Next US President: Wishes and Expectactions

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Deathblow

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

National healthcare programs suck!!!

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]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

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]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

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]

Originally Posted by CCIP

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.

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)

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]

Originally Posted by *[FOX

* 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.

[TteFAboB]

Originally Posted by CCIP

(...)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.

[Sixpack]

Exercising the right to vote, eh ?

Pityful stuff when you think it through well enough

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

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Torpedo Fodder

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]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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]

Originally Posted by Torpedo Fodder

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.