sozobe
 
  1  
Sat 2 Feb, 2008 11:40 am
Btw I do like that poster on purely design grounds -- I get the echoes though. (As a design it rocks.)

(Did BPB just say he preferred Obama's plan to Hillary's?)

Thomas wrote:
PS: I'm not arguing that Obama's plan is a show-stopper either. It isn't. I'm sure it would significantly improve on the status quo. But this question is not before us. The question before us is which one of two non-showstopper plans, Clinton's and Obama's, is better.


I think Hillary's may be better, but I'm not sure. When I'm ready to say yes, definitely better, I see something like this and I'm unsure again:

Quote:
I don't support any Democratic candidate, but I do have strong opinions about health mandates. As a long-time healthcare policy analyst and health manager in the private sector, I disagree with Paul Krugman, Ezra Klein, Jacob Hacker, and others who support mandates. My differences are based on policy effectiveness, issues of fairness, and Democratic political strategy. I think mandates pose more problems than they solve, and that they could be a political loser for Democrats in the general election.


http://sentineleffect.wordpress.com/2007/12/01/health-mandates-a-talk-with-obama-health-advisor-david-cutler/

Basically, after having researched it pretty thoroughly I'm satisfied with Obama's plan. It's not a deal-breaker (did you mean "show-stopper" as a synonym for "deal-breaker"? "Show-stopper" is more like the big fancy number that gets a standing ovation). Once that's decided, I don't have a lot of motivation to do the research and bullshit-filtering necessary to decide whether Obama's or Hillary's is better. The only motivation to go through all of that again now would be to convince voters who may be undecided -- and who will decide based solely on who has the better health plan -- to vote for Obama after all. If there are some, I might. (No promises.)
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Sat 2 Feb, 2008 11:42 am
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
lower costs and mandate why the hell not? Just lower costs. I don't hear anyone complaining about auto insurance, that's mandated... and try dropping your auto insurance and see how that works out.

This year, with my income stabilizing and heading back upward... health insurance is THE NUMBER ONE THING on my radar....


Everyone needs it. Having said that, I also believe and hope that there is a special 10th. circle of hell for the health insurance industry.


You are NOT required to carry collision or comprehensive insurance on your automobile, however, if you decide you will accept the risk in not having it. You ARE required to carry liability insurance to protect the other guy IF you are going to drive on public roads. You are NOT required to buy insurance if you drive only on your own property, however, or if you park your car and decide you just won't drive.

You are NOT required to buy insurance on your home or possessions if your house is paid for. You are allowed to assume whatever risk there you wish to assume.

You are NOT required to buy liability insurance on your business and you don't have to buy workers compensation insurance if you don't have employees.

So why should the government force anybody to buy health insurance?

The argument is made that if they don't, then the rest of us have to pay. Well we will have to pay for unused insurance too. And all we have to do is make sure there is insurance that can be acquired somewhere for people who want it and then pass a law that says doctors and hospitals do not HAVE to treat uninsured people if they don't want to. That alone would be a powerful incentive for people to get insurance but it would not force them to.

I don't understand why some are so gung ho to give the government even more power to dictate to us what we can and cannot do when the only person affected is us.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Sat 2 Feb, 2008 11:44 am
Hi Bill,

Wow, that is impressive. I don't think I can bring myself to vote for McCain but I definitely sympathize with my old housemate. This is the closest I've ever gotten to just refusing to vote for the Dem candidate (if it's Hillary).

Obama has said a couple of times some variation of "I think Hillary's supporters will vote for me, but I'm not sure mine will vote for her." I think he has a point.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Sat 2 Feb, 2008 11:50 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
lower costs and mandate why the hell not? Just lower costs. I don't hear anyone complaining about auto insurance, that's mandated... and try dropping your auto insurance and see how that works out.

This year, with my income stabilizing and heading back upward... health insurance is THE NUMBER ONE THING on my radar....


Everyone needs it. Having said that, I also believe and hope that there is a special 10th. circle of hell for the health insurance industry.


You are NOT required to carry collision or comprehensive insurance on your automobile, however, if you decide you will accept the risk in not having it. You ARE required to carry liability insurance to protect the other guy IF you are going to drive on public roads. You are NOT required to buy insurance if you drive only on your own property, however, or if you park your car and decide you just won't drive.

You are NOT required to buy insurance on your home or possessions if your house is paid for. You are allowed to assume whatever risk there you wish to assume.

You are NOT required to buy liability insurance on your business and you don't have to buy workers compensation insurance if you don't have employees.

So why should the government force anybody to buy health insurance?

The argument is made that if they don't, then the rest of us have to pay. Well we will have to pay for unused insurance too. And all we have to do is make sure there is insurance that can be acquired somewhere for people who want it and then pass a law that says doctors and hospitals do not HAVE to treat uninsured people if they don't want to. That alone would be a powerful incentive for people to get insurance but it would not force them to.

I don't understand why some are so gung ho to give the government even more power to dictate to us what we can and cannot do when the only person affected is us.


Let the record show that Foxfyre is correct once again, and that I do not reflexively disagree with everything she writes Smile

Keep making sense Fox!

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Sat 2 Feb, 2008 12:23 pm
Foxie; we have medicare which has quite a large number of exclusions/limitations therefor we also have medicare supplemental insurance that picks up the specifics that we think we need. Interesting concept?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Sat 2 Feb, 2008 12:31 pm
sozobe wrote:
(did you mean "show-stopper" as a synonym for "deal-breaker"? "Show-stopper" is more like the big fancy number that gets a standing ovation).

Yes, I meant it as a synonym. Thanks for improving my sense of correct English usage. Much appreciated!
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Sat 2 Feb, 2008 12:32 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
......and then pass a law that says doctors and hospitals do not HAVE to treat uninsured people if they don't want to.



Shocked Shocked

Does this make sense to you too Cyclops?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Sat 2 Feb, 2008 12:35 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
So why should the government force anybody to buy health insurance?

The argument is made that if they don't, then the rest of us have to pay. Well we will have to pay for unused insurance too.


I don't know how the insurence system in the USA works generally, but here in it's the very same with all insurences.

Foxfyre wrote:
And all we have to do is make sure there is insurance that can be acquired somewhere for people who want it and then pass a law that says doctors and hospitals do not HAVE to treat uninsured people if they don't want to. That alone would be a powerful incentive for people to get insurance but it would not force them to.

I don't understand why some are so gung ho to give the government even more power to dictate to us what we can and cannot do when the only person affected is us.


Well, since we are used to such a system, introduced by the conservatives, since more than 120 years, hospitals and doctors are used to it as well.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Sat 2 Feb, 2008 12:38 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
This won't mean much to anyone but Sozobe, but, my very liberal bro-in-law is now insisting that he will vote for McCain before Clinton (Sis was leaning the same way, last we spoke). Reason: 20 years Bush/Clinton/Bush is too much already. As I'm sure you can imagine; he was VERY against the war, so playing devil's advocate I pointed out that McCain has stated he may have us in Iraq for 100 years... "That's fine. I think it shows responsibility that we don't abandon them after we screwed up their country so badly."

I wonder how many of you Mad Town hippies are thinking along these lines.


Grateful Dead fan Ann Coulter and your liberal bro-in-law might, if they come in contact, cause the universe to disappear.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Sat 2 Feb, 2008 12:40 pm
Laughing


(My pleasure, Thomas! The only reason I've given you no cause to correct my German is that I don't know more than "danke," and I probably messed that up too. Your English is amazing.)
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Sat 2 Feb, 2008 12:48 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
This won't mean much to anyone but Sozobe, but, my very liberal bro-in-law is now insisting that he will vote for McCain before Clinton (Sis was leaning the same way, last we spoke). Reason: 20 years Bush/Clinton/Bush is too much already. As I'm sure you can imagine; he was VERY against the war, so playing devil's advocate I pointed out that McCain has stated he may have us in Iraq for 100 years... "That's fine. I think it shows responsibility that we don't abandon them after we screwed up their country so badly."

I wonder how many of you Mad Town hippies are thinking along these lines.


Bill, I say this not in a mean-spirited way, but rather out of curiosity; was there in-breeding somewhere down the line in your family?

Again, I admire you, Bill, and marvel at your accomplishments in life, but those statements by your relatives have given me pause.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Sat 2 Feb, 2008 12:49 pm
sozobe wrote:
I don't have a lot of motivation to do the research and bullshit-filtering necessary to decide whether Obama's or Hillary's is better. The only motivation to go through all of that again now would be to convince voters who may be undecided -- and who will decide based solely on who has the better health plan -- to vote for Obama after all. If there are some, I might. (No promises.)

I emphasize. There's so much bullshit flying around about this that your filters are soon exhausted.

One last angle on this, addressed at your instincts as an expert haggler. I think we agree that on a continuum between the status quo and the Edwards plan, Obama's plan is more of a compromise than Clinton's plan, which is basically a copy of Edwards's. I'll assume, for the sake of the discusion, that you are right, I am wrong, and Obama's compromise is the compromise to actually implement. Does it make sense to you as a haggler that Obama proposes the compromise in the first round of haggling? Wouldn't it be a better haggling strategy to propose something tougher, like the Edwards plan, in round one, then give some way to moderate Congress Republicans, and settle for the Obama compromise in the last round?
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Sat 2 Feb, 2008 12:51 pm
And the endorsements keep rolling in -- this is a good one!

http://laopinion.com/editorial/index_en.html

It is evidently the second-biggest paper in L.A. and the largest Spanish-language newspaper in the country.


Meanwhile, I can vouch for Bill's sister and bro-in-law, they're good people.
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Sat 2 Feb, 2008 12:54 pm
soz wrote:

Meanwhile, I can vouch for Bill's sister and bro-in-law, they're good people.


I will accept that endorsement considering the source.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Sat 2 Feb, 2008 12:55 pm
Thomas wrote:
Does it make sense to you as a haggler that Obama proposes the compromise in the first round of haggling? Wouldn't it be a better haggling strategy to propose something tougher, like the Edwards plan, in round one, then give some way to moderate Congress Republicans, and settle for the Obama compromise in the last round?


Excellent point.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Sat 2 Feb, 2008 01:00 pm
Thomas wrote:
sozobe wrote:
I don't have a lot of motivation to do the research and bullshit-filtering necessary to decide whether Obama's or Hillary's is better. The only motivation to go through all of that again now would be to convince voters who may be undecided -- and who will decide based solely on who has the better health plan -- to vote for Obama after all. If there are some, I might. (No promises.)

I emphasize. There's so much bullshit flying around about this that your filters are soon exhausted.


Laughing

Quote:
One last angle on this, addressed at your instincts as an expert haggler. I think we agree that on a continuum between the status quo and the Edwards plan, Obama's plan is more of a compromise than Clinton's plan, which is basically a copy of Edwards's. I'll assume, for the sake of the discusion, that you are right, I am wrong, and Obama's compromise is the compromise to actually implement. Does it make sense to you as a haggler that Obama proposes the compromise in the first round of haggling? Wouldn't it be a better haggling strategy to propose something tougher, like the Edwards plan, in round one, then give some way to moderate Congress Republicans, and settle for the Obama compromise in the last round?


Maybe, but not necessarily. For one thing, he needs to get into office to commence haggling. This may be the best plan to get him there.

For another, a lack of haggling would fit nicely with the persona he'd bring into the White House if he gets there. "Look, guys, I'm just being straightforward with you. I'm not saying that I think we should do x y and z just because I know you need to feel like you've won something so I'll pretend to be all for the z and then make a big show of giving it up. This is the plan I think will work. This is why. What do you think?"
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Sat 2 Feb, 2008 01:01 pm
sozobe wrote:
Laughing


(My pleasure, Thomas! The only reason I've given you no cause to correct my German is that I don't know more than "danke," and I probably messed that up too. Your English is amazing.)

You do know a bit more, because we do understand mensch, oy vey, and a few other Yiddish terms. Yiddish in America is basically medieval German with a few slavic and American words mixed in over the centuries. We sometimes spell the words differently (mensch is Mensch, so practically the same, but oy vey is oh weh, gevalt is Gewalt, etc..) But I'm not going to kvetch about this. Your German vocabulary is pretty rich indeed. Smile
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Sat 2 Feb, 2008 01:05 pm
maporsche wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
......and then pass a law that says doctors and hospitals do not HAVE to treat uninsured people if they don't want to.



Shocked Shocked

Does this make sense to you too Cyclops?


It's already the current situation. We don't need to pass any laws to make that happen. I'm almost positive that hospitals can refuse services if they choose to.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Sat 2 Feb, 2008 01:07 pm
Soz is right. He would be basically lying for political gain.

Might as well vote for Hillary if that's what you are looking for.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Sat 2 Feb, 2008 01:07 pm
sozobe wrote:
Maybe, but not necessarily.

Deal. I'll take your "maybe". It's the best I can get at this point.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 425
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.19 seconds on 08/12/2025 at 04:17:45