A Serious Question to McCain Supporters - Page 2

If the arguments that McCain and Co have been using all year are any proof, that is it.

Anyone stating that the current US Health Plan is working, and that things will be shittier if you guys get Universal health care is ignorant, even if he works in the said business. Sure, our healthcare ain't perfect, but it's mainly a result of poor administration, and I will get treated, no matter what.

Not to mention that most of the "universal" health care plans mentioned nowadays don't seem to be, in any way, mandatory. If you're afraid the service is going to be shoddy, you have the option of sticking with your employer's plan. But with it in place, you'd be covered if you lost your job and became deathly ill.

This makes sense to me on the basis that we're an industrialized nation with access to some of the top medical care in the world. By virtue of your citizenship (and subsequent taxpaying, voting, etc.), there's a tacit social contract with the government, and there are certain benefits that should be offered. One of the most basic things we should require in such a system (along with existing benefits like national defense, a legal system that protects us against violence and theft, education, etc.), is a shot at health.

Disagree with other aspects of socialism all you want, but it seems to me that health should not be doled out strictly on the basis of wealth. I don't foresee an America where wealth will never have some bearing on medical care, but the least we can do is attempt to even things out a bit.

It's like you either believe that medical care is like the fire dept or the police (a vital public service that is a basic responsibility of govt,) or you don't.

Exactly.

It makes sense to me from a consistency standpoint. If you believe that the government should maintain a fire department and police department, you're already agreeing with the basic notion that one of the benefits of our social contract is safety. Health care is about safety on the most basic level. If you're uninsured and dying of cancer, the government has failed to provide you with a safety far more critical than stopping someone from, say, stealing your TV or putting out a grease fire in your kitchen.

If you've got problems with Obama, please bear in mind that every vote not for him is, essentially, a vote for McCain. We have a four-party system up here, and I remember when I was five years old and my parents came home from voting.
"Who did you vote for?"
"Ohh, it's a secret!"
"You hope they win?"
"Well... we didn't vote for the people we really wanted to win."
"Whaaaat! Why not?"
"Because there's this other group of people that's probably going to win, and we really don't want them. So we voted for the people... that would beat them the easiest."
"Oh. Strategy!"

So everyone who says they'll be voting for Bob Barr: I feel where you're coming from, but last I heard McCain is slightly ahead in the polls. Don't fuck this up for yourselves.

Countless court cases have shown that police have no responsibility to protect you. They only have the responsibility to investigate crimes after they happen.

Okay, then national healthcare would have the repsonsibility to cure me after I get sick.

For reference, the Washington Post put together this helpful chart:

Thanks for the chart, that's helpful.

Is there a chart like this to compare Obama and McCain spending proposals?

hahaha, above 2.87 million... those people still aren't rich!

I love that people that don't qualify as "rich" are getting a tax cut greater than my wife and my combined income. Ugh.

Outrageous. I was planning on voting for Obama, but I can't stomach the thought of those who only make a mere $603,402 a year being penalized so.

HaHAH A first glance at that chart would make you say OMG! Obama is going to raise my taxes! Look at that BAR CHART!

Oh And McCain and the Congress will most certainly raise taxes too..once the campaign is over and (if) McCain is in.

And the Democrats say they're the party that cares about our minorities? For shame. Who's looking out for that 0.1%? NOT OBAMA.

But he didn't propose any solutions in that instance. His "Malaise" speech destroyed his presidency more than the Iranian Hostage situation.

Carter had a golden opportunity to at least start the US towards an energy independent future...and he choose to boost the textile industry instead!

FYI Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan both spoke of the need for the US to get off oil dependence, in 1974 and 1980 respectively.

EDITED TO ADD: Telling people to wear more clothes seems pretty simplistic to me

Denmark isn't THAT cold. But it IS only about 10 feet above sea level, which raises a whole different host of issues.....

By the time the Boomers kick the bucket it will be too late. The only hope is that the Boomers pull their heads out of their asses, go "Hey, we can't saddle our grandkids with this debt!" and vote it out themselves.

Well, given the tremendous success that the gov't has had with its social welfare programs, that would be a great loss.

It would be a bumpy transition, and there's no reason to think it would be as streamlined at the user end as our system is, at least not at first. American paperwork is a wonder to behold.

But that wasn't his whole energy plan. I mean, do you really think he submitted 'Wear sweaters' to Congress?

Obama is telling people to get their tires properly inflated to get better mileage, and to me that is similar - the idea is to take steps in our own lives, not through government mandates, to solve the crisis, or at least help. But of course the GOP is jumping on that as a joke. To me this is THE problem with America, and one that all the 'I LOVE PURSONAL REPOSNIBILITY' types have in spades: they want someone else to do the work to solve the problem. They don't want to sacrifice or pitch in or do without, they want a magic bullet.

This is why America is doomed.

Just curious Devin but what sacrifices are you willing to make?

I don't mean that to offend or anything but I'm always interested in hearing when people speak about these things (and I agree with you a bit on this) what they're willing to do.

I guess so, but it's better than dying without medical care I guess. The political forum, buttfucking Stephen Harper aside, makes me proud of my country.

Anything but giving up $300 glasses, apparently.

Carter was the first president to take global warming seriously. He didn't hide behind Oil company sponsered "science" reports like Republicans Reagan, Bush I and Bush II. It is a shame that he asked the American people to sacrifice at the height of the ME decade.

I don't drive. I take public transportation everywhere in a city not known for their public transportation. Frankly, I'm already a thousand steps ahead of most of you.

I don't know how you can agree with me 'a bit' on this. It's obviously true.

By the way, nice that no pro-McCain people post after the handy dandy chart went up.

Oh he (Carter)instituted some tax cuts for R&D into Solar, and put up Solar panels on the White House (whcih Reagan had removed)...but he had a chance to create an Apollo Program for alternative energy.

It seems every election cycle we get at least one clip from the Repubs jeering at one isolated comment from the Democratic candidate along these lines. Earlier this year Obama was zinged for his comment about Argula being expensive in resteraunts so farmers should start growing it more...and Al Gore had almost the same comment thrown back at him.

I don't dispute the need for Americans' to be more self reliant and excercise restaint. I do think that Obama would be well advised to just say that and not offer examples that play into the hands of the McCangels.

And those "Pursenal responsibility" types you decry? Most of the time (in my experience) those folk are umpteenth generation Americans; 1-3rd generation Americans are quite self-reliant.

OMG I just heard on NPR that I'm considered part of the "Hip Hop Voter" generation. Great Googly Moogly!

I still can't fathom that a country that thinks of itself as the foremost country in the world, still doesn't provide free health insurance for ALL its citizens. I really couldn't imagine living in a place where I would have to be afraid of big bills when getting sick.

How can anyone NOT want that? You say you are afraid that the government can't administrate it, so you actually think they'll run out of medicine or something? Please explain your fears since it's something that me and everybody I know shake our heads at whenever we hear people speak against free medicine.

Not being able to administrate does not mean running out of supplies. It's a question of whether a bureaucracy can appropriately handle a functioning system to cover hundreds of millions of people, and without diminishing quality.

See: American Education system.
See: American Dept. of Energy
See: American Social Security
See: American Medicare

EDIT: I'm sure this one would be different though.

Shocked you didn't mention your stance on procreation. Not having kids is arguably the best thing anyone can do to "HELP TEH WORLD."

Go on a state-by-state basis and it won't have to cover hundreds of millions of people. Still too many? Break the more populous states into smaller districts for the sake of health care administration.

Bureaucracy and paperwork are reduced when every hospital and every doctor's office uses the same billing procedure for each patient, and that's where a good chunk of the US's high health care costs lie. Do you not get this? And why would whom hospitals bill and how affect quality of care anyway?

McCain's running mate...

What the hell?

Sorry to hear about your bad news.

My mother, who I mentioned above as leaning toward McCain, decided after the selection of Palin that she has to vote for Obama.

But why not try? Your system can't possibly get any worse and free health care works wonders in most of the worlds more advanced societies. It's not like private hospitals and free public health insurance can't co-exist with each other.

In my country it works like this:
Anyone who gets a serious or critical illness get free treatment fast. Anyone who gets an illness that is not critical might have to wait up to 6 months for treatment (such as a hip surgery etc.). It is only in some medical areas there are waiting lists. However, any medicine you need in the mean time is naturally free, like just about all medicine is)

Now if you have the money and don't want to wait 6 months for hip surgery, you can always pay your way out at a private hospital.

We had this whole discussion 40 years ago and in my eyes it just seems so primitive to not have a free health care system. Once you've lived a place that had one you would never live without it.

Which is really funny because, due to laws like the Military Commissions Act and the new FISA "compromise," you can now be spirited away for the rest of your natural life on the say so of one man, without any judicial review, and these same morons can listen into any of your conversations without obtaining a warrant. Oh, and you can also be tortured too.

But I guess you get to keep your guns and your overpriced health-insurance. That is a fair trade.

Not to overstep here but the FISA compromise involves the reintroduction of the FISA court which means that you can not be spirited away at the say so of one man and that there is judicial review. It means the exact opposite of what you just said.

The controversy over the compromise from the left's perspective was the immunity for telecommunications companies that broke the law at the government's behest while circumventing the FISA court.

Holy hell, good news and all, but I hope people's votes don't come down to this.

I'm talking about the authority granted to the President by the Military Commissions Act of 2006, where if the executive decides you are a person of interest you can be detained for however long as they see fit. You can challenge your detention (as they cannot do this to Americans without violating the Constitution like Cheney violates his wife), but here's the kicker on that, sunshine: you can only use the evidence the government gives you. So if you cannot produce any evidence that you're an American -- because it hasn't been furnished to you -- then it's over. You're cooked.

St. McCain (by the way, did you know he was a POW??), voted for this odious piece of trash, and although the recent Broumide (sp) decision this year negated certain sections, it's still disturbing. First, McCain thought this was a fine power to grant the executive, and second, we were one swing vote on the SCOTUS away from having this power enshrined for the foreseeable future. That's reason enough to vote against McCain -- if he's President, what kind of justices do you think he'll appoint?

As far as the FISA compromise bill goes, that piece of trash is nearly as bad. First, it eviscerates any real oversight from the FISC court, and second, as you mentioned, there is telecom immunity. Because of that, we will probably never get a full review of these new surveillance powers the President decided the Executive branch possesses, since without the power to compel the telecoms to produce evidence, the potential plaintiffs will not have standing to sue and without that, the courts are effectively closed to them.

Any other questions?

"It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance -- making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law," Barack Obama

Again, in all of the trashing BO took for his change of stance on FISA, it was not because of a dilution in its power, it was because that already broke that law would not be prosecuted.

Here's the whole point of my post: the people on the right who scream about intrusive government action into their health care generally have no problem with anointing the President with King-like powers. Give the President the power to lock someone away for life with no oversight, these freedom lovers don't care. Pass a five day waiting period to purchase a handgun -- watch the fuck out.

My biggest question about universal health care in America has always been about the quality. You'd be dealing with an extraordinary amount of patients compared to the numbers of doctors. We're talking about 305 million people here. That's the populations of Germany, England, France and Japan combined.

there will be waiting lists, no doubt. But at least everyone will get their treatment, for free. And if you have the money, go ahead and spend them on a private hospital.

I really don't get why nobody seems to understand that there can be both. I've made the point to the same people over and over again, yet every time this comes up they think universal healthcare means outlawing private care.

Everyone get treatment here anyways. people just hope that the quality of said treatment will go up. It will not go up though. It is against the law for a hospital to turn anyone ways. Also there are many programs already in place to help the poor.

Are you kidding? I have lived in your country and I sure didn't get my medicine for free. Also are cat scans, x-rays, etc. free and readily available? If your illness requires long stretches of daily medicine intake, will you get it for free if you don't have health insurance?