Burgold Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Isn't it interesting how Obama is a lightweight for having little experience in a national capacity and yet his heavy weight opponent was a mayor? A mayor of a very rich and powerful city, but a mayor nontheless. Why isn't Rudy a lightweight? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 You get points for not using the word "socialize." Obviously, aside from the war, healthcare is Obama's biggest objective so I don't see him abandoning it anytime soon. He's also pushing hard to better healthcare services to soldiers in the armed forces (the Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act). What is your biggest objection to a revamped healthcare system? HOW ARE WE GOING TO PAY FOR IT? This country already has 43 trillion in obligations over the next 30 years, more money then is in existence. And we are going to add another obligation on top of that? Its simple math as to why I oppose any form of nationalizing 1/6 of our economy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sisko Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 I used to think the same way SHF until I went back to school and started studying our health outcomes vs. expenditures...horrible. Though I haven't had a chance to see it yet, from what I've read about it, the movie Sicko would be a good shortcut to understanding the issue and a great beginning to researching the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 I used to think the same way SHF until I went back to school and started studying our health outcomes vs. expenditures...horrible. Though I haven't had a chance to see it yet, from what I've read about it, the movie Sicko would be a good shortcut to understanding the issue and a great beginning to researching the facts. I don't disagree with outcomes vs expindetures, I got a good look at the healthcare industry while working at a health care consulting firm in 2006. I just do not see where the money would come from, even with a tax raise back to 1990s levels, to fund this type of entitlement (for the record I didn't see where this money would come from for Medicare Part D) Does something need to be done about healthcare? Yes absolutley, its a complete mess. Is nationalizing it the way to go? In my opinion after seeing the industry, no. Going back to Obama, I really like the guy, I think he is exactly what we need in politics today. I like his overall theme and message. I just disagree with parts of his platform Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen-like Todd Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Isn't it interesting how Obama is a lightweight for having little experience in a national capacity and yet his heavy weight opponent was a mayor? A mayor of a very rich and powerful city, but a mayor nontheless. Why isn't Rudy a lightweight? People like executive experience in their Presidents. That's one reason among many that governors have been favored over congressmen/senators in the past 50 or so years. New York City has 10x the population of New Hampshire, the state of Howard Dean. Being the mayor of New York is unlike being a mayor in any other city in this country. On top of that, Giuliani had a long record as a a prosecutor, becoming U.S. attorney, and being well known for going after organized crime in New York during those years. I like Obama a lot, but there is simply no comparison in regard to operational experience and the ability to engage in knock down drag out political battles against entrenched corruption. Disclaimer.... that doesnt necessarily mean I would vote for one over the other. My statement is just an attempt to better explain the experience differential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 That's fair. And my goal wasn't to knock Rudy either. Just point out that mayor isn't the highest post in the country. Although, with NYC, he probably did have a bunch of foreign exposure, especially on the business side. I think they are both interesting candidates actually. The ones I am currently against are McCain because he sold his soul and Hillary because regardless of whether she would be a good President, I think she would be the wrong President at this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#98QBKiller Posted July 3, 2007 Author Share Posted July 3, 2007 HOW ARE WE GOING TO PAY FOR IT? This country already has 43 trillion in obligations over the next 30 years, more money then is in existence. And we are going to add another obligation on top of that?Its simple math as to why I oppose any form of nationalizing 1/6 of our economy It's all a product of piss-poor spending decisions on the part of the government and letting private companies get away with the price-gouging of pharmaceuticals. Our government spends more of its citizens tax dollars on health care costs than almost any major industrialized country in the world, yet our government also pays less of its citizens' health care costs than almost any industrialized country on earth. Things obviously aren't working the way they are so no matter where you stand on the political spectrum, it's obviously way past time to do something about this problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen-like Todd Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 That's fair. And my goal wasn't to knock Rudy either. Just point out that mayor isn't the highest post in the country. Although, with NYC, he probably did have a bunch of foreign exposure, especially on the business side. I think they are both interesting candidates actually. The ones I am currently against are McCain because he sold his soul and Hillary because regardless of whether she would be a good President, I think she would be the wrong President at this time. I'm currently against all of them at this point. I know it makes me sound old and codgerish, but I just find the entire field to be terribly disappointing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#98QBKiller Posted July 3, 2007 Author Share Posted July 3, 2007 I don't disagree with outcomes vs expindetures, I got a good look at the healthcare industry while working at a health care consulting firm in 2006. Ok, this is basically what I said, I didn't see your post before my last one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sisko Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 HOW ARE WE GOING TO PAY FOR IT? This country already has 43 trillion in obligations over the next 30 years, more money then is in existence. And we are going to add another obligation on top of that?Its simple math as to why I oppose any form of nationalizing 1/6 of our economy By cutting out the middle man. We pay a LOT of money in overhead to the insurance companies. Oddly enough in terms of overhead expense, Medicare/Medicaid (with overhead of only about 3%) is much less costly than private insurance coverage. The reason is obvious... http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/041007HA.shtmlBut CEO William McGuire, of UnitedHealth Group, a health insurance company, stands alone. His annual salary in 2005 was $124 million, and he has been provided stock options worth more than $1.7 billion, according to Forbes.com. As part of his retirement package, he and his spouse will receive free healthcare for as long as they live, according to AFL-CIO Corpwatch. I'm a big believer that less Govt. is more. However, it's odd that we don't have the same attitude about having say private fire/police departments for example. I think healthcare is a similar type service that shouldn't be subject to the bonuses and golden parachutes of a for-profit industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Well I think the 3 of us can agree that the insurance companies are a big problem, which I don't dispute. This however is for another thread, and I'll have to research Obama's plan more to see how this would cut cost for both consumer, as well as tax payer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboDaMan Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 By cutting out the middle man. We pay a LOT of money in overhead to the insurance companies. Oddly enough in terms of overhead expense, Medicare/Medicaid (with overhead of only about 3%) is much less costly than private insurance coverage. The reason is obvious...I'm a big believer that less Govt. is more. However, it's odd that we don't have the same attitude about having say private fire/police departments for example. I think healthcare is a similar type service that shouldn't be subject to the bonuses and golden parachutes of a for-profit industry. Yeah, the McGuire thing makes me crazy. On top of an incredibly piggish feeding at the trough, the man arranges for himself.....free health care :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thanos Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Free health care is something this country needs to take a serious look at.I was aganist it at first,but the time to reconsider is approaching, with aging boomers and tens of millions without health insurance falling thru the cracks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sisko Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Well I think the 3 of us can agree that the insurance companies are a big problem, which I don't dispute.This however is for another thread, and I'll have to research Obama's plan more to see how this would cut cost for both consumer, as well as tax payer Heh, heh heh. I guess we did get a bit off topic there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 I wouldnt vote for a jeb I wouldnt vote for a hillary ANY NAME is better than Bush, Clinton, Gore, Cheney, Kennedy, McCain, Kerry. Anything new.. for God sake people.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 The Clinton campaign will take the gloves off when they get really worried.RCP Average Clinton 37.3% Obama 23.0% Edwards 12.0% Gore 15.0% Clinton +14.3% :yawnee: National polls of primary candidates will be relevant if we ever have a national primary. Until then, they are useless. Despite more frontloading from more states recently, momentum and state by state campaigning will still be essential factors in deciding viability of a candidate and the eventual nominee. That said even the state by state polls at this point are subject to massive change by the time the election rolls around as most voters really aren't even paying attention at this point. On another note .. Obama's fundraising will help him although cash raised during the money primary in recent history has been drastically less indicative of electoral success in Democratic primaries than in the GOP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.