VPILF

[White Warlock]

I appreciate your point of view WW, but whatever we think of Palin, the choice still comes down to Obama or McCain. I'm not voting for Biden or Palin, so the discussion, while interesting, is largely academic.

I agree, although i think it also comes down to Democrat track record vs Republican track record (and do note: I'm neither D nor R), so i'll continue to address both the Presidential candidates and the Parties they represent.

Democrats favor nationalized health care, Republicans favor privatized.

You mean, "fix" vs "as is?" Health care is presently privatized, and it's a big problem in the U.S., as anyone without insurance will knows full well. Anyway, the persons to listen to on this are the economists, and they favor Obama's plan -- http://economistsview.typepad.com/econo ... -heal.html

My thoughts are that Obama's plan needs a bit of work. Once the Clinton team works on it a little, i'm sure it will be up to snuff and far better. McCain's plan is an epic "fail." Any economist will tell you this. Just ask.

Democrats favor higher taxes, Republicans favor lower taxes.

And yet Republicans have historically spent more, thus exploding the deficit every single time. -- http://thereadersbrigade.blogspot.com/2 ... icans.html

See, the problem is, you can't lower taxes and spend more. It just doesn't work. Raising taxes is a means to get everyone in the Nation to 'help' repair the deficit, to stabilize the Nation. This notion that taxation is bad is a notion based on a selfish, shortsighted, short-term satisfaction mentality. Lowering taxes is not a "fix." It's not even a bandaid. It is an appeasement and ultimately an insult to the American people.

Democrats favor "bottom up" economic stimulus, Republicans favor "top down".

And yet Democrats have repeatedly 'succeeded' when it came to economic stabilization, whilst the Republicans have repeatedly increased International debt. Please see my earlier post here -- http://www.alandfaraway.org/phpbbforum/ ... c&start=25

Please know, if you don't already, economic records clearly demonstrate that the U.S. economy has fared better when Democrats governed the Executive Office. And, as economists have already determined, McCain's economic plans are a 'bust' -- http://economistsview.typepad.com/econo ... ns-bi.html

Democrats favor government entitlement programs (social security, medicare, etc), Republicans favor free market solutions.

Hehe, yummy. Free market is largely responsible for National wage decreases, job losses, relocation of jobs overseas & over borders, and destabilizing trade practices. Free market tactics, forced upon other nations via the World Bank, have repeatedly caused economic collapse of those nations. Argentina is the most prominent example of this. It was largely through abandonment of free market policies that Argentina has been able to recover. Yet these failed 'experiments' in Free Market are repeatedly ignored by the Republican 'planners.'

Btw, government "entitlement" programs, as you call them, are not the same subject points as free market. One is Social services, while the other is Market stimulus. Both parties give attention to both topics, and yet the Republicans have repeatedly demonstrated a 'fail' when it comes to 'both' topics. A 'fail' to ensure Social Security, Medicare, and other programs are properly funded, and a 'fail' to ensure the Nation's market is stimulated in a 'longterm' and 'healthy' manner.

Who does Obama have on his army?

Well, for one.. Obama will have the Clintons (who succeeded in balancing the budget that was previously thrown way off kilter by Reagan and Bush Sr., and once again thrown way off kilter by Bush Jr.), professors of economics from Harvard and the University of California, ethics reform leaders (Biden, and others), etc.

I really have no idea who McCain will appoint, but I'm quite sure that a McCain administration will have broad political representation.

Political representation is not what is needed. Politics is talk, action requires understanding of the topics. So far I've heard of McCain tapping persons within the White House to fill his staff. Yes, the same administration that has presented this 'epic fail' of an economy.

Cipher, i'm sure you're uncomfortable about Obama. So am I. My discomfort is that he is wanting to make 'many' changes. Change can make 'anyone' uncomfortable, even if such change is both necessary and beneficial. Contrastly, i am telling you right off that McCain, as nice a guy as he may be, is not going to address the problems that need to be addressed. At present, McCain, Palin, and his campaign team are lieing to the American citizenry left and right. Seriously, they are. This is an issue because it is what Bush Jr. has been doing to for 7 years now. Worse, since McCain and team aren't even being sneaky about the lies. They're just dropping them on the table and repeating them ad-nauseum, in the hopes they will become embedded in the minds of Americans who don't make the effort to fact-check. In fact, this is nothing new for McCain. -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI

Re: Palin
One of the reasons Palin is also a disturbing presentation, is that it is rather obvious McCain chose her to obtain the Clinton supporter votes. In fact, he's all but said this with his campaign ads. The reason it is disturbing, is that Hillary Clinton is far more qualified than Palin, and has completely different views. Also, there are far more qualified Republicans who could have taken up the VP position. And, many of the Palin support ads are incredibly sexist.

But there's also one other thing... the Republican track record for equal "gender" pay -- http://economistsview.typepad.com/econo ... lican.html

As demonstrated in that report/article, Republicans have repeatedly 'failed' on that topic as well.



Thanks for reading

[indio]

I don't know the trends in US elections, but it looks like Palin secures the conservative vote at the cost of pushing too far to the right, losing swingers. Maybe swingers go to the right when in doubt in the US. The Republicans had little choice but to reclaim their grassroots, and Palin's done that well, but I'm worried Biden's tempering of Obama's leftist sentiments will feel a safer bet on election day to the undecideds.

My 2 bob. Good election campaign though. Looking forward to seeing it all unfold.

[White Warlock]

Thought i would add this chart to the list to address the taxation argument:

[Mulu]

Well at least now you're admitting that experience does matter. "Simply by virtue of being a Constitutional Law professor" was how you previously put it.

We're making progress.

I assumed that given 19 months of dissection anyone not living in Alaska would already know all about Obama.

Because the constitution isn't an executive instruction manual. It's a framework for our laws.

Oh, it's just the framework for our laws and system of government, no need to understand it at all....

Obviously it takes more than such knowledge to run the country, but its absence is not something to cheer for, and its presence is valuable.

If it were so explicit as to forfeit experience and judgment, why...we could just make the presidency a software program.

Run president.exe.

I'd take a computer program's judgement over Palin's any day.

Watch the saddleback debate:

He struggles mightily in places, and those were just harmless questions.

He seemed thoughtful to me. I also read the analyses, plural, and no one claimed what you are claiming. I'm sure Fox News did.

No disagreement there, but nobody was arguing or suggesting otherwise. He was blasting Gov Palin for saying that our enemies are in Iraq, and they are, regardless of how or why they are there now.

Bull, her comment was clearly about the attack on 911. She didn't use the word, but she described it well enough. Even if you tried to spin that into the deaths in Iraq, Al Qaida in Iraq is not responsible for thousands of US lives, the Sunni insurgency is, which has since been bribed and is on "our side" for the moment. No matter how you slice it, she was lying, or just ignorant.

1. The world is a very different place in 2008 than it was in 1809. If you've got to go back 200 years to find someone with the same credentials, you really don't have the qualifications.

Prove it. Show me that being in the Senate doesn't qualify you for the Presidency. Cause there's an awful lot of senators out there that seem to think otherwise.

2. I know plenty of highly educated people who are Republicans. You really love to look down your nose at people, but the Democrats have their "ignoramuses" too. There are lots of poor folk in both parties, but there are probably more rich folk in the Republican party. And rich people are neither stupid nor uneducated.

Actually wealthy people tend to vote Democrat. In fact the GOP considers the drift to the Dems by the wealthy to be a major concern, especially after giving them a free lunch for several years. Turns out wealthy people actually give a crap about the country, not just their own pocketbooks. Who knew?

3. Obama doesn't claim to be an expert on the economy. He has said so himself and pointed out that he'll appoint experts to advise him on economic policy. And it only makes sense. He's a constitutional lawyer, not an economist.

He still knows the issues better than McCain, and more importantly has already presented far better plans for recovery.

Also, your characterization of the GOP as some kind of monolithic bloc is once again demonstrative of your willingness to misuse/distort information to suit your ends. You know it's not true. These intentional misstatements are meant to simply feed on the mischaracterization of the GOP as "everything evil and hypocritical". There is plenty of abuse and hypocrisy on the left as well. These things are not borne of a particular political ideology, but rather of personal character flaws in individuals, Democrat or Republican or Independent.

The right starts unnecessary wars that cost trillions of dollars and thousands of US lives. Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran. Whatever flaws the Dems may have pale in comparison.

Then there is the fundamentalism....

Picking up on whitey's stuff:

Democrats favor "bottom up" economic stimulus, Republicans favor "top down".

True, and top down has proven to not work. Reaganomics was shown to be ineffective back when I was in college. You really still believe in this 80's trickle down nonsense?

Democrats favor government entitlement programs (social security, medicare, etc), Republicans favor free market solutions.

There is no free market solution to teen pregnancy, or elder poor, or many other social issues. What Republicans favor is ignoring Americans who are in need, including homeless veterans. How patriotic is that?

[ç i p h é r]

Democrats favor nationalized health care, Republicans favor privatized.

You mean, "fix" vs "as is?" Health care is presently privatized, and it's a big problem in the U.S., as anyone without insurance will knows full well. Anyway, the persons to listen to on this are the economists, and they favor Obama's plan -- http://economistsview.typepad.com/econo ... -heal.html

Well I read it, but I'm not sure what you think I'm supposed to make of it. That link is to an op-ed blog from an Obama Health Care advisor. Obviously he's going to think his plan is the right plan, heh. Maybe there's more hidden somewhere, but it's really thin on details too. I need more information to get a better idea of the details.

To respond to your critique, it's not a "fix" if it changes things for the worse. Let's not gloss over the fact that he's advocating nationalizing health care in some form. Here are my concerns:

1) How is he going to pay for his program? I've heard cost estimates in the hundreds of billions of dollars.
2) How will the funds be managed? Who will oversee the government bureaucrats? They already use Social Security as a slush fund for discretionary spending. You think it's prudent to put more money into their hands?
3) How will this affect the quality of health care and how is it any different than the kind of nationalized health care offered in other nations? I've heard stories from friends that live in Britain and Canada about how bad their health care is relative to their experiences here. I've had my own share of bad experiences with nationalized health care before I came to the US. People worldwide come to the US for treatments they can't find elsewhere, so with respect to quality, our health care is second to none. So, what happens when the government steps in?
4) Nationalizing health care doesn't address the root causes of the problem. Why are health insurance premiums so high to begin with? I can name several causes:

• Excessive litigation leading to higher medical malpractice claims leading to higher medical malpractice insurance premiums. Eg. surgeons pay about 50% of their income for malpractice insurance and that factors into their cost of doing business.
• Demand on medical services has increased dramatically, even for illnesses that are treatable at home.
• Serious operational inefficiencies exist that result in duplication of services.
  Did you know that hospitals have independent contractor agreements with doctors so each doctor is responsible for billing their own patients even if the patient came in for a single procedure? That results in more paperwork, more overhead, and greater costs.
• A complete lack of disclosure up front of the actual costs of medical services being rendered.
  In virtually every other business, you get a quote before buying the product or service you're interested in. Not in health care. Why? You only find out AFTER you get a statement in the mail. This doesn't allow the consumer to consume wisely, negotiate rates, or even "shop" for better pricing (to a point of course).

These are just some of the problems I'm aware of. I'm sure there's more.

Look I'm with you in that health care is just too damn expensive. I feel the pain too (I've got a family to support), but to me, nationalizing health care is just a knee jerk reaction to the problem. It' only natural for the government-is-the-answer-for-everything crowd to seize on the opportunity to propose more government programs, but if health care is subsidized by the government, won't the demand on medical services simply increase, only fueling the costs of providing medical services? Won't people go to the doctor whether or not they really need to? Will people have any incentive to take care of themselves, from quitting smoking to eating healthy, if the government will treat their ailments and hand out medication? Someone will be paying for all of this. You and me.

As Obama rightly pointed out, people don't carry insurance because they can't afford it, not because they don't want it. Address the root causes of the cost increases and you solve the problem. Don't nationalize the system. That's a radical change with a whole other can of worms attached to it.

My thoughts are that Obama's plan needs a bit of work. Once the Clinton team works on it a little, i'm sure it will be up to snuff and far better. McCain's plan is an epic "fail." Any economist will tell you this. Just ask.

In what respect? Health care is farther down on my priority list of concerns, but looking at McCains website (http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Iss ... b527cf.htm), he's at least focusing on the right things - reducing the inherent costs of health care (emphasizing prevention, early intervention, healthy habits, new treatment models, new public health infrastructure and the use of information technology), passing medical liability reform, and bringing transparency to health care costs.

He's on the right track in my opinion. These are exactly the issues I see as significant contributors to rising health care costs. We may still need to offer some form of government assistance to people at the very bottom, but certainly our priority should be to address the root causes of health care inflation first.

[White Warlock]

Hi Cipher,

running low on brainjuice today. Will read your post later and attempt to provide a reasoned, researched response.

[ç i p h é r]

And yet Republicans have historically spent more, thus exploding the deficit every single time. -- http://thereadersbrigade.blogspot.com/2 ... icans.html

I don't know about historical tendencies, but I've stated repeatedly that under this administration, spending has been out of control. The reality is, the Republican party (like the Democratic party) is a pretty big tent. There is no one priority, and while I would have liked to see Republicans continue to make fiscal responsibility their top priority, it wasn't in the last 7 years. It was in the last 15, however. Clearly what we get depends on who we elect. So what's new?

Here's some interesting information that breaks down voting on earmarks:

http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/11/th ... pork_c.php
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/08/th ... _repor.php

If you want to reign in needless spending, let's start holding these folks accountable.

Democrats favor "bottom up" economic stimulus, Republicans favor "top down".

And yet Democrats have repeatedly 'succeeded' when it came to economic stabilization, whilst the Republicans have repeatedly increased International debt. Please see my earlier post here -- http://www.alandfaraway.org/phpbbforum/ ... c&start=25

What do you mean by "economic stabilization"? Do you mean controlling debt? That's what your post talks about. Either way, you're making sweeping generalizations without any real point.

I think "what's best" is entirely subjective and depends on people's point of view. If you're a business owner or investor, you generally prefer low tax rates on business and capital gains. If you're in a lower income bracket, you generally prefer higher taxes on the wealthy. *shrugs*

Please know, if you don't already, economic records clearly demonstrate that the U.S. economy has fared better when Democrats governed the Executive Office. And, as economists have already determined, McCain's economic plans are a 'bust' -- http://economistsview.typepad.com/econo ... ns-bi.html

Looking at overall economic indicators, this is true. It's noteworthy that the Clinton years were the most prosperous. During most of those years, a balance of power existed between the executive and legislative branch, and a strong emphasis was placed on balancing the budget and reducing the deficit. Remember the Contract with America? Fiscal responsibility played a large part of that success. (And IIRC, so did having line item veto power.)

Looking at the economic policies of these candidates specifically, the Club for Growth had this to say in 2007:

http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/03/ar ... ains_t.php
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/12/ne ... _paper.php

However, according to a survey of economists, positive/negative assessments seem to largely fall along party lines. Democratic economists back Obama's plans and Republican economists back McCain's. What a surprise.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/16/ ... index.html

Ultimately though, we'll each judge for ourselves which policies are best for us and decide accordingly.

Hehe, yummy. Free market is largely responsible for National wage decreases, job losses, relocation of jobs overseas & over borders, and destabilizing trade practices. Free market tactics, forced upon other nations via the World Bank, have repeatedly caused economic collapse of those nations. Argentina is the most prominent example of this. It was largely through abandonment of free market policies that Argentina has been able to recover. Yet these failed 'experiments' in Free Market are repeatedly ignored by the Republican 'planners.'

I don't know what you're drinking, but free market economics is what has made America the most prosperous nation in the world. That much is simply indisputable.

Btw, government "entitlement" programs, as you call them, are not the same subject points as free market. One is Social services, while the other is Market stimulus.

Free market solutions. For example, with respect to retirement, this can mean the difference between a government managed slush fund and a privately managed IRA that you own.

One of the reasons Palin is also a disturbing presentation, is that it is rather obvious McCain chose her to obtain the Clinton supporter votes.

It's but one reason she was selected. It has already been noted that she galvanizes his base and brings an enthusiasm to the campaign that was sorely lacking before. No small thing.

Also, for what reason did Obama pick Biden? Experience. He doesn't even believe in his own "judgment is enough" argument or even his "change you can believe in" narrative to pick someone other than a consummate Washington insider. But again, we're not voting for Biden or Palin.

p.s. Here's the Club for Growth congressional report cards, which includes an explanation of which votes are "pro growth" and why.

http://clubforgrowth.org/2007/03/the_cl ... al_s_1.php

[ç i p h é r]

He seemed thoughtful to me. I also read the analyses, plural, and no one claimed what you are claiming. I'm sure Fox News did.

I didn't read the analyses. I made up my own mind about his performance. What you call thoughtful, I call uncertainty. It's notable that after that debate, he issued a statement clarifying his comments on abortion. He did much the same thing with regard to the invasion of Georgia. Anyway, for me, it just wasn't an impressive performance from a guy who's trying to prove his presidential mettle 19 months into the election. Contrast that with McCain who clearly has conviction.

Bull, her comment was clearly about the attack on 911. She didn't use the word, but she described it well enough. Even if you tried to spin that into the deaths in Iraq, Al Qaida in Iraq is not responsible for thousands of US lives, the Sunni insurgency is, which has since been bribed and is on "our side" for the moment. No matter how you slice it, she was lying, or just ignorant.

I'm not following your line of reasoning here. So she said to the troops that they were going to fight America's enemies, implying the folks who attacked on 9/11. That's Al Qaida and their surrogates.

So, you don't think Al Qaida in Iraq qualifies as our enemies because they formed after the 9/11 strikes?

1. The world is a very different place in 2008 than it was in 1809. If you've got to go back 200 years to find someone with the same credentials, you really don't have the qualifications.

Prove it. Show me that being in the Senate doesn't qualify you for the Presidency. Cause there's an awful lot of senators out there that seem to think otherwise.

Obviously it does, but you're trying to equate the circumstances of some 200 years ago with the qualifications today. They are not equatable. The world is considerably more complex today than it was 200 years ago. What compelling foreign or world issues existed at that time? The nation was in the grips of civil war.

Actually wealthy people tend to vote Democrat.

2006 demographics:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/ ... lls.0.html

Of people making $200,000 or more, 53% of them were Republican, 45% were Democrat. Regardless, the notion that people gravitate towards the Democratic ideology over the Republican ideology on the basis of "smarts" is laughably juvenile, but this attitude is emblematic of the snobbery and elitism of the modern day liberal.

He still knows the issues better than McCain, and more importantly has already presented far better plans for recovery.

Well, now that's debatable. I suppose it depends on how you define "better".

The right starts unnecessary wars that cost trillions of dollars and thousands of US lives. Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran. Whatever flaws the Dems may have pale in comparison.

....

The Iran as we know it today was created during Carter's watch. 'Nuff said.

[Swift]

Will people have any incentive to take care of themselves, from quitting smoking to eating healthy, if the government will treat their ailments and hand out medication?

This can hardly be used as justification. Even if the government might hand out meds willy nilly, that doesn't change the fact that we currently don't have cures for things like heart disease, diabetes, lung cancer and a myriad of other 'lifestyle' related health issues. Having 15 years knocked off your life expectancy is always going to be the biggest motivation you can give people, whether you have nationalized heath care or not.

[ç i p h é r]

Well it can if subsidizing health care continues to drive up costs because we're not addressing the problem in the right way.

What happens if the costs continue to increase (I've no reason to believe that they won't under a nationalized plan)? Will government begin imposing cost controls on practitioners? If so, what happens to the quality of health care? If cost controls won't be imposed, how will government keep pace with rising costs? Keep raising taxes?

At some point, we've got to examine root causes and begin addressing them. I think we're well past that point.

[davidcurtisjr]

Your all going to Hell and Palins riding shotgun.

[oldgrayrogue]

The simple fact is that you don't elect a candidate only. You elect that candidate's party platform along with them. McCain/Palin are doing their damndest to deny the fact that they are republicans, and with good reason. When you examine their platform however, I hate to say it, but it really is just more of the same. Mortgage crisis, energy crisis, financial crisis (Bear Sterns, Lehman, Merril, Fannie and Freddie Mac, and now maybe AIG!), unjust war in Iraq, Al Qaeda still on the loose 8 years later, record trade deficits, record budget deficits when they inherited a surplus -- the list goes on and on. Honestly, if the issues are looked at rather than who called who a pig is there really any question that the republican party needs to be ousted?

When your experience amounts to being a member of, and siding with the party responsible for the destruction of our economy, (let alone an unjust war) I'd say that is experience we can do without. Please, if you are going to vote, vote on the issues and the platform that you feel is in the country's best interests. I would really like to see an intelligent, reasoned argument as to how the republican -- and yes the McCain/Palin -- economic policy can possibly benefit the country.

[davidcurtisjr]

The Jews were the chosen people because they recieved the word of god.
--then they said screw god. Money's more important. And being as how were the chosen people we'll choose only ourselves in all things over others.

Christ was a rabbi of the Jews.
--because he believed in god and not the sanctimonious acrimony of the rich and powerful he was killed.

People started calling themselves Christians and the martyring themselves as a reflection of thier belief in his godliness.
--Hey if Jesus can do it, why not me.
--Of course this was a sect of the jews who hated all other jews who refused to side with them on the whole son of god thing.
-- So long as you hated the other jews and stated Jesus was the son of god you could call yourself christian. Though a lot of them weren't sure whether or not it was important to hack at parts of your unmentionables.

Constantinople, a famous roman general, became quite tired of feeding his bookkeepers, who were mostly christian, to the lions as he found training new ones to be a pain and being sick and tired of the bitching and rioting caused by all these so called martyrs decided he was no longer going to do pagan style.

Constantiople figuires he'll go out with a bang, so he goes on this big bender before this battle royal and after he stumbles out of his tent spent from his orgy, hung over from wine, and totally strung out on mercury and hashish he unconsciously throws up his hands to ward off the suns light as it strikes him in the morning. Being so wasted he doesnt' know what he's doing he imagines that the arms he's tossed up are some sign from this christian god.
---Yeah it was a cross man and it looked like this. *makes a symbol of a cross with his arms palms held open before him.* In fact his posture that morning was no different so I guess he did see a cross.

So he goes out afterward totally stoked about this whole cross thing-- hey what does he know he's no more then 5000 years removed from his ancestors that swung from the trees-- and he wins. After sweating out all the drugs alcohol in his big battle he finally sobers up and says man... I'm never doing that again. From now on I'm a Christian. *turns to a officer and whispers to him* That's all I have to do to become one right? *the general raises his eyebrows and motions to his midsection with a worried but meaningful glance* Oh riiiighhht. Well we'll have to have a meeting about that.

So he calls on all the christians and says hey man let's meet at this location it's totally fab. And ye'll never guess what I saw here man it was far out.

The christians skeptical arrive and to their surprise Constantinople says never again will I weave the dragons breathe.

The Christians, unsure of how to take this, kind of mingle about and stare at each other for a bit as Constantinople puts forthsome edicts. One bright fellow from Rome raises his hand saying, "You mean all we have to do is not require our members to nip off our tallywackers and you'll stop feeding us to the lions. As it was agreed there was much rejoicing and the Pagans not knowing what to do with themselves, seeing as how orgies had suddenly gone out of fashion decided to join the newly founded church as it seemed the in thing to do and seemed a much better choice than the alternative which would be to have your pecker fall from overuse.

And that's how the Catholic Church and Greek Orthodox Churches were born.

[davidcurtisjr]

I present the above forum post to give you a feel for where all these conservative bastards came from and how fu#@%@ I mean screwed up they really are. I'll cover more of this stu... I mean er fascinating segment of the human population as we digress into other orders of religion and thier branches who's ultimate prediction is the total destruction of mankind. Kind of like being the ref at an NBA game if you ask me.

[Mulu]

Starting with some of whitey's stuff.

1) How is he going to pay for his program? I've heard cost estimates in the hundreds of billions of dollars.

Last estimate I heard for Iraq total cost was 2 trillion dollars. You didn't seem to mind spending that money, and it didn't even help the average American at all.

People worldwide come to the US for treatments they can't find elsewhere, so with respect to quality, our health care is second to none.

People also go to Canada and Germany, depending on the treatment being sought. But nationalizing healthcare isn't for the people with the means to globetrot for the best care in any given field, its for the rest of America, the vast majority who can't afford such luxuries.

4) Nationalizing health care doesn't address the root causes of the problem. Why are health insurance premiums so high to begin with? I can name several causes:

• Excessive litigation leading to higher medical malpractice claims leading to higher medical malpractice insurance premiums. Eg. surgeons pay about 50% of their income for malpractice insurance and that factors into their cost of doing business.

This is grossly false. The OMB calculated that litigation costs account for less than 1% of total health care costs. This is an old, old lie.

The cause of increased health care costs is greedy doctors and hospitals.

Interestingly, our medical schools only graduate roughly 1/2 as many doctors as there are new jobs for doctors, which is why we have so many foreign educated doctors. Want to reduce healthcare costs? Triple the number of medical schools and flood the market with doctors, creating competition at the supply end.

In virtually every other business, you get a quote before buying the product or service you're interested in. Not in health care. Why? You only find out AFTER you get a statement in the mail. This doesn't allow the consumer to consume wisely, negotiate rates, or even "shop" for better pricing (to a point of course).

Would it really make a difference? This procedure is going to cost $50k, and if you don't do it in the next 48 hours you're going to die.

"Oh, I think I'll shop around a bit first..."

passing medical liability reform

You do know what "medical liability reform" is, right? It means if you go in to have your appendix removed, and they remove your pancreas instead, you can't sue the doctor or the hospital. Sucks to be you.

I think "what's best" is entirely subjective and depends on people's point of view. If you're a business owner or investor, you generally prefer low tax rates on business and capital gains. If you're in a lower income bracket, you generally prefer higher taxes on the wealthy. *shrugs*

At a minimum, "what's best" would include a healthy tax base to allow us to be able to defend ourselves. Having a strong military costs money you know. Then you look at standards of living, which when they increase typically also results in a lowering of the crime rate.

Contrast that with McCain who clearly has conviction.

Bush has conviction too. Conviction doesn't mean your opinion is good, it just means you've already made up your mind. BTW, there is a large body of research on how right wing authoritarians prefer certainty to being correct.

I'm not following your line of reasoning here. So she said to the troops that they were going to fight America's enemies

No, she said, “the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans.”

That's not enemies in the abstract, that is a very specific group of people: Al Qaida under Osama Bin Laden. That is a lie, or horrifying ignorance.

Obviously it does, but you're trying to equate the circumstances of some 200 years ago with the qualifications today.

Wow history lesson, it isn't 2061 yet.

They are not equatable. The world is considerably more complex today than it was 200 years ago. What compelling foreign or world issues existed at that time? The nation was in the grips of civil war.

Cipher, you do realize that our country falling into civil war is a more complex and dangerous situation that the one we are currently facing, right? Abraham Lincoln had a *lot* more on his plate than the guy taking the seat in 2009.

Of people making $200,000 or more, 53% of them were Republican, 45% were Democrat.

[edit] Got it [/edit]
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/ ... lls.0.html
Just two years earlier, it was $200,000 or More 36% Dem 62% Rep
That's a gain of nearly 10 points. Though I did misstate myself, as the articles I had read were about the trend of shifting to Dems, not being Dem majority yet. We'll see what 2008 brings.

Regardless, the notion that people gravitate towards the Democratic ideology over the Republican ideology on the basis of "smarts" is laughably juvenile, but this attitude is emblematic of the snobbery and elitism of the modern day liberal.

So is being correct apparently.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/106381/Obama ... ction.aspx

Barack Obama leads John McCain by a significant margin among voters with the most education, but trails the likely Republican nominee among voters with the least formal education.

The Iran as we know it today was created during Carter's watch. 'Nuff said.

No, the revolution was due to placing a bogus "Shah" in power in Iran, in opposition to the public's desire. Guess who did that? A Republican, of course.
"In 1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's popular Prime Minister, Mohammed Massadegh. The Eisenhower Administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons; but the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs."