Why, yes, they probably are. Obama — to "spin-down" the consequences of the leak, Canadians, having received their assurances — not to rock the boat.
Obama's position on coal is... That's not shifting, that's reasonable.
I didn't say "Obama's" — I said, Obama's campaign's. Biden is on record talking against coal, and Obama himself talked in January (when he needed to appeal to the Left, rather than the whole country), how he'll bankrupt the coal industry. You can call it "nuanced", but if it were McCain or Bush, you would've called it "ever changing" or worse.
There was and is absolutely no change in Obama's tax plans, or anywhere near it.
His running mate said "$150K" and Obama himself never made it clear — and I did watch all three debates trying to figure it out — whether the magical "$250" is per person, per couple, or per "working family". And what exactly qualifies as a "working" one...
That link you cite is not even from Obama speaking.
I was referring to Obama's campaign... TFA talks about the campaign computers being broken into, you know...
The Obama campaign restated it's policy after Biden's misstatement - it says that in the very same article you cite.
It rang hollow. I think, it was not a "gaffe", but a slip — much like the earlier one, when he said, Hillary would've been a better VP (damn right, she would've!)
Biden's saying "When the US and France kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, Barack and I wanted NATO forces moved in to fill the vacuum. Otherwise Hezbollah would walk back in."
Are you serious? I mean, in good health and clear mind? Because the statement you entered above, trying to defend your vice-President by claiming, the official transcripts of the debate is somehow wrong, is not better than what Biden actually said. It is wrong on many levels and sub-levels and there is no way in the world to rephrase it to make less idiotic:
First and foremost, nobody has ever kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon. Not yet, anyway.
The only country, that even tried — unsuccessfully — was Israel. Not France and not US.
Neither Lebanon, nor Israel, are NATO-members, so what justification could there possibly be for NATO forces there?
Last time France was in Lebanon, was in between First and Second World wars — they are the ones, who left the country with its arcane Constitution.
Last time the US was in Lebanon, was when Reagan sent marines there, who — far from kicking anybody out — ended up blown up by a truck bomb themselves. That was before Hezbollah was formed, and before Barack Obama, who, supposedly, joined Biden's in calling (on who?) to send NATO troops there, even got to the Law School.
Now, I don't blame you for not knowing any the above facts — and Sara Palin has not demolished him over it either, but for a senior US Senator, a supposed "foreign policy wonk" to be so wrong is flabbergasting. Senility comes to mind, pardon the pun.
Had McCain or Palin said anything even remotely idiotic like this — and there were plenty of other "gaffes" during the debate, all of them by Biden — they would've been written off as "geezer and gidget", by the same newspapers, who continued to smooth things over for Biden, presenting h
Fortunately, Joe Biden's foreign policy statements like:
When we kicked -- along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said and Barack said, "Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don't know -- if you don't, Hezbollah will control it."
What I meant, actually, was that Linux is easy enough for the "dummies" to be able to act as admins... It is no bad thing — it just explains, why some of these people are not of the caliber of some Unix-admins. Not that I have not met my share of dumb-asses among those too, but a typical Unix-admin to a Linux one is like a bison next to a cow.
And people who don't blow their money on stupid shit, but still don't make enough to afford to both eat, pay rent, and have healthcare?
If they earned enough wealth for their own treatment, they'll be able to afford it — sorry for the tautology, but it seems not obvious to everyone. It really is not that expensive, despite recent rises in price, and would be even cheaper with McCain's tax-credits.
And if they — despite being born and raised in this blessed country — failed to earn enough, then they can appeal to charity.
But not to government, which takes money from other citizens at gun-point and thus must spend it only on things, which benefit everyone.
For some reason the U.S. has the most expensive and the least efficient health care system of all developed nations. In parts it is not even effective, e.g. not providing all U.S. citizens with even basic health services.
It is all due to this strange, but widely held belief, that the person most interested in their health care is the patient him/herself. This does not always hold true, of course, and the opponents of personal responsibility reject proposals, that "leave the decision-making process up to individuals" (I kid you not!).
When a fool, who used the freedom irresponsibly and chose a better car or whatever over health insurance, can't pay for care, he is presented as a poster-child for socialized medicine... And the case is made, for taking out that choice for good — along with others, lest they'll also be used to make decisions, that are worse than those made by the all-knowing, omni-potent, and benevolent government officials.
Contrary to your apparent belief, I don't have to prove anything. The burden of proof is on people, who want me to sacrifice various modern-day conveniences to stall/prevent/reverse Global Warming.
That all (or nearly all) such people, under minimum of scratching, reveal themselves to be advocates for "social justice", makes them easily dismissable, yes. Not my fault, though. I don't have to "see their side" of the argument.
Perhaps your perspective is that we needn't change anything.
Yes, as a matter of fact it is. If I were among the jurors in Salem in 1692, I'd refuse to convict, despite the other jurors' pleas to protect the girls being afflicted by the witches, etc.
You seem to be acutely aware of the complexity of the problem, but your contribution appears to consist mostly, if not entirely of mockery and derision.
Because the proponents of the global warming, and, especially, those of the idea, that humans (the rich ones, of course — the class struggle is almost always cued into a green's argument) are responsible, have put forward nothing deserving anything other than mockery and derision (well, the Che Guevara-adoring among them also deserve a noose or a bullet too, but that's another subject). There may, indeed, be a problem, or there may not be one, but the inconveniences, that "the greens" demand we accept, are too serious to be undertaken "just in case". And, of course, the most famous of the greens are rather hypocritical, which ruins their case even further.
So, until the theory, that blames rich western societies for the global warming, becomes scientific (it is merely a political one now), and can explain the drastic climate changes of 5 and 10 thousand years ago, I shall remain skeptical.
And no, I'm not, in actuality a seminarist — I was just mocking the GGP. But I have enough education to be able to discern science from attempts to "restore social justice", and will not cramp my lifestyle, just because some Leftie thinks, I have not earned, what I own.
As a paleontology graduate student trained in both mass extinctions and the geology of climate change [...] current biodiversity crisis and the anthropogenic impact on climate are as true as the theory of evolution.
As a seminary graduate trained in Cosmology and Theology, I am telling you, that the current witchcraft crisis and the devil's impact on the fever-inducing solar eclipse are as true as the Bible. I know it is true, because my professors told me so, and they are all very respected experts in their fields.
I am confused how you have allowed yourselves to otherwise ignore modern science.
Those of us not trained in the "geology of climate change" would've been much easier to persuade, if the proponents of the "anthropogenic effect" were not universally thinly-veiled Leftists with a Che Guevara T-shirt in every closet. There are also counter-examples of the lands going arid, and species (including humans) dying out due to sudden climate changes long before anything, that's blamed for such changes today was invented. And occasional coldest seasons on record in various parts of the world need periodic augmentation of the "global warming" theories. But mostly it is the Leftism of nearly all advocates of the humans' responsibility for the climate change, that leaves me skeptical if not outright convinced in the opposite.
We just have to make our lives slightly less pleasant and be willing to say some things are hands off.
How about we start with the plastic water bottles, uhm? Popularized by fashion models (all of them "concerned about the environment", if asked), the crap is way out of hand. A New York Marathon, for another example, the famous transportation-stalling ritual gathering of professional runners and "environmentally-aware" progressive New Yorkers, consumes 63000 bottles of water, 32000 litters of Gatorade and 130 tons of trash. Not to mention the personal conduct of the most prominent figures of today's climate debate...
As I said, if you can't sue the government, get the heck out of the country while you still have a passport.
Yeah, right. Very catchy, very silly — a non-argument...
The insurance company can just wait you out, and they know it.
Whatever bad things you can say about insurance companies, the government is/will be only worse. If only because the insurance companies have competition (each other). I'm tempted to tell you, screw it, go and try the "single payer" for yourself, but it would not, unfortunately, work that way. You'll be trying it for myself too...
I doubt that insurers will have any decent offers for 91 year-old though - maybe for someone who's in his late 60s or early 70s.
Well, Barack Obama proposes a miracle plan, that will be both affordable and allow anyone to join regardless of pre-existing condition. Thanks for confirming, that no such plan can exist, and that The One is lying to us all.
Back to the topic, of course a 91 year-old, or anyone with a pre-existing condition will have hard time buying health insurance anew — and for a good reason. No one would insure an already damaged car, or an already flooded home either. Because if you were to offer such coverage for pre-existing conditions, nobody would pay you, until they get sick (or damage their car, or flood their home). Which means, you'll go bust very quickly.
The 91 year old ought to carry insurance from much younger age... Otherwise, it is not really insurance, defined as:
insurance -- promise of reimbursement in the case of loss; paid to people or companies so concerned about hazards that they have made prepayments [emphasis mine -mi] to an insurance company
Because you need to look at countries that are at least somewhat in the same ball park as far as per capita GDP goes.
Maybe, the candidates also need to have the racial break-downs "somewhat in the same ball park" too? If you exclude the Latinos from the US statistics, and lower the ratio of Blacks (both groups tend to be poorer than average) to match that of the UK or Switzerland, you may get different statistics?
And that absolute sum relates to an "efficiency" figure how? I'm not following your argument here.
It is not supposed to be more expensive to provide health care to the country's seniors, than to defend the entire country and be able to fight two separate wars overseas.
And even better argument against "efficiency" of the government's health-care is the government's public schooling and the government's highway building/upkeep. Oh, and, of course, the government's Medicare...
If you think that there are only four approaches to chose from, you haven't really looked hard.
I listed three. The current one, Obama's, and McCain's. Don't know, why you think, there are four. Perhaps, you think, "single-payer" is the fourth, when it really is, what Obama's plan will turn into...
I'm not "looking hard" — I was just listing explaining the candidates' proposals and explaining, why I like McCain's the most, even though I'd rather have today's limited choice over Obama's no choice. And "That One" is lying to us all — when he says, he'll make the insurance both affordable and allow anyone to join regardless of pre-existing conditions. Sounds wonderful — except... Nobody, who is healthy, will sign-in — until they get sick. Which will, of course, be unsustainable — imagine an auto-insurer, for example, who would allow already damaged cars to get coverage... Obama, being who he is, can not possibly not understand this. Hence, he is lying.
The point was, the government can not even be sued...
And since when can't you sue the government over all kinds of things?
Suing the government is far harder than suing a business.
Well, can you find any private insurance company that will actually offer health insurance to a 91 year-old
With the government's Medicaire being the 800lb gorilla in that market, no insurance company will think of going into that business. That's the point... That such businesses are perfectly viable is evidenced by the life insurance industry...
Compare, for example the US and Great Britain. Or Canada. Or Sweden.
Why not with Russia or China, uhm? Or Venezuela? Oh, they aren't "developed" countries? Right. But, don't you think, there may be other factors at play? Such as large number of immigrants skewing the statistics here?
Happened to a cousin of mine: "Laid off" by her employer as soon as they learned she had breast cancer, lost her insurance and was evicted from her apartment.
Both, McCain's and Obama's plans would disassociate loss of job with loss of health coverage. McCain's plan, however, will keep choice possible, while Obama's will force us into what the government thinks is best.
What's more, however, is that the government has no mandate to provide health care — even if it were most efficient for it to do so. The government — deriving its just power from the will of the governed — is charged with upholding the law, and defense against foreign adversaries. The provision of health care is no more appropriate to the government, than folding@home is appropriate for the OS-kernel.
And it is not efficient. For example, despite the oft-cited expenses of conducting two wars (Afghanistan and Iraq) and the defense spending has still not exceeded Medicate expenses alone, not including Medicaid...
But, in any case, we got off-tangent. My initial post was aimed at explaining the differences between the current situation, and McCain's and Obama's visions. Which of the three seems better to each voter is for each voter to decide.
My own preference — having experienced both of the two other alternatives ("single-payer" of the USSR and the employer-chosen of the USA until now) — is very strongly with McCain. You make your own choice...
The reality is that countries with single-payer plans compare favorably to the US in objective measures such as lifespan and infant mortality.
Citation needed. Sorry, not convincing — I happen to come from one such country, and it royally sucks.
After depleting your savings (nobody but the very wealthy can afford to cover a serious illness from savings), you end up homeless, dying on the street.
Rrriight... Sure. Happens every day — I have to step over these dying on the street schmucks every day on the way to work.
Have you ever seen this happen? Has this ever happen to anyone you know? I don't think so.
Seriously, life isn't perfect and a number of serious illnesses will kill you quickly enough whether you pay for your own health care, or the rest of the country does. Forcing the rest of the country to do that at gun-point (i.e. through taxes) is patently dishonest, regardless of whether it is efficient.
But it is not — if you are seriously sick, the government's care will not treat you properly. It is not cost-efficient — why treat a sick old person, who, even if they recover, will not be productive again? Since the government bureaucrats don't owe you anything (unlike insurance companies), you will not be able to sue them. My grandmother — on Medicare — is going through exactly that right now. She is, effectively, refused treatment, because of her age (91).
Expanding Medicare to everyone will royally suck...
There will still be a role for private insurance for well-to-do people who want greater coverage or faster service for elective procedures
You'll have to be a much better-to-do to be able to afford that.
Seriously, are you happy with the wonderful job, that the "single payer" public schooling or highway upkeep have brought us? What makes you think, health care will be handled any better?
Right now, for most Americans, their employer decides, who their health-insurer will be, which, by extensions, decides, who their doctors will be.
McCain's plan is to give kill that setup for good by removing the tax-breaks employers currently get for providing it — Obama was right to comment, that McCain's plan would destroy the current arrangements. Where Obama is mistaken (or misleading) is in implying, that would be a bad thing, for some reason. Instead, McCain wants each of us to be free to buy health insurance wherever we want — if we want it. He'll compensate for the loss of health-related tax-break to businesses with tax-creditsdirectly to us, and we'll no longer have to associate changing (or loosing!) a job with changing (or losing) health-care coverage. The Illiberalshate that plan for (I kid you not): leaving the decision-making process up to individuals.
Obama's desire, even if it is not immediately obvious to an untrained eye from his public speeches, is to have a Single-Payer health-plan, where the government will be making the payments, and thus, automatically, the decisions. The current employer-selected plan will die just as surely as in McCain's plan (what Obama does not tell you), but it will be replaced by something far worse, not better.
So, here are the choices:
People decide for themselves — as per John McCain.
Employers decide for the employees — the current situation.
The government decides for everyone — as per Barack Obama.
Whoever is advocating free health care, should start advocating free food. All of the pro- free healthcare arguments apply to food, they are just more obviously ridiculous:
Feed the hungry before they go to Emergency Rooms, where feeding them will be more expensive.
It shall be illegal for supermarkets and restaurants to refuse to feed the hungry or to refer their non-paying their bills to the Credit Bureaus.
Feeding the hungry is a neighborly obligation.
If I ever see you slowly bleeding to death on the side of the road, I hope you'll remind me that you have no right to expect any help from your fellow citizens
You can expect charity from fellow citizens, but you have no right to force them at gun-point to pay for your health-care. If a stranger "on the side of the road" tried to do that to you, you'd be absolutely correct considering it highway robbery. Why do you propose the government should do it?
There is no right to healthcare (or food, or shelter, or sex, or a nice stereo). The only rights we have in a free country, are those, protecting us from the government taking something away. There is nothing in the Constitution (or the Declaration of Independence, for that matter), regarding the government's obligation to give the citizens anything.
hand it to your neighbors, and force them to pay the bill. That's theft.
Actually, that's not a theft, but — since force is involved — a robbery. More specifically — an armed robbery, because when police arrive to evict you (so that the IRS can sell your house), they come well armed.
a good deal of that manifesto exactly parallels socialist goals in this country today.
The sad part is, almost everyone believes, Hitler was "on the Right". Calling somebody a Leftist is bound to draw a response, that the opposing point of view is so Rightist, it is as if Hitler himself said it.
Well, Hitler's National Socialism was about as far Left, as Stalin's International variety...
Isn't it more than a bit arrogant and unrealistic to think the US is the only country with these technologies?
What exactly is the point of this (off-topic) "Insight"? Whether the US is "the only" or not does not matter — we see (potential) enemies try to acquire, what we don't want them to have, and we try to prevent it from happening. That's all.
Are you the only guy with money in your wallet? Is not it arrogant of you to try to prevent it from being stolen — there is nothing special about your wallet, is there?
Because (with the possible exception of the red light) in all of those examples, their opponents aren't treating their lawsuits as a revenue center and extorting money from the victims (innocent or not.)
B.S. RIAA spends far more going after people, than they recoup in sutis and settlements. Their main purpose is deterrence — making example from some law-breakers to scare the others.
The judge here is not concerned with the award, that RIAA is aiming for — if the accused are found to have been infringing, they will deserve no merci. The judge's concern is that the legal proceedings themselves are so costly, a person can be financially devastated (by legal fees) even if they don't end up owning anything.
Making the loser of a lawsuit automatically on the hook for the winner's legal fees would solve this problem...
Its long been the case that the legal system too often provides the 'justice you can afford'.
Confident in:
One's innocence.
Getting compensated for legal expenses
one could afford much better representation than now, when even if you win, you are still short many thousands of dollars... That's my point: in our current system, for the winner to be compensated for their legal expenses is an exception — by default it does not happen. It should be the other way around.
Slashdot Mirror
Why, yes, they probably are. Obama — to "spin-down" the consequences of the leak, Canadians, having received their assurances — not to rock the boat.
I didn't say "Obama's" — I said, Obama's campaign's. Biden is on record talking against coal, and Obama himself talked in January (when he needed to appeal to the Left, rather than the whole country), how he'll bankrupt the coal industry. You can call it "nuanced", but if it were McCain or Bush, you would've called it "ever changing" or worse.
His running mate said "$150K" and Obama himself never made it clear — and I did watch all three debates trying to figure it out — whether the magical "$250" is per person, per couple, or per "working family". And what exactly qualifies as a "working" one...
I was referring to Obama's campaign... TFA talks about the campaign computers being broken into, you know...
It rang hollow. I think, it was not a "gaffe", but a slip — much like the earlier one, when he said, Hillary would've been a better VP (damn right, she would've!)
Are you serious? I mean, in good health and clear mind? Because the statement you entered above, trying to defend your vice-President by claiming, the official transcripts of the debate is somehow wrong, is not better than what Biden actually said. It is wrong on many levels and sub-levels and there is no way in the world to rephrase it to make less idiotic:
Now, I don't blame you for not knowing any the above facts — and Sara Palin has not demolished him over it either, but for a senior US Senator, a supposed "foreign policy wonk" to be so wrong is flabbergasting. Senility comes to mind, pardon the pun.
Had McCain or Palin said anything even remotely idiotic like this — and there were plenty of other "gaffes" during the debate, all of them by Biden — they would've been written off as "geezer and gidget", by the same newspapers, who continued to smooth things over for Biden, presenting h
While "The One" was blasting NAFTA to gain support, he sought to secretly reassure Canadian government, that he has no plans to change the agreement.
His campaign position's on coal kept changing faster, than any hacker could download...
The lowest income, on which the taxes will be increased.
Fortunately, Joe Biden's foreign policy statements like:
What I meant, actually, was that Linux is easy enough for the "dummies" to be able to act as admins... It is no bad thing — it just explains, why some of these people are not of the caliber of some Unix-admins. Not that I have not met my share of dumb-asses among those too, but a typical Unix-admin to a Linux one is like a bison next to a cow.
Linux is not Unix.
If they earned enough wealth for their own treatment, they'll be able to afford it — sorry for the tautology, but it seems not obvious to everyone. It really is not that expensive, despite recent rises in price, and would be even cheaper with McCain's tax-credits.
And if they — despite being born and raised in this blessed country — failed to earn enough, then they can appeal to charity.
But not to government, which takes money from other citizens at gun-point and thus must spend it only on things, which benefit everyone.
It is all due to this strange, but widely held belief, that the person most interested in their health care is the patient him/herself. This does not always hold true, of course, and the opponents of personal responsibility reject proposals, that "leave the decision-making process up to individuals" (I kid you not!).
When a fool, who used the freedom irresponsibly and chose a better car or whatever over health insurance, can't pay for care, he is presented as a poster-child for socialized medicine... And the case is made, for taking out that choice for good — along with others, lest they'll also be used to make decisions, that are worse than those made by the all-knowing, omni-potent, and benevolent government officials.
Contrary to your apparent belief, I don't have to prove anything. The burden of proof is on people, who want me to sacrifice various modern-day conveniences to stall/prevent/reverse Global Warming.
That all (or nearly all) such people, under minimum of scratching, reveal themselves to be advocates for "social justice", makes them easily dismissable, yes. Not my fault, though. I don't have to "see their side" of the argument.
Yes, as a matter of fact it is. If I were among the jurors in Salem in 1692, I'd refuse to convict, despite the other jurors' pleas to protect the girls being afflicted by the witches, etc.
Because the proponents of the global warming, and, especially, those of the idea, that humans (the rich ones, of course — the class struggle is almost always cued into a green's argument) are responsible, have put forward nothing deserving anything other than mockery and derision (well, the Che Guevara-adoring among them also deserve a noose or a bullet too, but that's another subject). There may, indeed, be a problem, or there may not be one, but the inconveniences, that "the greens" demand we accept, are too serious to be undertaken "just in case". And, of course, the most famous of the greens are rather hypocritical, which ruins their case even further.
So, until the theory, that blames rich western societies for the global warming, becomes scientific (it is merely a political one now), and can explain the drastic climate changes of 5 and 10 thousand years ago, I shall remain skeptical.
And no, I'm not, in actuality a seminarist — I was just mocking the GGP. But I have enough education to be able to discern science from attempts to "restore social justice", and will not cramp my lifestyle, just because some Leftie thinks, I have not earned, what I own.
As a seminary graduate trained in Cosmology and Theology, I am telling you, that the current witchcraft crisis and the devil's impact on the fever-inducing solar eclipse are as true as the Bible. I know it is true, because my professors told me so, and they are all very respected experts in their fields.
Those of us not trained in the "geology of climate change" would've been much easier to persuade, if the proponents of the "anthropogenic effect" were not universally thinly-veiled Leftists with a Che Guevara T-shirt in every closet. There are also counter-examples of the lands going arid, and species (including humans) dying out due to sudden climate changes long before anything, that's blamed for such changes today was invented. And occasional coldest seasons on record in various parts of the world need periodic augmentation of the "global warming" theories. But mostly it is the Leftism of nearly all advocates of the humans' responsibility for the climate change, that leaves me skeptical if not outright convinced in the opposite.
How about we start with the plastic water bottles, uhm? Popularized by fashion models (all of them "concerned about the environment", if asked), the crap is way out of hand. A New York Marathon, for another example, the famous transportation-stalling ritual gathering of professional runners and "environmentally-aware" progressive New Yorkers, consumes 63000 bottles of water, 32000 litters of Gatorade and 130 tons of trash. Not to mention the personal conduct of the most prominent figures of today's climate debate...
Yeah, right. Very catchy, very silly — a non-argument...
Whatever bad things you can say about insurance companies, the government is/will be only worse. If only because the insurance companies have competition (each other). I'm tempted to tell you, screw it, go and try the "single payer" for yourself, but it would not, unfortunately, work that way. You'll be trying it for myself too...
Well, Barack Obama proposes a miracle plan, that will be both affordable and allow anyone to join regardless of pre-existing condition. Thanks for confirming, that no such plan can exist, and that The One is lying to us all.
Back to the topic, of course a 91 year-old, or anyone with a pre-existing condition will have hard time buying health insurance anew — and for a good reason. No one would insure an already damaged car, or an already flooded home either. Because if you were to offer such coverage for pre-existing conditions, nobody would pay you, until they get sick (or damage their car, or flood their home). Which means, you'll go bust very quickly.
The 91 year old ought to carry insurance from much younger age... Otherwise, it is not really insurance, defined as:
Maybe, the candidates also need to have the racial break-downs "somewhat in the same ball park" too? If you exclude the Latinos from the US statistics, and lower the ratio of Blacks (both groups tend to be poorer than average) to match that of the UK or Switzerland, you may get different statistics?
It is not supposed to be more expensive to provide health care to the country's seniors, than to defend the entire country and be able to fight two separate wars overseas.
And even better argument against "efficiency" of the government's health-care is the government's public schooling and the government's highway building/upkeep. Oh, and, of course, the government's Medicare...
I listed three. The current one, Obama's, and McCain's. Don't know, why you think, there are four. Perhaps, you think, "single-payer" is the fourth, when it really is, what Obama's plan will turn into...
I'm not "looking hard" — I was just listing explaining the candidates' proposals and explaining, why I like McCain's the most, even though I'd rather have today's limited choice over Obama's no choice. And "That One" is lying to us all — when he says, he'll make the insurance both affordable and allow anyone to join regardless of pre-existing conditions. Sounds wonderful — except... Nobody, who is healthy, will sign-in — until they get sick. Which will, of course, be unsustainable — imagine an auto-insurer, for example, who would allow already damaged cars to get coverage... Obama, being who he is, can not possibly not understand this. Hence, he is lying.
The point was, the government can not even be sued...
Suing the government is far harder than suing a business.
With the government's Medicaire being the 800lb gorilla in that market, no insurance company will think of going into that business. That's the point... That such businesses are perfectly viable is evidenced by the life insurance industry...
Why not with Russia or China, uhm? Or Venezuela? Oh, they aren't "developed" countries? Right. But, don't you think, there may be other factors at play? Such as large number of immigrants skewing the statistics here?
Both, McCain's and Obama's plans would disassociate loss of job with loss of health coverage. McCain's plan, however, will keep choice possible, while Obama's will force us into what the government thinks is best.
What's more, however, is that the government has no mandate to provide health care — even if it were most efficient for it to do so. The government — deriving its just power from the will of the governed — is charged with upholding the law, and defense against foreign adversaries. The provision of health care is no more appropriate to the government, than folding@home is appropriate for the OS-kernel.
And it is not efficient. For example, despite the oft-cited expenses of conducting two wars (Afghanistan and Iraq) and the defense spending has still not exceeded Medicate expenses alone, not including Medicaid...
But, in any case, we got off-tangent. My initial post was aimed at explaining the differences between the current situation, and McCain's and Obama's visions. Which of the three seems better to each voter is for each voter to decide.
My own preference — having experienced both of the two other alternatives ("single-payer" of the USSR and the employer-chosen of the USA until now) — is very strongly with McCain. You make your own choice...
Citation needed. Sorry, not convincing — I happen to come from one such country, and it royally sucks.
Rrriight... Sure. Happens every day — I have to step over these dying on the street schmucks every day on the way to work.
Have you ever seen this happen? Has this ever happen to anyone you know? I don't think so.
Seriously, life isn't perfect and a number of serious illnesses will kill you quickly enough whether you pay for your own health care, or the rest of the country does. Forcing the rest of the country to do that at gun-point (i.e. through taxes) is patently dishonest, regardless of whether it is efficient.
But it is not — if you are seriously sick, the government's care will not treat you properly. It is not cost-efficient — why treat a sick old person, who, even if they recover, will not be productive again? Since the government bureaucrats don't owe you anything (unlike insurance companies), you will not be able to sue them. My grandmother — on Medicare — is going through exactly that right now. She is, effectively, refused treatment, because of her age (91).
Expanding Medicare to everyone will royally suck...
You'll have to be a much better-to-do to be able to afford that.
Seriously, are you happy with the wonderful job, that the "single payer" public schooling or highway upkeep have brought us? What makes you think, health care will be handled any better?
Right now, for most Americans, their employer decides, who their health-insurer will be, which, by extensions, decides, who their doctors will be.
McCain's plan is to give kill that setup for good by removing the tax-breaks employers currently get for providing it — Obama was right to comment, that McCain's plan would destroy the current arrangements. Where Obama is mistaken (or misleading) is in implying, that would be a bad thing, for some reason. Instead, McCain wants each of us to be free to buy health insurance wherever we want — if we want it. He'll compensate for the loss of health-related tax-break to businesses with tax-credits directly to us, and we'll no longer have to associate changing (or loosing!) a job with changing (or losing) health-care coverage. The Illiberals hate that plan for (I kid you not): leaving the decision-making process up to individuals.
Obama's desire, even if it is not immediately obvious to an untrained eye from his public speeches, is to have a Single-Payer health-plan, where the government will be making the payments, and thus, automatically, the decisions. The current employer-selected plan will die just as surely as in McCain's plan (what Obama does not tell you), but it will be replaced by something far worse, not better.
So, here are the choices:
Make your pick...
Whoever is advocating free health care, should start advocating free food . All of the pro- free healthcare arguments apply to food, they are just more obviously ridiculous:
You can expect charity from fellow citizens, but you have no right to force them at gun-point to pay for your health-care. If a stranger "on the side of the road" tried to do that to you, you'd be absolutely correct considering it highway robbery. Why do you propose the government should do it?
There is no right to healthcare (or food, or shelter, or sex, or a nice stereo). The only rights we have in a free country, are those, protecting us from the government taking something away. There is nothing in the Constitution (or the Declaration of Independence, for that matter), regarding the government's obligation to give the citizens anything.
Actually, that's not a theft, but — since force is involved — a robbery. More specifically — an armed robbery, because when police arrive to evict you (so that the IRS can sell your house), they come well armed.
The sad part is, almost everyone believes, Hitler was "on the Right". Calling somebody a Leftist is bound to draw a response, that the opposing point of view is so Rightist, it is as if Hitler himself said it.
Well, Hitler's National Socialism was about as far Left, as Stalin's International variety...
What exactly is the point of this (off-topic) "Insight"? Whether the US is "the only" or not does not matter — we see (potential) enemies try to acquire, what we don't want them to have, and we try to prevent it from happening. That's all.
Are you the only guy with money in your wallet? Is not it arrogant of you to try to prevent it from being stolen — there is nothing special about your wallet, is there?
Embrace and extend — all the while doing not evil. No, absolutely not.
Does anybody remember the first telephone President? Or the first steam President? Or the first TV one? (Clearly, Joe Biden doesn't).
Using/not using the Internet should not be the criteria...
Like Chelsea Clinton? Absolutely, the only respectable professions are either a teacher or a museum-worker (with the possible additions of working with AIDS patients in Africa).
I wonder, what you think of fashion designers, though... Are those Ok?
B.S. RIAA spends far more going after people, than they recoup in sutis and settlements. Their main purpose is deterrence — making example from some law-breakers to scare the others.
The judge here is not concerned with the award, that RIAA is aiming for — if the accused are found to have been infringing, they will deserve no merci. The judge's concern is that the legal proceedings themselves are so costly, a person can be financially devastated (by legal fees) even if they don't end up owning anything.
Making the loser of a lawsuit automatically on the hook for the winner's legal fees would solve this problem...
Confident in:
one could afford much better representation than now, when even if you win, you are still short many thousands of dollars... That's my point: in our current system, for the winner to be compensated for their legal expenses is an exception — by default it does not happen. It should be the other way around.
A really, really crappy one...