Obama is the presumptive democratic nominee

[hal]

I think there's a misconception that everyone in the US doesn't have access to healthcare... they do. Including people who are not even citizens.

What happens right now is that you can privately fund your healthcare, use employer co-funded healthcare, or (by law) get treated for free in hospital emergency rooms. In addition, there are a number of charities that help people with low/no income to pay medical bills. On top of that, you have medicare/medicaid - something of a social healthcare net.

One of the reasons we have high costs in medicine is litigation. Physicians are forced to pay for ridiculously expensive insurance plans because the courts have been allowing far too many frivolous lawsuits to see the light of day. Also, generally, healthcare plans are tied to employers (since they co-fund) and are not portable from job to job - yet another silly expense.

We have great healthcare providers here in the United States and people come from all over the world to use their services. You can generally pick from providers covered by your insurance and services can be rendered more or less on demand. It's just that we have a lousy Frankenstein-ish mishmash of regulated policies that cause tremendous problems and impose stupid restricitions on the people that use it.

The free market is being stifled by our current system and litigation is out of control. THAT'S what's wrong with what we have here now - anything that's broken about it will NOT be fixed by introducing government control.

 

[Molgan]

What happens right now is that you can privately fund your healthcare, use employer co-funded healthcare, or (by law) get treated for free in hospital emergency rooms. In addition, there are a number of charities that help people with low/no income to pay medical bills. On top of that, you have medicare/medicaid - something of a social healthcare net.

Yes my knowledge about how things work over there isn't too great, and oc each country should pick the health care model they judge as most beneficial. To me this sounds horrible though.

anything that's broken about it will NOT be fixed by introducing government control.

Ah here we see a difference, what you call controlled by the government is what I call controlled by the people. Never thought about it, but deep inside I'm probably a frickin commie. =)

 

[Lizard Of Oz]

... or (by law) get treated for free in hospital emergency rooms...

Emergency care is far more expensive than preventive and supportive care, which we all pay for in the form of increase health care cost across the board.

Example: The cost to support someone with type 2 diabetes would be only $100 or so per month for drugs and maybe $1000 for 4 doctor visits per year. But one emergency room visit and the follow-on hospital stay for someone in the middle of a diabetic crisis cost tens of thousands of dollars per incident.

I know this because I have lived through both situations. I am diabetic, and for years I let it go untreated. Then I had a "diabetic crisis" and had to stay in the hospital for 12 days while my blood-glucose was brought under control. That hospital stay cost my insurance company about $60,000.oo and me another $5000.oo. I'm managing my diabetes now with drugs and quarterly doctor visits that cost about $2500.oo for me and my insurance company per year.

If people with chronic health problems had access to free/low-cost preventive or supportive care, cost across the board would drop.

 

[Armagon917]

Many of you like Obama because he wants to get the US out of Iraq. Thats fine although I think we need to stay there until the country is stable. Nixon said that when he entered office he would implement a "secret plan" to end the war in Vietnam.

I think that Obama won't be able to deliver on his promise to get US troops out of Iraq. Not that he doesn't want to, simply that the results would be a disaster. First the Iraqi government would be executed. The Sunnis would fight the Shiites and the country would fall into civil war. Atrocities would be common place and Iran would certainly take advantage of this and try to invade or setup a puppet government there. These things are likely to happen. At least one of the above mentioned events would happen. Thats why we can't simply pull out of Iraq. Wheather you approve of the war or not these are the the facts of what would happen if there were no US troops there tomorrow.

So is Obama ready to do this? I don't think he is. I think he wants to end our involvement there but he can't because of the effect. If Iran invades then we will likely see a coalition to remove them like we saw in 91 with Hussein and Kuwait. Then what? Also if we pull out and nobody does anything do you think the person who comes to power through a violent transition of genocide is going to be good for the world? Hussein 2.0 which will repeat the cycle full circle. I don't think either McCain or Obama will remove US troops anytime soon when the decision has to be made.

The US's only option is to create a a stable Iraq that will defend itself. Simply leaving will cause serious problems and the United States will find itself back in Iraq quickly. Obama knows all of this but he wants to win the presedency. He can not say certain things on Iraq because his base won't vote for him and then the presidency will be handed to McCain. Leaving and no involvement in Iraq would be handing it over to Iran. The US will not allow that to happen.

This is just my opinion but I really don't believe that Obama will come in and change policy in such a drastic way. This is just my gut feeling. I'm just pointing out there are some serious consquences involved with pulling out of Iraq which I don't think Obama will put into motion.

 

[Armagon917]

I'm being a little facetious... clearly the UN has never charged him with war crimes.

But still.

The man makes me sick.

You don't govern your reason very well. Hoping a president is assasinated. You make me sick. I absolutly hated Clinton as president but wish him the best and was concerned when I hear of his heart problems. Here you are complaining of supposed war crimes and then hoping for an assasination?

If Bush was a war criminal and the evil person you think he is we would've treated Iraq like the Nazis treated Poland. When you have military blending into the general population of Iraq innocent people get caught in the middle.

I guess Roosevelt should've been put up for war crimes as well for implementing carpet bombing which killed far more people then Bush's policies in Iraq. What about targeting civilians with nuclear weapons? Should Truman
have been brought up on war crimes as well? The US has used smart bombs to try and minimize civilian casualties. We have also done everything possible to protect mosques in Iraq which are obviously important to the population and then the US military os shot at from these mosques. This is not the way a war criminal would conduct a war.

I know shady things have happened under Bush's watch. If there were any proof of war crimes then all those who want to impeach Bush would've suceeded long ago. Nixon was removed from office for far less. If there were any evidence of war crimes Bush would be out of office and I would support that. Instead of you hoping for an assasination you should've said a court of law should bring him up on war crimes if that was your point. I would not ave had a problem with that stance but would have explained why IMO he isn't a war criminal. But your comments are completely irresponsible.

 

[Soggy_Popcorn]

I think there's a misconception that everyone in the US doesn't have access to healthcare... they do. Including people who are not even citizens.

What happens right now is that you can privately fund your healthcare, use employer co-funded healthcare, or (by law) get treated for free in hospital emergency rooms. In addition, there are a number of charities that help people with low/no income to pay medical bills. On top of that, you have medicare/medicaid - something of a social healthcare net.

One of the reasons we have high costs in medicine is litigation. Physicians are forced to pay for ridiculously expensive insurance plans because the courts have been allowing far too many frivolous lawsuits to see the light of day. Also, generally, healthcare plans are tied to employers (since they co-fund) and are not portable from job to job - yet another silly expense.

We have great healthcare providers here in the United States and people come from all over the world to use their services. You can generally pick from providers covered by your insurance and services can be rendered more or less on demand. It's just that we have a lousy Frankenstein-ish mishmash of regulated policies that cause tremendous problems and impose stupid restricitions on the people that use it.

The free market is being stifled by our current system and litigation is out of control. THAT'S what's wrong with what we have here now - anything that's broken about it will NOT be fixed by introducing government control.

Thank you!! This tasty bit of intelligence just made my day!! Also, the reason you Swedish/Euro dudes can get universal healthcare is because 1) you have far smaller populations than the U.S. and 2) you often get the majority of your income taxed away. We Americans really don't want (any more) of that.

*edit* Heh heh, I don't know if that tag is sarcasm or what..

*edit 2*

Since they've been in big oils pocket since the beginning... yes, I blame Bush.

The funny thing is, I voted for Bush. Doh!

[edit] TBH, I was a registered Republican. I switched to vote for Obama. Someone for the PEOPLE. The only thing Bush ever did for me was give me a stimulus check so I could buy my HD-TV. [/edit]

Holy ****, this is retarded. Logic please? TEH DEMS ARE IN TEH LAYEWRS POCKET!!!2111!! I win.

*EDIT 3 HOLY CRAP*

.....non-logic......IMO, anyone bringing up religion in this is a churchfag whose words should be treated like those in insane asylums with imaginary friends. The only difference is you all have the same imaginary friends. I guess that somehow makes it acceptable. D:

Wow, you atheists sure are reasonable, tolerant (note the use of p.c. buzzword) people. :|

 

[Festering Anus]

Um. Up here in Canada the health care system is great... and we don't pay that much more tax to get it.

 

[gregori]

You don't govern your reason very well. Hoping a president is assasinated. You make me sick. I absolutly hated Clinton as president but wish him the best and was concerned when I hear of his heart problems. Here you are complaining of supposed war crimes and then hoping for an assasination?

If Bush was a war criminal and the evil person you think he is we would've treated Iraq like the Nazis treated Poland. When you have military blending into the general population of Iraq innocent people get caught in the middle.

I guess Roosevelt should've been put up for war crimes as well for implementing carpet bombing which killed far more people then Bush's policies in Iraq. What about targeting civilians with nuclear weapons? Should Truman
have been brought up on war crimes as well? The US has used smart bombs to try and minimize civilian casualties. We have also done everything possible to protect mosques in Iraq which are obviously important to the population and then the US military os shot at from these mosques. This is not the way a war criminal would conduct a war.

I know shady things have happened under Bush's watch. If there were any proof of war crimes then all those who want to impeach Bush would've suceeded long ago. Nixon was removed from office for far less. If there were any evidence of war crimes Bush would be out of office and I would support that. Instead of you hoping for an assasination you should've said a court of law should bring him up on war crimes if that was your point. I would not ave had a problem with that stance but would have explained why IMO he isn't a war criminal. But your comments are completely irresponsible.

Starting wars and attacking other countries is a war crime!

Also arbittary arrest without trial and detention for years and years, abducting to secret prisons and torture. It all has flavours of fascism.

Ofcourse western nations don't get convicted of supporting terrorists or commiting war crimes because they effectively rule the world.

When Nurembourg trials were being conducted, what was defined as a war crime was picked so that the Allies would be charged with those crimes themselves. For example, the Allies carried out far more Firebombing than the Nazis etc etc etc

 

[Soggy_Popcorn]

Canada....health care....great? You've never heard of Canadians ditching the 1000000 yr. long lines for treatment in America? Err... I'd much rather get my diseases fixed in this century.

To Gregori, you just seem to think that any participants in a war, even if they defended themselves, should be charged with war crimes. Also, detaining without limit is perfectly legal for enemy combatants. Which terrorists are. Enemies......and combatants.....

 

[gregori]

Canada....health care....great? You've never heard of Canadians ditching the 1000000 yr. long lines for treatment in America? Err... I'd much rather get my diseases fixed in this century.

To Gregori, you just seem to think that any participants in a war, even if they defended themselves, should be charged with war crimes. Also, detaining without limit is perfectly legal for enemy combatants. Which terrorists are. Enemies......and combatants.....

thats not what your supreme court said and you know it.

The US wasn't 'defending itself' by attacking Iraq anymore than Germany was defending itself from Poland.

 

[Crotale]

The US did not enter into Iraq to take over the country and its resources. That would be the difference between Ger-Pol and USA-Irq. Also, Poland posed no threat to any of it neighbors; former Iraqi leader So-damned Insane was funneling money for suicide bombers in the region, as well as preventing any medical supplies from reaching his own people. The guy was an ass, defied the rest of the civilized world and the only way to depose him was from the outside. Maybe it wasn't America's greatest moment, but it definitely wasn't its darkest.

Nobody I have seen or heard from ever said the invasion of Iraq was going to be the end-all of all world conflict and strife. It was a necessary action brought on by Hussein's need for the attention and "respect" he wasn't getting from the US because it was involved in Afghanistan. The failure of the US Administration was that they assumed the Iraqi people in general would welcome us with open arms and let us help them rebuild. Well, after you rebuild the same stores and schools several times over a three year period, you kinda get the idea that we aren't welcome by all who inhabit the area. The arsehole rebels and the idiots that cannot or will not get along are the problem, not the US.

If you'd get off your high horse for a minute, you might allow yourself to comprehend truth from fiction.

 

[Armagon917]

The US did not enter into Iraq to take over the country and its resources. That would be the difference between Ger-Pol and USA-Irq. Also, Poland posed no threat to any of it neighbors; former Iraqi leader So-damned Insane was funneling money for suicide bombers in the region, as well as preventing any medical supplies from reaching his own people. The guy was an ass, defied the rest of the civilized world and the only way to depose him was from the outside. Maybe it wasn't America's greatest moment, but it definitely wasn't its darkest.

Nobody I have seen or heard from ever said the invasion of Iraq was going to be the end-all of all world conflict and strife. It was a necessary action brought on by Hussein's need for the attention and "respect" he wasn't getting from the US because it was involved in Afghanistan. The failure of the US Administration was that they assumed the Iraqi people in general would welcome us with open arms and let us help them rebuild. Well, after you rebuild the same stores and schools several times over a three year period, you kinda get the idea that we aren't welcome by all who inhabit the area. The arsehole rebels and the idiots that cannot or will not get along are the problem, not the US.

If you'd get off your high horse for a minute, you might allow yourself to comprehend truth from fiction.

Thankyou. Well said. We screwed up by assuming we were going to be viewed as liberators. Its very unfortunate that many Iraqis don't see or don't want a representative government. But the US has always been a positive force in the world.

 

[Iron Archer]

The Iraqi regime should have been taken out in 91 after the first Gulf War for what it tried to do to Kuwait. The only reason Saddam's ass was saved was because of the favorable deals he was able to get through the UN with the oil for food program. Sure, Saddam had to kind of be the U.N.s bitch on the backside, but he never really had to answer for anything else, as he was still involved in supporting terrorism and kept taking potshots at aircraft. Some U.N. nations were even kind enough to stall the whole process leading up to 2003 so Saddam could prepare to get his ass kicked by the US, potentially hiding anything he might have had--maybe not nukes, but certainly other types of weapons not appropriate for defense purposes.


Socialized medicine will not work here in the U.S.. I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing in some governments, but the U.S. government is usually best suited leaving us citizens alone and staying out of our lives as much as possible. Whenever the government gets involved in a part of your life, not only do they control it, 9 times out 10 they botch it up good. I'm not sure why anyone would want the U.S. government to have sway over your health and wellness.

 

[N1ghtmare]

But of course you trusted them in going to war...

 

[Crotale]

Oh, the f*cking irony.

 

[Iron Archer]

But of course you trusted them in going to war...

That's your argument not mine. I trust in our military strength and in the skill of our soldiers. As far as you're concerned any war that is ran by someone you don't like is unjust. Besides, the military is not the same as a social program. Social programs are just stopgap measures used to gain votes and to keep people happy with false promises, basically enslaving financial and ethnic minorities and ensuring future generations of idiot voters who are financially and educationally disadvantaged.

If you can't discern the military from stupid social programs concocted by crooked politicians, then you're a moron.

 

[GG-Xtreme]

http://www.hamsterforpresident.com/

 

[T2A`]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlX9l1g1ZE0

 

[Soggy_Popcorn]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlX9l1g1ZE0

Complete, out-of-context bull****. McCain was referring to the presence of peacetime troops, ala Germany, South Korea, etc. What was your point again?

Also, to Gregori, I don't understand your reference to our Supreme Court; you know the executive branch and legislative branches decide to go to war, right? And they both did. Expound please. As far as "defending ourselves" goes, we weren't defending ourselves from Iraq, per se, but demonstrating out complete destructive power against Al Qaeda and its allies. And don't even try that "there's no Al Qaeda in Iraq" BS. Because we found plenty of them.

 

[T2A`]

So you pick one thing out of the many in that video to defend? Convenient.

My point is he's untrustworthy and will send us to war with Iran immediately.