Obama '08?

Here are some more details about the poll:

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/06/05/america/NA-POL-US-White-House-Poll.php

Seems like it's anomalous among polls so may not mean that much.

I like that picture too, Cycloptichorn, but only in its (ironic) context -- without, I think it just plays into the "yeah, dude thinks he's Superman" criticisms.

0 Replies

www.obamawall.com

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Here are some more details about the poll:

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/06/05/america/NA-POL-US-White-House-Poll.php

Seems like it's anomalous among polls so may not mean that much.

I like that picture too, Cycloptichorn, but only in its (ironic) context -- without, I think it just plays into the "yeah, dude thinks he's Superman" criticisms.

Who cares? The knuckle-draggers are going to hate him anyways, and it's a cute picture for everyone else.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Well, there are more categories than "Obama supporters" and "Obama haters." There are a lot of people who are receptive but aren't quite sure what they think yet.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Well, there are more categories than "Obama supporters" and "Obama haters." There are a lot of people who are receptive but aren't quite sure what they think yet.

Fair enough.

To me, Obama is not in a bad position. He's like the underdog in a football game; you don't have to be winning the whole time, you just need to hang in there until the 4th quarter - and then strike!

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

This week's activity report from the campaign to group administrators:

Quote:

June 5 - June 10, 2007

Barack Obama Schedule: Barack Obama returned to Nevada last week where he addressed a crowd of 4,000 in Reno on Thursday and a crowd of 3,000 in Las Vegas on Friday afternoon. He wrapped up the week with a community kickoff event in Seattle, Washington where more than 5,000 people gathered to hear him speak about his commitment to changing this country.

On Sunday night, he participated in the CNN/WMUR debate in Manchester, NH and Monday morning he returned to Chicago to speak at a Rainbow PUSH Coalition event. On Saturday, he will kick off a nationwide day of action called "Walk for Change" by addressing volunteers in Dubuque, Iowa. An unprecedented event in primary politics, Walk for Change will touch all 50 states with thousands of supporters going door-to-door to talk about why they support this movement for change.

Michelle Obama Schedule: On Wednesday, Michelle Obama is kicking off the Georgia chapters of Women for Obama and Students for Obama in Atlanta at the Georgia Freight Depot.

Presidential Debate: At the Democratic debate in New Hampshire on Sunday night, Barack Obama showed that he is a strong leader for change: change in Iraq, change on health care and a change in our politics. An opponent of the Iraq war from the start, he spoke about the damage it has done to our security by creating a new front for terrorism, and by diverting our resources and attention from Osama bin laden and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. He made clear his resolve to protect our country and rebuild our frayed alliances around the world.

Health Care: In a speech last Tuesday at the University of Iowa Medical Campus <http> , Barack Obama laid out a universal health care plan that cuts costs by up to $2,500 for the typical family and covers every American. When Obama is President, we'll take five steps.

Once the plan is implemented, if there are still Americans who are not insured, we will find a way to cover them. But the major reason that 45 million Americans don't have health insurance is not because they don't want it, it's because they can't afford it. So if we want to cover every American, we have to cut costs for every American.

Iraq: Barack Obama has a plan to end the Iraq war by commencing a phased redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq with the goal of redeploying all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008. Letting the Iraqis know that U.S. forces will not be there forever is our last, best hope to pressure the Sunnis and Shi'a to come to the table and find peace.

0 Replies

Hey... I coulda swore Thomas wrote I was right about the Private-History using question, and it disappeared. Confused

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

sozobe wrote:
Well, there are more categories than "Obama supporters" and "Obama haters." There are a lot of people who are receptive but aren't quite sure what they think yet.

Fair enough.

To me, Obama is not in a bad position. He's like the underdog in a football game; you don't have to be winning the whole time, you just need to hang in there until the 4th quarter - and then strike!

Cycloptichorn

Speaking of underdogs, you might enjoy reading this blog post from one of Barack's Punahou high school basketball team mates a few months ago:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/dean/CZRK#extended

Quote:

Can you feel it?
By Dean - Apr 6th, 2007 at 8:19 pm EDT

(What is this?) A reporter recently asked Senator Barack Obama about Hillary Clinton and he responded by saying "When your name is Obama, you're always the underdog."

When I heard Senator Obama call himself the underdog, I couldn't help but smile. Let me tell you a story about the good senator:

Barack "Barry" Obama and I played on the same freshman basketball team in Hawaii many years ago.

In our first preseason game, we were trounced by Damien High School by about 25 points. They basically ran us off the court with their fast breaks and athleticism. That was not a good day.

A few weeks later, we were matched up with Damien High School again. Much to our amazement, we played at a community center gym that had a short basketball court. I remember looking at the other team. They looked so quick compared to us. We were the underdogs but we had a plan this time around.

As we played, we slowed down the pace of our game, walking the ball up the court and we made sure Damien couldn't get into fast break mode. Of course, that short basketball court was an extremely lucky break for us.

Late in the game I set up for a 15 foot jumper on the right side of the foul line. As I went up, I saw Barry (Barack) move down to the left block next to the basket, his favorite shot. I jump passed the ball to him and he made a three-foot shot to keep us in the game.

As we ran back to play defense, I remember looking at Barry (Barack) and we could feel it. We both sensed that we could actually win this game! The other guys could sense it too and we eventually won by about 5 points. I distinctly remember how upset the other team was when we took control late in the fourth quarter.

On the bus ride home, we were hooting and hollering. We were just plain amazed about the 30 point turnaround from that excruciating first game loss to the second game victory just a few weeks later.

That game is the reason I smiled. Senator Obama is once again the underdog. He understands that this can be an awesome position to be in because you're not expected to win. However, if you have a good team, a great plan and a little luck along the way, you can shock the world.

Can you feel it now?

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Hey... I coulda swore Thomas wrote I was right about the Private-History using question, and it disappeared.

I did. I deleted the post because something was wrong with it, don't remember what. Then I didn't get around to correcting and reposting it. But yes -- the cream-skimming by private insurers has little consequence for the ones left behind as long as they can buy the government program at an affordable rate.

I'm just not sure I buy into your "tax cholesterol" logic. Wouldn't obese and parachuting patients be charged double if they opted for the private part of the system? They would pay for their lifestyles both in higher premiums to their insurer and in sin taxes to the government. That doesn't seem fair.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

I did. I deleted the post because something was wrong with it, don't remember what. Then I didn't get around to correcting and reposting it. But yes -- the cream-skimming by private insurers has little consequence for the ones left behind as long as they can buy the government program at an affordable rate.

I'm just not sure I buy into your "tax cholesterol" logic. Wouldn't obese and parachuting patients be charged double if they opted for the private part of the system? They would pay for their lifestyles both in higher premiums to their insurer and in sin taxes to the government. That doesn't seem fair.

That dawned on me as well, but I concluded there would likely be much switching from Private to Public among this group, on account of the life's other hardships that tend to accompany poor health in greater frequency. Many of these 'switchers' would be switching precisely because their health had already gone to hell. Further; the choice is theirs to make in the first place.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Nimh, there is no great distance between us on this issue. I agree that the system of Private insurers alone using Med histories is patently unfair. However; as soon as a government guaranteed alternative is voted into law, those "innocent" victims of illness are no longer left out; so where is the problem?

Depends wholly on what the government guaranteed alternative will be like.

OK, just - because its all I can do - to refer to how it was in Holland for decades, until a rightwing reform some two years ago. Like I said, the lower-income half were guaranteed a subsidized, standard low insurance fee. Used to be just 20-30 $/month, some 15 years ago, then went up to something like 40 $/month. (Well thats what you paid, your employer coughed up a larger share.)

Thing is - this standard insurance guaranteed that everyone had access to quality basic health care. Nobody had to wait until something was so bad, you could go to emergency care, cause you couldnt afford to see the GP. All that. It covered doctors visits, most medicine, hospitalisations and operations. But it was a basic insurance. If you wanted more - basically, if you wanted to top up your insurance to "private insurance" quality - you had to buy in additional packages, which came in different sizes. Well I guess its the same everywhere. I always took the extra dentistry package, and the "lowest" of the extra packages.

Those who needed the bigger extra packages were, aside from people who wanted alternative medicines or health resorts or just more luxury arrangements covered, people who needed some kind of really specialised care. Or who needed specialised care in greater frequency, like, six times a year instead of the max two times covered by the standard insurance.

OK, so thats where Im coming from. Thats why say, it depends. If, under a hypothetical Obama presidency, the state-guaranteed alternative gets to cover all that is medically necessary, then you're right, there is no problem. But if it's more like the past Dutch example, where that package covers basic needs but does not suffice for those in need of most specialised or intense medical care - if those people will have to turn to regular private insurance to cover that - then it does matter whether those insurance companies can filter out the more "bothersome" clients on the basis of medical histories.

I mean, what you'd want to avoid is where those who need the insurance / private insurance / extra insurance the most, are the least likely to be able to access it at less than prohibitive cost.

As for the idea that an insurance company can throw you out if you become too expensive, as in the example Xingu gave of the woman who got cancer and was then dropped, thats just beyond the effin' pale to me. I mean, that goes against the very idea of insurance, and against the fundamental claim insurance companies sell their insurances on: "Better safe than sorry - pay up now even though you're perfectly healthy - because in return we guarantee you that if you become sick, we'll have your back." That insurance companies would be allowed to cash your checks while you're overall healthy or just need the occasional check-up or dentistry, and then drop you when you actually do become seriously ill - what is this, insurance company give-away heaven?

0 Replies

Page 420 demands that you chill out, reader.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Thomas wrote:

I did. I deleted the post because something was wrong with it, don't remember what. Then I didn't get around to correcting and reposting it. But yes -- the cream-skimming by private insurers has little consequence for the ones left behind as long as they can buy the government program at an affordable rate.

I'm just not sure I buy into your "tax cholesterol" logic. Wouldn't obese and parachuting patients be charged double if they opted for the private part of the system? They would pay for their lifestyles both in higher premiums to their insurer and in sin taxes to the government. That doesn't seem fair.
That dawned on me as well, but I concluded there would likely be much switching from Private to Public among this group, on account of the life's other hardships that tend to accompany poor health in greater frequency. Many of these 'switchers' would be switching precisely because their health had already gone to hell. Further; the choice is theirs to make in the first place.

Yeah but it does seem like you're coming up with two solutions for one problem, which you want to throw in simultaneously. And because one of those two solutions (higher health insurance pricing for those with more health issues) involves a lot of arbitrary misdirection, impacting lots of people who are not sick because of any "bad-lifestyle" decisions as well, Id just throw it out, and stick to the other one.

I mean, in the end one's fate in health tends to involve a lot of .. well, fate. Sure, on average people living unhealthy lives will become sick more often than those fitnessing and non-smoking through their world. But there is so much deviation from the average. Lifelong smokers living to be 90. Health nuts struck by a series of strokes at 50. Whatever.

So using the price of health care provision as a policing/punitive tool to hold unhealthy livers to account will by definition be a grossly imprecise means.

If what you want to do is to encourage healthy lifestyle choices, discourage unhealthy ones, then stick to that end of the equation. People making unhealthy consumption choices - that's something you can tackle 1:1, at least in the most obvious examples. Smokes, booze, stuff like that. If you tax that extra, then you do know exactly that the people you're impacting are indeed the ones making unhealthy consumption choices.

I think medical care provision is just too vital, and involves too much of the random cruel fate we all get dished out, to play politics with like that.

0 Replies

Obama's speech at Hampton today

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/06/quiet_riots_1.php

READ IT

Quote:

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Here's a link to Obama which shows just how powerful a speaker he can be - I like the last part, after Graham gets through with his histronics.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/07/obama-graham/

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I tried to get a screenshot but couldn't quite -- there's a moment when he's on for the second time, after Graham, and he looks up, and it's an expression I recognize; it's something like, "Sure, I'm nice, but you so don't want to **** with me..."

I really like that about him.

I saw something interesting about health care yesterday, I don't quite remember where, lemme try to find it back...

0 Replies

Found it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/06/business/06leonhardt.html

Brief excerpt to give a flavor, but I recommend you read the whole thing:

Quote:

0 Replies

Obama: Surgeon General's office 'no place for bigotry' http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Bush_Surgeon_Gen._pick_criticised_for_0607.html

0 Replies

Nimh; I think we're in agreement on goal, and most of the division is being caused by the uncertainty in Obama's plan (ours, not his).
Things we agree on:

Every human should be covered. No insurance company should be able to dump someone because they're expensive.

The disagreement came mostly from: In my argument; I am assuming that Obama's plan allows for every person to be covered completely. Conversely; your experience with the Dutch System was that the State version was incomplete. Were that the case; I would then agree with you that additional safeguards are required on the Private industry. If it isn't; I don't.

I think a chronic illness like the bear cub's is a perfect example of what a Government funded plan is for. I don't much care if that's called socialized medicine or not; I think adequate health care at a reasonable cost belongs in a great society's safety net.

Where we part ways, as usual, is in the individual responsibility and capitalism in general aspects of the situation. I do not believe, not for one fleeting moment, that the government is better able to produce a healthcare system that is better than that of private industry. Hence; as much as I too wish to see everyone covered, I also want to preserve the competition-advantages that monopolies destroy.

Without getting into all of the specific ways the quality of Health care would be diminished by a Single Payer system:
Competition in general forces industries to be competitive. This may be accomplished by lower prices, higher quality of services, or any number of other factors. Monopolies, on the other hand, have no such incentives. Obviously, the government is not going to let the Medical industry determine the prices government will pay... which means in essence; the government will determine by means of regulation standard fees, facility requirements, etc. ad nauseum. The problem is, like all forms of nationalized industry; you have decisions being made by people who aren't competent to make those decisions, and worse, corrupt decisions that have little or nothing to do with the legitimate considerations at hand. Private industry doesn't pay $200 for a hammer... but government mandated monopolies do.

The obvious results being salary caps that deter the best and the brightest from choosing medicine to apply their genius. Capped payments that deter medical facilities from updating their equipment one iota more than government regulation requires. Every unregulated improvement only serves to lower the bottom line, since the government pays the same regardless (Remember; in a competition based system, that State of the Art-though expensive-improvement can increase the bottom line, as well as the quality of care).
There can be no doubt that the quality of medicine would slide.

The basic problem with government control over industry is and has always been the same. People are competitive. If they can't compete to earn the most, they will compete to do the least. As evil as the former may seem; it's a hell of a lot better than the latter... especially in something as crucial as medicine. We need not turn the entire industry over to the incompetent hands of government to make sure everyone has access to affordable health care. And if we don't have to; we should not.

0 Replies

Another utopian fantasy that needs to be exposed is the logical fallacy that government can regulate a fair playing field where poor people can expect the same quality of care as the rich. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. There is only one best cardiologist and he can't treat everyone. The best (and better) anything is always going to be the most expensive and if you attempt to regulate out his ability to charge accordingly; all you will accomplish is replacing fair competition with a system of bribery where some parasitical piece of **** profits in lieu of the man who legitimately deserves the higher premium (which of course, discourages that man from existing at all).

Ask any former Soviet what government regulated "fair playing fields" accomplish; and he'll tell you it becomes a favor-system of friends and bribes where there remains a division of have's and have-not's; but now instead of the best and the brightest earning accordingly; the best-connected to the corrupt system do instead. At the top of the scale; the rich still purchase the best and everybody else suffers even more because the distribution ceases to be hinged to merit.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know