Obama '08?

Foxfyre wrote:

This week the Albuquerque Journal commented on the universal coverage plans in the UK and Canada. Both do not provide coverage for treatment of prostate cancer for persons age 65 or older

Perhaps the AJ should do better research. Treatment for prostate cancer is in fact provided to men over the age of 65 in Canada.

I know several of them personally.

Something big is clearly happening. A few weeks ago, MoveOn members we surveyed were split. But with John Edwards bowing out, progressives are coming together. Obama won over 70% of the vote yesterday, and he's moving up in polls nationwide.

The thing that nobody seems to ask is that should the government institute a single payer system, what power does the govenrment then have over what health care will be available to whom?

I hope you're right Ebeth. I went back through our papers for the last several days but didn't find the article. Wanted to check the source it was using. It wouldn't be the first time that the Journal got something quite wrong, however.

This week the Albuquerque Journal commented on the universal coverage plans in the UK and Canada. Both do not provide coverage for treatment of prostate cancer for persons age 65 or older on the theory that something else will kill those folks before the cancer gets them. If we had not had our own private insurance, that would mean that my husband would now in all likelihood be dead or suffering a horrible impending death. As it is, he is alive, well, cancer free, and looking forward to many more healthy years to come.

I just checked the email address where I get stuff from MoveOn, and sure enough there was an email announcing their endorsement of Obama. I found this interesting:

Quote:

Something big is clearly happening. A few weeks ago, MoveOn members we surveyed were split. But with John Edwards bowing out, progressives are coming together. Obama won over 70% of the vote yesterday, and he's moving up in polls nationwide.

I hope you're right Ebeth.

I hope you're right Ebeth. I went back through our papers for the last several days but didn't find the article. Wanted to check the source it was using. It wouldn't be the first time that the Journal got something quite wrong, however.

should the government institute a single payer system, what power does the govenrment then have over what health care will be available to whom?

Both do not provide coverage for treatment of prostate cancer for persons age 65 or older on the theory that something else will kill those folks before the cancer gets them.

If we had not had our own private insurance, that would mean that my husband would now in all likelihood be dead or suffering a horrible impending death. As it is, he is alive, well, cancer free, and looking forward to many more healthy years to come.

Will the system be as it is in some countries that doctors are not allowed to accept private insurance or provide care that is not government approved?

I think these are valid questions to consider before saying that single payer, mandated by the government, is the only reasonable option on the table.

If you like the healthcare plan you're in, you can just stay in it!

Hey Cycloptichorn, I wonder if that little birdie has done any more chirping?

Time is running out...

Though I'm starting to second-guess the "time is running out" part. Fox is combining its "Super" programming, with political stuff interspersed with Super Bowl coverage. There seems to be a LOT of interest in the elections. Maybe the weekend won't actually be as out of play as we've been talking about.

I saw another rumor too, about Gore endorsing Obama in TN.

Quote:

If you like the healthcare plan you're in, you can just stay in it!

Unless you have no healthcare plan at all; in that case, under Clinton, you can't choose that option.

Cycloptichorn

Foxfyre wrote:

I hope you're right Ebeth. I went back through our papers for the last several days but didn't find the article. Wanted to check the source it was using. It wouldn't be the first time that the Journal got something quite wrong, however.

[...]

If you like the healthcare plan you're in, you can just stay in it!

LA Times endorses Obama.

Cycloptichorn

I just checked the email address where I get stuff from MoveOn, and sure enough there was an email announcing their endorsement of Obama.

Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) of the Code that are exempt from federal income tax are prohibited from participating or intervening in any political campaign on behalf of, or in opposition to, any candidate for public office. Charities, educational institutions and religious
organizations, including churches, are among those that are tax-exempt under this code section.

These organizations cannot endorse any candidates, make donations to their campaigns, engage in fund raising, distribute statements, or become involved in any other activities that may be beneficial or detrimental to any candidate. Even activities that encourage people to vote for or against a particular candidate on the basis of nonpartisan criteria violate the political campaign prohibition of section 501(c)(3).

Whether an organization is engaging in prohibited political campaign
activity depends upon all the facts and circumstances in each case. For
example, organizations may sponsor debates or forums to educate voters. If the debate or forum shows a preference for or against a certain candidate, however, it becomes a prohibited activity.

sozobe wrote:

I just checked the email address where I get stuff from MoveOn, and sure enough there was an email announcing their endorsement of Obama.

Isn't MoveOn.org a 501(c)(3)? If so, federal law prohibits them from endorsing political candidates.

Quote:

Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) of the Code that are exempt from federal income tax are prohibited from participating or intervening in any political campaign on behalf of, or in opposition to, any candidate for public office. Charities, educational institutions and religious
organizations, including churches, are among those that are tax-exempt under this code section.

These organizations cannot endorse any candidates, make donations to their campaigns, engage in fund raising, distribute statements, or become involved in any other activities that may be beneficial or detrimental to any candidate. Even activities that encourage people to vote for or against a particular candidate on the basis of nonpartisan criteria violate the political campaign prohibition of section 501(c)(3).

Whether an organization is engaging in prohibited political campaign
activity depends upon all the facts and circumstances in each case. For
example, organizations may sponsor debates or forums to educate voters. If the debate or forum shows a preference for or against a certain candidate, however, it becomes a prohibited activity.