The Candidate We Still Don’t Know
So why isn’t Obama romping? The obvious answer — and both the excessively genteel Obama campaign and a too-compliant press bear responsibility for it — is that the public doesn’t know who on earth John McCain is. The most revealing poll this month by far is the Pew Research Center survey finding that 48 percent of Americans feel they’re “hearing too much” about Obama. Pew found that only 26 percent feel that way about McCain, and that nearly 4 in 10 Americans feel they hear too little about him. It’s past time for that pressing educational need to be met.
What is widely known is the skin-deep, out-of-date McCain image. As this fairy tale has it, the hero who survived the Hanoi Hilton has stood up as rebelliously in Washington as he did to his Vietnamese captors. He strenuously opposed the execution of the Iraq war; he slammed the president’s response to Katrina; he fought the “agents of intolerance” of the religious right; he crusaded against the G.O.P. House leader Tom DeLay, the criminal lobbyist Jack Abramoff and their coterie of influence-peddlers.
With the exception of McCain’s imprisonment in Vietnam, every aspect of this profile in courage is inaccurate or defunct.
While we’re at it, what did all of you think of that odd Q & A with McCain and Obama at Rick Warren’s Faith Forum? Odd because who is Warren that he gets this kind of power on national TV to make or break the candidates with a particular group of voters? And should religion play that big a role in a Presidential election?
#132, Agreed.
http://tinyurl.com/6rhlfw
Granted, these companies are paid out of local funds but they are not employed by the city and are not considered gov employees. They have to compete to keep the contracts.
http://www.reason.org/ps267.html
#134 “Paddy==I’m only aware of water being privatized in South America (forget the country)
What examples are you thinking of?”
Too many to list in an entry.
http://www.nawc.org/about/about-b.html
TomB, you may not like the Canadian health care system, which is fine. It’s not “socialized” like the VA, for example.
My daughter worked this summer at a local hospital (Calgary) owned by a group of doctors who bill the provincial health care system, private insurers, and directly to patients.
BTW, no is arguing that American doctors make more money than anyone other physicians in the world. It will be interesting to see how you compete with lower priced competition from places like India.
#137–Paddy–thanks. Water provided by a private company UNDER THE CONTROL of a PUC is not the Freedom geof is advocating.
Geof–Fed Ex is a daily mail service==its just that even private businesses can’t afford it to such a degree so they use USPO for most services and go Fed Ex when desired. Same way healthcare should be.
So==why not design socialized medicine system that might work as in the Fed Ex example above and not constantly pollute the discussion by limiting your contribution to examples of socialized medicine that don’t work?
How do you define health care? The needs of the masses, or the opportunity for some to make money?
#125, geof,
The difference is that the government uses its inherent force to take the citizen’s fruit of their labor for the coverage that the Mandarins determine is best.
So what is your point? WE THE PEOPLE elected those “mandarins”.
Depriving people of freedom in the attempt, no matter how well intentioned, always leads down the road of tyranny.
Is that so? So if the local town council wants to rebuild a road in another part of town, why should I pay for it? The road in front of my house is fine. By your definition, if the government does something to better the lives of its citizens, then it becomes tyranny?
Let people be free to allocate their resources as they see fit.
That doesn’t work. As Bobbo has pointed out several times, we live in a society. That means we all must contribute something to that society for the good of the society in order for it to work. You can’t just take and be done with it. That breaks down the social compact resulting in disparities and anarchy.
That is what freedom is all about. If you don’t like it, go move to a society which is less free, but please, stop trying to make this country more dependent upon government and bureaucrats.
This is where you continue to err. Instead of being dependent upon the government, we become dependent upon individuals that answer not only not to us, but are determined to take advantage of us. That only enslaves us to those with the money. That is not freedom.
You don’t like the bureaucrats involved? Fine. What the hell do you think all those little petty people denying coverage in all those private insurance companies are doing? They are just bureaucrats that don’t answer to anyone.
Ah yes, the old “love it or leave it” argument. Phuk you asswipe. This is MY country and I want to make it a better country for its citizens. If you are unhappy, just remember, no one is keeping you here. There may not be too many fascist dictatorships still around, but maybe you’ll find one to your liking.
#138,
BTW, no is arguing that American doctors make more money than anyone other physicians in the world.
Actually, someone did mention something about gov doctors being paid an average wage. I just thought I would show just how much they make. All other jobs being equal across borders, I found it interesting how little they actually made by comparison. I would be interested to see _why_ these doctors in other countries make less money (facts, that is, not rhetoric).
So I looked:
http://tinyurl.com/69ts68
Interesting read.
It will be interesting to see how you compete with lower priced competition from places like India.
I had one customer try to use Indian labor. Once. They were back in my lobby within six months. You get what you pay for.
Back in #128 I made a joke about 50 million Americans “choosing” not to have health care coverage. I’m interested in TomB and geof talking about a solution for patients in this category.
What troubles me about the US system are a couple of things.
1. The US is increasingly unable to pay for programs like Medicare and it is unlikely that private insurers would take on the majority of those covered.
2. Private companies in the US are increasingly under the burden of covering health care costs for their employees. I think this is significantly hurting American competitiveness – the big auto makers being the worst example.
BTW, India was just one example. A neighbor went for knee surgery in Hong Kong. The orthopedic surgeon was London board certified, the facility was excellent, and it was 1/5th the cost of any US facility including travel and hotels.
#140 – How do I define healthcare? It is what you do to take care of yourself. Freedom means you have the right to spend your money on witch doctors, any insurance that suits your needs, or the Mayo Clinic. Tyranny means the government takes your wealth by force and gives you no choice.
The Social Contract is fine, but that means you must still have choice. Government monopoly is tyranny, plain and simple. #141 wants to change the country and take more freedom away. I want to go back to the principles upon which this country is founded. What do we get from the Left? “Phuk you asswipe.” So what else is new? They haven’t changed since time immemorial.
#118
Force against Iraq was “legitimized” by Congress via an AUMF and by the UN. What you are really asking is where does an AUMF equate to a declaration of war and for that you can look to Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.
#140
In fact, you bring up a key point missed by most people. “Universal health care” refers to two very different concepts. The first is health care coverage or more simply who will pay for services rendered? The second refers to the health care infrastructure itself (hospitals, ambulances etc).
In many communities, much of the infrastructure is outsourced to corporations because they can run it cheaper than the government can.
#141,
So what is your point? WE THE PEOPLE elected those “mandarins”.
That is a common misconception. This year has seen a number of problems with the state and local conventions.
And you, if I’m not mistaken, have stated that W “stole” the election. Twice.
Depriving people of freedom in the attempt, no matter how well intentioned, always leads down the road of tyranny.
Is that so? So if the local town council wants to rebuild a road in another part of town, why should I pay for it? The road in front of my house is fine. By your definition, if the government does something to better the lives of its citizens, then it becomes tyranny?
There goes the “road” argument again. Roads aren’t built by the government. They are built by private contractors. The lowest bidder, usually. You really want the lowest bidding doctor to operate on you?
That means we all must contribute something to that society for the good of the society in order for it to work.
Where is that written? Who said that?
I would like to see that stated as fact and not opinion.
You can’t just take and be done with it. That breaks down the social compact resulting in disparities and anarchy.
So because YOU feel I’m not helping out some poor guy, I’m not giving enough to society? What a crock of BS. What about my employees and their families? What about the road I built? Should I have gotten paid to build that road so I could pay for the guys who were working the shovels?
This is where you continue to err. Instead of being dependent upon the government, we become dependent upon individuals that answer not only not to us, but are determined to take advantage of us. That only enslaves us to those with the money. That is not freedom.
The society should make a decision to stop buying their products. If they feel so strongly that these companies are beating them down, then stop using their products. It’s really simple. Both of my parents got screwed by GM. I make it a point to check if anything I purchase is made by GM, or any of their holdings, and if it is, I don’t buy it.
If people weren’t so fracking lazy, this would actually have an impact. Instead, they whine to the government and people like you feel you should take them under your wing. Crazy.
You don’t like the bureaucrats involved? Fine. What the hell do you think all those little petty people denying coverage in all those private insurance companies are doing? They are just bureaucrats that don’t answer to anyone.
What do you think would happen if every businessman who contributed to the economy decided, for one year, to stop doing it? Society would grind to a halt. You think that businesses are bad, but without them, and the people who run them, the country would fall over dead. You want to keep taking from people because you think it’s right? Keep doing it. Eventually, there won’t be anybody to take it from.
#143, My take is the same as Geof’s. Kill the HMO acts and keep the government’s nose out of it completely. Prices will drop (or at least stay with the dollar inflation). Things only started to get bad for HC once the government got involved.
And THAT is a fact. Every trend I have ever seen shows a sharp rise in HC costs about the same time the government passed some “think of the children” act.
“You want to keep taking from people because you think it’s right? Keep doing it. Eventually, there won’t be anybody to take it from.”
Exactly. These people don’t get what limited government means and why the founders laid their lives on the line for it.
We’ve become a country so prosperous, our comfortable elites actually think that the government creates out of whole cloth. They’ve been so pampered in their youth that they clamor for the nanny state to take care of them from cradle to grave.
von Hayek had it right, it is the road to serfdom.
And then they get petulant and start calling people Nazis.
#135, geoofy,
I, however, should have the freedom to spend my money in the way in which I see fit and not be forced (the key issue here) into the government system.
In other words you only want the things YOU agree with to be funded with tax money. Which I assume would include the police to regularly patrol your neighborhood, the road in front of your house, and the military.
Ain’t gunna happen.
This isn’t a buffet where you pick and pay for only the services you want. Society as a whole has decided what we want. If you don’t like it then no one is force you and your little fascist buddies from playing the game. You can still find some little island and start your own country.
#149 Say the government was completely out of HC. Let’s say I’m 70 and a high risk because I had cancer in my 50’s.
I’ll be denied insurance and can’t afford major medical treatment (e.g. >$200,000), so what will be my options?
I’m bringing this up because I know two American couples who live here in Canada and their parents had to become their dependents and move here for just those types of reasons. I’m not saying you’re wrong or right, I just don’t see from a practical point of view how it’s going to work.
I work in the tech industry. Based on my experience I wonder if I would outsource health care treatment to lower cost providers where wages are cheaper and medical practitioner insurance is not needed.
#142, Tom,
Your link is pure bullshit by a biased right wing nut job outfit. IT IS OPINION NOT FACT. They took a factual survey and tried to change it to suit their purposes. They quote numbers that don’t have the same relationship.
Second the salaries paid other people is not an indication of their worth. If a CEO receives a huge, multi million dollar retirement package as a bonus does not mean that person is actually worth more than the other CEO who didn’t get a huge bonus.
So many times I have heard that unions only drive up their pay at the expense of others. The same with physicians. Only physicians have a monopoly on health care.
#147, Thomas,
Force against Iraq was “legitimized” by Congress via an AUMF and by the UN. What you are really asking is where does an AUMF equate to a declaration of war and for that you can look to Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.
Force against Iraq was to be taken AFTER diplomatic efforts to remove all WMDs from Iraq. UN Inspectors were told by Bush to leave Iraq so he could bomb it. The information supplied to Congress was false and Bush knew it.
The UN did not “legitimize” action in Iraq. Because several countries refused Bush’s efforts to use the UN, Bush took the action upon himself.
Hamdi dealt with Afghanistan. Afghanistan was a legitimate military operation. The US Supreme Court has not ruled that the war in Iraq is legal. The First Circuit ruled that this was a question for the Congress and the President, not the courts.
I have to say once again, you wing nuts have got to stop listening to Limbaugh. That has to be where you get all those stupid ideas from.
#156
You are attempting to revise history. While it was true that the AUMF for Iraq stated that the President should work to exhaust diplomatic channels, it was up to the President’s discretion to determine when that point had been hit.
When UN inspectors were told to leave, it was a clear signal to Hussein that he better tell his people to be forthright with inspectors about WMD programs which even the inspectors admitted that the Iraqis had not been.
Yes, Hamdi dealt with Afghanistan but it also concluded that AUMFs like those used for Afghanistan and Iraq are the equivalent of a declaration of war. The Supreme Court has also not ruled that the war in Afghanistan was legal because there is no grounds on which to make that claim. Because Congress authorized the use of force, Congress has made the war legal with respect to US law.
“The US Supreme Court has not ruled that the war in Iraq is legal.”
The Supreme Court is irrelevant to this issue. Article 2, Section 2 makes the President Commander in Chief. Not Commander in Chief after the Supreme Court says it’s OK.
# 154, Your link is pure bullshit by a biased right wing nut job outfit. IT IS OPINION NOT FACT.
That’s usually the response when presented with FACTS — call them opinions. If it doesn’t fit your world view, it is obviously a “right wing nut job outfit.” Thanks for not disappointing!
#155, Something for everyone to think about: Do you consider the US the most prosperous country in the world?
I do. And it didn’t get that way through social programs. It got there through train barons and cattle barons and oil barons. Through people who worked hard for their pay, through people who developed ideas and sold them to the highest bidder, through people who stood up for themselves and said, “I don’t need someone to take care of me. I can do it myself.”
You are wanting to tear down the very fabric on which this country became prosperous. You call yourselves Americans but I have to wonder exactly what your definition of that is.
“#155, Something for everyone to think about: Do you consider the US the most prosperous country in the world?
I do. And it didn’t get that way through social programs. It got there through train barons and cattle barons and oil barons. Through people who worked hard for their pay, through people who developed ideas and sold them to the highest bidder, through people who stood up for themselves and said, “I don’t need someone to take care of me. I can do it myself.”
You are wanting to tear down the very fabric on which this country became prosperous. You call yourselves Americans but I have to wonder exactly what your definition of that is.”
Amen, brother. That even deserves another Amen!
Mr. Fusion doesn’t seem to get that when society is ordered his way, everybody gets the least common denominator, except the politicians. They always get what they want ’cause they’re the ones allocating the resources. Therefore, less politicians, no government monopolies, and you have the most freedom. Q.E.D.
# 153, #149 Say the government was completely out of HC. Let’s say I’m 70 and a high risk because I had cancer in my 50’s.
I’ll be denied insurance and can’t afford major medical treatment (e.g. >$200,000), so what will be my options?
I’m bringing this up because I know two American couples who live here in Canada and their parents had to become their dependents and move here for just those types of reasons. I’m not saying you’re wrong or right, I just don’t see from a practical point of view how it’s going to work.
Why didn’t Medicare take care of it?
I work in the tech industry. Based on my experience I wonder if I would outsource health care treatment to lower cost providers where wages are cheaper and medical practitioner insurance is not needed.
I know I don’t want the lowest bidder operating on me.
Medicare covers a lot of the basics, the rest is out of pocket.
But you avoided the question. Get rid of Medicare, how would it work?
#162, Ah, that’s what you meant by “out of HC.” I didn’t know what you meant by that.
In that case, I recommend reading “The Revolution: A Manifesto.” It is still on the NYT Best Seller List.
It gives good details on how this would work. However, for a start, you would not be cut off completely. You would be grandfathered. If you truly want to see a solution read the book. If you are just trolling, I recommend you read the book, anyway 🙂
#140 “Water provided by a private company UNDER THE CONTROL of a PUC is not the Freedom geof is advocating.”
Not all are.
Geof==so, I looked at #127 link==a doctor giving his experience wherein he does state statistics but not their source. It was also noted that he got the Canadian court to overturn the law not allowing the purchase of private healthcare. Funny you still say being required to submit to government programs is a failure of socialized medicine. Do you read all your sources so selectively?
BUT I see now where you and TomB are coming from:
#163==and off point reference to go read Ron Paul?===Hah! Thats right. Ron Paul. Swallow the kool-aid and anarchistist Ayn Rand libertarianism will make all things better. Dolts!
This review indicates the book is mostly NOT about a detailed explanation of a healthcare program:
http://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Manifesto-Ron-Paul/dp/0446537519
If you have a better review, you should post it.
“#163==and off point reference to go read Ron Paul?===Hah! Thats right. Ron Paul. Swallow the kool-aid and anarchistist Ayn Rand libertarianism will make all things better. Dolts!”
Get more informed. There is a wide distance from Ron Paul, more or less straight up Libertarian; Ayn Rand, Objectivist individualist, more correctly described as minarchist, minimal/limited government; and anarchist, no government/mob rule.
“Funny you still say being required to submit to government programs is a failure of socialized medicine”
Being forced into government healthcare is still the use of force by government to extract your wealth and eliminate your choice in healthcare.
What I am advocating is eliminating the government monopoly.
“For the third time==why not the USPO for daily use and FedEX for those who want a private room?”
Great! I got no problem with that. I just don’t want the government middleman increasing costs and inserting silly political ideas into the doctor’s decision making process.
I’m sure as in all things, the Golden Rule will apply.
Put to your point, who made the doctors god? I would no more allow doctors to be in charge of health care than I would car mechanics to be in charge of repair services.
#168, Amen.
That’s all we need. A Political Officer “unofficially” running the hospital.