Because I said so

I've spent a lot of time thinking about what it means when America totally rejects my guy. I was an LP libertarian for a long time, and I had to finally accept, "you know what, America just isn't digging the whole hard-corps libertarian thing."

When the truly progressive candidate loses for the third time in a row, how are you going to interpret it?

Gore would have been a progressive choice. Kerry would have been a better safer choice to Dubya. Obama will be a progressive choice and IF he loses I guess we will see continued headlines from our European counterparts that read

"How can so many Americans be so STUPID!"

Jazzy,

I think it was Rick Davis who said (and I'm paraphrasing) that "this election isn't about issues but personalities."

I hope he's wrong.

In 2000, some pollsters said Americans liked the Motherfucker from Midland because they wanted to "have a beer with him."

I can only speak for myself but I want a president who is smarter than me, more informed and capable of multitasking.

I look at the Old Coot and McCandy and I see a pair of craven idiots, corrupt to the core. I look at Barack Obama and I see a genuinely decent man, a smart man and patriot. I don't see "a Black man," I see a leader -- my leader and someone I can take pride in.

If the Old Coot and McCandy manage to defeat Obama, I think we will enter a new dark ages that will make the Bush/Cheney era look like the golden years by comparison.

So, you look at McCain and Palin, and you see "craven idiots, corrupt to the core."

You look at Biden (30+ year Washington insider) and Obama (new leader of the same of Chicago Machine) and the corruption never comes up? No "genuinely decent man" gets along in the Chicago machine. At best he just refuses to confront it.

You should go get your corruptometer calibrated.

Well I was a bit bothered by what I actually heard on the news this morning. The answers to the questions on healthcare. Correct me if I'm wrong but It seems like McCain is saying that the economy will change and allow a greater budget for affordable healthcare and Obama is saying that it should be mandatory.

Okay I personally don't agree with either. It's like care insurance yes I probably need it and should want it but it's mandatory at my expense.

I believe that McCain is an idiot for saying that the economy will take care of it and Obama.. ummm... I don't need anymore mandatory expenses like taxes, car insurance, and FCC charges. Can they answer this question again?

I have strong faith in Obama as a candidate, but I have a fear that his color will keep the mainstream for voting, if people are willing to accept Sarah Palin as an appropriate replacement for Hillary Clinton, I worry for this country.

In terms of healthcare, as a person who has been in the insurance business since graduating college, I will say with certainty I welcome mandatory healthcare, it is time these companies re-evaluate their methods. Paying for healthcare for years and years and to still have to pay the majority of your expenses, or a big chunk that the average person can't afford to pay, and then ends up and debt behind, we need something more than what we have now. If England and other European countries can provide reliable and sometimes world renowned healthcare for every citizen in their country, why can't we?

If England and other European countries can provide reliable and sometimes world renowned healthcare for every citizen in their country, why can't we?

Uhhh... because they can't.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/whistleblower-surgeon-breaks-cover-over-nhs-beds-crisis-459454.html

Healthcare here is expensive, but everyone can get serious care when they need it. We don't turn people away from the emergency room, and we don't make them wait three weeks to get the surgery they need now.

Poor people have health insurance in America. It's called Medicaid. The solution to getting the people who fall above Medicaid but below "affordable" into a system, and punishing everyone who already has coverage by giving them an NHS style system is not the solution.

(And even people who don't have private insurance or Medicaid still get the surgery they need when they need it. It may put them in serious financial straits, but that is better than suffering for weeks and being crippled permanently.)

Big problems don't have simple answers like, "let the government pay for it."

“Healthcare here is expensive, but everyone can get serious care when they need it. We don't turn people away from the emergency room, and we don't make them wait three weeks to get the surgery they need now.”

Phelps, the above statement is exactly what has landed so many hospitals in debt and forced them to close. Emergency rooms should not be used as primary preventative maintenance or for non emergent care. This is how people with no insurance or the underinsured use emergency rooms. This causes hospitals to divert patients and/or the long wait times that are accompanied with emergency room visits. This is not adequate health care and actually does a disservice to the patients.

“Healthcare here is expensive, but everyone can get serious care when they need it. We don't turn people away from the emergency room, and we don't make them wait three weeks to get the surgery they need now.”


This is categorically not true. My very boss was placed on day surgery to have her gall bladder removed and for months her surgery kept being pushed back until her gall bladder finally ruptured and she spent weeks recovering. These are the type of stories that are common all across America.

“It may put them in serious financial straits, but that is better than suffering for weeks and being crippled permanently.”

Yeah they will have their health for a little while then deteriorate because now they are in massive debt and are forced to choose between food and medicine.

And if you are so against socialized healthcare then you should be against these forms of insurance because, they are the governments experiment with socialization of healthcare.

And if you are so against socialized healthcare then you should be against these forms of insurance because, they are the governments experiment with socialization of healthcare.

I'm not happy with them. I would prefer to end the War on (some) Drugs and let people self medicate (both with marijuana as a chronic pain treatment and with real medicines that are controlled by the medical cartel right now) and to let more nurse practitioners do business. (And the reality is that people self-medicate already, they just do it with aspirin, alcohol and nicotine.)

A lot of people end up in the emergency room because they need antibiotics or a prescription filled. If they didn't have to go say "mother may I?" to a doctor to get these, a lot of that burden would be relieved. Ditto getting sprains x-rayed and minor cuts sewn up or sutured. We send a lot of people to doctors when any army Medic could handle the job just as well.

No system is going to be perfect. I think that our current system is demonstrably better than the systems being proposed. Americans hold many unique qualities, but none of them are going to make socialized medicine work.

Just to make it clear, the purpose of those policies that I lined out are to make it so that everyday care is affordable to pay out of pocket. That would let people buy insurance for catastrophic things (like car crashes or life-threatening illnesses) which would be much cheaper. Right now, it is like trying to figure out how much homeowner's insurance would be if you had to hire a structural engineer every time you wanted to change a lightbulb.