what the AMA's official policies and/or arguments are. (On a side note, the vast majority of doctors choose not to join the AMA, about 70-80%). And the assumption that the controversy over federally controlled healthcare is primarily over salaries is the second greatest *myth* perpetuated. It is not. The issue is over who will control the healthcare decisions, those that provide the care and treatments, or a federal agency that hands downs policies from Washington.

This issue has come up in the past..."who makes healthcare decisions?", in the private sector. The similar controversy began about 10-15 years ago when private health insurance companies began enacting policies geared at taking control of healthcare decisions more away from patients/doctors; policies that were handed down from their boardrooms and not from those patients and doctors that were ungoing/providing the treatments; often these policies were denying diagnostic test, medicines, or need treatments and it took years of law suits, cries of the patients, and doctors to curb these insurance practices. Now the issue rises again, "who will ultimately controls healthcare decisions". The man or woman standing in front of you that talks to you and hears your symptoms and complaints, or a large federal program and hands down policies from Washington, ultimately controlled by politicians in Congress. National healthcare programs will have expanded coverage, but definant pittfalls, that is fact....Ted Kennedy ultimately in charge of your healthcare.... :lol: ... :-? ... :o ... I don't think so. :nope:

[DeepSix]

...
I'm not talking about the *availability* of generic drugs, I'm talking about choices between drugs that are already equally available. Make sense? Your reaction will problably be... "But that doesn't make sense? Why would the government force doctors to use a more expensive drug when an equally effective, but cheaper drug is available?"...Exactly, it doesn't make sense at all. They are policies handed down by a large government agency that is so many ways is inefficient and inflexible and should not be in ultimate control of all things healthcare.
...
Now the issue rises again, "who will ultimately controls healthcare decisions". The man or woman standing in front of you that talks to you and hears your symptoms and complaints, or a large federal program and hands down policies from Washington, ultimately controlled by politicians in Congress. National healthcare programs will have expanded coverage, but definant pittfalls, that is fact....

Precisely, and the example of the FDA's handling of prescription drugs highlights perfectly what we could expect from government-run healthcare. Expanded coverage is not synonymous with improved quality. An assembly line improves speed but not necessarily quality or attention to detail - as the Soviets discovered after they'd performed radialkerototomy (r/k) surgery on hundreds of people. In the U.S., doctors found r/k to be unsatisfactory and were free to move on to better practices.

The ethical standards and intelligent decisions of doctors, made in consultation with patients they are familiar with, are far better than any blanket policy can be, which by their nature cannot accommodate individual needs. Doctors treat people as individual patients; the government treats them as statistics.

Let me put it this way - as far as the United States government is concerned, I am merely a social security number. All they care about is whether or not I've paid my taxes. On the other hand, my doctor knows me personally; to him I am not just another case. Let's say that down the road I develop heart problems. The government looks at me as a case and says, "Put him on such-and-such a drug for his blood pressure and give him a pacemaker." Right. On they go to the next case. My doctor, on the other hand, looks at my personal circumstances and says, "At age 99, a pacemaker will do him little good, especially if he should suffer some other malady of old age. I do not want to risk making him a vegetable for the sake of keeping his heart pumping. Therefore I will make him as comfortable as I can, but - unless he wishes it so - I do not think the pacemaker or the stresses of surgery would be best for him." The government solved the arithmetic with amazing efficiency; the doctor treated a human being after considering his quality of life.

[ABBAFAN]

All right, Bush is going into his last 2 years.

1. Who do you think you would support for President (US citizens only)?

2. Who do you think has the best chances (everyone)?

3. And who did you vote for last election (US and Canadian citizens only)?

1. Guliani
2. McCain, Guliani, Powell
3. Bush!


curiosity.. why has guliani been mentioned twice?Do in what way did these elections affect canada?just interested.

[Onkel Neal]

Healthcare: it's your health, you should care. Be responsible for yourself.

It's easy to say the govt should pay for healthcare, but where does the govt. get its money? From the taxpayers. Why should one taxpayer have to subsidize his own health care and his neighbor's? I want to help the truly needy but I define needy as someone who cannot hope to take care of himself; mentally ill, the completely disabled.

IMO that mean setting good priorities, you pay for the essentials first, luxuries next. Internet access, ring tones, car, cable TV, magazines are not essentials. One should take care of his medical needs first.

[Onkel Neal]

PS: don't flame me, that's just my opinion :sunny:

[Deathblow]

Gee, looking back at that post I really didn't mean for that to get that long and drawn out... definantly didn't intend for it to turn into a flame war, just was supposed to be just logical expression of point of view :-? :oops:
Guess I have a lot of say about the matter seeing that treating the sick is what I do, its my passion. I shant say anymore on the manner...well, maybe...possibly... hopefully? :shifty: :lol:

[Onkel Neal]

Similarly, I might add, your undergoing medical training for a career in medicine makes you one of these same vested interests as doctors are part of another powerful lobby who, fearing their income may somehow be impacted, are vocal opponents of any national healthcare system. Which is probably what all of your arguements are really motivated by: you oppose national healthcare, along with the rest of your future profession, for one reason only and that is because you fear it would impact your future earnings. Which is fine, but it makes your other arguements rather disengenous.

No, your assumptions about my motivation are unfounded and incorrect. I like many doctors will probably pursue positions of healthcare that are already government funded and have been for years. I train at a large state hospital, in which the doctor's are state employees and hospital salaries are government controlled/state funded. My own personal aspirations are to work for a large state run hospital with a large indigent care program (something that's important too me); the institution of federal control will not likely effect my income much, whether my salary will be state controlled as they are already or become federally controlled is not particularly significant and is not the real issue. But thank you for your poor, unfounded assumptions about my character.

I have to ask you Scandium, why should Deathblow or any other physician turn a blind eye to their future earnings? I mean, treating the sick, healing... they earn it. I put the guy who trained many years and can heal me at the top of the food chain. I personally would object to seeing their pay structured like civil servants.

[TLAM Strike]

IMO that mean setting good priorities, you pay for the essentials first, luxuries next. Internet access, ring tones, car, cable TV, magazines are not essentials. One should take care of his medical needs first.With out the Internet and an occasional book or DVD I would go nuts… well more so. It sucks being stuck in an area that everyone is leaving when you have no car and the weather makes riding a bike hit or miss. So I would put that under ‘Mental Heath’. :yep:

[tycho102]

Healthcare: it's your health, you should care. Be responsible for yourself.

I agree with you.

My problem is there is not enough emphasis on preventative medicine. People don't want to change their lifestyle, and the "government" doesn't want to invade someone's privacy, so everything right now is focused on emergeny medicine. So we end up paying $50,000 dollars for emergency bypass surgery, when walking 5 miles per day (and a couple glasses of red wine, along with no Mcdonald's) would have alleviated the emergency.


For example, I would like to see mandatory physical fitness programs. Businesses would be required to join a gym, and require their employees to pass fitness tests on a semi-annual basis. Nothing hardcore, or at least, not at first.

[JSLTIGER]

Healthcare: it's your health, you should care. Be responsible for yourself.

I agree with you.

My problem is there is not enough emphasis on preventative medicine. People don't want to change their lifestyle, and the "government" doesn't want to invade someone's privacy, so everything right now is focused on emergeny medicine. So we end up paying $50,000 dollars for emergency bypass surgery, when walking 5 miles per day (and a couple glasses of red wine, along with no Mcdonald's) would have alleviated the emergency.


For example, I would like to see mandatory physical fitness programs. Businesses would be required to join a gym, and require their employees to pass fitness tests on a semi-annual basis. Nothing hardcore, or at least, not at first.

While I personally agree with your statements regarding preventative healthcare, some of what you suggest as a remedy is downright absurd. To require employees to pass a fitness test is a ridiculous notion. Are you really going to fire your most productive employee because he/she can't run a mile in less than ten minutes if his/her job is to simply to sit at a desk and type or answer phones? No. That idea is ludicrous. Not to mention, businesses should have NO ability to control one's life outside of the workspace. Next thing you know, they'll be telling you where to live, what to eat, when to eat it and you'll have lost every freedom possible in order to keep your job.

People should learn how to take care of themselves, yes. However, they should do this of their own accord. Businesses (or the government for that matter) should NOT be able to dictate how people choose to live their lives.

[Onkel Neal]

Well, if you want me to pay for your health care, then yes, I get a say in your lifestyle :) Not you personally, Tiger, but on the whole, people who cannot/will not take care of their health cannot expect to get free services paid for by taxpayers and still live as they wish.

TLAM, I hear you, everyone needs diversions. But, priorities... it's why I work 50 hours a week (plus another 30 on the website stuff). Plus my favorite diversion is shooting rocket-powered weasels, that's pretty cheap fun :smug:

______________________________

[Type941]

All right, Bush is going into his last 2 years.

1. Who do you think you would support for President (US citizens only)?

2. Who do you think has the best chances (everyone)?

3. And who did you vote for last election (US and Canadian citizens only)?

1. Guliani
2. McCain, Guliani, Powell
3. Bush!

1. Barack Obama (im no citizen but the guy is head and shuolders mor impressive then the rest of old farts)
2. Guiliani, Clinton H

[bradclark1]

Barack Obama is going to be a major mover and shaker. Well worth keeping an eye on.

[scandium]

I have to ask you Scandium, why should Deathblow or any other physician turn a blind eye to their future earnings? I mean, treating the sick, healing... they earn it. I put the guy who trained many years and can heal me at the top of the food chain. I personally would object to seeing their pay structured like civil servants.

They shouldn't. Its natural and logical for any group of people to try and protect, even improve, their earnings and working conditions. Its fundamentally why unions and professional organizations form and exist. I was merely pointing out that doctors tend to have a self-interest in maintaining the status quo and that it colours their outlook. I don't see this self-interest as being inherently "right" or "wrong", only that its natural and it does exist.

By the way, there are many ways to impement nationalized healthcare and it doesn't necessarily follow that a country that adopts it will pay doctors under a civil service framework.

[GunnersMate]

How about .. Colin Powell? VP=Schwatzkoppf

[JSLTIGER]

How about .. Colin Powell? VP=Schwatzkoppf

Powell might run...except that his wife won't let him.

[bradclark1]

Powell won't run, or said he wouldn't some years ago. His credibility got damaged over the WMD thing also.

[Onkel Neal]

I have to ask you Scandium, why should Deathblow or any other physician turn a blind eye to their future earnings? I mean, treating the sick, healing... they earn it. I put the guy who trained many years and can heal me at the top of the food chain. I personally would object to seeing their pay structured like civil servants.

They shouldn't. Its natural and logical for any group of people to try and protect, even improve, their earnings and working conditions. Its fundamentally why unions and professional organizations form and exist. I was merely pointing out that doctors tend to have a self-interest in maintaining the status quo and that it colours their outlook. I don't see this self-interest as being inherently "right" or "wrong", only that its natural and it does exist.

By the way, there are many ways to impement nationalized healthcare and it doesn't necessarily follow that a country that adopts it will pay doctors under a civil service framework.

Ok, point taken. I could go along with a "national health care plan", if it took the form of another payroll deduction that increases the Medicare rate from 1.45% to 5% or so. That should provide for health care for the uninsured. And people who paid for their own health care and insurance were exempt.

[sonar732]

1. Who do you think you would support for President (US citizens only)?

2. Who do you think has the best chances (everyone)?

3. And who did you vote for last election (US and Canadian citizens only)?

1. Mccain

2. Mccain

3. Bush

I don't think that Powell will attempt public office due to the humiliation that he's suffered for the UN Security Council Speech attempting to prove that Iraq had WMD's.

I'm partial to seeing Condi and Hillary go at it for fun though!

[JBClark]

To Neal's original questions:

1) Probably McCain, but my wish is for Condi.

2) For the Dems, Biden is the best speaker but he's old news, look to Warner. For the Republicans, I think they will be pragmatic enough to pick McCain, he is the only Republican that has a chance of getting even one Democrat vote. Don't waste your time on Allen. I knew the guy in college and he is an arrogant jerk. That doesn't necessarily disqualify him from the race but this will: as soon as he starts to look like a contender, someone will pull out the picture (my brother has a copy) of him sitting at his desk with a bust of R E Lee in the foreground and a confederate flag behind him. That will be the end of Allen.

3) I wrote in my brother in the last election.

[Type941]

I think Obama has the best chance of being first black president of the US, may be in 8 years time, as I understand he's too young to be a president now, and can be discredited for lack of experience. Now he got to try to make a record of himself in senate. Then winning US election might be easy (especially whoever takes over from Bush will have a mess on their hands). I don't know how badly anyone wants tot take over from bush in 2 years time to be honest!

[Deathblow]

Obama sounds too much like Osama :dead: :down: :P j/k

[Type941]

Obama sounds too much like Osama :dead: :down: :P j/k

okey than...