Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin

[modest]

Here is the sad truth. I have actually started telling people that a vote for Obama was a good thing. We were already scheduled to go bankrupt before Stall-bama. Once he gets into office and starts spending up a storm we will just go bankrupt sooner... Then we can finally get rid of the socialism and get back to sound financial policy.

 

Funny, this is exactly what Newt Gingrich said when Clinton handed down his budget. :)

 

We all know how that turned out. Oh, wait. Judging by your next quote, you don't know how that turned out.

 

Rather than sock a surplus away for emergencies or pay down our liabilities, our politicians always want to pander to voters and either give it back (the right choice unless you owe 10 trillion dollars) or find some new way to spend the money that will buy votes for you (pork/social programs, the epitome of irresponsible financial policy). Neither dominant party would do the responsible thing given the chance. Republicans would push for tax breaks rather than pay down our liabilities, Democrats would try to spend it like a five year old who just got a dollar.

 

I think there was a dominant party that did the right thing and took a surplus when economic times where of plenty. They did it with an economic plan that Gingrich said would bankrupt the country... much like you're predicting now.

 

Everyone on this forum needs to see I.O.U.S.A. It is a documentary about the financial crisis we are facing that politicians don't care about/ignore in order to keep buying votes, and the general public is ignorant of or tries to ignore. We are facing a financial meltdown people. We already owe $10 trillion dollars, and that is just the government. Do you realize how much money that is?

 

Yes, Nitack, we all understand the problem. But, do you understand the choice needed to fix it? Take a look at your suggestion:

 

Rather than sock a surplus away for emergencies or pay down our liabilities, our politicians always want to pander to voters and either give it back (the right choice unless you owe 10 trillion dollars)

 

You do know that 8 years ago we had a candidate who offered to do this exact thing... yes? A "Surplus Reserve Fund" :shrug: And now you claim neither party has the sense to do this :hihi: Amazing.

 

You're clearly throwing around blame every which way from where it belongs. If history is any guide then Dems will do a fine job with this economic crisis, and the country knows it. Our collective memory is not that short.

 

~modest

[Zythryn]

He wants to take more money from individuals who can afford health care in order to provide it to those who can not. That is pure socialism. If you don't understand that it is a socialist ideal and goal, then there is no point to further discussion.

 

But we do that now. We tax the wealthy at a higher rate than the poor. This is why our current system is called progressive, even though it isn't truly progressive through all income categories.

Were we a pure socialist economy under Reagan? If not, and since letting the Bush tax cuts expire would still leave tax rates on the upper brackets less than they were under Reagan, I don't see how it could be 'pure socialism'.

 

 

These issues are exponentially more complicated than you make them out to be.

 

So are taxes and social security:)

 

There is also a huge difference in your right to have something and requiring others to provide it to you.

 

Perhaps, but in the three examples I listed, the government must act to provide these things.

The local government cleans the water and processes sewage. You pay for this so essentially the government is taking your money to provide clean water for many Americans.

Likewise, the government maintains armed forces. Yes, if the Canadians invade (I am in Minnesota) I have the right to defend myself. But the government also has the responsibility to defend me. Again, you are paying for this (which I appreciate:)).

And I am guarenteed to have access to public education. That can't be refused (unless I am a danger to other students or teachers). Even then, I believe prisons need to offer education, not sure on that part though??

 

Wow... did you go to the Obama website to pull that sound bite?

 

No, I got it from the commercials which you are saying are lies. My question, which I apparently didn't word very well, was which part of that is a wrong?

 

I said UNIVERSAL health care (UK style) will destroy the current system.

Sorry, I thought you were referring to Obama's plan, glad you were not.

 

None of what you have said changes the fact that we can't afford the current social programs that we have and will not be able to afford an expansion of it. Spout off all the idealistic rhetoric you want, it does not change the fact that none of this is sustainable.

 

You are absolutely correct, and I never said it did. Other things need to be done to bring spending under control. We did it in the 90s, I don't see why we can't do it again.

 

...Why should I have my money stolen to pay for other peoples retirements/health care/welfare?

 

If you consider taxes as 'thievery' then I again don't see why you single out one canidate over another. Your taxes under McCain will most likely be higher than they would be under Obama.

 

I worked hard to get through school, both in class and at a spare job. I joined the US Marines in order to get college benefits. My parents STILL had to help me out to get through school. It is no different for my parents either. How is it that the sacrifices we made and investments in our futures that we made means that we owe more? Think of a doctor or lawyer who comes out of school having lost 4-6 years of their life to more school, and most with debts in the six figure range. What is their reward? More robbery.

But less than under Reagan;)

All seriousness, your drive and hard work are commendable. I worked my $@@ off as well (although not as hard as you, again my thanks for your service).

 

The socialist/populist movement is rooted in the idea that everyone is entitled to the same standard of living. Guess what, everyone is not entitled to the same standard of living. A high school drop out should not expect to be living the same lifestyle that I do. They did not sacrifice the years and resources that I and my family did in order to have a better life. It is not about class warfare, it is about rewarding those who had the foresight and put in the hard work in order to make a better life for themselves and their families.

 

I think your initial unspoken assumption is incorrect. Your assumption is that Obama is a proponent of the socialist/populist movement.

Using your definition, Obama has never promoted the idea that everyone is entitled to the same standard of living. In a recent speech, he very specifically spoke of personal responsibility and hard work.

I agree with you that a high school drop out should not expect a high standard of living. But not everyone that did work hard always gets a fair shake. Medical bills are a huge contributor to bankrupcies. The cost of healthcare is one of the reasons our auto companies are in such bad shape. And society as a whole, in my opinion, benifits when we give everyone an equal opportunity to make something of themselves.

[Zythryn]

Oh really? So your answer to getting our debt under control is electing a candidate who has flatly said that he wants to spend more money and it not willing to compromise... :shrug: I am not trying to be insulting here, but genuinely do wonder, have you actually researched their records and understand their policies?

 

I have, but I don't believe you have. I believe if you do research what Obama has actually said rather than what the right wing extremists SAY he said you would be a lot less frustrated. Obama never said he was not willing to compromise and specifically stated that he would go through the budget to bring it down as needed.

I really do hope, whoever is president, that we can get the line item veto back in place as a tool they can use.

 

For the record... McCain is the only one of the four that actually has a record of fiscal disciplined and trying to clean up government spending, waste, fraud, and abuse. He is also the most highly rated Senator for fiscal discipline by The Citizens against Government Waste and Abuse. His diatribes on the senate floor calling out his fellow senators for their pork are legendary. You are right, Palin is a tard and a lair. But McCain is a true fiscal conservative. His judgment (or complete lack of) in running mates has lost him any chance at getting my vote

 

I agree that McCain is the most fiscally conservative. This is one of the reasons he had the possibility of getting my vote early on. Don't get me wrong, I was leaning towards Obama, but McCain had a decent shot at getting my vote. Until he selected Palin and started the Karl Rove style campaign of outright lies and scare tactics.

Yes, Obama isn't completely clear of this either, but the level coming out of the McCain campaign is amazing.

[goku]

i pray that obama doesn't win, cause i love my children

[goku]

and one more thing,

you know that news channels tell you what they want you to know, don't you?

[Turtle]

and one more thing,

you know that news channels tell you what they want you to know, don't you?

 

I recommend PBS for you & your kids both. You know that what you watch is up to you don't you?

 

I have a couple roomies who favor McCain and as you may imagine that since I'm supporting Obama, things here can get a little testy. :D Anyway, on rising this morning one of them informed me that Obama is going to take away my guns. :Guns: Mmmm...that's a new one on me. :shrug: Given that the Supreme Court affirmed the right to gun ownership I don't see any likelihood that Obama can take my guns. While I support the Constitutional right for individuals to bear arms, I also support many laws we have that control arms and I think we need some more. For example, I don't think we have a right to have a machine gun, I don't think we need 30 round magazines for handguns, and I don't think the unregulated gun shows should be allowed to sell without the usual background checks required at conventional gun dealers.

Anyway, that's all I got from my box for now. :) :)

[REASON]

i pray that obama doesn't win, cause i love my children

 

Good point, goku. :)

 

 

and one more thing,

you know that news channels tell you what they want you to know, don't you?

 

So does Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

 

It is important to educate yourself. That's why you should continue to come here, goku. :)

[goku]

It is important to educate yourself. That's why you should continue to come here, goku. :)

 

much have i learned here, and am continually.

 

keep your friends close,

keep your enemies closer :)

[CraigD]

First, a disclaimer: I personally dislike political arguments, especially at this late point in an election. It seems to me that nearly everyone involved in such discussion has decided for whom or if he will vote, so the purpose of such discussion is moot. The best such discussion seems able to accomplish is a modicum of fact checking in opposition to the exaggerations and outright fraudulent claims by supporters of nearly all the candidates, and by the candidates themselves.

 

Nonetheless, some of the claims I see tossed about in these rhetorical maelstroms are interesting to me, such as this one:

… Why would the best doctors in the world go through the headache of being forced to see too many patients, for low reimbursement rates? Why not set up a boutique practice (these are already being set up) where the doctor gets better pay, seeing less patients and being able to spend more time with each one? It is already happening. …

Nitack, do you have a source for this claim? Ideally, can you provide contact information for one or more such practices?

 

My early (early 1980s) medical ID career involved a program that sought to attract the “economy class” segment of the “Executive Physical” market from the venerable Greenbrier Clinic – that is, to offer services much more expensive than reimbursable by an insurer, but at 10-25% below the price of the Greenbrier while at equal and in some cases better quality. It was thought that employers considering such benefits for their senior executives would respond to a lower cost equivalent, and employers already offering them might offer a lower cost benefit to more of their executives and senior staff. It was a great job, involving lots or very glitzy instruments and automation technology, and exposure to some very bright people in the medical and IT field :) It also had applications to more main-stream managed care practices, which I like to think I managed to carry at least in part with me to my present, more main-stream healthcare organization.

 

As a commercial venture, however, it was a bust. The Greenbrier was too well-entrenched in the market, facing the new venture the double-bind of needing to charge less to gain market, yet charge about the same to be perceived as equal in quality. The Greenbrier’s recreation, hotel, and dining tie ins with the resort of the same name posed an difficult-to-assail advantage, as well – first-rate MDs are easy to recruit, but first-rate chefs … :)

 

Nitack’s suggestion that this niche is preparing to expand – that “boutique practices” are “being set up” – intrigues me. I hope he can back up the claim.

[Galapagos]

The journal Nature has announced its collective support for Obama:

 

America's choice : Article : Nature

 

 

The values of scientific enquiry, rather than any particular policy positions on science, suggest a preference for one US presidential candidate over the other.

[...]

This journal does not have a vote, and does not claim any particular standing from which to instruct those who do. But if it did, it would cast its vote for Barack Obama.

 

Also interesting, Obama answered 18 science-related questions posed by Nature(McCain's campaign declined):

http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080924/full/455446a.html

[freeztar]

The journal Nature has announced its collective support for Obama:

 

America's choice : Article : Nature

 

 

 

 

Also interesting, Obama answered 18 science-related questions posed by Nature(McCain's campaign declined):

US election: Questioning the candidates : Nature News

 

eck!

They have no business doing that, or at least they shouldn't. :)

 

If they want to break free of scientific journalism, then they should be more explicit about it. :)

[Zythryn]

They review books and have editorials, I don't see why they shouldn't address a question that is very important to many. That is, how do the canidates view science?

[freeztar]

They review books and have editorials, I don't see why they shouldn't address a question that is very important to many. That is, how do the canidates view science?

 

Sure, but an endorsement?

 

As much as I think science needs to be in the same bed as the politicians, I still enjoy the freedom of separation that exists existed. :)

 

(I'm just being overly dramatic here. :) )

[Galapagos]

More support for Obama from the scientific community:

 

Lab Notes : Surprise: Scientists for Obama

 

Let's not kid ourselves: an endorsement by scientists is unlikely to sway many voters next week. But the decision by 76 American Nobel laureates—including all three of the Americans who won one of the science prizes this year—is notable for one thing: if you think ordinary Americans believe the last eight years have been a nightmare, you should see how scientists feel.

[...]

The letter by the 76 Nobelists (only 47 endorsed John Kerry in 2004) argues that the nation needs “a visionary leader who can ensure the future of our traditional strengths in science and technology and who can harness those strengths to address many of our greatest problems: energy, disease, climate change, security, and economic competitiveness,” concluding that “Barack Obama is such a leader.” The scientists are particularly dismayed that, under Bush, America’s “once dominant position in the scientific world has been shaken and our prosperity has been placed at risk. We have lost time critical for the development of new ways to provide energy, treat disease, reverse climate change, strengthen our security, and improve our economy.”

 

http://sefora.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/nobel_letter_v6.pdf

[Zythryn]

Sure, but an endorsement?

 

As much as I think science needs to be in the same bed as the politicians, I still enjoy the freedom of separation that exists existed. :hyper:

 

(I'm just being overly dramatic here. :hihi: )

 

Ah, my apologies, I agree they shouldn't be endorsing canidates.

After reading the editorial, I am a bit uncomfortable with it. They did walk a pretty fine line, but they also were pretty clear that they are not in a position to endorse anyone (but then they say who they would endorse if they could;)).

The journal does not have a vote, and does not claim any particular standing from which to instruct those who do. But if it did, it would cast its vote for Barack Obama.

I liked the reasoning, no personal attacks, no fear mongering. A major part of comparing the two canidates was captured in this part:

On a range of topics, science included, Obama has surrounded himself with a wider and more able cadre of advisers than McCain.

In an earlier paragraph the very clearly state:

There is no open-and-shut case for preferring one man or the other on the basis of their views on these matters.

 

And they discuss strengths of both canidates. They do a good job of staying out of the politics and focus on the process they think each man will use to make decisions.

I am curious if any long time readers of Nature know if they have done this type of thing in the past?

For me, they approached the line but didn't cross it:shrug:

[freeztar]

For me, they approached the line but didn't cross it:shrug:

 

But if they could cross the line...

:hihi:

[Nitack]

First, a disclaimer: I personally dislike political arguments, especially at this late point in an election. It seems to me that nearly everyone involved in such discussion has decided for whom or if he will vote, so the purpose of such discussion is moot. The best such discussion seems able to accomplish is a modicum of fact checking in opposition to the exaggerations and outright fraudulent claims by supporters of nearly all the candidates, and by the candidates themselves.

 

Nonetheless, some of the claims I see tossed about in these rhetorical maelstroms are interesting to me, such as this one:Nitack, do you have a source for this claim? Ideally, can you provide contact information for one or more such practices?

 

My early (early 1980s) medical ID career involved a program that sought to attract the “economy class” segment of the “Executive Physical” market from the venerable Greenbrier Clinic – that is, to offer services much more expensive than reimbursable by an insurer, but at 10-25% below the price of the Greenbrier while at equal and in some cases better quality. It was thought that employers considering such benefits for their senior executives would respond to a lower cost equivalent, and employers already offering them might offer a lower cost benefit to more of their executives and senior staff. It was a great job, involving lots or very glitzy instruments and automation technology, and exposure to some very bright people in the medical and IT field :eek2: It also had applications to more main-stream managed care practices, which I like to think I managed to carry at least in part with me to my present, more main-stream healthcare organization.

 

As a commercial venture, however, it was a bust. The Greenbrier was too well-entrenched in the market, facing the new venture the double-bind of needing to charge less to gain market, yet charge about the same to be perceived as equal in quality. The Greenbrier’s recreation, hotel, and dining tie ins with the resort of the same name posed an difficult-to-assail advantage, as well – first-rate MDs are easy to recruit, but first-rate chefs … :(

 

Nitack’s suggestion that this niche is preparing to expand – that “boutique practices” are “being set up” – intrigues me. I hope he can back up the claim.

 

I am a health care lobbyist, when I make a claim about health care practices it is because this is what i do all day, read about the stuff.

 

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/460881(the link does not apparently work directly, but if you google "boutique medical practice" it is the second returned hit.

Boutique Medicine: A New Concept Based on Traditional Ideals

Posted 09/09/2003

Debra C. Cascardo

Introduction

 

One of the newest trends emerging in medical care is based on one of the oldest business concepts -- exceptional customer service. So-called "boutique" medical practices are borrowing a page from small specialty shops by finding their niche: patients who want specialized services and amenities and are willing to pay extra to receive them. Also referred to as concierge or retainer practices, these medical practices offer patients these extra services for a monthly or annual fee.

 

Some of the usual services to which the "membership" fee entitles patients are:

 

* guaranteed same-day appointments;

* email and phone access;

* extended time with the physician;

* specialty newsletters;

* wellness programs; and

* routine checkups that might not be covered by insurance.

 

Once such care could be afforded by only the very wealthy. However, the new retainer systems are often available for $1000 to $1500 per individual per year in many areas, a fee that is attractive to middle-class consumers tired of the short shrift many think managed care systems give them. Other fees are reportedly as high as $20,000 per year for a couple.

 

Additional articles:

'Boutique' medical practices face legal, legislative foes - Business Courier of Cincinnati:

How to set up a concierge practice - - Medical Economics