Do You Think Barack Obama Represents â??Changeâ?�?

[dragonrider]

In an election where a vast majority of people think the country is on the wrong track, itâ??s to be expected that politicians will try to present themselves as representing â??change.â?� Barack Obama has presented himself as representing â??change you can believe in.â?�

The change message is popular with Obamaâ??s supporters and they almost always cite the need for change when they talk about him. Some think he will end the Iraq war and get the economy on the right track. Some think he will change government priorities to favor people who have been ignored by this current administration. Some think he will change the perception of the US around the world. Some think he will focus on environmental issues that have been ignored by this current administration. Some think he will restore some individual constitutional rights that have been curtailed during this administration.

Others have called it an empty slogan with no specifics. Some think that all politicians answer to the same masters and nothing ever changes. They donâ??t think an Obama presidency will change anything.

And others have agreed that Obama represents change, but change in the wrong direction. Some disagree with his policies and think he represents a change for the worse. Some think his policies on the war will be a strategic mistake. Some think his economic, tax, and fiscal policies will cause economic problems.

So what do you think? Does Barack Obama represent change? Also be sure to answer the same question about John McCain in the McCain thread. http://boards.cannabis.com/politics/156738-do-you-think-john-mccain-represents-change.html

[psteve]

I'd like to believe that the change IN MY POCKET might be worth something again some day. No chance of that with Mcdrain.

[daihashi]

I don't think Obama represents change.

He hasn't shown a history of bipartisan support.

He constantly is either a No Vote or has contradicted issues he has claimed to be strong on (you have to look at his voting history)

For a man who has so many ideas and is a representative of change he sure seems to do poorly in debates. He honestly seems like a bumbling fool. You would think that someone who is the messiah of change as they claim to be would have something on the tip of their tongue just waiting to share it during the democratic debtes.

For a person who is for change he sure has turned down John McCain on several invitations for debates.. for visiting Iraq together etc etc. If we want change then we need both parties working together. This does not give me any type of inclination to believe that Obama is going to work toward that goal. Quite the opposite.

I don't think he is very strong in economics. He has all these ideas and plans to put programs and services in place but my question to him is... where is he going to get the money for all this? It costs money to do things peope.. and who do you think pays for that? We do.. through our tax dollars. While I am in support of government sponsored programs and and services.. I don't exactly support the thought of being taxed more than I already am. The US needs more export goods. As it stands right now what is our major export and how much of it are we exporting? Is it any wonder that the American dollar is so low? We tax American companies for producing goods inside the united states but we don't tax imports equally.

I guarantee you if we began taxing imports more and gave incentive for American manufacturers then the domestic economy would pick up, people would have reason to buy American again and the dollar would strengthen....

but let's not do that. let's tax tax tax and make people poorer and the dollar weaker.. all in the name of neo-socialism.

I could go on and on.. I do not see Obama for change he suggests he stands for; however I do believe that just about anything would be an improvement over Bush

[daihashi]

I'd like to believe that the change IN MY POCKET might be worth something again some day. No chance of that with Mcdrain.

It's not always the amount you have in your pocket, but rather the value of that amount.

Do you believe that Obama is going to strengthen the value of the dollar?

[dragonrider]

I think Barack Obama definitely represents change, and I think it will be for the better.

Environmental issues are very important to me. Out current adminstration has worked hard to WEAKEN environmental protections and has worked AGAINST my state's efforts to address environmental issues. I think Obama will focus on environmental issues that have been ignored by this current administration.

I think Obama will improve the perception of the US around the world. Bush has destroyed our image internationally, and Obama will restore that.

I think Obama will restore some individual constitutional rights that have been trampeled upon by the Bush administration.

I think Obama will bring back the fiscal responsibility that Bush lacked. Bush inherited a budget surplus, gave it all away as tax cuts, and drove this country deeper into debt than it has ever been before. Obama will get us back on track.

Obama will definitely change the direction of the Iraq war. But I'm not sure if I agree with everything he has said about how he will handle it. I think out of necessity his strategy will have to be more nuanced than it has been in the primaries. I think he is smart enought not to do something totally stupid, but this is one area where I'm not sure I agree with all the changes he has proposed so far. And i'm not sure he would even be able to accomplish all the changes he has proposed for the war even if he wanted too.

[jessejames12345]

I agree totaly. For once, we are going to have a president that inspires us and makes us proud to be american again. This is an exciting time :D

[daihashi]

Environmental issues are very important to me. Out current adminstration has worked hard to WEAKEN environmental protections and has worked AGAINST my state's efforts to address environmental issues. I think Obama will focus on environmental issues that have been ignored by this current administration.

I think Obama will improve the perception of the US around the world. Bush has destroyed our image internationally, and Obama will restore that.

I think Obama will restore some individual constitutional rights that have been trampeled upon by the Bush administration.

I think Obama will bring back the fiscal responsibility that Bush lacked. Bush inherited a budget surplus, gave it all away as tax cuts, and drove this country deeper into debt than it has ever been before. Obama will get us back on track.



I could see Obama working towards Environmental issues.. which is great.

I don't think Obama will improve the perception of the US around the world. He is a good speaker, but the guy doesn't even take the time to prepare for debates? And if he did prepare and still did that poorly then that speaks even louder for the type of president he will become.

Bush did inherit a budget surplus but everyone seems to ignore the fact that the economy was already going down rapidly. I am not saying Bush didn't contribute and amplify the problem, he did.. there's no denying that, but we would still be in this downward slope.

If anyone does market analysis they can tell you that the market works in a sloping trend that repeats itself. There are ways you can predict this trend and take measure to try to counteract it. The Clinton administration was warned several times

So if you're using the republican ticket to be able to point your finger at McCain then I think you should look elsewhere. The problem began at the end of the Clinton administration, Bush screwed it up worse.. both Individuals are to blame for this.

Most of your post I agree with on some level.. but I still don't feel strongly enough about Obama... at the same time I don't feel so strongly about McCain.

They are both weak candidates whom are not ideal for the American people.

[psteve]

It's not always the amount you have in your pocket, but rather the value of that amount.Exactly.

Do you believe that Obama is going to strengthen the value of the dollar?No, We'll be screwed for decades because of bush, but McAnal would not even try.

[daihashi]

Exactly.No, We'll be screwed for decades because of bush, but McAnal would not even try.

meh, to be honest I'm not sure either one of these two particular candidates can help us on that front.

All we can do is wish and hope and try to guess who's going to screw us over the least at this point... at least that's how I feel after seeing the two major candidates we have to choose from :(

[Psycho4Bud]

I think Barack Obama definitely represents change, and I think it will be for the better.

We disagree already....like Carter, this "would" definately be a change for the worse.



Environmental issues are very important to me. Out current adminstration has worked hard to WEAKEN environmental protections and has worked AGAINST my state's efforts to address environmental issues. I think Obama will focus on environmental issues that have been ignored by this current administration.

GREAT...so much for nuclear power or drilling for oil in the U.S.. Building additional refineries....what about the one tooth chipmunk that might be affected? So much for additional power resources. I'm sure when we split from Iraq that 2.5 mill. barrels/day won't effect the price of oil either. Just saw a poll that stated 61% of Americans want us to drill the hell out of Anwar for oil...and other sites in the U.S.; can't do that when we are protecting our enviroment with a "green" hand.



I think Obama will improve the perception of the US around the world. Bush has destroyed our image internationally, and Obama will restore that.

Explain how? IF he was to pull out of Iraq he'd lose any respect from any country in that region. Likewise with our allie Israel. Do you think that this would gain the respect of China OR Russia...hell no. If improving the perception means that we turn into a nation of runners that leaves our allies hanging...then I'd have to agree with ya. Not something I'd call for "the good".



I think Obama will restore some individual constitutional rights that have been trampeled upon by the Bush administration.

And when there is a terrorist strike in our borders then he can blame it on Bush for stirring the world pot or not going after Al-Quada...how many Al-Quada in Iraq are left as compared to the ones sent to Allah? How many terrorist attacks have happened since 9-11? What major changes have you had to make in your life since your constitutional rights have been trampled on? What party is behind the "no smoking" policies that trample on alot of our rights?



I think Obama will bring back the fiscal responsibility that Bush lacked. Bush inherited a budget surplus, gave it all away as tax cuts, and drove this country deeper into debt than it has ever been before. Obama will get us back on track.

9-11, Katrina, the Afghan war, Iraq war...but this surplus would have remained with a Dem? I suppose it could have if handled like either Carter or Clinton..."BAD OSAMA! Now don't do that again ya hear?"

And if anyone thinks that free healthcare, college and all the rest of the empty promises like pulling out of Iraq is going to save money they really need to take a look at the costs and ask themselves where this cash will come from: higher taxes OR a larger budget deficit?

Remember, this is the same Jr. Senator that has racked up more than $200,000,000 in earmarks in 3 years.



Obama will definitely change the direction of the Iraq war. But I'm not sure if I agree with everything he has said about how he will handle it. I think out of necessity his strategy will have to be more nuanced than it has been in the primaries. I think he is smart enought not to do something totally stupid, but this is one area where I'm not sure I agree with all the changes he has proposed so far. And i'm not sure he would even be able to accomplish all the changes he has proposed for the war even if he wanted too.

I ask this question frequently but seem to NEVER get a response. How many troops will it take to protect over 100,000 civilian workers, our diplomats, Embassy, and the Iraqi nationals that were loyal to us? As stated in a debate, this is his plan...the rest of the personnel won't be coming home but instead will be based out of Kuwait...just incase Al-Quada returns or our troops remaining are getting slaughtered.

Another issue is the "genocide" in Somalia he promised to cure. How many troops will that take? And while we're in Africa why not help our his cousin in Kenya?

Anybody can talk it up about "change" but without the full support of congress and senate the president is very limited in what "change" he can really do. Obama has NEVER reached across the aisle in order to make concessions...how much of his plan does anyone think he could really accomplish?

The rational part of me wants McCain to win for obvious reasons and the other part wants Obama for the Med. M.J. and also to see all the lil' dems cry when they face double digit inflation, unemployment, and interest rates just like in the days of good ol' J. Carter.

Have a good one!:s4:

[dragonrider]

All we can do is wish and hope and try to guess who's going to screw us over the least at this point... at least that's how I feel after seeing the two major candidates we have to choose from :(

You almost never have two GREAT candidates. And given the fact that people legitimately disgree over policy, you are never going to get everyone to AGREE that a candidate is great. But I'm not that disappointed in these choices. Maybe it's just that I have been conditioned to such low expectation by Bush, but I think either one will be an improvement, and neither one will be a disaster. I don't think either one of them is a bought-and-paid-for puppet like I consider Bush to be.

American politics is a pendulm that swings in favor of one group's interests for a time and then swings back. When Clinton's term was over, it was time to swing a bit more conservatively, and I wish it had been McCain who had beat Bush in the primaries in 2000. He would have been a responsible Republican president during the conservative period. But now I think it is time to swing back to a more liberal politics, and McCain's time was lost to Bush. I'm sure Obama will win, and it will represent a good change for a time. Other voices will be heard for awhile. McCain would have been a fine preisdent, but he lost his shot 8 years ago.

[daihashi]

You almost never have two GREAT candidates. And given the fact that people legitimately disgree over policy, you are never going to get everyone to AGREE that a candidate is great. But I'm not that disappointed in these choices. Maybe it's just that I have been conditioned to such low expectation by Bush, but I think either one will be an improvement, and neither one will be a disaster. I don't think either one of them is a bought-and-paid-for puppet like I consider Bush to be.

American politics is a pendulm that swings in favor of one group's interests for a time and then swings back. When Clinton's term was over, it was time to swing a bit more conservatively, and I wish it had been McCain who had beat Bush in the primaries in 2000. He would have been a responsible Republican president during the conservative period. But now I think it is time to swing back to a more liberal politics, and McCain's time was lost to Bush. I'm sure Obama will win, and it will represent a good change for a time. Other voices will be heard for awhile. McCain would have been a fine preisdent, but he lost his shot 8 years ago.

The real problem at hand here is that the republicans are too conservative and the democrats are too liberal.

What ever happened to being moderate? Meaning not fixing what isn't broken but being intelligent enough to see when something needs to change.. or be intelligent enough to cut your losses short when you see something not working.

Two party systems suck!

[Psycho4Bud]

I put a sticky on your poll for ya.....it'll be lifted either at your request or if 30 days have past with no response.

By the way, great thead!:thumbsup: Should generate some good debate.....:D

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

[dragonrider]

I put a sticky on your poll for ya.....it'll be lifted either at your request or if 30 days have past with no response.

By the way, great thead!:thumbsup: Should generate some good debate.....:D

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

Thanks! Let the games begin!

[JeffersonBud]

It still amazes me that in a country of brilliant minds this is all we have to lead this country.

[psteve]

It still amazes me that in a country of brilliant minds this is all we have to lead this country....Thanks to 20+ years of republican education policy.

[illnillinois]

Its called "The End Times" He plans to make alot of changes:wtf:

[Dutch Pimp]

Thanks! Let the games begin!

We had our chance in 2000, with Al Gore, Jr...son of the grey fox...we're fucked now....but, I enjoyed it, while it lasted....:thumbsup:

[rebgirl420]

Obama represents a change for the worse.

I am absolutely terrified of the fact that he may be elected. With the socialised medicine (I fucking refuse to wait 3 weeks for an appointment. It hasn't worked anywhere else why would it work here? Healthcare is a quarter of our economy! The government can't even fix the roads but they want to control this shit.), huge taxes, redistribution of wealth, and a million other socialist crap.

I wasn't alive during Jimmy Carter (Thankfully)

But I do know thats he's the worst president ever. Gas lotteries anyone?

[Reefer Rogue]

Change for the better. Bring on the progression, you've all seen how prosperous America has become under the George Bush republican regime, it can't get any worse, well maybe if McCain got elected and follows in his footsteps.

[rebgirl420]

Random:

Why does everyone blame everything on Bush and the Republicans?

What about the 8 years of President Clinton? You can't act like America was fan-freaking-tastic then. Bush came into the Presidency and took all of the shit that had been building up from the Clinton regime.

Bush is by far not the best president, but to blame everything on him and say things like he's the worst clearly shows a lack of historic acuracy. He has had to make some pretty hard decisions. And unless you were there in the room, knowing all the info that he did I doubt anyone can have a proper opinion. Often in history Presidents are rated as being horrible only to have that stigma change a few years later when the air clears and people can see things in a better view.

But that's my 2 cents.

:dance:

[dragonrider]

Bush came into the Presidency and took all of the shit that had been building up from the Clinton regime.

Yeah, he fixed up that budget surplus he got real quick.

[rebgirl420]

This guy sums it up nicely:

"Time and time again, anyone reading the mainstream news or reading articles on the Internet will read the claim that President Clinton not only balanced the budget, but had a surplus. This is then used as an argument to further highlight the fiscal irresponsibility of the federal government under the Bush administration.

The claim is generally made that Clinton had a surplus of $69 billion in FY1998, $123 billion in FY1999 and $230 billion in FY2000 . In that same link, Clinton claimed that the national debt had been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years, presumably FY1998, FY1999, and FY2000--though, interestingly, $360 billion is not the sum of the alleged surpluses of the three years in question ($69B + $123B + $230B = $422B, not $360B).

While not defending the increase of the federal debt under President Bush, it is aggravating seeing Clinton's record promoted as having generated a surplus. It never happened. There was never a surplus and the cold hard facts support that position. In fact, far from a $360 billion reduction in the national debt in FY1998-FY2000, there was an increase of $281 billion.

Verifying this is as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury website where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt since January 1993 can be obtained. Considering the government's fiscal year ends on the last day of September each year, and considering Clinton's budget proposal in 1993 took effect in October 1993 and concluded September 1994 (FY1994), here's the national debt at the end of each year of Clinton Budgets:

FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion

As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a budget surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the budget was almost balanced in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive number. And Clinton's last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration.

Keep in mind that President Bush took office in January 2001 and his first budget took effect October 1, 2001 for the year ending September 30, 2002 (FY2002). So the $133.29 billion deficit in the year ending September 2001 was Clinton's. Granted, Bush supported a tax refund where taxpayers received checks in 2001. However, the total amount refunded to taxpayers was $38 billion . So even if we assume that $38 billion of the FY2001 deficit was due to Bush's tax refunds which were not part of Clinton's last budget, that still means that Clinton's last budget produced a deficit of 133.29 - 38 = $95.29 billion.

Clinton clearly did not achieve a surplus and he didn't leave President Bush with a surplus."


Theres more at the link :)

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus (http://www.letxa.com/articles/16)

[Reefer Rogue]

It's easy to blame Clinton but i strongly feel Bush has robbed Americans of their constitutional rights with this 'patriot' act, funded a war in iraq which is completely farcical and unnecessary, wasting billions of dollars, including $23B not accounted for... He's contributed heavily to the destruction and respectability of the repuation of America. He's a complete and utter disgraceful embarresment and everyone who voted for him should be ashamed in my opinion or happy you got what you voted for. Unfortunately for others, they've suffered a tyranny of the majority. This isn't about the abismal bush legacy though. Obama is a much better leader who is actually in touch with the public, running for their rights and preferences, not like Bush who ran his own agenda. I don't see how Mccain can relate to this current situation, it seems he's living in the past. He'll get a lot of support from the older voters, perhaps he'll even pull through. I hope not.

[rebgirl420]

I'm in no way saying he's a fantastic president but I'm saying is he has had a lot of hard decisions and it's easy to place blame on him but really he doesn't have THAT much power. You have to blame congress and the sentate also. Not to mention MANY of the Democrats were for the war at the time. (Obama SAYS he wasn't but he didn't even vote...because he wasn't even in OFFICE! Which goes to prove even more his complete lack of experience).

Obama is only "in touch with the public" because he continues to make huge promises that he can't financially account for. Well he'll get them payed for by raising taxes and then redistributing the wealth.

[Reefer Rogue]

I'm in no way saying he's a fantastic president but I'm saying is he has had a lot of hard decisions and it's easy to place blame on him but really he doesn't have THAT much power. You have to blame congress and the sentate also. Not to mention MANY of the Democrats were for the war at the time. (Obama SAYS he wasn't but he didn't even vote...because he wasn't even in OFFICE! Which goes to prove even more his complete lack of experience).

Obama is only "in touch with the public" because he continues to make huge promises that he can't financially account for. Well he'll get them payed for by raising taxes and then redistributing the wealth.

In the concept of distributive justice, i believe inequality is only justified when it benefits the least well off. I'm aware you're against socialism but when there's people suffering and dying, living in poverty in the richest country in the world, something is wrong imo. I agree with you it's very easy to blame politicians and that they make very hard decisions. However, it was his choice to run for president and he must accept full responsabilty for all his actions, no matter how hard the decision was, president isn't an easy job, it's full of media sharks waiting to smell blood then finish you off.

I don't only blame Bush, like you say the congress passed this without true evidence of WMD's, sure Sadam is dead, that changed things for the better.. We've initiated a democratic process which is positive, but at what cost? If i were to ask who's the most powerful man in America, would it not be the president? Politicians should represent the overwhelming interest of the public, i feel Obama is better at understanding people's needs better. Also, how will McCain strengthen the dollar any more then Obama would? In the battle of political ideologies, ofcourse i'd prefer anarchism but that's not viable. Thus, i'm a liberal, basing my values on liberty, freedom and equality, some of the great things america was founded upon. It seems to me the conservatives want to weaken our civil liberties for the purpose of 'national security' but i believe it's only sensationalist propaganda to gain votes. By eroding our liberties this only plays in to the hands of terrorists who wish to do exactly that, this is doing their job for them.

I think this will be a hard fought battle but i believe the charisma that obama shows will inspire more people to vote, especially those who never vote because they feel alientated from old white men conservatives with their own financial agendas who wish to interfere in your life. Negative liberty for the win.

[birdgirl73]

I think Obama does represent change and I will support him, obviously. Although I talk a fairly big game about being far left, I'm actually more moderate than most people know and I hate the polarization we have in this country and on these boards because anyone with any sense knows the two parties have to work together. Polarization doesn't do this country any good, and it's the stuff of frighteningly simple black-and-white minds, I think, that have to reduce debates to two sides, like good and evil. (Like George Dubya Bush does.)

That being said, any candidate would represent change after the Bush administration. Even McCain, despite the fact that the Obama camp likes to paint him as the third Bush administration. Although I stand to the left of Senator McCain, I respect him a great deal.

I read a lot. I mean news magazines, Newspapers. Books. Some blogs. But mostly longer stuff. Blogs and electronic news are mostly just quick news bytes and headlines. That being said, objectively speaking and based on a long career in communications and speechwriting before I danced off to medical school, Obama's message of change is mighty vague right now, and I've been looking for a long time for specifics. It needs some meat and some definition. Does anyone else who supports Obama feel the same way? "Change you can believe in" to me is starting to make me think about the term "faith" for some reason. Like I'm being asked to take it on faith. I've always been one to take things on facts more than on faith.

I need some more in-depth definition of exactly how Obama plans to change things. That's when I'll feel more comfortable buying what he's selling. I'm still buying it, though. Make no mistake about that. If for no other reason than these two simple words: Supreme Court.

As far as pointing the finger 8 years back at the Clinton administration for the problems we're seeing now, that just makes me laugh hysterically. Anyone with eyes and a brain can read history and has seen the deficit go up, foreign policy and respect from the world go down, homeland security and, especially early on, defense policy, be mismanaged, freedoms and privacy be infringed, and ire in the Middle East be stirred up to levels that we'll never recover from. Seriously. That crap happened under Bush and no one else. Far more than what's listed here, too, by the way. If you don't believe that his foreign policy, by the way, has been appalling, you might want to educate yourself on what both Secretary of State Powell and Rice have worked in complete futility to try to do and how impossible it was--and still is, in Condi's case--to try to accomplish anything.

[illnillinois]

Its called "The End Times" He plans to make alot of changes:wtf:

What i mean by (End Times). We are living in the last days.. Its funny that I hear of Natural Disasters ALL over the US in the last year, and it doesn't really even make a bleep on most peoples radar. We are so Desensitized to events. The anti-christ isn't stupid. Obamas coment of "He'll be the gap between the EAST-WEST, "christians and Musslims" When there is 7 years of peace in the middle east, better start getting your bags packed, but pack lite..
Obamas "ability to gather the masses" People are blinded. It was written down more then 2000 years ago. I am not going to pretend I am a bible guru, or even a proper christian, BUT i do know how to trust my gut.

Even if he doesn't make president, which I dont think he will. Watch out for him, and careful what we entrust him with...

[daihashi]

What i mean by (End Times). We are living in the last days.. Its funny that I hear of Natural Disasters ALL over the US in the last year, and it doesn't really even make a bleep on most peoples radar. We are so Desensitized to events. The anti-christ isn't stupid. Obamas coment of "He'll be the gap between the EAST-WEST, "christians and Musslims" When there is 7 years of peace in the middle east, better start getting your bags packed, but pack lite..
Obamas "ability to gather the masses" People are blinded. It was written down more then 2000 years ago. I am not going to pretend I am a bible guru, or even a proper christian, BUT i do know how to trust my gut.

Even if he doesn't make president, which I dont think he will. Watch out for him, and careful what we entrust him with...

Actually the anti-christ was Emperor Nero.

Every person of every generation has thought the end of times is near. Every person of every generation has thought the Anti-Christ appeared in their life-time an that the end of times is near.

Seeing as how history repeats itself I have to side with this not being the end of times.

but I've been wrong before. Ignorane is bliss right? heh

[the image reaper]

let's check history a bit ... Nero, Hitler, Chairman Mao, and Stalin ALL promised 'change' :wtf: ... they delivered it, too ... :(

[illnillinois]

but I've been wrong before. Ignorance is bliss right? heh


To be honest with you, i have never thought anyone was the anti-christ, But obama is going to surprise us all in the end..
I dont fall into the hype of 2012. I think we have about another 25/30 years. I know there is a lot more that has to come to pass.

Like the EU, the footprint of the roman empire. Talked about 2000 years ago.
I am not going to bore people with my personal opinions..

But what I can say is daihashi has one HELL of a green thumb.. I loved the grow log you put together..

[daihashi]

To be honest with you, i have never thought anyone was the anti-christ, But obama is going to surprise us all in the end..
I dont fall into the hype of 2012. I think we have about another 25/30 years. I know there is a lot more that has to come to pass.

Like the EU, the footprint of the roman empire. Talked about 2000 years ago.
I am not going to bore people with my personal opinions..

But what I can say is daihashi has one HELL of a green thumb.. I loved the grow log you put together..

With the way things are going I can see a collapse of some sort happening like you suggest. :thumbsup: And please continue with your opinions. Naturally people are going to agree/disagree but that's the fun in being able to intelligently discuss a subject. I like reading all the posts in here whether I agree or not :jointsmile:

bleh.. I was actually disappointed in that grow, but i'm glad you enjoyed it. I have some new stuff planned starting soon. It should be some very quality stuff.

Sour Northern Lights x Nevilles Haze. Stay tuned for that log starting up in a few weeks :D

[illnillinois]

:thumbsup: And please continue with your opinions. Naturally people are going to agree/disagree but that's the fun in being able to intelligently discuss a subject. I like reading all the posts in here whether I agree or not :jointsmile:


I do agree with you, its ok to have a good ol' debate :) or just sharing of thoughts and ideas..

[thcbongman]

I have pondered this for a while. I don't believe Obama could do much to change the culture inside the beltway. It's too embedded with money, power, too pompous to change. Even the most well-intention would realize they'll need to work with the devil in order to get things done. The difference between McCain and Obama is McCain has been embedded in the culture for too long to represent change. Obama has a fresher outlook on trying to steer the culture in a different direction. McCain will continue to be the status-quo of every republican beltway-insider, making DC richer rather than America richer.

I believe Obama will try to change some things. He'll steer health care in the right direction. He'll push to have a more sound fiscal policy. He'll implement an energy policy. Although I believe he'll deliver empty in a lot of his promises, I don't think he'll mess it up. Much of my decision to vote for him will depend on the vice president he chooses. If it's a democrat known for his fiscal responsiblity, I'd most likely vote for Obama.

[bowl]

Anything has got to be better than what the Bushes' have left Americans to deal with ,While they retire to thier lovely ranch...And Mcain offers the same Bushology...Is there really any choice?Obama or..........Bushology.

[katyowns]

wasting billions of dollars, including $23B not accounted for...

And the government has put a gag order on it so the public won't know about it.


A BBC investigation estimates that around $23bn (£11.75bn) may have been lost, stolen or just not properly accounted for in Iraq.

BBC NEWS | Middle East | BBC uncovers lost Iraq billions (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7444083.stm)

how I am ever thankful for BBC news.

[painretreat]

I believe the first change Obama will make is like Arnie in Calif.: He'll have to have his cigarette smoking room, latest is: he can't change his smoking habit! If he can't change himself and he so deperately states he wants and tries to--what can he change for us! Arnie built a cigar smoking shak in CA capital at his own expense. Then set off fire
sprinklers, etc. flooded the capital's first floor and parking lots--taxpayers had to pay for that.
What change did Obama bring for Illinois? Said he supported lowering gas prices, but people did not get lower gas price, the distributors took the profit. So, he did not think the plan out completely as to who would have to make up for the break and pay for it. So, it did not work. Well, it never got fixed, but he tried. So, will he represent change or trying and in so doing, making it worse. I think most Presidents are benign, it is the way our system is designed that is malignant! That is where we need change. For substantial, permanent change. The Senate and Congress! Every election is important. You must vote every time and on every issue, provide you understand it and if you cannot and try, don't!

Seriously, I was involved in JFK from nomination on; very interesting as a child.He was change; Every political platform is for change-new day, different words!

Change really happens in the Senate and Congress and if we take those elections any less serious than the president, we are foolish.

The most dramatic change I have seen is Nixon. like him or not: He did end Viet Nam. I attended many of my friends funerals then. Nothing like Iraq. Now, if he does something like that-sure that is a true change. I will not forget the day our guys got to come home from Viet Nam, Canada and everywhere else they fled to avoid the draft.

To change the climate of the nation, it takes more than someone sitting in a big white house smoking cigarettes consumed with inexperience to really make long lasting economical changes that we all so desperately need! If he does make great change, it will depend a lot on the people that are in the cabinet; congress and senate.

One way or another, it will be a change; Even if it is just ethnic! It will instill some hope for some, in one way or another and hope for all that Bush is gone with his dictorial type of presidency. His father wasn't even that bold and lost re-election. Maybe people liked a Czar type thing, but they are now tired of it. So, change, is it us who change our views or the president changing our views by what he says or tries to do?

We were upset on 9/11. If my insurance Co. cheated me in a settlement and it was wrong, do I go kill them. We have paid more innocent lives for 9/11 than it took. But, it was never about 9/11 anyway, just a good excuse to do what our czar planned. People loved it! Who knows what is right or wrong in the world scheme of things. Is Bush a good man. I am sure he and his family think so. Was he good for the nation. Well, maybe he is the reason this election is so popular! Once you eat beans for a long time then have steak, which would you prefer. A vegan, beans!

Change of the man or the real things that matter, health care has a solution, it may not
be socialized medicine, that would suck, I feel, but we knew the economic backbone of this nation wad going when, just like the Oil Co., Emeron and Insurance have all been allowed to price so high no one can afford the living they had with the ceiling on wages! Change, would be to increase wages, consistant with costs and interest rates. when the cost of living goes up over 9% and you can't even get 2% on your savings acct. that is wrong. I don't know how many of you remember, I use to get interest on my checking acct., instead of paying to let them use my money. The interest was around 8% or better. I actually made money on my checking acct.


The informed and educated that really care about planet Earth, economy, justice, war, peace, civil liberty, etc. I do not feel he has a lot to do with it! As bush tried to change the (I'd like to say 10 commandments) but I mean constitution, he could not and thank God!

The middle East problems, have been as old as time, blame Clinton or whomever you please, until they stop having religious wars there, they will always fight! In Iraq, we got into that with Reagan and maybe before, but I am not a history major and that is as far as I remember we did over there! We had a lot of little wars that went unnoticed with Clinton. I think Bosnia and dare I try to crack my brain open, I might find the others.

If you really study the '60's or lived it; you may see, as I do; same broken policies and a lot of Presidents later, we have not had change, as one person said; they go on a Pendulum. What goes up must come down or disappear, I guess!

The debt of the nation; Well, savings is when you decrease the rate of which you are rapidly going into debt by offsetting it. In doing so, you decrease the rate with which you go bankrupt and eventually pull out of it! We would need to see the U.S. Treasury reports from 2001 until now (with Iraq) to really see the spending difference! I do know, if the funds had not been taken from the U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers and diverted to Iraq, Katrina would not have happened (but who cries over spilled milK). Funds for Social Security got so tight with this Iraq war, there were new policies in place for SSI and SSD. Many were taken off and it is too hard to get on without going to court now. We have taken funds from everything that matter to us as individuals to pay for this war.

n take it on a smaller scale. Calif. was in an economic mess, Arnie came along, let's consolidate and start all over. Well we did and now we do do! Meaning, he is looking for a way to pay off all the debt that kept growing and did not stop! Calif. is now in just as bad, if not, worse shape than when he took over, and we still have the debt he started with, set aside and not being paid!

Sure Obama is change! That is my answer. They all are! As psteve said; check your pocket and I believe that will be my gauge!

whew, didn't know I really had any strong feelings about it. But tired of hearing change and the only change I've seen is: from my pocket to the gov't and more of it. The penny costs more than a penny to make and we still make it! Nickel is no longer of nickel and the silver coins are not of silver! I did not vote on the McDrain, because too many times they run on one issue and do another. So, I won't vote on the Osama one either. I'll wait and see.

I guess we need to ask Oprah? I do think our liberties are going the wrong direction! If that changes, I guess I'll be happy. What has been screwed with for decades to make better is only getting worse. I don't remember, but one guy has a signature that says it all. We fight for freedom and then legislate our freedom away--or something like that!

[Psycho4Bud]

ARLINGTON, Va., June 12 /Standard Newswire/ -- Today, on the fourth day of Barack Obama's "Change That Works For You" tour, McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds issued the following statement:

"Barack Obama's assertion that the only problem with higher gas prices is that they've gone up too fast -- saying he'd prefer a 'gradual' increase instead -- shows how clearly out of touch he is with Americans struggling with record gas prices. At a time when Americans need relief at the pump, Barack Obama's support for higher gas prices and higher energy taxes is just another example of his weak economic judgment."

This Week In An Interview With CNBC, Barack Obama Said He Would Have Preferred If Higher Gasoline Prices Happened More Gradually:

In An Interview With CNBC, Barack Obama Said He Would Have Preferred A "Gradual" Increase In Gasoline Prices. BARACK OBAMA: "Well, I think that we have been slow to move in a better direction when it comes to energy usage. And the president, frankly, hasn't had an energy policy. And as a consequence, we've been consuming energy as if it's infinite. We now know that our demand is badly outstripping supply with China and India growing as rapidly as they are. So..." HARWOOD: "So could these high prices help us?" BARACK OBAMA: "I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment. The fact that this is such a shock to American pocketbooks is not a good thing. But if we take some steps right now to help people make the adjustment, first of all by putting more money into their pockets, but also by encouraging the market to adapt to these new circumstances more quickly, particularly US automakers, then I think ultimately, we can come out o f this stronger and have a more efficient energy policy than we do right now." (CNBC, 6/10/08)

Watch Barack Obama: YouTube - Obama: Higher Oil Prices Are Good? What??? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gehaf7_TBAs)

Barack Obama Has Called For Taxing Coal And Natural Gas -- The Two Largest Sources Of Electricity In America:

Barack Obama Told A Texas Newspaper: "What We Ought To Tax Is Dirty Energy, Like Coal And, To A Lesser Extent, Natural Gas." ("Q&A With Sen. Barack Obama," San Antonio Express-News, 2/19/08)

Coal Is The Largest Source Of Electricity In America, Accounting For Nearly 49 Percent Of U.S. Total Net Generation In 2006. (Energy Information Administration Website, Energy Information Administration - EIA - Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government (http://www.eia.doe.gov), Accessed 6/9/08)

"The U.S. Has The World's Largest Coal Reserves, With The Western U.S. Accounting For 55 Percent Of Current U.S. Coal Production." (Energy Information Administration Website, tonto.eia.doe.gov, Accessed 6/9/08)

Natural Gas Is The Second Largest Source Of Electricity In America, Accounting For 20 Percent Of U.S. Total Net Generation In 2006. (Energy Information Administration Website, Energy Information Administration - EIA - Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government (http://www.eia.doe.gov), Accessed 6/9/08)

"The U.S. Is The World's Largest Consumer And Second-Largest Producer Of Natural Gas." (Energy Information Administration Website, tonto.eia.doe.gov, Accessed 6/9/08)

Barack Obama Has Called For A $15 Billion A Year Windfall Profits Tax:

Barack Obama Is Proposing A $15 Billion A Year Windfall Profits Tax On Oil Companies. "Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's proposal for a windfall profits tax on oil companies could cost $15 billion a year at last year's profit levels, a campaign adviser said. ... Among the options Illinois Senator Obama is mulling is imposing a 20 percent tax on the cost of a barrel of oil above $80, said [Obama adviser Jason] Grumet, who spoke at a conference in Washington today." (Daniel Whitten, "Obama May Levy $15 Billion Tax On Oil Company Profit," Bloomberg News, 5/1/08)

The Non-Partisan Congressional Research Service Found That The Windfall Profits Tax Reduced Domestic Oil Production And Increased Our Dependence On Foreign Oil By As Much As 13 Percent. "From 1980 to 1988, the WPT may have reduced domestic oil production anywhere from 1.2% to 8.0% (320 to 1,269 million barrels). Dependence on imported oil grew from between 3% and 13%." (Salvatore Lazzari, "The Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Of The 1980s: Implications For Current Energy Policy," Congressional Research Service, 3/9/06)

The Tax Reduced Domestic Oil Supply And Increased Demand For Imported Oil. "The WPT had the effect of reducing the domestic supply of crude oil below what the supply would have been without the tax. This increased the demand for imported oil and made the United States more dependent upon foreign oil as compared with dependence without a WPT." (Salvatore Lazzari, "The Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Of The 1980s: Implications For Current Energy Policy," Congressional Research Service, 3/9/06)

During The Eight-Year Imposition Of The Windfall Profits Tax, Domestic Oil Output Fell To Its Lowest Level In Two Decades. "Skeptics who want to check the data need to search no further than the eight-year 1980s run of the energy industry windfall profit tax. During that time, domestic oil output fell to its lowest level in two decades." (Editorial, "A Bleak Future," Investor's Business Daily, 5/29/08)

The Wall Street Journal: The Windfall Profits Tax Reduced Domestic Oil Production And Increased Prices At The Pump. "The last time Congress imposed a form of the windfall tax was the final gloomy days of Jimmy Carter, and the result was: a substantial reduction in domestic oil production (about 5%), thus raising the price of gas at the pump; and a 10% increase in U.S. reliance on foreign oil. A windfall profits tax is the ultimate act of economic masochism because it taxes only domestic production, while imports and foreign oil subsidiaries bear almost none of the cost." (Editorial, "Windfall Accounting Tax," The Wall Street Journal, 11/30/05)

Heritage's Ben Lieberman: The Windfall Profits Tax Ended Up Harming Consumers With Increased Energy Prices. "The track record for punitive measures like the windfall profits tax shows that they usually harm consumers along with the targeted industry. ... In the end, the tax hurt consumers more through higher energy prices than it helped them through higher tax revenues, which turned out to be far lower than originally predicted because the tax discouraged production." (Ben Lieberman, "Raising Taxes On Oil Companies Is No Way To Reduce Gas Prices," The Heritage Foundation: Devoted to the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense. (http://www.heritage.org), 3/1/06)

Obama Plans To Pay For A Number Of His Proposals With The Tax. "The tax would help pay for a $1,000 tax cut for working families, an expansion of the earned- income tax credit and assistance for people who can't afford their energy bills." (Daniel Whitten, "Obama May Levy $15 Billion Tax On Oil Company Profit," Bloomberg News, 5/1/08)

The Congressional Research Service Found That When The Windfall Profits Tax Was Implemented From 1980 To 1988, Gross Revenues Were Significantly Less Than Projected. "The $80 billion in gross revenues generated by the WPT between 1980 and 1988 was significantly less than the $393 billion projected." (Salvatore Lazzari, "The Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Of The 1980s: Implications for Current Energy Policy," Congressional Research Service, 3/9/06)

Former Sen. John Breaux (D-LA) Said Obama's Windfall Profits Tax Is Bad Energy Policy; It "Will Produce Less Energy And Not More." MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell: "John Breaux, you are from the oil patch. How do you feel about your candidate talking about a windfall profits tax?" Former Sen. John Breaux (D-LA): "Well a windfall profits tax is not going to produce a single barrel of oil. When we had a windfall profits tax back in the 1980s, we produced less energy than before we had the tax. A windfall profits tax may make you feel good as a punitive measure against the energy companies, but until we get the guys and women who produce the energy working with those that consume it, we are never going to solve the problem. A windfall profits tax will produce less energy and not more." (MSNBC's "MSNBC Live," 6/9/08)

FLASHBACK: Obama Is Following Jimmy Carter's Economic Policies, Supporting Higher Taxes During A Time Of Economic Weakness And Imposing A Windfall Profits Tax:

Carter Raised Taxes During An Economic Decline, Which Further Weakened The Economy. "There were two other occasions in recent American history when government raised taxes going into economic decline. Herbert Hoover tried it in the early 1930s; Jimmy Carter tried it in the late 1970s. Carter was the lucky one: He got 'only' a deep recession, Hoover got the Great Depression." (Editorial, "The Gingrich Recipe," The [Memphis] Commercial Appeal, 9/14/90)

President Carter Urged Congress To Enact A Windfall Profits Tax "Without Delay." President Carter: "These [energy independence] efforts will cost money, a lot of money, and that is why Congress must enact the windfall profits tax without delay. It will be money well spent. Unlike the billions of dollars that we ship to foreign countries to pay for foreign oil, these funds will be paid by Americans to Americans. These funds will go to fight, not to increase, inflation and unemployment." (President Jimmy Carter, Speech, Washington, D.C., 7/15/79)

In The U.S. Senate, Barack Obama Voted For Higher Energy Taxes That Would Have Driven Up The Cost Of Oil And Gas In America:

Obama Voted In Favor Of An Amendment To Add A $32 Billion Tax Hike Package To The CLEAN Energy Act Of 2007. (H.R. 6, CQ Vote #223: Motion Rejected 57-36: R 10-34; D 45-2; I 2-0, 6/21/07, Obama Voted Yea)

The Tax Hike Would Have Hurt Domestic Oil And Gas Manufacturing. "Meanwhile, most of the revenue-raising offsets in the measure would affect the oil and gas industry, which would lose a deduction for domestic manufacturing and face a new tax on operations in the Gulf of Mexico." (Richard Rubin, "Baucus Says Energy Tax Package Can Be Revived, But Details Are Sketchy," Congressional Quarterly Today, 7/10/07)

The Tax Hike Would Have "Contributed To Higher Gasoline Prices." "[The tax increase] would have excessively burdened oil companies that operate in Louisiana and other oil-producing states. It would have discouraged oil exploration, and contributed to higher gasoline prices." (Editorial, "A Sensible Energy Policy," The [New Orleans] Times-Picayune, 6/23/07)

A Heritage Foundation Study Found The Tax Increase Would Have Raised Gas Prices To Over $6 By 2016. "A study by the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank showed that the proposed tax increase would boost the average price of regular unleaded gasoline from $3.14 per gallon to $6.40 in 2016." (S.A. Miller, "Senate Votes To Raise Auto Mileage Standards," The Washington Times, 6/22/07)

Obama Voted At Least 3 Times To Impose A Temporary Windfall Profits Tax On Oil Companies. (S. 2020, CQ Vote #339: Motion Rejected 50-48: R 9-45; D 40-3; I 1-0, 11/17/05, Obama Voted Yea; S. 2020, CQ Vote #331: Motion Rejected 35-64: R 0-55; D 34-9; I 1-0, 11/17/05, Obama Voted Yea; S. 2020, CQ Vote #341: Motion Rejected 33-65: R 0-54; D 32-11; I 1-0, 11/17/05, Obama Voted Yea)

In The Illinois State Senate, Barack Obama Voted To Tax Natural Gas Purchased From Out Of State

In 2003, Obama Voted To Tax Natural Gas Purchases. "Creates the Gas Use Tax Law. Beginning October 1, 2003, imposes a tax upon the privilege of using in this State gas obtained in a purchase of out-of-state gas at the rate of 2.4 cents per therm [sic] or 5% of the purchase price for the billing period, whichever is the lower rate. Amends the Gas Revenue Tax Act to eliminate an exemption on October 1, 2003 and to provide that beginning with bills issued to customers on and after October 1, 2003, no tax is imposed under the Act on transactions with customers who incur a tax liability under the Gas Use Tax Law. Effective October 1, 2003." (S.B. 1733, Bill Status, Illinois General Assembly Home Page (http://www.ilga.gov), Accessed 2/11/08; S.B. 1733: Concurrence In House Amendment #4, Passed 31-27-00, 5/31/03, Obama Voted Yea)

The Tax On Natural Gas Purchased Outside Of Illinois Was Estimated To Cost $42 Million Annually To Illinois Businesses, Making It One Of The Largest Increases In Illinois In 2003. "One of the largest increases will be a new 5 percent tax on the sales of natural gas bought from out-of-state suppliers, which could reap $42 million for the state. Virtually every manufacturer in Illinois could face increased costs as a result, business leaders said. But they doubt the increases will produce the revenue Blagojevich is counting on because businesses will move quickly to avoid the new or higher fees and taxes." (John Schmeltzer, "New Taxes And Fees Are Bad For Business, Industrial Leaders Say," Chicago Tribune, 6/2/03)

The Natural Gas Tax Made Natural Gas More Expensive For Industrial Buyers Such As Steel Mills And Other Manufacturers. "The natural gas tax. A new policy under Blagojevich's budget will make natural gas more expensive to industrial buyers. Currently, Illinois offers an exemption on the sales tax paid for natural gas, but the new budget ends that exemption, a move that could become a major expense for steel mills and other factories that use large quantities of natural gas." (Kevin McDermott, "Area Dodged Legislative Hit On Schools, Roads," St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 6/8/03)

The Natural Gas Tax Threatened Jobs At The Same Time That Illinois Was Leading The Nation In Jobs Lost. "Just as harmful to the state's economy are the large taxes on natural gas brought from out-of-state suppliers and the rolling stock sales tax. Both of these taxes will negatively affect important businesses as well as the employees who are dependent on these Illinois companies. I have received phone calls and letters from all sectors of the business community who reported that the projected loss of revenues due to these increased taxes and fees may well cause them to close their facilities in Illinois and move to a more business-friendly surrounding state while still serving Illinois customers. Illinois leads the nation in jobs lost. We cannot afford to drive more businesses from our state." (State Rep. Carolyn Krause, Op-Ed, "Increase Tax Incentives, Not Taxes For Businesses," Chicago Tribune, 6/13/03)
Barack Obama's 'Gradual Adjustment' to Higher Gas Prices - Standard Newswire (http://www.standardnewswire.com/news/563672859.html)

Quite a long read but if your looking to see what type of change Obama would make....this might shed some light.

Have a good one!:s4:

[daihashi]

I believe Obama will try to change some things. He'll steer health care in the right direction. He'll push to have a more sound fiscal policy. He'll implement an energy policy. Although I believe he'll deliver empty in a lot of his promises, I don't think he'll mess it up. Much of my decision to vote for him will depend on the vice president he chooses. If it's a democrat known for his fiscal responsiblity, I'd most likely vote for Obama.

But what will he change and how will he change it?

Obama has actually said nothing except for "change" and "hope". Change and hope don't mean anything, they are just words. If you explain what you plan to change and how you plan to change it then you are actually saying something that MIGHT be worth listening too.

Where is he going to get the money for change? Raise taxes?? If so then do the American people, in our economic downturn, need to lose even MORE of their money? We are already paying inflated prices for oil, which effects a number of other goods that we recieve. Food, delivery services, even things such as the cost of water may go up. If he plans on cutting funding to government programs then how does he plan on doing this? What are we going to have to lose and are we actually going to lose programs that are useless or will we lose something that is actually important?

We don't know because Obama doesn't actually say anything.

McCain is not my ideal choice, not even my 1st choice.. hell not even my 100th choice, but I would choose him any day over Obama. :hippy:

[daihashi]

Great post P4B... keep spreading the truth!! :thumbsup:

[thcbongman]

But what will he change and how will he change it?

Obama has actually said nothing except for "change" and "hope". Change and hope don't mean anything, they are just words. If you explain what you plan to change and how you plan to change it then you are actually saying something that MIGHT be worth listening too.

Where is he going to get the money for change? Raise taxes?? If so then do the American people, in our economic downturn, need to lose even MORE of their money? We are already paying inflated prices for oil, which effects a number of other goods that we recieve. Food, delivery services, even things such as the cost of water may go up. If he plans on cutting funding to government programs then how does he plan on doing this? What are we going to have to lose and are we actually going to lose programs that are useless or will we lose something that is actually important?

We don't know because Obama doesn't actually say anything.

McCain is not my ideal choice, not even my 1st choice.. hell not even my 100th choice, but I would choose him any day over Obama. :hippy:

Obama has items on these issues. Some of his rhetoric is empty, but you can find substance in his words.

With health care, he'll pushing for a single-payer insurance system. With the insurance coverage choices Americans have to make based on financial reasons are putting themselves into debt if a medical condition arises. 70% coverage, 30% out of your pocket costs for hospitalization for the richest nation on earth is unacceptable. The system has to be simplified so administrative costs can be cut, which means 100% coverage minus co-pay. Right now, administrative costs account for 25% of cost. Unacceptable. By having fewer choices when it comes to coverage with insurance, you'll save. Since they'll be fewer choices with insurance, you'll be given more choices when it comes to doctors. Situations where a person has to do part of a procedure with one doctor and finish it with another are unacceptable. There shouldn't be situation for example when an insurance can cover a doctor, but can't cover the diagnostic test with the company the doctor's uses to get his results. These kind of complication drives up costs, not to mention the denial of someone based on a pre-existing condition is unacceptable.

On how he'll handle fiscal policy, first let me ask you a question. If you are so worried about the budget, why are you voting for McCain over Obama? In my true belief neither will really cut the budget nor cut taxes. At least Obama would be honest about it. McCain would cut taxes and subtly raise taxes on goods. That's how the republicans have always done it. Another difference between them though is Obama will try to shed some funding in the military complex and divert it to other areas. Some military funding doesn't go to the military itself, much of it goes to defense contractors. Sometimes you don't even know what it's for, because quite a number of them are secret.
Obama declared that there should place greater controls, disclosure and accountability on handling budgets throughout government agencies. Otherwise you'll continue to see the DC area get richer while the rest of the country gets poorer. When McCain say we'll be in Iraq for 100 years, he's basically saying government contractors are going to get paid.

Right now we don't have a clear policy on energy. Gas prices are out of control. McCain's proposal on cutting the gas tax is the worst possible solution. Not only would it increase demand, but give oil companies a chance to sneak a little more profit from their diminishing profits. Obama realized that the idea was a gimmick. The answer to lower gas prices requires a multi-pronged policy which focuses more in the development of alternative fuels, finding a way to to drill within the US continent in order to cause oil futures to fall. There isn't only ANWR, there's plenty on the east side of the gulf of mexico, but 85% of that area is restricted from drilling. Solving the gas problem is hardly a matter of gimmicks. Obama seems much more sound in judgement in this matter.

Sure Obama has a lot of faults. But the more I learn about him, the more I realize perhaps this is the guy that could represent all Americans and not just a concentrated few like McCain would. If I voted based on my wallet and opportunity of employment in my area, there's no question I would vote for McCain. However I feel I should vote for what's best for all Americans. That's why I'm leaning towards Obama.

[BigWeed]

Yes I do belive that obama represents change for america. I for one want a real health care plan that wont increase if you become ill or even if you your hurt in a accident. Take it from me I now my health care plan went up 40% because I was in a car wreck last year that wasnt even my fault and do you think that Mccain has a plan to reduce my care no. The people he cares about is rich people they are the only ones that will benefit if hes prez. If you think hes for the blue collar worker you need to talk to some friends of mine they hate Mccain and all the republicans if you look at what they stand for they stand for the rich.:rasta::rastasmoke::pimp:

[BigWeed]

One more thing Mcain has plans to make rich people richer now think about that.:rasta::rastasmoke::pimp:

[dragonrider]

Yes I do belive that obama represents change for america. I for one want a real health care plan that wont increase if you become ill or even if you your hurt in a accident. Take it from me I now my health care plan went up 40% because I was in a car wreck last year that wasnt even my fault and do you think that Mccain has a plan to reduce my care no. The people he cares about is rich people they are the only ones that will benefit if hes prez. If you think hes for the blue collar worker you need to talk to some friends of mine they hate Mccain and all the republicans if you look at what they stand for they stand for the rich.:rasta::rastasmoke::pimp:

As I understand it, this is what Obama has proposed as a healthcare plan:

There will be a new national health plan available to all Americans to buy affordable health coverage that is similar to the plan available to members of Congress. The plan will cover all essential medical services, including preventive, maternity and mental health care.

The plan will have guaranteed eligibility --- no one will be turned away from any insurance plan because of illness or pre-existing conditions. To me that is key, because right now if you are already sick, you cannot get into a plan.

Individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need financial assistance will receive an income-related federal subsidy to buy into the new public plan or purchase a private health care plan.

Participants in the new public plan will be able to move from job to job without changing or jeopardizing their health care coverage. That is another key thing. I know people who stick with the same crappy job because they can't afford losing their coverage if they change jobs.

People keep saying all he is offereing is slogans and no specifics, but if you bother to listen the specifics are there.

[daihashi]

Yes I do belive that obama represents change for america. I for one want a real health care plan that wont increase if you become ill or even if you your hurt in a accident. Take it from me I now my health care plan went up 40% because I was in a car wreck last year that wasnt even my fault and do you think that Mccain has a plan to reduce my care no. The people he cares about is rich people they are the only ones that will benefit if hes prez. If you think hes for the blue collar worker you need to talk to some friends of mine they hate Mccain and all the republicans if you look at what they stand for they stand for the rich.:rasta::rastasmoke::pimp:

Please provide evidence on how Obama is going to do this? Do you think this is free that he can conjure up healthcare out of thin air? Force regulation on insurance companies in an industry known for frivalous lawsuits which harm the doctors whom in turn roll over the cost of these law suits, in addition to their knowledge and the expensive cost of equipment onto the consumer.

It's just as it is with any other market. That's not to say that I don't think the insurance industry needs some regulation but no where near the amount that people suggest.

Medical care is expensive... period. If you want socialized health care or even regulated healthcare then someone has to pay for that.

Where do you propose that money is going to come from? Your Obama supports the cost of oil going up, he just wishes it wasn't slowly rising instead of what occured recently. A man who wants to tax the American people at a time when we need money in our pockets.

So either way you slice it or dice it guess what.. YOU ARE GOING TO PAY FOR IT.

In other countries that have socialized medicine the average income tax is roughly 50%.

So I ask you to choose.. in an economy with rising oil costs which effects the cost of nearly everything: electricity, groceries, gasoline, clothing, delivery services etc etc... are you going to choose to get taxed even more of your income or are you going to choose to keep that money in your pocket so you can continue to maintain the lifestyle you're accustomed to.

Nothing in life is free and medical care is one of the most expensive things in life. You pay for it one way or another.

[daihashi]

One more thing Mcain has plans to make rich people richer now think about that.:rasta::rastasmoke::pimp:

Wow.. where is your evidence of this? People always assume the Republicans are the ones who want to make rich people richer.

Do people not realize that it's democrats who raise taxes?

Republican economics generally revolve around allowing the Citizens have more money in their pockets.. so they can spend more.. so it stimulates domestic economy..

Where as democrats tend to think of taxing everyone, creating more social programs to create a flat playing field. The problem with this is that everyone has less money in their pockets.. and thus less spending... which leads to problems further in the future due to the curve trend it creates. Initially economic growth and then a huge downward turn after the bubble crashes.

This is just about the insurance.. then there's Iraq. He basically wants to cripple our presence there. Which honestly I never wanted us to be there in the first place; however since we're there I feel we owe it to the people of Iraq to stay there until everything is stable.

Are you familiar with the History of Russia and Afghanistan? Russia went into Afghanistan, destroyed the country... semi-occupied it before being driven out by a group that came together out of necessity. What is the name of that group you ask? Well that is the terrorist organization now known as the Taliban.

Do you see that the US & Iraq are almost identical to the situation with Russia and Afghanistan in that if we just walk out on them we're allowing oppurtunity for muslim extremists to take over the country/overthrow the country and just allow it to become a breeding ground for more terrorists?

We shouldn't of been there in the first place but don't you want something to show for all the time, debt and american lives lost that we've tallied up?

Barrack Obama hasn't said how he plans to "change" anything. He hasn't said anything that's made me look at him as the beacon of "hope" that he claims to be.

Words like Change and Hope are just that.. words and nothing more. They have no meaning unless you have substance to back them. It's blatantly obvious through the democratic debates that Obama doesn't have a clue. It's further evident that he doesn't want to expose himself as he is dodging McCain to several Townhall events that he invited Obama to participate in with him.

Obama's strategy this entire election whenever some negative information rises around him is to insult the American people. He always uses this line

"C'mon, you know better."

Insinuating that if we believe that then we must not be intelligent. How should we know better? We don't know Mr. Obama. We are not friends with us.. he is only a senator of 1 state. A man who doesn't vote in congress 33-40% of the time because he doesn't show up, a man who constantly has former terrorists, corrupt and racist people being uncovered around him.

Yet America ignores this because Obama is leading people like sheep. He is using the power of the media to control the ignorant and the lazy.

It's evident to me that everytime I ask an Obama supporter why they support Obama they say because he's going to change the government. Then I proceed to ask them what is he going to change... generally around here they kind of stumble but they manage to say something.... either Iraq, or the economy or something similar. So then I ask them again how is he going to do that... No one has been able to move beyond this question.

Because Barack Obama doesn't say anything. You can't answer a question if the man hasn't explained his ideas or plans to do what he says.

I do not particularly care for McCain but I would pick him over Obama any day.

ps: McCain is actually a Moderate.. he is very different from the image of republicans people generally have. Usually when people think republicans they think ultra conservative. He's only recently started aligning himself with the conservatives in order to be able to win over his own party. Many of his party don't like him because he is MODERATE and NOT a CONSERVATIVE.

Good day :thumbsup:

[daihashi]

People keep saying all he is offereing is slogans and no specifics, but if you bother to listen the specifics are there.

Please explain to me what he has proposed in DETAIL and how he plans to achieve it IN DETAIL...

Because I didn't see anything specific in Bigweed's post and I've watched all of Obama's speeches that have been televised or on Youtube.. The man has not said or explained a single thing. All I hear is propaganda and alot of reverse psychology.

"C'mon.. you know better than that" is an insulting term if you think about it; and obama likes to use it often. You question the person's intelligence and ability to reason. No one wants to feel like they are lacking in this area; so a number of people who can't see beyond this facade fall for his trick and side with Obama when the man has actually not said a single word.

All I see surrounding Obama is him spinning whatever the latest thing that's been uncovered about him. Spinning it and spinning it well. Fooling the American people. This guy is worse than Bill Clinton.. Bill Clinton may have blatantly lied to the American people to their face, but this guy is using mind games and manipulating the masses.

[painretreat]

[quote=Psycho4Bud]ARLINGTON, Va., June 12 /Standard Newswire/ -- Today, on the fourth day of Barack Obama's "Change That Works For You" tour, McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds issued the following statement:

"Barack Obama's assertion that the only problem with higher gas prices is that they've gone up too fast -- saying he'd prefer a 'gradual' increase instead -- shows how clearly out of touch he is with Americans struggling with record gas prices. At a time when Americans need relief at the pump, Barack Obama's support for higher gas prices and higher energy taxes is just another example of his weak economic judgment."

This Week In An Interview With CNBC, Barack Obama Said He Would Have Preferred If Higher Gasoline Prices Happened More Gradually:

THANKS for all the good info. With all the reading, I've yet to do, it will help me make up my mind! I always like to know the facts. Don't know how U do it, but I appreciate all this! My initial gutt feeling is--there will be no change, until I read all the attached data. You brought up a lot of points I did not hear in the senate hearing, but did not hear it all! He did state that forcing oil co. to lower price in ILL. did not filter to consumer

Now, I have some homework! :thumbsup:
Oh, is that Harwood guy the one that dropped dead today or was it the MSNBC guy, from Hard Copy! man i liked that dude's political questions!

[BigWeed]

Please explain to me what he has proposed in DETAIL and how he plans to achieve it IN DETAIL...

Because I didn't see anything specific in Bigweed's post and I've watched all of Obama's speeches that have been televised or on Youtube.. The man has not said or explained a single thing. All I hear is propaganda and alot of reverse psychology.

"C'mon.. you know better than that" is an insulting term if you think about it; and obama likes to use it often. You question the person's intelligence and ability to reason. No one wants to feel like they are lacking in this area; so a number of people who can't see beyond this facade fall for his trick and side with Obama when the man has actually not said a single word.

All I see surrounding Obama is him spinning whatever the latest thing that's been uncovered about him. Spinning it and spinning it well. Fooling the American people. This guy is worse than Bill Clinton.. Bill Clinton may have blatantly lied to the American people to their face, but this guy is using mind games and manipulating the masses.

So you havent heard him say He wants to reduce health care costs and give my son $4000 dollars on his college, and make those rich #%%%pay for some of it thats what Im hearing. Like I said John Mccain is for the rich and keeping money in his pockets and his wifes. I want you to show me what Mccain has to offer me than asking for a town hall debate Id like to be there to ask him myself but they woundnt let me in because I dont support him. In detail hes going to give me better health care,my kids can afford college,put money back in pocket,and how is he going to do it the rich people ARE GOING YO PAY FOR IT. Its time they carried me on their backs because Im tired of carring them.:rasta::rastasmoke::pimp:

[daihashi]

So you havent heard him say He wants to reduce health care costs and give my son $4000 dollars on his college, and make those rich #%%%pay for some of it thats what Im hearing. Like I said John Mccain is for the rich and keeping money in his pockets and his wifes. :rasta::rastasmoke::pimp:

Prove your statements. How is John McCain for the rich and keeping putting money in his pocket. With actual evidence.



In detail hes going to give me better health care,my kids can afford college,put money back in pocket,and how is he going to do it the rich people ARE GOING YO PAY FOR IT. Its time they carried me on their backs because Im tired of carring them.

Really? That's detailed because to me that doesn't say anything.
How is he going to reduce healthcare costs? Through What means is he going to accomplish this goal? Where is he going to get the money to give your son $4000? Where is his plan to accomplish all these things he's telling you.

Do you not see that he doesn't have a plan, he doesn't explain anything. Anyone can make empty promises with no ideas or plans.


I want you to show me what Mccain has to offer me than asking for a town hall debate Id like to be there to ask him myself but they woundnt let me in because I dont support him.

Please check the McCain thread. I left you a very nice long well thought out reply.


No offense but your posts come off as very ignorant and that's not meant as an insult, I mean it by the definition in that you appear to be uninformed and uneducated with factual information on either candidate. You're pointing the finger at a person who has voiced his concerns about health care and made a reasonable plan to try to correct it by putting the power in your hands and then you're accusing him of trying to take money from you when he's made no such mention?

I ask you again, What is Obama's plan and please explain to me why it is good. What the benefits and negatives of it are?

ps: I know what Obama's plan is and there is a critical flaw in it. It sounds good but everyone would end up suffering in the end.

Please feel free to voice your thoughts on it in detail.

I would like to know how he's going to do it, why it's a good plan and what are the draw backs.

I've answered your posts with detailed well thought out posts and I would appreciate the same if you choose to reply to me. I've put effort into my post as I feel that knowledge is power. I would appreciate it if you would do me the same courtesy. :thumbsup:

[BigWeed]

Prove your statements. How is John McCain for the rich and keeping putting money in his pocket. With actual evidence.



Really? That's detailed because to me that doesn't say anything.
How is he going to reduce healthcare costs? Through What means is he going to accomplish this goal? Where is he going to get the money to give your son $4000? Where is his plan to accomplish all these things he's telling you.

Do you not see that he doesn't have a plan, he doesn't explain anything. Anyone can make empty promises with no ideas or plans.



Please check the McCain thread. I left you a very nice long well thought out reply.


No offense but your posts come off as very ignorant and that's not meant as an insult, I mean it by the definition in that you appear to be uninformed and uneducated with factual information on either candidate. You're pointing the finger at a person who has voiced his concerns about health care and made a reasonable plan to try to correct it by putting the power in your hands and then you're accusing him of trying to take money from you when he's made no such mention?

I ask you again, What is Obama's plan and please explain to me why it is good. What the benefits and negatives of it are?

ps: I know what Obama's plan is and there is a critical flaw in it. It sounds good but everyone would end up suffering in the end.

Please feel free to voice your thoughts on it in detail.

I would like to know how he's going to do it, why it's a good plan and what are the draw backs.

I've answered your posts with detailed well thought out posts and I would appreciate the same if you choose to reply to me. I've put effort into my post as I feel that knowledge is power. I would appreciate it if you would do me the same courtesy. :thumbsup:

I read it I still dont see how Mccain plans to pay for his other than taking it from my pockets. I do have some things for you to read but having troubles with attachments. Im speaking to you from things thats happening to me now in my life. I just cant trust Mccain to do what he says because he has flipped flop and to my things. Yeah he says that he will take away that tax credit that the health care companys get to pay for his plan. But when he does that companys just going to keep raising it. Im:rasta::rastasmoke::pimp: not trying to be funny or anything else. What Im trying to say is if he wants my vote he needs to start thinking about the little people and he also still needs to have more detail in all his economic plan than worry about iraq I dont care about iraq I care about my famliy and there future. As soon as I workout this damn attachments Ill have plenty for you to read about Obamba and Mccain and where Mccain use to stand and where he stands now I love a good debate.:rasta::rastasmoke::pimp:

[daihashi]

I read it I still dont see how Mccain plans to pay for his other than taking it from my pockets. I do have some things for you to read but having troubles with attachments. Im speaking to you from things thats happening to me now in my life. I just cant trust Mccain to do what he says because he has flipped flop and to my things. Yeah he says that he will take away that tax credit that the health care companys get to pay for his plan. But when he does that companys just going to keep raising it. Im:rasta::rastasmoke::pimp: not trying to be funny or anything else. What Im trying to say is if he wants my vote he needs to start thinking about the little people and he also still needs to have more detail in all his economic plan than worry about iraq I dont care about iraq I care about my famliy and there future. As soon as I workout this damn attachments Ill have plenty for you to read about Obamba and Mccain and where Mccain use to stand and where he stands now I love a good debate.:rasta::rastasmoke::pimp:

Why would the insurance company care where it's getting it's money. Whether it comes from the employer or from the individual in the form of a coupon then who cares? Money is money is money is money.

And once again you dodge my questions about Obama. Good job.

Do you know the history Lesson of Russia and Afghanistan and how a little organization took over the country after the Russians left only to become a breeding ground for a large terrorist organization? AKA the Taliban.. and it would later house Al Queda.

The situation is similar in Iraq. We created that mess, and while I think we shouldn't of ever been there, it is our job to clean it up and ensure the situation is stable over there. If we just pull out we will be creating another situation similar to Afghanistan.

There are more things that go on that effect you and your family than what you see in front of you. Foreign policy effects domestic economics.

[illnillinois]

Great post P4B... keep spreading the truth!! :thumbsup:

TruDat

[dragonrider]

Please explain to me what he has proposed in DETAIL and how he plans to achieve it IN DETAIL...

Well, the details were in the upper portion of my post you quoted. Here it is again.


As I understand it, this is what Obama has proposed as a healthcare plan:

There will be a new national health plan available to all Americans to buy affordable health coverage that is similar to the plan available to members of Congress. The plan will cover all essential medical services, including preventive, maternity and mental health care.

The plan will have guaranteed eligibility --- no one will be turned away from any insurance plan because of illness or pre-existing conditions. To me that is key, because right now if you are already sick, you cannot get into a plan.

Individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need financial assistance will receive an income-related federal subsidy to buy into the new public plan or purchase a private health care plan.

Participants in the new public plan will be able to move from job to job without changing or jeopardizing their health care coverage. That is another key thing. I know people who stick with the same crappy job because they can't afford losing their coverage if they change jobs.

The key points to me were that it creates a group healthcare plan that people can purchase --- solves the problem of not having access to group healthcare for those who do not get it through their jobs.

Eligibility is guaranteed --- solves the problem that people have when they try to buy individual, private, non-group insurance of having to qualify and being denied for pre-exisitng conditions.

It is subsidised for those who meet certain income requirements --- solves the problem of affordability for those who want insurance but cannot afford it.

It is portable --- solves the problem of people not being able to make other life choices like changing jobs, moving to new cities or getting a divorce for fear of losing insurance.

Those are the main problems people have with healthcare --- they aren't offered group insurance, they aren't eligible for non-group insurance, they can't afford insurance, and they can't take their existing insurance with them. It looks to me like this plan covers those main issues. Has McCain offered any ideas on these problems? Has he only offered vague ideas of "change" or, like Bush, not even that? People aren't satisfied with things as they are with regard to these issues.

Anyway, those are the details that I found. If that is not enough detail for you and you want to drill further into it, I've given you enough to get started on your legwork.


Because I didn't see anything specific in Bigweed's post and I've watched all of Obama's speeches that have been televised or on Youtube.. The man has not said or explained a single thing. All I hear is propaganda and alot of reverse psychology.


I'm not really speaking for BigWeed, so if you have a question for him, address it to him. I did pick the healthcare toipic to rebut the idea that Obama has not provided any details for any of the issues he wants to "change" because BigWeed had expressed concern about his own healthcare problems. Healthcare is not really my strong point, but BigWeed seemed interested in the topic, and it seems like there is enough detail there to show that Obama has offered more than to just "change" healthcare.


Do people not realize that it's democrats who raise taxes?

Republican economics generally revolve around allowing the Citizens have more money in their pockets.. so they can spend more.. so it stimulates domestic economy..

Where as democrats tend to think of taxing everyone, creating more social programs to create a flat playing field. The problem with this is that everyone has less money in their pockets.. and thus less spending... which leads to problems further in the future due to the curve trend it creates. Initially economic growth and then a huge downward turn after the bubble crashes.

My feelings on the tax issue is that I favor fiscal responsibility over low taxes. Republicans used to stand for a balanced budget and fiscal responsibility, but they traded that for low taxes. I don't see how Democrats get painted with this phoney "tax and spend" label. Both parties have a record of spending, but the biggest increases in spending have come under Reagan and under Bush. And both of them did not take responsibility for that added spending. They cut taxes, while spending more. Democrats are just more responsible than Republicans about their spending. Democrats at least make some effort to have the money before they spend it. This Republican pattern of cutting taxes while raising spending and running our debt through the roof will eventually ruin this country. Personally, I am in favor of most of the priorities on which Obama has proposed spending so far, so I guess since I am a responsible person, I will be have to be willing to pay my part. I certainly do favor that over continuing to run the country deeper into debt.

[BigWeed]

Why would the insurance company care where it's getting it's money. Whether it comes from the employer or from the individual in the form of a coupon then who cares? Money is money is money is money.

And once again you dodge my questions about Obama. Good job.

Do you know the history Lesson of Russia and Afghanistan and how a little organization took over the country after the Russians left only to become a breeding ground for a large terrorist organization? AKA the Taliban.. and it would later house Al Queda.

The situation is similar in Iraq. We created that mess, and while I think we shouldn't of ever been there, it is our job to clean it up and ensure the situation is stable over there. If we just pull out we will be creating another situation similar to Afghanistan.

There are more things that go on that effect you and your family than what you see in front of you. Foreign policy effects domestic economics.

I do have something for you to read but having proplems with attachments bare with me. If I cant get anything to now I promise I will. Wife gets off at 3am and will help me.

[daihashi]

Well, the details were in the upper portion of my post you quoted. Here it is again.



You still did not address my question. Yes Obama has said what, but how does he propose to create this wonderful change.

No Obama supporter has yet been able to even answer that question so I can move on to the next show stopping question.

IT's funny, but *I* actually know how Obama plans to get the money necessary for this but actual Obama supporters can't state what it is.


Anyway, those are the details that I found. If that is not enough detail for you and you want to drill further into it, I've given you enough to get started on your legwork.

You've actually given me nothing to get started. You've still failed to answer my question. Here's a hint eluding to how he plans on obtaining the money.

How does Obama plan to create this change? Again I have an answer for this, unfortunatley his solution to this will have a cause/effect reaction that will directly effect the United States Job Employment rate.

I can promise you the moon all day long, but unless I tell you how it's going to happen and how it will effect the earth in terms of tidal pull etc etc then it really doesn't mean anything.. it's just an empty promise.

[BigWeed]

Im still having problems with uploads I cant even upload pics so Im going to see if my wife can get this thing fixed she the computer wiz so Ill be back on around noon. Been working on this to long need a smoke break and a nap.:rasta::rastasmoke::pimp:

[dragonrider]

You still did not address my question. Yes Obama has said what, but how does he propose to create this wonderful change.

No Obama supporter has yet been able to even answer that question so I can move on to the next show stopping question.

IT's funny, but *I* actually know how Obama plans to get the money necessary for this but actual Obama supporters can't state what it is.



You've actually given me nothing to get started. You've still failed to answer my question. Here's a hint eluding to how he plans on obtaining the money.

How does Obama plan to create this change? Again I have an answer for this, unfortunatley his solution to this will have a cause/effect reaction that will directly effect the United States Job Employment rate.

I can promise you the moon all day long, but unless I tell you how it's going to happen and how it will effect the earth in terms of tidal pull etc etc then it really doesn't mean anything.. it's just an empty promise.

I guess I'm not really sure what you are asking me. I thought you said that all Obama ever says is he is going to bring "change," but he never says what he is going to change. I replied that in the case of healthcare these are the changes he proposes:

Create a group healthcare plan that people can purchase.

Eligibility is guaranteed.

Subsidised for those who meet certain income requirements.

It is portable.

Those are four specific proposals. They amount to more than saying, "I'm gonna bring change." You can debate whether they are workable ideas or not. And you can debate about whether they can be paid for or not. But my point is that he is not just saying "change" and not providing ideas as you have repeatedly asserted.

And as I mentioned before, I am not an expert on healthcare policy, so I'm not really interested in debating it with you. I provided the examples as a way to counter the argument that Obama doesn't offer ideas, and I picked healthcare because there are plenty of examples and BigWeed was asking about it.

If healthcare is an area of interest for you, go ahead and look up more information about it and post back what you think Obama's plans mean, and while you are at it, post McCain's plans if he has any.

[daihashi]

I guess I'm not really sure what you are asking me. I thought you said that all Obama ever says is he is going to bring "change," but he never says what he is going to change. I replied that in the case of healthcare these are the changes he proposes:


Here is a quote from me since you seem to be confused for what I'm asking:


I ask you again, What is Obama's plan and please explain to me why it is good. What the benefits and negatives of it are?

I would like to know how he's going to do it, why it's a good plan and what are the draw backs.


From another post I made in this thread


Please explain to me what he has proposed in DETAIL and how he plans to achieve it IN DETAIL..

And yet another post I made in this thread


Obama has actually said nothing except for "change" and "hope". Change and hope don't mean anything, they are just words. If you explain what you plan to change and how you plan to change it then you are actually saying something that MIGHT be worth listening too.

And here is the original post I made asking the question:


But what will he change and how will he change it?

As you can see since people seem to either ignore or be oblivious to what I'm asking I've gone through and bolded parts of my quotes.

Everyone here has failed to answer my question.

In regards to the following:


If healthcare is an area of interest for you, go ahead and look up more information about it and post back what you think Obama's plans mean, and while you are at it, post McCain's plans if he has any.

I've already done this in the Mccain thread in detail which did take some time. I'm not going to do it again. If you're interested you can take a look over in that thread.

McCain outlines his plan and tells you HOW he's going to make it happen.

Obama has said how, but my point this entire time is that Obama supporters cannot tell me HOW he's going to support the changes he proposes.



And as I mentioned before, I am not an expert on healthcare policy, so I'm not really interested in debating it with you. I provided the examples as a way to counter the argument that Obama doesn't offer ideas, and I picked healthcare because there are plenty of examples and BigWeed was asking about it.

For someone who's not interested in healthcare you seem to want to argue this debate whole heartedly. You did provide examples to half the question but failed to answer the other half.. Even when you answer that other half I still have yet ANOTHER question for you. I have thought this very far into the future.

I don't feel Obama offers ideas. He offers half-hearted answers that will just give the American people what they want to hear. No one seems to realize that in actuality it is much more difficult to do what he proposes than the way he makes it sound... furthermore the way he plans on getting the money will directly effect the Job Employment rate in a negative way.


and post back what you think Obama's plans mean, and while you are at it

Sorry. I'm not giving anyone in this thread a free pass. I do know Obama's plans and how he plans to achieve them. I see the negatives and the few positives of it. I've even given hints as to how he plans to make the changes in hopes that some Obama supporter would speak up.

Everyone has sat silently when I ask them HOW. What and HOW are linked together. You can't say what you plan to do without saying how you plan to do it.. in addition after that is said you have to make it evident how it will effect the American people, for good and for bad.

No one here has said anything.. I've only received mediocre answers explaining what he plans to change.

Without all 3, I'm sorry but as I said before in the following quote:



Obama has actually said nothing except for "change" and "hope". Change and hope don't mean anything, they are just words. If you explain what you plan to change and how you plan to change it then you are actually saying something that MIGHT be worth listening too.

The determining factor if the plan is worthwhile is listening after the above has been satisfied would be to determine the IMPACT would be to the American People.

Again no one here has answered my Question. I feel that thcbongman has come the closest to giving me a legitimate response in the Obama vs McCain debate.. Even then I still only agree with it half way.. or slightly less than half way.

All the other posts I've seen have failed to answer the questions I'm posing or have failed to put up a good comparison between Obama and McCain




It's evident to me that everytime I ask an Obama supporter why they support Obama they say because he's going to change the government. Then I proceed to ask them what is he going to change... generally around here they kind of stumble but they manage to say something.... either Iraq, or the economy or something similar. So then I ask them again how is he going to do that... No one has been able to move beyond this question.

Please read that and I think you'll find the core point I'm actually trying to get at by asking these questions.

If not maybe P4B or someone else who might realize what I'm getting at can chime in and explain; but I myself am not handing out a free pass.

It's cliche but knowledge is power.

[BigWeed]

The Problem

Millions of Americans are uninsured or underinsured because of rising medical costs: 47 million Americans â?? including nearly 9 million children â?? lack health insurance with no signs of this trend slowing down.
Health care costs are skyrocketing: Health insurance premiums have risen 4 times faster than wages over the past 6 years.
Too little is spent on prevention and public health: The nation faces epidemics of obesity and chronic diseases as well as new threats of pandemic flu and bioterrorism. Yet despite all of this less than 4 cents of every health care dollar is spent on prevention and public health.
Barack Obama's Plan

Quality, Affordable and Portable Coverage for All


Obama's Plan to Cover Uninsured Americans: Obama will make available a new national health plan to all Americans, including the self-employed and small businesses, to buy affordable health coverage that is similar to the plan available to members of Congress. The Obama plan will have the following features:
Guaranteed eligibility. No American will be turned away from any insurance plan because of illness or pre-existing conditions.
Comprehensive benefits. The benefit package will be similar to that offered through Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), the plan members of Congress have. The plan will cover all essential medical services, including preventive, maternity and mental health care.
Affordable premiums, co-pays and deductibles.
Subsidies. Individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need financial assistance will receive an income-related federal subsidy to buy into the new public plan or purchase a private health care plan.
Simplified paperwork and reined in health costs.
Easy enrollment. The new public plan will be simple to enroll in and provide ready access to coverage.
Portability and choice. Participants in the new public plan and the National Health Insurance Exchange (see below) will be able to move from job to job without changing or jeopardizing their health care coverage.
Quality and efficiency. Participating insurance companies in the new public program will be required to report data to ensure that standards for quality, health information technology and administration are being met.
National Health Insurance Exchange: The Obama plan will create a National Health Insurance Exchange to help individuals who wish to purchase a private insurance plan. The Exchange will act as a watchdog group and help reform the private insurance market by creating rules and standards for participating insurance plans to ensure fairness and to make individual coverage more affordable and accessible. Insurers would have to issue every applicant a policy, and charge fair and stable premiums that will not depend upon health status. The Exchange will require that all the plans offered are at least as generous as the new public plan and have the same standards for quality and efficiency. The Exchange would evaluate plans and make the differences among the plans, including cost of services, public.
Employer Contribution: Employers that do not offer or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees will be required to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of the national plan. Small employers that meet certain revenue thresholds will be exempt.
Mandatory Coverage of Children: Obama will require that all children have health care coverage. Obama will expand the number of options for young adults to get coverage, including allowing young people up to age 25 to continue coverage through their parents' plans.
Expansion Of Medicaid and SCHIP: Obama will expand eligibility for the Medicaid and SCHIP programs and ensure that these programs continue to serve their critical safety net function.
Flexibility for State Plans: Due to federal inaction, some states have taken the lead in health care reform. The Obama plan builds on these efforts and does not replace what states are doing. States can continue to experiment, provided they meet the minimum standards of the national plan.Lower Costs by Modernizing The U.S. Health Care System


Reducing Costs of Catastrophic Illnesses for Employers and Their Employees: Catastrophic health expenditures account for a high percentage of medical expenses for private insurers. The Obama plan would reimburse employer health plans for a portion of the catastrophic costs they incur above a threshold if they guarantee such savings are used to reduce the cost of workers' premiums.
Helping Patients:
Support disease management programs. Seventy five percent of total health care dollars are spent on patients with one or more chronic conditions, such as diabetes, heart disease and high blood pressure. Obama will require that providers that participate in the new public plan, Medicare or the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) utilize proven disease management programs. This will improve quality of care, give doctors better information and lower costs.
Coordinate and integrate care. Over 133 million Americans have at least one chronic disease and these chronic conditions cost a staggering $1.7 trillion yearly. Obama will support implementation of programs and encourage team care that will improve coordination and integration of care of those with chronic conditions.
Require full transparency about quality and costs. Obama will require hospitals and providers to collect and publicly report measures of health care costs and quality, including data on preventable medical errors, nurse staffing ratios, hospital-acquired infections, and disparities in care. Health plans will also be required to disclose the percentage of premiums that go to patient care as opposed to administrative costs.
Ensuring Providers Deliver Quality Care:
Promote patient safety. Obama will require providers to report preventable medical errors and support hospital and physician practice improvement to prevent future occurrences.
Align incentives for excellence. Both public and private insurers tend to pay providers based on the volume of services provided, rather than the quality or effectiveness of care. Providers who see patients enrolled in the new public plan, the National Health Insurance Exchange, Medicare and FEHBP will be rewarded for achieving performance thresholds on outcome measures.
Comparative effectiveness research. Obama will establish an independent institute to guide reviews and research on comparative effectiveness, so that Americans and their doctors will have the accurate and objective information they need to make the best decisions for their health and well-being.
Tackle disparities in health care. Obama will tackle the root causes of health disparities by addressing differences in access to health coverage and promoting prevention and public health, both of which play a major role in addressing disparities. He will also challenge the medical system to eliminate inequities in health care through quality measurement and reporting, implementation of effective interventions such as patient navigation programs, and diversification of the health workforce.
Insurance reform. Obama will strengthen antitrust laws to prevent insurers from overcharging physicians for their malpractice insurance and will promote new models for addressing errors that improve patient safety, strengthen the doctor-patient relationship and reduce the need for malpractice suits.
Lowering Costs Through Investment in Electronic Health Information Technology Systems: Most medical records are still stored on paper, which makes it hard to coordinate care, measure quality or reduce medical errors and which costs twice as much as electronic claims. Obama will invest $10 billion a year over the next five years to move the U.S. health care system to broad adoption of standards-based electronic health information systems, including electronic health records, and will phase in requirements for full implementation of health IT. Obama will ensure that patients' privacy is protected.
Lowering Costs by Increasing Competition in the Insurance and Drug Markets: The insurance business today is dominated by a small group of large companies that has been gobbling up their rivals. There have been over 400 health care mergers in the last 10 years, and just two companies dominate a full third of the national market. These changes were supposed to make the industry more efficient, but instead premiums have skyrocketed by over 87 percent.
Barack Obama will prevent companies from abusing their monopoly power through unjustified price increases. His plan will force insurers to pay out a reasonable share of their premiums for patient care instead of keeping exorbitant amounts for profits and administration. His new National Health Exchange will help increase competition by insurers.
Lower prescription drug costs. The second-fastest growing type of health expenses is prescription drugs. Pharmaceutical companies are selling the exact same drugs in Europe and Canada but charging Americans more than double the price. Obama will allow Americans to buy their medicines from other developed countries if the drugs are safe and prices are lower outside the U.S. Obama will also repeal the ban that prevents the government from negotiating with drug companies, which could result in savings as high as $30 billion. Finally, Obama will work to increase the use of generic drugs in Medicare, Medicaid, and FEHBP and prohibit big name drug companies from keeping generics out of markets.Fight for New Initiatives


Advance the Biomedical Research Field: As a result of biomedical research the prevention, early detection and treatment of diseases such as cancer and heart disease is better today than any other time in history. Barack Obama has consistently supported funding for the national institutes of health and the national science foundation. Obama strongly supports investments in biomedical research, as well as medical education and training in health-related fields, because it provides the foundation for new therapies and diagnostics. Obama has been a champion of research in cancer, mental health, health disparities, global health, women and children's health, and veterans' health. As president, Obama will strengthen funding for biomedical research, and better improve the efficiency of that research by improving coordination both within government and across government/private/non-profit partnerships. An Obama administration will ensure that we translate scientific progress into improved approaches to disease prevention, early detection and therapy that is available for all Americans.
Fight AIDS Worldwide. There are 40 million people across the planet infected with HIV/AIDS. As president, Obama will continue to be a global leader in the fight against AIDS. Obama believes in working across party lines to combat this epidemic and recently joined Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) at a large California evangelical church to promote greater investment in the global AIDS battle.
Support Americans with Disabilities: As a former civil rights lawyer, Barack Obama knows firsthand the importance of strong protections for minority communities in our society. Obama is committed to strengthening and better enforcing the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) so that future generations of Americans with disabilities have equal rights and opportunities. Obama believes we must restore the original legislative intent of the ADA in the wake of court decisions that have restricted the interpretation of this landmark legislation.

Barack Obama is also committed to ensuring that disabled Americans receive Medicaid and Medicare benefits in a low-cost, effective and timely manner. Recognizing that many individuals with disabilities rely on Medicare, Obama worked with Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO) to urge the department of health and human services to provide clear and reliable information on the Medicare prescription drug benefit and to ensure that the Medicare recipients were protected from fraudulent claims by marketers and drug plan agents.
Improve Mental Health Care. Mental illness affects approximately one in five American families. The National Alliance on Mental Illness estimates that untreated mental illnesses cost the U.S. more than $100 billion per year. As president, Obama will support mental health parity so that coverage for serious mental illnesses are provided on the same terms and conditions as other illnesses and diseases.
Protect Our Children from Lead Poisoning. More than 430,000 American children have dangerously high levels of lead in their blood. Lead can cause irreversible brain damage, learning disabilities, behavioral problems, and, at very high levels, seizures, coma and death. As president, Obama will protect children from lead poisoning by requiring that child care facilities be lead-safe within five years.
Reduce Risks of Mercury Pollution. More than five million women of childbearing age have high levels of toxic mercury in their blood, and approximately 630,000 newborns are born at risk every year. Barack Obama has a plan to significantly reduce the amount of mercury that is deposited in oceans, lakes, and rivers, which in turn would reduce the amount of mercury in fish.
Support Americans with Autism. More than one million Americans have autism, a complex neurobiological condition that has a range of impacts on thinking, feeling, language, and the ability to relate to others. As diagnostic criteria broaden and awareness increases, more cases of autism have been recognized across the country. Barack Obama believes that we can do more to help autistic Americans and their families understand and live with autism. He has been a strong supporter of more than $1 billion in federal funding for autism research on the root causes and treatments, and he believes that we should increase funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to truly ensure that no child is left behind.

More than anything, autism remains a profound mystery with a broad spectrum of effects on autistic individuals, their families, loved ones, the community, and education and health care systems. Obama believes that the government and our communities should work together to provide a helping hand to autistic individuals and their families.Barack Obama's Record


Health Insurance: In 2003, Barack Obama sponsored and passed legislation that expanded health care coverage to 70,000 kids and 84,000 adults. In the U.S. Senate, Obama cosponsored the Healthy Kids Act of 2007 and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) Reauthorization Act of 2007 to ensure that more American children have affordable health care coverage.
Women's Health: Obama worked to pass a number of laws in Illinois and Washington to improve the health of women. His accomplishments include creating a task force on cervical cancer, providing greater access to breast and cervical cancer screenings, and helping improve prenatal and premature birth services.
I want you to read this and Ill post more tonight I have plenty for you and I like this debate I hope you will continue it with me. I also have some more of Mccains plans as well. I love knowlegde also so keep it comig.:rasta::rastasmoke::pimp:

[Psycho4Bud]

So eventually who pays for this? With gas floating around the $4.00/gal. mark the last thing people need is an additional tax. This is a grand idea for those with fat bank accounts but unfortunately that doesn't describe the majority of U.S. citizens.

Universal health care is a broad concept that has been implemented in several ways. The common denominator for all such programs is some form of government action aimed at extending access to health care as widely as possible. Most countries implement universal health care through legislation, regulation and taxation. Legislation and regulation direct what care must be provided, to whom, and on what basis. Usually some costs are borne by the patient but are subsidized by taxation and compensated to the patient by the government. Many programs utilize some form of compulsory insurance to accomplish this goal. Other programs are paid for entirely out of tax revenues and provide automatic coverage for every citizen or resident
Universal health care - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care)

My next issue with this is this: Why would we have somebody from a failed company, in this case the U.S. government, step in to fix another failed company, the health care industy? Washington is known for red tape, confusion, lack of results. MANY a time does a person that files for disability benifits have to get a lawyer.

Next, the hospital system is broke down internally. Hospital beds that "should" cost under $5,000 sell for $8,000 - $24,000. Surgical tables that "should" sell for $20,000 go for $75,000. Hell, a receptionist chair that sells at Grainger for under $100 goes for $450 because it's considered "Hospital Grade".

Hospitals "claim" to be non-profit.....what a joke! At the end of the fiscal year if they have an additional $5,000,000 in the kitty that just means that they have to friviously waste the money on overpriced chairs, desks, carpeting, window shades, etc...

FIRST off, the entire hospital system should undergo an investigation into waste and price gouging by their vendors. The savings in that alone to the basic consumer would be tremendous! Next in line would be the insurance industry...I'm sure there is waste in that system along with unfair practices. But to have one broken system try to fix another by stepping in on mandates, etc....I just can't see it myself.

Back to the thread topic.....with his link to the Chicago Health care industy he should be well aware of these issues. Seems that some things just can't "change".

Have a good one!:s4:

[daihashi]

The Problem

Millions of Americans are uninsured or underinsured because of rising medical costs: 47 million Americans â?? including nearly 9 million children â?? lack health insurance with no signs of this trend slowing down.
Health care costs are skyrocketing: Health insurance premiums have risen 4 times faster than wages over the past 6 years.
Too little is spent on prevention and public health: The nation faces epidemics of obesity and chronic diseases as well as new threats of pandemic flu and bioterrorism. Yet despite all of this less than 4 cents of every health care dollar is spent on prevention and public health.
Barack Obama's Plan

Quality, Affordable and Portable Coverage for All


Obama's Plan to Cover Uninsured Americans: Obama will make available a new national health plan to all Americans, including the self-employed and small businesses, to buy affordable health coverage that is similar to the plan available to members of Congress. The Obama plan will have the following features:
Guaranteed eligibility. No American will be turned away from any insurance plan because of illness or pre-existing conditions.
Comprehensive benefits. The benefit package will be similar to that offered through Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), the plan members of Congress have. The plan will cover all essential medical services, including preventive, maternity and mental health care.
Affordable premiums, co-pays and deductibles.
Subsidies. Individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need financial assistance will receive an income-related federal subsidy to buy into the new public plan or purchase a private health care plan.
Simplified paperwork and reined in health costs.
Easy enrollment. The new public plan will be simple to enroll in and provide ready access to coverage.
Portability and choice. Participants in the new public plan and the National Health Insurance Exchange (see below) will be able to move from job to job without changing or jeopardizing their health care coverage.
Quality and efficiency. Participating insurance companies in the new public program will be required to report data to ensure that standards for quality, health information technology and administration are being met.
National Health Insurance Exchange: The Obama plan will create a National Health Insurance Exchange to help individuals who wish to purchase a private insurance plan. The Exchange will act as a watchdog group and help reform the private insurance market by creating rules and standards for participating insurance plans to ensure fairness and to make individual coverage more affordable and accessible. Insurers would have to issue every applicant a policy, and charge fair and stable premiums that will not depend upon health status. The Exchange will require that all the plans offered are at least as generous as the new public plan and have the same standards for quality and efficiency. The Exchange would evaluate plans and make the differences among the plans, including cost of services, public.
Employer Contribution: Employers that do not offer or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees will be required to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of the national plan. Small employers that meet certain revenue thresholds will be exempt.
Mandatory Coverage of Children: Obama will require that all children have health care coverage. Obama will expand the number of options for young adults to get coverage, including allowing young people up to age 25 to continue coverage through their parents' plans.
Expansion Of Medicaid and SCHIP: Obama will expand eligibility for the Medicaid and SCHIP programs and ensure that these programs continue to serve their critical safety net function.
Flexibility for State Plans: Due to federal inaction, some states have taken the lead in health care reform. The Obama plan builds on these efforts and does not replace what states are doing. States can continue to experiment, provided they meet the minimum standards of the national plan.Lower Costs by Modernizing The U.S. Health Care System


Reducing Costs of Catastrophic Illnesses for Employers and Their Employees: Catastrophic health expenditures account for a high percentage of medical expenses for private insurers. The Obama plan would reimburse employer health plans for a portion of the catastrophic costs they incur above a threshold if they guarantee such savings are used to reduce the cost of workers' premiums.
Helping Patients:
Support disease management programs. Seventy five percent of total health care dollars are spent on patients with one or more chronic conditions, such as diabetes, heart disease and high blood pressure. Obama will require that providers that participate in the new public plan, Medicare or the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) utilize proven disease management programs. This will improve quality of care, give doctors better information and lower costs.
Coordinate and integrate care. Over 133 million Americans have at least one chronic disease and these chronic conditions cost a staggering $1.7 trillion yearly. Obama will support implementation of programs and encourage team care that will improve coordination and integration of care of those with chronic conditions.
Require full transparency about quality and costs. Obama will require hospitals and providers to collect and publicly report measures of health care costs and quality, including data on preventable medical errors, nurse staffing ratios, hospital-acquired infections, and disparities in care. Health plans will also be required to disclose the percentage of premiums that go to patient care as opposed to administrative costs.
Ensuring Providers Deliver Quality Care:
Promote patient safety. Obama will require providers to report preventable medical errors and support hospital and physician practice improvement to prevent future occurrences.
Align incentives for excellence. Both public and private insurers tend to pay providers based on the volume of services provided, rather than the quality or effectiveness of care. Providers who see patients enrolled in the new public plan, the National Health Insurance Exchange, Medicare and FEHBP will be rewarded for achieving performance thresholds on outcome measures.
Comparative effectiveness research. Obama will establish an independent institute to guide reviews and research on comparative effectiveness, so that Americans and their doctors will have the accurate and objective information they need to make the best decisions for their health and well-being.
Tackle disparities in health care. Obama will tackle the root causes of health disparities by addressing differences in access to health coverage and promoting prevention and public health, both of which play a major role in addressing disparities. He will also challenge the medical system to eliminate inequities in health care through quality measurement and reporting, implementation of effective interventions such as patient navigation programs, and diversification of the health workforce.
Insurance reform. Obama will strengthen antitrust laws to prevent insurers from overcharging physicians for their malpractice insurance and will promote new models for addressing errors that improve patient safety, strengthen the doctor-patient relationship and reduce the need for malpractice suits.
Lowering Costs Through Investment in Electronic Health Information Technology Systems: Most medical records are still stored on paper, which makes it hard to coordinate care, measure quality or reduce medical errors and which costs twice as much as electronic claims. Obama will invest $10 billion a year over the next five years to move the U.S. health care system to broad adoption of standards-based electronic health information systems, including electronic health records, and will phase in requirements for full implementation of health IT. Obama will ensure that patients' privacy is protected.
Lowering Costs by Increasing Competition in the Insurance and Drug Markets: The insurance business today is dominated by a small group of large companies that has been gobbling up their rivals. There have been over 400 health care mergers in the last 10 years, and just two companies dominate a full third of the national market. These changes were supposed to make the industry more efficient, but instead premiums have skyrocketed by over 87 percent.
Barack Obama will prevent companies from abusing their monopoly power through unjustified price increases. His plan will force insurers to pay out a reasonable share of their premiums for patient care instead of keeping exorbitant amounts for profits and administration. His new National Health Exchange will help increase competition by insurers.
Lower prescription drug costs. The second-fastest growing type of health expenses is prescription drugs. Pharmaceutical companies are selling the exact same drugs in Europe and Canada but charging Americans more than double the price. Obama will allow Americans to buy their medicines from other developed countries if the drugs are safe and prices are lower outside the U.S. Obama will also repeal the ban that prevents the government from negotiating with drug companies, which could result in savings as high as $30 billion. Finally, Obama will work to increase the use of generic drugs in Medicare, Medicaid, and FEHBP and prohibit big name drug companies from keeping generics out of markets.Fight for New Initiatives


Advance the Biomedical Research Field: As a result of biomedical research the prevention, early detection and treatment of diseases such as cancer and heart disease is better today than any other time in history. Barack Obama has consistently supported funding for the national institutes of health and the national science foundation. Obama strongly supports investments in biomedical research, as well as medical education and training in health-related fields, because it provides the foundation for new therapies and diagnostics. Obama has been a champion of research in cancer, mental health, health disparities, global health, women and children's health, and veterans' health. As president, Obama will strengthen funding for biomedical research, and better improve the efficiency of that research by improving coordination both within government and across government/private/non-profit partnerships. An Obama administration will ensure that we translate scientific progress into improved approaches to disease prevention, early detection and therapy that is available for all Americans.
Fight AIDS Worldwide. There are 40 million people across the planet infected with HIV/AIDS. As president, Obama will continue to be a global leader in the fight against AIDS. Obama believes in working across party lines to combat this epidemic and recently joined Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) at a large California evangelical church to promote greater investment in the global AIDS battle.
Support Americans with Disabilities: As a former civil rights lawyer, Barack Obama knows firsthand the importance of strong protections for minority communities in our society. Obama is committed to strengthening and better enforcing the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) so that future generations of Americans with disabilities have equal rights and opportunities. Obama believes we must restore the original legislative intent of the ADA in the wake of court decisions that have restricted the interpretation of this landmark legislation.

Barack Obama is also committed to ensuring that disabled Americans receive Medicaid and Medicare benefits in a low-cost, effective and timely manner. Recognizing that many individuals with disabilities rely on Medicare, Obama worked with Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO) to urge the department of health and human services to provide clear and reliable information on the Medicare prescription drug benefit and to ensure that the Medicare recipients were protected from fraudulent claims by marketers and drug plan agents.
Improve Mental Health Care. Mental illness affects approximately one in five American families. The National Alliance on Mental Illness estimates that untreated mental illnesses cost the U.S. more than $100 billion per year. As president, Obama will support mental health parity so that coverage for serious mental illnesses are provided on the same terms and conditions as other illnesses and diseases.
Protect Our Children from Lead Poisoning. More than 430,000 American children have dangerously high levels of lead in their blood. Lead can cause irreversible brain damage, learning disabilities, behavioral problems, and, at very high levels, seizures, coma and death. As president, Obama will protect children from lead poisoning by requiring that child care facilities be lead-safe within five years.
Reduce Risks of Mercury Pollution. More than five million women of childbearing age have high levels of toxic mercury in their blood, and approximately 630,000 newborns are born at risk every year. Barack Obama has a plan to significantly reduce the amount of mercury that is deposited in oceans, lakes, and rivers, which in turn would reduce the amount of mercury in fish.
Support Americans with Autism. More than one million Americans have autism, a complex neurobiological condition that has a range of impacts on thinking, feeling, language, and the ability to relate to others. As diagnostic criteria broaden and awareness increases, more cases of autism have been recognized across the country. Barack Obama believes that we can do more to help autistic Americans and their families understand and live with autism. He has been a strong supporter of more than $1 billion in federal funding for autism research on the root causes and treatments, and he believes that we should increase funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to truly ensure that no child is left behind.

More than anything, autism remains a profound mystery with a broad spectrum of effects on autistic individuals, their families, loved ones, the community, and education and health care systems. Obama believes that the government and our communities should work together to provide a helping hand to autistic individuals and their families.Barack Obama's Record


Health Insurance: In 2003, Barack Obama sponsored and passed legislation that expanded health care coverage to 70,000 kids and 84,000 adults. In the U.S. Senate, Obama cosponsored the Healthy Kids Act of 2007 and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) Reauthorization Act of 2007 to ensure that more American children have affordable health care coverage.
Women's Health: Obama worked to pass a number of laws in Illinois and Washington to improve the health of women. His accomplishments include creating a task force on cervical cancer, providing greater access to breast and cervical cancer screenings, and helping improve prenatal and premature birth services.
I want you to read this and Ill post more tonight I have plenty for you and I like this debate I hope you will continue it with me. I also have some more of Mccains plans as well. I love knowlegde also so keep it comig.:rasta::rastasmoke::pimp:

No offense, but you just copy pasted directly from barack obama's website without any backing or explanation of your own.

Barack Obama wants to place I think something in the tune of 3.5% - 4% payroll/income tax to the people... Taxing more of our income while we're already in an economic downturn with inflated oil prices and getting burned at the pumps and really in all markets everywhere. Please keep in mind that some employers don't even offer insurance but yet they are going to get taxed anyway. That is what universal means.. EVERYONE. If a company does not comply with this they will be charging them the cost.

Guess what, the employer is going to roll over that cost onto the people by either charging for it or layoffs.

And the small business that will remain exempt from this will still end up with it's employees not having health care.

Will you be one of the people that's laid off? Or will you simply be one of the people who's losing 4% more of their income along with other tax hikes that he's sure to put in place.

This is a man that says he's fine with the oil price increase. He does not mind it! In a time when our economy is in a downturn and people need more money in their pockets.. he's just going to take it away.

Now then back to your post, which wasn't really a post but more of a copy paste that you could've just done last night. Especially considering it's right there on his website or could be found with a 5 second google search.

I asked you if you knew what.. and How he was going to do it.. and I asked for an explanation of how this is going to impact the American people. You've at least already answered the What, but that question has been touched on slightly from at least 2 other posters. So this information is not something new.

Really what I'm trying to do here is just get people to think. I don't mean this in a rude gesture, more as a friendly American gesture.

Regardless of anyone's political stance I would like to see more Americans simply not fall pray for the media masses that like to lead the people as if they were sheep or cattle.


ps: many of mccains and obama's ideas actually overlap. Did you even notice that? Would you rather lose 3-5% of your income or would you rather the government just give you the money that's needed for insurance and put the power IN YOUR hands.

This is just another example about how the democrats generally want to take away our right to choose.

pss: Obama is not exactly poor. He and his wife had a combined *reported* income of $984k in 2006... he received a book advance for 1.9 million dollars and In 2005, shortly after Obama had been elected to the Senate, his wife recieved a pay raise increase taking her from $121,910 in 2004 to $316,962 in 2005. Keep in mind that this is shortly after Obama was elected into office. Coincidence, maybe.. but the timing is too close for it to just be coincidence. In addition to this it is interesting to note that both Barack Obama and his Wife hold major disdain towards the health care system but still have no problems participating in the abuse.

Why not turn the pay raise down?

Obama is not as poor as you'd like to believe.

These were only reported incomes. Who knows what he's getting on the side.

Don't fall into the hype!

[daihashi]

Back to the thread topic.....with his link to the Chicago Health care industy he should be well aware of these issues. Seems that some things just can't "change".

Have a good one!:s4:

GET OUT OF MY HEAD p4B!!! lol

:thumbsup:

[daihashi]

Also.. I'd like to note that an estimated 47 million Americans do not have insurance...


Our population is about 300-304million people.

You're suggesting to punish the many for the few. 15% of Americans are uninsured, an estimated 70% of Americans have private health insurance.. and a remaining 10% - 15% are unknown.

Honestly... McCain's plan makes more sense than what Obama suggests.

[BigWeed]

Also.. I'd like to note that an estimated 47 million Americans do not have insurance...


Our population is about 300-304million people.

You're suggesting to punish the many for the few. 15% of Americans are uninsured, an estimated 70% of Americans have private health insurance.. and a remaining 10% - 15% are unknown.

Honestly... McCain's plan makes more sense than what Obama suggests.

I have been reading both plans for the past 2 hours and I agree with you they both mirror each others. Mccains dont tell how he pays for it and Obamas dont tell but offers more. Mccain wants to take away some of the tax credit that normally goes to the employers and put it in my pocket to pay for what ever health care plan I want. The problem with that is the companys hes taking away the credit from is going to charge me even more for the goods that I buy. So he cant pay for his plan because those companys will get back in the end.


Obamas plan is offering more and he plans to raise the taxes on the wealthest americans and corparations which I like. I am a reasonable man no matter what each ones plans our Ill still be holding the short end of the stick. They are both going at it the wrong way and it seems that there should be more regulations on the Insurance companys and I agree with Pyscho there should be more regulations on hospitals also I know I been in one for 4 months. So I will concede this to you Daihashi and go and get my gun and bible and pray that I dont have my premiums go up anymore so i dont have to go postal on them. I think we need a post for everybody to have to chime in on what whould you do if you where president to help BigWeed with his health care.:rasta::rastasmoke::pimp:

[daihashi]

I have been reading both plans for the past 2 hours and I agree with you they both mirror each others. Mccains dont tell how he pays for it and Obamas dont tell but offers more. Mccain wants to take away some of the tax credit that normally goes to the employers and put it in my pocket to pay for what ever health care plan I want. The problem with that is the companys hes taking away the credit from is going to charge me even more for the goods that I buy. So he cant pay for his plan because those companys will get back in the end.


Why would they charge you more? It's a redistribution of money. They would not be taxed as proposed under Obama's plan. He's simply moving the credit that normally goes to employers and putting it in your hands. You say he didn't propose how he was going to make this happen, but if you're redistributing money there's not much to explain. Take from column A and put in column B. That's the basic gist of it. Pretty simple. I don't necessarily like McCain's plan just so you know; I simply feel it makes more sense than Obama's plan.



Obamas plan is offering more and he plans to raise the taxes on the wealthest americans and corparations which I like. I am a reasonable man no matter what each ones plans our Ill still be holding the short end of the stick.

Honestly Obama's plan truely does offer more and I don't think I could ever argue against this. What I can argue is the impact this plan will have on the American people.

The super rich make up 0.7 of the population, and I'm going to make up a number here for the rich, a generous number I feel (meaning I'm probably overestimating)... we'll say 10% of the population are the rich. So now we have 10.7% of the population trying to support 89.3% of the rest of the US. Keep in mind that the majority of the members of Congress and most high US officials also fall into this 10.7%. Assuming that Congress for once decided to do what's best for the people and not what's best for themselves. The tax rate on this 10.7% would have to be signifigant in order to aid in support of the remaining 270 million (current population is about 304million, I subtracted 10%), we'll say they're getting 15% tax increase (another estimated number.. not fact). Let's factor in the corporations whom hadn't been previously taxed. They are going to want to protect their profits. Layoffs are the easiest way to reduce cost in order to keep profits up. Through Layoffs the corporations free up the cost it would take to pay that person, in addition they will not be penalized in taxes for that 1 person since they are no longer with the company.

Anyway you slice it or dice it it's a win/win situation for the corporations. Directly leading to an increase in Job unemployment. At this point you're exchanging one problem for another. This also directly effects the economy. If people don't have money to spend then they can't buy goods, which means companies don't make money.. and I think you can see how this cycle would just keep repeating itself in a downward spiral.


They are both going at it the wrong way and it seems that there should be more regulations on the Insurance companys and I agree with Pyscho there should be more regulations on hospitals also I know I been in one for 4 months. So I will concede this to you Daihashi and go and get my gun and bible and pray that I dont have my premiums go up anymore so i dont have to go postal on them. I think we need a post for everybody to have to chime in on what whould you do if you where president to help BigWeed with his health care.:rasta::rastasmoke::pimp:

YES!!! They are both going about it the wrong way. I never said I particularly cared for McCain's plan; however when comparing them side by side (because let's be honest... these two turd muffins are the only two we really have to pick from... what's Bob Barr going to do :wtf:) I felt McCain's made more sense for the American people, but just so you know I agree. They are both going about it the wrong way!

I agree about regulation but the problem with regulation is that you end up giving the government more and more control. Meaning if they force the hospitals to reduce costs that means there is going to have to be some special treatment to hospitals from outside organizations: Water companies, Electrical companies, Vendor services, Insurance costs (for doctors and Hospitals.. not for individuals), miscellaneous hospital stock (ie: scrubs, needles, little paper cups), and the list goes on and on. If the situation got bad enough you end up with the government controlling everything. Because you can't regulate one thing without, at some point, having to regulate something else in the future.

While I agree something needs to be done to regulate the hospitals at the same time I'm wary of giving the government any more power over me (yes this does directly effect us, it's similar to the downward spiral I spoke about earlier. I can explain if you request it but for now I'll assume you can see the outcome for yourself).

There's another type of government where they are allowed to regulate and control everything. It's called Communism. While I don't think it'll ever get that extreme; I'm not particularly keen about giving away my freedoms.

Under Obama's plan I don't see it working unless he is able to regulate multiple industries. Because even with taxing the 10.7% of the rich and the corporations.. I don't feel it's going to be enough to provide 304 million Americans with healthcare unless he forces regulation across multiple industries.

Being unemployed in a poor job market with an economy spiraling downward because of a lack of money is not something I look forward to. This is a situation that is created when you tax corporations and try to force regulation on various industries. The middle class is still going to be the one who suffers?

I hope I was able to make my view/stance on this clear.

For the most part you and I are on the same team; we just have different view points on how things will effect us.

[daihashi]

Also.. I'd like to note that an estimated 47 million Americans do not have insurance...


Our population is about 300-304million people.

You're suggesting to punish the many for the few. 15% of Americans are uninsured, an estimated 70% of Americans have private health insurance.. and a remaining 10% - 15% are unknown.

Honestly... McCain's plan makes more sense than what Obama suggests.

I'd like to note I misread the figure.. the estimated amount of americans that have private health insurance is 59% down 11% from 1987.

However in contrast in 1987 the uninsured were at 15.6% and are now at 20.2%. A rise of less 6% in over 20 years.

To me this would indicate a problem that needs to be addressed right away; but not the socialization of America's Healthcare.

Regulation I agree with; the problem is that it's a scary animal and it is really easy for the government to get carried away. In this day and age of corrupt politicians everywhere who are among the rich... I'm a bit uncomfortable. Do I sacrifice my wallet or my freedoms?

[Dave Byrd]

I'm not patient enough to get in here like my wife or Dragonrider would and argue point for point. I don't make a policy of arguing with folks who're not ever going to see things differently, and that's what a couple of you here are. Which is fine. Fortunately there is a huge country out here who've had enough experience with our current health care and insurance system to see things differently. Enough to elect a new party this year and let someone else steer for a while. I'm sure of it.

--Aside to Daihashi: Thank you for correcting your insured/uninsured facts up there. I appreciate your getting that straightened out. You throw out a lot of words and sectioned-out debate comments, but I have in at least two places noticed that it has been smokescreen talk. I suspect there are many more but that's just a hunch for now and I'm too lazy to prove it. One smokey place was in your authoritative discussion of insurance coverages up above here and in the McCain thread. The other was where you were throwing out made-up tax percentages as examples of how a Democratic tax plan couldn't work. That's all those were was fabricated percentages. I haven't found my way back to that one but I will in time. Till I do, do some reading of Hillary's health care plan, which has more detail and is probably a form of what we'll end up with after Obama works up a public plan. Have you ever heard of the Tax Policy Center and the Tax Policy Institute? You'll find real facts in those. I know you're going to want to argue back on this section and this whole post, Daihashi. But I'm not going to be debating this until you've earned a medical degree and practiced medicine for 25 years yourself. -- (end of aside)

Now back to the general argument. Till everyone here begins to have some experience of paying huge health bills or watching others at close range do so, I'm not sure the anti-Obama-healthcare arguers can ever feel differently than you do now. Every day, there are fewer and fewer Americans who can afford medical care or who are going bankrupt because they've had to get it without insurance or with insufficient coverage. They can no longer get procedures that'll save their lives, surgeries, or hospital stays or diagnostic testing that would. It's not because doctors' fees are going up, either. It's because big insurance and big hospital companies, in addition to big pharmaceutical companies, completely drive health policy in this country in a way that will drive value for their stockholders. They're raising the prices for care exorbitantly. Not doing anything to save lives. They're only saving dollars.

There's the true essence of this argument. Letting doctors and patients be able to provide/receive health care that's needed (Obama's leanings) versus bottom line big business control of that health care, which is how McCain would keep things. Every day more doctors leave their jobs for new ones or enter new lines of business because they're no longer able to support their offices and families with insurance apportioning health care the way it does. That's nuts, especially as hard we've had to work to get to where we are.

I believe we'll end up with a combination public-private health care system once this is ironed out. There'll still be employer-provided insurance for some--the upper echelon like have it now. (Just below the echelon of people who are so rich they can pay for whatever they need out of pocket.) Then there'll also be public portable tax-subsidized plan. I don't think we'll ever get to single payor health care. Perhaps I'm wrong, though.

If you're part of the we-can't-afford national health care team, you need to open your eyes a lot wider. Hell, we can't afford not to and if you think for one second that we're not already paying for it, then pull your heads out. You are. With those increased hospital costs to make up for all the unpaid and unpayable bills. With increased premiums and copayments. With our tax dollars that go to the VA and Medicare and Medicaid now, particularly to Medicaid to cover the poorest of the poor. We're covering the employed and the medically poor with our own insurance dollars and upward-spiraling fees. We're paying out the wazoo now, about 15% more each year, and it'll only continue to go up till the country crashes in this area, too.

So we can either pay for it up front, implementing cost controls, reasonable fees, and providing health care, including preventative care, to people before they're in such desperate straights that their unpaid bills just add to our tax and expense burden. Or we can continue to do it the way we're doing it now, reactively and after disastrous health circumstances have struck. That isn't working and is only making care for all of us less obtainable and more expensive. Only the rich are getting richer, and increasingly that's the only group that'll be able to obtain health care.

Will it be a hassle and an imperfect solution? Of course it will. Nothing is perfect. But it'll be better than what we have now. The Republican plan only looks at the short term, as they do with the proposed tax cuts on capital gains, proposed corporate tax cuts, too. It's true that those cuts and corporate cuts would act as a stimulus in the short term. But that's as far as it goes. Long-term, just like we're all going to have to face higher taxes long term no matter what, is a whole different ball game. We're already killing our selves with the buy-now, pay-later war. We might as well pay up front for the battle that's killing people domestically, which is our health crisis and head off the yet another deficit crisis by facing the truth now.

[daihashi]

--Aside to Daihashi: Thank you for correcting your insured/uninsured facts up there. I appreciate your getting that straightened out. You throw out a lot of words and sectioned-out debate comments, but I have in at least two places noticed that it has been smokescreen talk. I suspect there are many more but that's just a hunch for now and I'm too lazy to prove it. One smokey place was in your authoritative discussion of insurance coverages up above here and in the McCain thread. The other was where you were throwing out made-up tax percentages as examples of how a Democratic tax plan couldn't work. That's all those were was fabricated percentages. I haven't found my way back to that one but I will in time. Till I do, do some reading of Hillary's health care plan, which has more detail and is probably a form of what we'll end up with after Obama works up a public plan. Have you ever heard of the Tax Policy Center and the Tax Policy Institute? You'll find real facts in those. I know you're going to want to argue back on this section and this whole post, Daihashi. But I'm not going to be debating this until you've earned a medical degree and practiced medicine for 25 years yourself. -- (end of aside)



Edited:


You know what.. no comment. The statements I previously made before editing are not for public eyes to see and will be addressed elsewhere.

Good day sir :thumbsup:

[thcbongman]

[quote=Psycho4Bud]ARLINGTON, Va., June 12 /Standard Newswire/ -- Today, on the fourth day of Barack Obama's "Change That Works For You" tour, McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds issued the following statement:

"Barack Obama's assertion that the only problem with higher gas prices is that they've gone up too fast -- saying he'd prefer a 'gradual' increase instead -- shows how clearly out of touch he is with Americans struggling with record gas prices. At a time when Americans need relief at the pump, Barack Obama's support for higher gas prices and higher energy taxes is just another example of his weak economic judgment."

This Week In An Interview With CNBC, Barack Obama Said He Would Have Preferred If Higher Gasoline Prices Happened More Gradually:

THANKS for all the good info. With all the reading, I've yet to do, it will help me make up my mind! I always like to know the facts. Don't know how U do it, but I appreciate all this! My initial gutt feeling is--there will be no change, until I read all the attached data. You brought up a lot of points I did not hear in the senate hearing, but did not hear it all! He did state that forcing oil co. to lower price in ILL. did not filter to consumer

Now, I have some homework! :thumbsup:
Oh, is that Harwood guy the one that dropped dead today or was it the MSNBC guy, from Hard Copy! man i liked that dude's political questions!

I simply do not understand what's wrong with a gradual increase, using this to attack Obama when he's trying to see the bigger picture. Gas prices will continue to rise, it's better to have a constant increase than the fluctuations we are seeing. In the last 3 months, this aren't gradual increases, they're substancial.

McCain's proposal to temporarily lower the gas-taxes sounds good by slogan, but not by application which to me signifies the lack of understanding with the current energy crisis. All that would do is increase demand and enable oil companies to sneek in more profits. McCain is from the old school of thinking, before the era of a complicated market of securities which vastly has a huge effect on oil prices. Check this article out:

Investors' Growing Appetite for Oil Evades Market Limits - washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/05/AR2008060504322.html?nav=hcmodule)

McCain also stated back in 2003 that Ethanol "does nothing to reduce fuel consumption." Of course he changed this stance later on, but it's indicative of he's less inclined to support more production and standardization of alternative fuels.

[dragonrider]

Here is a quote from me since you seem to be confused for what I'm asking:



From another post I made in this thread



And yet another post I made in this thread



And here is the original post I made asking the question:



As you can see since people seem to either ignore or be oblivious to what I'm asking I've gone through and bolded parts of my quotes.

Everyone here has failed to answer my question.

In regards to the following:



I've already done this in the Mccain thread in detail which did take some time. I'm not going to do it again. If you're interested you can take a look over in that thread.

McCain outlines his plan and tells you HOW he's going to make it happen.

Obama has said how, but my point this entire time is that Obama supporters cannot tell me HOW he's going to support the changes he proposes.




For someone who's not interested in healthcare you seem to want to argue this debate whole heartedly. You did provide examples to half the question but failed to answer the other half.. Even when you answer that other half I still have yet ANOTHER question for you. I have thought this very far into the future.

I don't feel Obama offers ideas. He offers half-hearted answers that will just give the American people what they want to hear. No one seems to realize that in actuality it is much more difficult to do what he proposes than the way he makes it sound... furthermore the way he plans on getting the money will directly effect the Job Employment rate in a negative way.



Sorry. I'm not giving anyone in this thread a free pass. I do know Obama's plans and how he plans to achieve them. I see the negatives and the few positives of it. I've even given hints as to how he plans to make the changes in hopes that some Obama supporter would speak up.

Everyone has sat silently when I ask them HOW. What and HOW are linked together. You can't say what you plan to do without saying how you plan to do it.. in addition after that is said you have to make it evident how it will effect the American people, for good and for bad.

No one here has said anything.. I've only received mediocre answers explaining what he plans to change.

Without all 3, I'm sorry but as I said before in the following quote:



The determining factor if the plan is worthwhile is listening after the above has been satisfied would be to determine the IMPACT would be to the American People.

Again no one here has answered my Question. I feel that thcbongman has come the closest to giving me a legitimate response in the Obama vs McCain debate.. Even then I still only agree with it half way.. or slightly less than half way.

All the other posts I've seen have failed to answer the questions I'm posing or have failed to put up a good comparison between Obama and McCain




Please read that and I think you'll find the core point I'm actually trying to get at by asking these questions.

If not maybe P4B or someone else who might realize what I'm getting at can chime in and explain; but I myself am not handing out a free pass.

It's cliche but knowledge is power.

Daihashi, I am sort of done with the point-by-point back and forth we've been having in this thread and others. It seems like we just drive eachother forward, making long, boring threads that no one else wants to participate in. In this case, I was getting really annoyed with you insisting I had not answered a question you felt you had posed to me. Now that I read the quotes you posted regarding the question you felt I was avoiding, I see that with the exception of one of them, YOU NEVER POSED YOUR QUESTION TO ME. Those quotes were from replies you made to other people, not to me. From my point of view, you asked TCHBongman and BigWeed questions, and I sort of resented you getting on my back for avoiding a question you posed to someone else. Like I said, these back-and-forth threads get long and boring --- I skim them if they don't look like they are going anywhere or if they are not an area of particular interest to me, and I never even read the question you posed these other people until now.

The one exception is the quote, "Please explain to me what he has proposed in DETAIL and how he plans to achieve it IN DETAIL.." To be honest, I didn't figure I owed you any additional detail, because my post was in response to BigWeed, and I thought I had told him what I wanted to say in adequate detail. That's why I told you if you wanted more detail, you should look it up. I thought you were looking for information with that question, not making a point about how I wasn't capable of providing the detail you wanted.

Now that I see your questions to these other people, I see that you are making a distinction between WHAT a person says they intend to do, and HOW they intend to accomplish what they say they will do. That is definitely a fair question. It seems your focus is mostly on how will they pay for it. I will now answer your question --- I DON'T KNOW!

I have no details on how Obama will pay for what he proposes. My feeling is that in one form or another, we as a society already pay for healthcare for the uninsured. If they can't pay for it themselves, we pay for it with unnecessary ER visits where patients can't be turned away. Or hospitals absorb the costs and pass them on to us in our own higher rates. Or people do simply go without care they can't afford, which I don't think is right. I think we probably pay more handling the unisured this way, than we would if we just bit the bullet and subisized their care up front.

Now that I read back on these posts, you claim to already know the answer to the question you asked about HOW Obama will pay for his plan, but you aren't going to say. And once we can answer that question, you proimise to dazzle us with another even more amazing stumper of a question. You said you have planned the whole discussion far into the future. It's sort of a Da Vinci Code game of healthcare policy where one clue only leads to a more mystifying clue. Perhaps we can call it the Daihashi Code. Let me know if you get anyone to play. I'm going to decline. But if you want to say how you think Obama will pay for his plan and then provide the other peice of information, that might be interesting and add to the discussion. If not, I will be OK with not knowing for now.

I did check out the speech you cut and paste into the McCain thread for the information about HOW McCain will pay for his plan, but I did not see it there. You said it was there, so maybe I missed it. Those $2500 - $5000 tax credits are going to add up if milions of people take him up on his offer, but I didn't see how he will pay for it. Do you have that info? I really am asking becasue I want the info, not because I want to stump you with a question I already have the answer to.

[daihashi]

I did check out the speech you cut and paste into the McCain thread for the information about HOW McCain will pay for his plan, but I did not see it there. You said it was there, so maybe I missed it. Those $2500 - $5000 tax credits are going to add up if milions of people take him up on his offer, but I didn't see how he will pay for it. Do you have that info? I really am asking becasue I want the info, not because I want to stump you with a question I already have the answer to.

Barack Obama plans to place payroll taxes on Corporations and the Rich.

Keep in mind this is just how I forsee it happening. Obama hasn't actually gone in depth enough for me to say "oh that's how it is".

I cannot say for certain the population of the Rich, but the population of the super rich is 0.7% of the United States. I personally estimate the Rich population to be no more than 10% of the US population.

In addition to this he wants to put a payroll tax on corporations. Which is fine and dandy except corporations have this tendency to roll over things onto their employees. This can be seen in the current employer Healthcare system in which most employees still have to pay some nominal fee to receive health care. Currently these employers receive a tax break for providing healthcare.

Under the new system that he proposes I am concerned that 10.7% of the rich can't insure 304 million Americans. In addition to this I am concerned that the taxing of corporations who had previously been receiving tax breaks to provide health insurance will lead to lay offs. The easiest way to protect profit is by cutting back on your work staff. You lose the cost it takes to employ them in addition you won't be penalized by that one person by the government under this proposed Universal health care bill.

That's the way I see it playing out. Whether it plays out that way or not I cannot say for certain. In another post I used hypothetical tax figures just as an example. I would post them again but I fear getting flamed by some posters on here. Heaven forbid I post some hypothetical data since the actual data is not available.


In regards to McCain. He wanted to shift the Tax breaks that the government previously gave to Employers and give it to the people instead. People will still have the option to get Employer based insurance if it's available or if it's even wanted, but he also wants to offer a second option by redistributing money that would normally be given as tax breaks to Large companies and give them to Americans instead. It's simply a redistribution of money.

I think I had said all this in another thread but to be honest the threads on here have gotten so intermingled I can't tell you where it's at now.

Honestly; as I've said before, I feel both plans are poor however if you're looking at it just from a comparison stand point then my opinion is that McCain's plan will have less Impact on the American people.

Really I'd like for them to do some light regulation just to get everything back on par as opposed to handing out coupons or trying to propose new taxes. The problem with this, for me anyway, is that I'm wary of giving the government anymore authority than they already have. I'm an advocate of smaller government.

All I know is that I am against socialized healthcare after seeing what I've seen in some other countries. We are a capitalist country and a socialized medical program that health care providers are forced into would probably hurt the industry more than it would help. If they aren't making money then naturally there will be cutbacks in the medical work force or a cut back in the work forces salary; which would probably be motivation for a few of them to leave and go into other fields anyway.

Again with the exception of what Obama plans to do and what McCain plans to do; everything I've said here has been what I foresee happening.

It's sad that I'm having to put a disclaimer at the end of my posts now. :(

[thcbongman]

No offense, but you just copy pasted directly from barack obama's website without any backing or explanation of your own.

Barack Obama wants to place I think something in the tune of 3.5% - 4% payroll/income tax to the people... Taxing more of our income while we're already in an economic downturn with inflated oil prices and getting burned at the pumps and really in all markets everywhere. Please keep in mind that some employers don't even offer insurance but yet they are going to get taxed anyway. That is what universal means.. EVERYONE. If a company does not comply with this they will be charging them the cost.

Guess what, the employer is going to roll over that cost onto the people by either charging for it or layoffs.

And the small business that will remain exempt from this will still end up with it's employees not having health care.

Will you be one of the people that's laid off? Or will you simply be one of the people who's losing 4% more of their income along with other tax hikes that he's sure to put in place.

This is a man that says he's fine with the oil price increase. He does not mind it! In a time when our economy is in a downturn and people need more money in their pockets.. he's just going to take it away.

Now then back to your post, which wasn't really a post but more of a copy paste that you could've just done last night. Especially considering it's right there on his website or could be found with a 5 second google search.

I asked you if you knew what.. and How he was going to do it.. and I asked for an explanation of how this is going to impact the American people. You've at least already answered the What, but that question has been touched on slightly from at least 2 other posters. So this information is not something new.

Really what I'm trying to do here is just get people to think. I don't mean this in a rude gesture, more as a friendly American gesture.

Regardless of anyone's political stance I would like to see more Americans simply not fall pray for the media masses that like to lead the people as if they were sheep or cattle.


ps: many of mccains and obama's ideas actually overlap. Did you even notice that? Would you rather lose 3-5% of your income or would you rather the government just give you the money that's needed for insurance and put the power IN YOUR hands.

This is just another example about how the democrats generally want to take away our right to choose.

pss: Obama is not exactly poor. He and his wife had a combined *reported* income of $984k in 2006... he received a book advance for 1.9 million dollars and In 2005, shortly after Obama had been elected to the Senate, his wife recieved a pay raise increase taking her from $121,910 in 2004 to $316,962 in 2005. Keep in mind that this is shortly after Obama was elected into office. Coincidence, maybe.. but the timing is too close for it to just be coincidence. In addition to this it is interesting to note that both Barack Obama and his Wife hold major disdain towards the health care system but still have no problems participating in the abuse.

Why not turn the pay raise down?

Obama is not as poor as you'd like to believe.

These were only reported incomes. Who knows what he's getting on the side.

Don't fall into the hype!

Those employers that you are are going to get taxed for failing to provide a health insurance plan are also those same companies that would receive incentives if they were to implement one. I don't see any logical fallacy in that. We are moving in a direction where socio-economical business models thrive. It's been proven that in the long-run it helps businesses.

All and all, there aren't major differences between McCain and Obama's plans. Obama wants more regulation and oversight, McCain wants to use market forces more, but all and all, either plan will end up raising taxes. I'm not sure how McCain will dole out a $2500 tax credit without sacrificing (or raising) something.

McCain's plan has some good ideas like the tax-credit incentive to be used to purchase any insurance company of your choice. If there was middle ground between Obama's and McCain's health, it'd be a sound plan.

[katyowns]

A lot of people in this thread REALLY need to sit down, smoke a bowl, and get away from the computer.

[thcbongman]

A lot of people in this thread REALLY need to sit down, smoke a bowl, and get away from the computer.

Most of us are sitting down, smoking a bowl while writing these posts! The get away from the computer bit I can't argue with :jointsmile:

[dragonrider]

Barack Obama plans to place payroll taxes on Corporations and the Rich.

Keep in mind this is just how I forsee it happening. Obama hasn't actually gone in depth enough for me to say "oh that's how it is".

I cannot say for certain the population of the Rich, but the population of the super rich is 0.7% of the United States. I personally estimate the Rich population to be no more than 10% of the US population.

In addition to this he wants to put a payroll tax on corporations. Which is fine and dandy except corporations have this tendency to roll over things onto their employees. This can be seen in the current employer Healthcare system in which most employees still have to pay some nominal fee to receive health care. Currently these employers receive a tax break for providing healthcare.

Under the new system that he proposes I am concerned that 10.7% of the rich can't insure 304 million Americans. In addition to this I am concerned that the taxing of corporations who had previously been receiving tax breaks to provide health insurance will lead to lay offs. The easiest way to protect profit is by cutting back on your work staff. You lose the cost it takes to employ them in addition you won't be penalized by that one person by the government under this proposed Universal health care bill.

That's the way I see it playing out. Whether it plays out that way or not I cannot say for certain. In another post I used hypothetical tax figures just as an example. I would post them again but I fear getting flamed by some posters on here. Heaven forbid I post some hypothetical data since the actual data is not available.


In regards to McCain. He wanted to shift the Tax breaks that the government previously gave to Employers and give it to the people instead. People will still have the option to get Employer based insurance if it's available or if it's even wanted, but he also wants to offer a second option by redistributing money that would normally be given as tax breaks to Large companies and give them to Americans instead. It's simply a redistribution of money.

I think I had said all this in another thread but to be honest the threads on here have gotten so intermingled I can't tell you where it's at now.

Honestly; as I've said before, I feel both plans are poor however if you're looking at it just from a comparison stand point then my opinion is that McCain's plan will have less Impact on the American people.

Really I'd like for them to do some light regulation just to get everything back on par as opposed to handing out coupons or trying to propose new taxes. The problem with this, for me anyway, is that I'm wary of giving the government anymore authority than they already have. I'm an advocate of smaller government.

All I know is that I am against socialized healthcare after seeing what I've seen in some other countries. We are a capitalist country and a socialized medical program that health care providers are forced into would probably hurt the industry more than it would help. If they aren't making money then naturally there will be cutbacks in the medical work force or a cut back in the work forces salary; which would probably be motivation for a few of them to leave and go into other fields anyway.

Again with the exception of what Obama plans to do and what McCain plans to do; everything I've said here has been what I foresee happening.

It's sad that I'm having to put a disclaimer at the end of my posts now. :(

Well, I think the reason you may need to put a disclaimer on your posts is that before you claimed you KNEW how Obama intended to pay for his plan and you were waiting for the rest of us to give you the RIGHT answer. And you claimed in the McCain thread that the speech you had posted had explained HOW McCain intended to accomplish his proposed, as opposed to posts by Obama supporters that you claimed did not explain HOW. But now you say that in both cases you don't actually KNOW either of these things and it is really just how you forsee it happening.

If you are merely going to make predictions for how you forsee these plans being implemented, then I feel my guesses are probably as good as yours. Here is how I FORSEE it happening based on the post by BigWeed and your post in the McCain thread.

BigWeed's post has several points about lowering teh cost of healthcare overall, but only this one bullet point that speaks to where the money for the Government-sponsosred healthcare plan will come from:


Employer Contribution: Employers that do not offer or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees will be required to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of the national plan. Small employers that meet certain revenue thresholds will be exempt.

So Obama did say HOW he would pay for some of it. Some of the money does come from added payroll taxes to companies who do not already offer plans. That actually seems very reasonable to me. I would imagine there will be additioal costs not covered by this payroll tax, and I do not know where that money will come from. Surely it will be in the form of some other kind of tax, but I do not want to guess what it will be.

I checked through the enitre McCain speech and he did not say HOW he will pay for any of it.

You said you forsee this:


In regards to McCain. He wanted to shift the Tax breaks that the government previously gave to Employers and give it to the people instead. People will still have the option to get Employer based insurance if it's available or if it's even wanted, but he also wants to offer a second option by redistributing money that would normally be given as tax breaks to Large companies and give them to Americans instead. It's simply a redistribution of money.

But I do not read it that way at all. This is what McCain said:


But for every American who wanted it, another option would be available: Every year, they would receive a tax credit directly, with the same cash value of the credits for employees in big companies, in a small business, or self-employed. You simply choose the insurance provider that suits you best. By mail or online, you would then inform the government of your selection. And the money to help pay for your health care would be sent straight to that insurance provider. The health plan you chose would be as good as any that an employer could choose for you. It would be yours and your family's health-care plan, and yours to keep.

He said every American who wanted it could recieve a credit in the same amount as the credits businesses recieve. He did NOT say that money was being shifted from businesses to employees. What would be the purpose of that? It wouldn't solve anything to give the credit to the employee instead of to the business if the employee already has insurance. The way I read it is if a person does not already have insurance through an employer, or a person is unemployed, the person can get a credit in the same amount as a businees would recieve if a business was providing that person's health care. That's the only way it would make any sense and get any more people insured. So since the person did not previously have insurance, no business was recieving an exisitng credit for that person, and the money can't just be "shifted" to that peerson. That person's credit is a new expense that must be paid for, and McCain does not say where that money will come from. I'm not sure how many americans are unisured, do you? I'm guessing 40 million? If 40 million uninsured people take advantage of a $2500 credit, that's $100 billion a year McCain needs to come up with.

Actually, I do not know which of these plans I would favor, and until we know more details and what they would cost, we won't be able to compare them. I agree that I do not want socialized medicine, but fortunately nothing in either of these plans looks anything like socialized medicine. Not even close. McCain provides a subsidy to anyone who wants to buy their own healthcare inusrance. Obama does the same for those who meet certain income requirements. And Obama creates a national healthcare insurance plan for those who want it, with guaranteed eligibility and portability. Neither one is forcing anyone into a single-payer system or requiring that you buy into a particular plan. So if your main concern is that you don't want to see socailized healthcare, then it looks like you should have no worries.

[daihashi]

Well, I think the reason you may need to put a disclaimer on your posts is that before you claimed you KNEW how Obama intended to pay for his plan and you were waiting for the rest of us to give you the RIGHT answer. And you claimed in the McCain thread that the speech you had posted had explained HOW McCain intended to accomplish his proposed, as opposed to posts by Obama supporters that you claimed did not explain HOW. But now you say that in both cases you don't actually KNOW either of these things and it is really just how you forsee it happening.

This is what's irritating me. I said exactly where Obama plans to get his money; which no one had said before. So I finally spout it out and you say I don't know how he gets his money. I tell where McCain plans to get his money, but you claim that I don't know.

They both stated how they intend to get their money. It was clearly written and I don't know how you can claim otherwise.


Barack Obama plans to place payroll taxes on Corporations and the Rich.


n regards to McCain. He wanted to shift the Tax breaks that the government previously gave to Employers and give it to the people instead.

Guess what. Those are both explanations on where they plan to get their money. Please show me where you offered this up prior to me asking this question repeatedly.


If you are merely going to make predictions for how you forsee these plans being implemented, then I feel my guesses are probably as good as yours. Here is how I FORSEE it happening based on the post by BigWeed and your post in the McCain thread.

You have to try to forsee what is happening. You say this as if you're faulting me. If you don't try to see how each plan will work and the Impact of these plan then you are just making blind choices. Regardless of who's plan you want; I simply want people to think. I've said this several times before. No one has told me what the Impact that Obama's plan will have on the American people and it wasn't until Bigweed's post much later that he mentions the payroll tax on the Rich and corporations.

You are correct. Your opinions and feelings are as good as mine and I've been wanting to hear them. Contrary to what people may think of me all I want is to hear people's Ideas and thoughts on what will happen in regards to these two politicians and if their ideas actually make their way into Law and it's impact on Americans.



BigWeed's post has several points about lowering teh cost of healthcare overall, but only this one bullet point that speaks to where the money for the Government-sponsosred healthcare plan will come from:



So Obama did say HOW he would pay for some of it. Some of the money does come from added payroll taxes to companies who do not already offer plans. That actually seems very reasonable to me. I would imagine there will be additioal costs not covered by this payroll tax, and I do not know where that money will come from. Surely it will be in the form of some other kind of tax, but I do not want to guess what it will be.


I think I acknowledged he had hit the nail on the head here. I never disputed it. Matter of fact I replied on how I thought it would impact the American people, as can be seen below:

Honestly Obama's plan truely does offer more and I don't think I could ever argue against this. What I can argue is the impact this plan will have on the American people.

The super rich make up 0.7 of the population, and I'm going to make up a number here for the rich, a generous number I feel (meaning I'm probably overestimating)... we'll say 10% of the population are the rich. So now we have 10.7% of the population trying to support 89.3% of the rest of the US. Keep in mind that the majority of the members of Congress and most high US officials also fall into this 10.7%. Assuming that Congress for once decided to do what's best for the people and not what's best for themselves. The tax rate on this 10.7% would have to be signifigant in order to aid in support of the remaining 270 million (current population is about 304million, I subtracted 10%), we'll say they're getting 15% tax increase (another estimated number.. not fact). Let's factor in the corporations whom hadn't been previously taxed. They are going to want to protect their profits. Layoffs are the easiest way to reduce cost in order to keep profits up. Through Layoffs the corporations free up the cost it would take to pay that person, in addition they will not be penalized in taxes for that 1 person since they are no longer with the company.

Anyway you slice it or dice it it's a win/win situation for the corporations. Directly leading to an increase in Job unemployment. At this point you're exchanging one problem for another. This also directly effects the economy. If people don't have money to spend then they can't buy goods, which means companies don't make money.. and I think you can see how this cycle would just keep repeating itself in a downward spiral.



I checked through the enitre McCain speech and he did not say HOW he will pay for any of it.

That's really uncanny because I could've thought I said it multiple times. A few of them in direct reply to you. Here are a few:

In regards to McCain. He wanted to shift the Tax breaks that the government previously gave to Employers and give it to the people instead. People will still have the option to get Employer based insurance if it's available or if it's even wanted, but he also wants to offer a second option by redistributing money that would normally be given as tax breaks to Large companies and give them to Americans instead. It's simply a redistribution of money.


And here is another direct quote from the McCain thread in which I asked several people to go and read as it actually had exact data on what McCain proposes:

Under current law, the federal government gives a tax benefit when employers provide health-insurance coverage to American workers and their families. This benefit doesn't cover the total cost of the health plan, and in reality each worker and family absorbs the rest of the cost in lower wages and diminished benefits. But it provides essential support for insurance coverage. Many workers are perfectly content with this arrangement, and under my reform plan they would be able to keep that coverage. Their employer-provided health plans would be largely untouched and unchanged.

But for every American who wanted it, another option would be available: Every year, they would receive a tax credit directly, with the same cash value of the credits for employees in big companies, in a small business, or self-employed. You simply choose the insurance provider that suits you best. By mail or online, you would then inform the government of your selection. And the money to help pay for your health care would be sent straight to that insurance provider. The health plan you chose would be as good as any that an employer could choose for you. It would be yours and your family's health-care plan, and yours to keep.

Tax credit directly instead of the employers getting the Tax Credit.

You said you forsee this:



But I do not read it that way at all. This is what McCain said:




He said every American who wanted it could recieve a credit in the same amount as the credits businesses recieve. He did NOT say that money was being shifted from businesses to employees. What would be the purpose of that? It wouldn't solve anything to give the credit to the employee instead of to the business if the employee already has insurance. The way I read it is if a person does not already have insurance through an employer, or a person is unemployed, the person can get a credit in the same amount as a businees would recieve if a business was providing that person's health care. That's the only way it would make any sense and get any more people insured. So since the person did not previously have insurance, no business was recieving an exisitng credit for that person, and the money can't just be "shifted" to that peerson. That person's credit is a new expense that must be paid for, and McCain does not say where that money will come from. I'm not sure how many americans are unisured, do you? I'm guessing 40 million? If 40 million uninsured people take advantage of a $2500 credit, that's $100 billion a year McCain needs to come up with.

You're right, it is flawed; but considering that naturally some people are going to keep their employer based insurance and some others are not the $100 billion a year figure is skewed. We can't come up with an exact number because we don't know the number of individuals that will enroll.

Perhaps I assumed that it would be a shift in taxes since in the paragraph above it he discusses how currently Employers get a tax break, then in the following paragraph he discusses how the Citizen will get the tax credit directly. I may have interpreted it wrong; although I don't believe so. But for sakes of argument if it makes you happy I'll retract it.


Actually, I do not know which of these plans I would favor, and until we know more details and what they would cost, we won't be able to compare them. I agree that I do not want socialized medicine, but fortunately nothing in either of these plans looks anything like socialized medicine. Not even close. McCain provides a subsidy to anyone who wants to buy their own healthcare inusrance. Obama does the same for those who meet certain income requirements. And Obama creates a national healthcare insurance plan for those who want it, with guaranteed eligibility and portability. Neither one is forcing anyone into a single-payer system or requiring that you buy into a particular plan. So if your main concern is that you don't want to see socailized healthcare, then it looks like you should have no worries.

Honestly I wish both of these guys would stop looking at trying to make new systems and just fix the current one.

If you look at the 20 year stats it's really not THAT bad; it does indicate a problem that probably should've been addressed about 10 years ago though. There's been a 6% rise of Confirmed Americans without insurance.. bringing the total to 20.2% uninsured. There's be a confirmed decline in Americans with Employer based insurance, down 11% from 1987, bringing the total of Americans to 59%.

I think our current system can be fixed. There's just a problem that needs to be addressed. I don't feel there's a need on either party's behalf to rehash/redesign what's already in place.

Again; simply looking at it from a Plan to Plan standpoint.. based on what I forsee happening in both plans. I feel the impact of McCain's plan would be less detrimental than Obama's. I would rather people maintain their jobs, be able to feed their families as opposed to risk becoming unemployed. This is my opinion though and I'm entitled to it. It is neither right or wrong.

All I've wanted is for people to TRUELY discuss the plan and I feel that we are just now REALLY getting into it with the addition of your Post.

BTW; we're in an Obama thread but all you did was discuss McCain. Can we disuss Obama's plan instead? You can address McCain issues in the McCain thread, please. :jointsmile:

[dragonrider]

Daihashi, I was not faulting you for stating your opinion about where the money was going to come from for these two plans. Your opinion is perfectly valid and welcome. What I was faulting was how you had treated the debate up to that point. You had said several times that you KNEW how Obama was going to pay for his plan, and then faulted the rest of us for not knowing, as if we were less informed than you were. At least that is how I interpreted your posts. But then, when you provided your explanation for where the money was to come from, you said it was just how you forsee it happening, an opinion, not something you knew for a fact. At least that is how I interpreted that post. If you had just stated your opinion earlier as an opinion, and then asked if other poeple had an opinion, it wouldn't have seemed as if you were saying you had information that the rest of us weren't smart enough or dilligent enough to find. My feeling was you were basically claiming to be more informed. Having an opinion about an important subject is great, but does not make you more informed. Anyway, let's say that is all behind us and chalk it up to a misunderstanding --- maybe I misunderstood what you were saying before and what you were asking us all to provide.

Movin' on...

I want to reply to the opinion you stated about the Obama plan:


Honestly Obama's plan truely does offer more and I don't think I could ever argue against this. What I can argue is the impact this plan will have on the American people.

The super rich make up 0.7 of the population, and I'm going to make up a number here for the rich, a generous number I feel (meaning I'm probably overestimating)... we'll say 10% of the population are the rich. So now we have 10.7% of the population trying to support 89.3% of the rest of the US. Keep in mind that the majority of the members of Congress and most high US officials also fall into this 10.7%. Assuming that Congress for once decided to do what's best for the people and not what's best for themselves. The tax rate on this 10.7% would have to be signifigant in order to aid in support of the remaining 270 million (current population is about 304million, I subtracted 10%), we'll say they're getting 15% tax increase (another estimated number.. not fact). Let's factor in the corporations whom hadn't been previously taxed. They are going to want to protect their profits. Layoffs are the easiest way to reduce cost in order to keep profits up. Through Layoffs the corporations free up the cost it would take to pay that person, in addition they will not be penalized in taxes for that 1 person since they are no longer with the company.

Anyway you slice it or dice it it's a win/win situation for the corporations. Directly leading to an increase in Job unemployment. At this point you're exchanging one problem for another. This also directly effects the economy. If people don't have money to spend then they can't buy goods, which means companies don't make money.. and I think you can see how this cycle would just keep repeating itself in a downward spiral.

I think the flaw in what you are stating here is the assumption that a small percentage of people will be buying healthcare for the whole country. Your example is that 10.7 percent of the population would have to buy healthcare for the remaining 89.3 percent. I know you say the numbers are only your own estimates for sake of example, so I will not fault the exact numbers. But the idea is wrong. Obama's plan does not propose that we have EVERYONE in a national plan paid for through taxes. Right now a large percentage of people already have health care provided through their employers (60% maybe?). So those people would not need any tax money to continue their coverage the way they already are. There are a percentage of people who have jobs with employers who do not provide coverage. Those companies would face a payroll tax that you mentioned. Those employees would be able to buy the national plan, presumably at least partially paid for by the payroll taxes you mentioned --- so possibly no new income tax on "the rich" to provide that. And then there are a percentage of people who could afford to buy their own plan if they met eligibility requirements, but they have pre-existing conditions so the cost is exhorbitant. Obama's plan eliminates eligibility requirements, so those people would be able to buy their own plan --- no new taxes to support them. And then there is the remaining people who have no inusrance and who cannot pay for it themselves, even with no eligibility requirements. Had you said something like 20% are confirmed uninsured? So the people who meet the income requirements for subsidised healthcare would presumabley be some percentage of that 20%. I think if we all pull together, the remaining 80% could probably afford to subsidise health insurance for some portion of the 20% uninsured without ruining the lives of the "rich" and the "super rich," especially since were are probably already paying for much of it anyway in other forms.

[daihashi]

I want to reply to the opinion you stated about the Obama plan:



I think the flaw in what you are stating here is the assumption that a small percentage of people will be buying healthcare for the whole country. Your example is that 10.7 percent of the population would have to buy healthcare for the remaining 89.3 percent. I know you say the numbers are only your own estimates for sake of example, so I will not fault the exact numbers. But the idea is wrong. Obama's plan does not propose that we have EVERYONE in a national plan paid for through taxes. Right now a large percentage of people already have health care provided through their employers (60% maybe?). So those people would not need any tax money to continue their coverage the way they already are. There are a percentage of people who have jobs with employers who do not provide coverage. Those companies would face a payroll tax that you mentioned. Those employees would be able to buy the national plan, presumably at least partially paid for by the payroll taxes you mentioned --- so possibly no new income tax on "the rich" to provide that. And then there are a percentage of people who could afford to buy their own plan if they met eligibility requirements, but they have pre-existing conditions so the cost is exhorbitant. Obama's plan eliminates eligibility requirements, so those people would be able to buy their own plan --- no new taxes to support them. And then there is the remaining people who have no inusrance and who cannot pay for it themselves, even with no eligibility requirements. Had you said something like 20% are confirmed uninsured? So the people who meet the income requirements for subsidised healthcare would presumabley be some percentage of that 20%. I think if we all pull together, the remaining 80% could probably afford to subsidise health insurance for some portion of the 20% uninsured without ruining the lives of the "rich" and the "super rich," especially since were are probably already paying for much of it anyway in other forms.

You know I actually would not mind this plan and paying the increased taxes if he plans to eliminate medicaid, medicare and other government forms of government provided healthcare. The question is whether Obama would eliminate these programs or do what any other politician would probably do and move these funds to other programs instead of giving it back to the citizens. Which by judging by some of the wording it appears that this will not be the case.

Naturally there are going to be businesses that are not considered small business but also are not a large corporation. These companies will again; have to pay more than they were previously paying and it will result in lay offs. Actually I can't say it will; but in my opinion it will most likely lead to lay offs.

I'm sure you already have but look back on Bigweed's post where he posted the proposed information from Barack Obama's plan.

He plans to give healthcare to everyone.. mandatory requirement to all children (which I am stoked about but this costs alot of money), Sounds like he plans to overlap stateplans, which if you pay state taxes it means that you'll probably end up being pseudo double taxed for the same benefits, reimburse employer healthplans for catastrophic costs incurred, fight aids world wide, etc etc.. and alot of these practices are already in place so some of it is not anything new.

Other parts of it I don't see where he's going to feasibly get the money for it unless it's through heavy taxation. In which case if you're saying Employer based healthcare will remain then it seems as though you're punishing the majority for a minority. People like me will never be able to participate in this program so now I'm partly paying for my own healthcare.. the medicaid/medicare program is still going on, and now I'm getting taxed even more for this new healthcare program.

There are some nice things about his plan and I can't take that away from him.

My whole problem with this is that I don't see this working fiscally, and I still seeing this having a detrimental impact on Americans if it is passed. It just doesn't seem feasible to me. Whether you are getting it from the entire US population or from the Rich/corporations. Either way I don't see being able to generate the amount of revenue needed to give health care to the confirmed 20% of uninsured.. and the remaining 21% unaccounted for.

Lastly I'd like to note that his universal healthcare program isn't so universal at all. :(

Thanks for the post. This is what I wanted. Through discussion like this I feel we can broaden each others point of views. You've already helped me see things I did not see before. My stance still remains though. Really my stance remains on both candidates should simply fix the current system instead of designing a new one.

[dragonrider]

Thanks for the post. This is what I wanted. Through discussion like this I feel we can broaden each others point of views. You've already helped me see things I did not see before. My stance still remains though. Really my stance remains on both candidates should simply fix the current system instead of designing a new one.

Absolutely. I've learned a lot on this thread, especially from the posts from BigWeed on the details of Obama's plan, your post on McCain's speech on the McCain thread, everyone's different opinions, and thinking it through for myself. I didn't really feel like I knew much about healthcare policy at the begining, but I know a lot more now.

[daihashi]

Absolutely. I've learned a lot on this thread, especially from the posts from BigWeed on the details of Obama's plan, your post on McCain's speech on the McCain thread, everyone's different opinions, and thinking it through for myself. I didn't really feel like I knew much about healthcare policy at the begining, but I know a lot more now.

You have no idea how glad that makes me. Regardless of anyone's stance I just want them to be informed and think beyond what politicians tell them.

ALL politicians are typically corrupt. It's our job as citizens to try to see behind the mask and figure out how much of what they say is crap and how much of it is legit.

I'm really glad everyone in this thread and others were able to come together to put in their thoughts and expand everyone's horizons. I know I learned alot about Obama and what he proposes. People were able to clear alot of things up for me that I knew but was unclear about. :thumbsup:

[jessejames12345]

seems to be a lot of Obama 'haters' round these parts :rastasmoke:

My personal feeling on the man, is that he , despite what many here are trying to imply, DOES have the best interests of the people in this country in heart. For the first time in that office in many years. Americans could be INSPIRED by their president again instead of discrased and ashamed.

He seems to really inspire a lot of people... a lot of people I would consider HIGHLY intelligent. So to imply that those people supporting him are blindly putting their Faith in some "Anti Christ' is ridiculous and insulting.

I think the POWER of what Obama is trying to do is rubbing a lot of republicans the wrong way. He's winning, in every sense I can see.

As well, he seems to be picking up steam each and every week. I bet a lot of republicans, especailly the rich ones ;).. are a bit scared right now.

[ldg420]

he is most def. in my opinion the CANDIDATE OF CHANGE because I have never seen him actually make a decisive decision and stand by it, quite frankly, his entire name should be CHANGED from Barrack Hussein Obama to Barrack CHANGES WITH THE VENUE Obama......:stoned:

[bigfootbullies]

I realize that most politicians are liars and scam artists, but I do feel that Obama is the closest thing that we have to someone who might be able to orchestrate change on some level. How much change if any will we see? That remains to be seen. One thing is for sure, there will be zero change and more business as usual and stay the course attitude if McBush wins another term.