Clinton or Obama?

[Alessandro17]

He hasn't done justice to anything. As far as I'm concerned he's only an American on a technicality.

 

What I don't understand is why impeachment was never seriously considered, AFAIK.

And to think that American presidents have risked impeachment for much less (than what he has done).

[Maxintosh]

What I don't understand is why impeachment was never seriously considered, AFAIK.

And to think that American presidents have risked impeachment for much less (than what he has done).

It truly baffles the mind At least most historians are recording him as the worst American president ever, so that's a small consolation

[Paranoid Marvin]

No, because I have health care, I can go into any hospital and basically request a doctor that I know, or one that is rated highly or something else. In the UK, you are randomly assigned a doctor, and if you leave the hospital to go home, and you come back, you are randomly assigned another doctor. That means you have to explain everything again and he might be a crappy doctor as well.

 

Let's put this simply...

 

WRONG

 

1. all doctors are on a register that you can look up and see their success rating for operations etc.

2. you can request to see a particular doctor

3. you can repeatedly request to see the same doctor

4. you can change your doctor at any time if they are crappy (though I have never had to do that)

 

And oh yeah, we get this for free!

[wahwahman89]

As far as the partial abortion issue is concerned, to all of those in favour, please see this:[Link removed by moderator]It is inhuman. But I do agree that awareness HAS to be raised about sex and its concequences, everywhere, not just in the USA. Here, in the UK, for example, teenage pregnancy is on the rise, constantly. Having been past college (equivalent of your High School) and moved on to Uni, its quite easy to see what the situation is around you.My ex was twice pregnant in the time I have known her (not with me luckily, I wasn't that stupid).Pretty serious stuff.I would vote Obama. Seems like the UK will be stuck less up HIS butt than anyone else's. And that's what I'm looking for. An end to wars and bad image of the UK and USA in Europe. It sucks.

Let's put this simply...WRONG1. all doctors are on a register that you can look up and see their success rating for operations etc.2. you can request to see a particular doctor3. you can repeatedly request to see the same doctor4. you can change your doctor at any time if they are crappy (though I have never had to do that)And oh yeah, we get this for free!

Maybe in Scotland, not in England. Here, you're booked in for an appointment at 4pm, he don't show up till 7. Period. (writing from Plymouth).Free healthcare? Bull****! You have to pay for a bloody dentist appointment! My father is dying of cancer and they told him that he can either have his oesophagus chopped off, rendering him unable to eat solids for the rest of his life, or nothing else (and there IS alternate treatment for his situation).Good healthcare? Yeah, RIGHT. Free healthcare? Yeah, RIGHT, but slightly less bad than the former.

[JonTheSavage]

Very good point JonTheSavage, I agree.

 

The American left wing is not left wing by a long shot.

 

No universal healthcare, for a start... the list is endless.

America needs a real left wing party, preferably one with heavy handed green policies, to take them into the 21st century.

 

You had one with Bush. Why do you want another?

If you think in terms of left vs right, then you really do have a limited capacity for black and white thought process.

 

What is the difference between the two parties? Someone answer.

[wahwahman89]

You had one with Bush. Why do you want another?

If you think in terms of left vs right, then you really do have a limited capacity for black and white thought process.

 

What is the difference between the two parties? Someone answer.

 

They all suck. We should have educated people leading countries and not some lame Texas-based farmer scum. I'm all up for intelligent people who can lead economies well, stop slagging off other countries and point weapons at Russia a bit less. What is the point!?

[killbot1000]

You had one with Bush. Why do you want another?

If you think in terms of left vs right, then you really do have a limited capacity for black and white thought process.

 

What is the difference between the two parties? Someone answer.

 

There are quite a few differences, both parties have the same problems, but they stand for different things.

 

Democrats want more regulation on business and less regulation on social behavior

 

Republicans want more regulation on social behavior and less regulation on business.

 

Democrats are usually more open to change, Republicans have the mentality "if it isn't broken, don't fix it" however this sometimes gets translated into "I don't want to fix it, so I wont".

 

One other thing that I think is the biggest difference between the two parties:

 

Democrats trust people

Republicans dont.

 

What I mean by this is policy decisions. In foreign policy for example, a Republican acts as if every country is trying to blow us into the ground, so they negotiate on that platform of mistrust. This has its ups and its downs, if the country in question really IS trying to blow us into the ground, then this is a good foreign policy, if not, then its just mean.

 

Democrats trust people, they trust that other nations aren't trying to screw us over, they trust that people will make the right decision (even if they don't).

 

Democrats are usually more liberal, this is because the Bulk of the democratic party is situated in large cities in coastal regions, I believe that their policies on social behavior reflect the values of the people who live in these cities, who on a daily basis have to interact with many different kinds of people from many different kinds of backgrounds. These city folk grew up with all these different cultures, ideologies, etc. so they have learned to accept, and trust. People who live inland from the coast slowly start to take on a different view, they grew up with people just like them for their entire lives, so when the social norm gets rocked (lets say a {censored} marriage law got passed or something) they freak out because its completely outside of their social norm, whereas in the cities, this is not so.

 

One would be hard pressed to find a large, major city in the US that wasn't liberal, and therefore are most likely to support the democratic party.

 

I don't like either party to tell you the truth, I in fact wish we had a true left wing party, that could push major reforms that our country really needs right now. But it's not going to happen anytime soon so far as I can tell, so for now, the democrats have my support.

[Maxintosh]

One other thing that I think is the biggest difference between the two parties:

 

Democrats trust people

Republicans dont.

I agree with pretty much everything that you said BUT I'd refine it like this:

 

Democrats care about peoples needs.

Republicans care about big business.

 

The bush administration is the poster child for this.

[Paranoid Marvin]

I agree with pretty much everything that you said BUT I'd refine it like this:

 

Democrats care about peoples needs.

Republicans care about big business.

 

The bush administration is the poster child for this.

 

Or so they say...

The impression I have got is that the Bush administration has failed to care about the needs of anything

[killbot1000]

Or so they say...The impression I have got is that the Bush administration has failed to care about the needs of anything

True, he's a republican so you are really not in conflict with anything that you quoted. ^_^Clinton/Obama - DemocratsBush/McCain - Republicans

I agree with pretty much everything that you said BUT I'd refine it like this:Democrats care about peoples needs.Republicans care about big business.The bush administration is the poster child for this.

I actually contest this.Republicans do care about big business, that is very true, but democrats don't necessarily care about people though. But they do care about people enough.What I mean by this is that the democrats care about big business just about as much as the republicans do, however, they realize that in order to have a healthy economy, your citizens actually have to have the means to buy stuff. The Republican view to let big business do what they want while the wealth concentrates into fewer and fewer hands is very very short sighted when it comes to maintaining the economy.

 

(Non-Interventionist) Libertarians = Let everybody do whatever they want, to hell with the consequences

(Conservative) Republicans = Let business do whatever it wants even if that means the elimination of the middle class

(Moderate)Democrats = Make sure everybody is doing ok, then pocket the rest of the money for yourself.

(Liberal)Liberal Party that Doesn't exist = Make sure the average citizen is doing better than ok, through taxes on rich people.

 

I wouldn't say Republicans don't care about people though, they do, they are just terribly, terribly misguided.

[Maxintosh]

the democrats care about big business just about as much as the republicans do

 

The only exception to the rule might be hillary clinton, and even that remains to be seen. Her campaign is backed by the big health care industry, so she'll most likely give them a 'free ride' if given a chance, but otherwise this is a republican trait.

[killbot1000]

 

The only exception to the rule might be hillary clinton, and even that remains to be seen. Her campaign is backed by the big health care industry, so she'll most likely give them a 'free ride' if given a chance, but otherwise this is a republican trait.

 

No seriously though, Democrats care about big business, they are just not willing to go as far as the Republicans are, they wont support it at the expense of everyone's welfare, but they will support it just before that point.

 

Hillary Clinton is being bought off by the Health Insurance industry, is any health insurance company going to oppose legislation that essentially forces you to BUY their product? I don't think so, and I think its sad that she calls it Universal Healthcare.

 

The Democrats do alright, they make sure everyone doing ok, but they are subject to corruption just like any government official.

 

I'd also like to throw this out there:

 

Don't vote for Ralph Nader. He said in the year 2000 that there was no difference between Al Gore and George W Bush.

 

I think we know now that Ralph Nader didn't know what he was talking about.

[Maxintosh]

is any health insurance company going to oppose legislation that essentially forces you to BUY their product?

It's the other way around. They are paying to get her elected so that she can make it law that you are forced to buy their product (healthcare at what they want to charge you for it). Hillary was a lot better when she had her own backbone.

[killbot1000]

It's the other way around. They are paying to get her elected so that she can make it law that you are forced to buy their product (healthcare at what they want to charge you for it). Hillary was a lot better when she had her own backbone.

 

I agree. It also makes me sad that this problem is in actuality so easy to fix.

 

Heres what we do:

 

Open Medicare to everyone, modify it so that nearly 100% of everything is covered, make it optional, heres what will happen. To the people who are happy with their health insurance, they will keep it with no changes whatsoever. For those who are unhappy with their health insurance, they can join medicare, they will not have to pay monthly payments or anything, it will just come out of their paycheck if they decide to do it. So if one was already paying $18 dollars toward medicare, they would now pay something like $35. The 100% coverage thing is the important part though, this will cause all the health insurance companies who now offer to pay 80% of ones medical expenses to compete with the US government for rates, this will cause these companies to try to lower their prices to be in line with medicare, but since the government will have a bigger pool of people to draw on, it will always cost less for the government to do it, this will slowly drive the health insurance industry out of business, and as they go out of business, more people will jump onboard with Medicare, further lowering costs, until we have universal healthcare.

 

There are countless details of course, but I feel it would be a solid plan.

[Paranoid Marvin]

Here's a better idea:

Creat a universal healthcare system and 99% of people will cancel their health insurance

[Maxintosh]

There are countless details of course, but I feel it would be a solid plan.

Yeah that would probably work but it makes too much sense, so we'll never see it

 

It is morally wrong to have an America with so many underinsured and uninsured Americans. Medicaid should automatically protect children, and there should also be a real patients' bill of rights. Health insurance companies also need to be accountable and should spend at least 85 percent of the premiums they collect on patient care. Laws could enforce this, but currently only 2 or 3 states have it as law. The best system so far is the one used in France. You can learn about it here. They also talk about it in the new 'Sicko' movie. And their system goes far beyond 'just' healthcare. For example; if a woman has a baby, under the French plan, someone comes to your house several times a week to do things like cook, clean the laundry, and provide babysitting for up to 4 hours at a time (regular childcare costs only one dollar an hour, the rest the Government pays). They also get between 5-10 weeks paid vacation time, even if you're working part-time. You also get an extra week when you get married. This allows people to not be under so much stress, and they have found that the stress rate has gown way down since using this system. Stress causes a lot of heath-care issues so in the long run this saves the Government money down the road. One reason why such a common sense heath-care system is possible in France is because the Government is afraid of the people, where as in the America - people are afraid of the Government. In France not only does the Government pay for your healthcare, but they also pay for all of your college. A smarter population is a more productive population, wow, why didn't we think of that? The Government also pays for all of your tuition if you want to become a doctor. This means that new doctors don't have to charge as much, and that helps the entire healthcare system. Most other countries also have a much better preventative healthcare system to keep people from getting sick in the first place. The French plan also has unlimited employer sick days because they believe that if you are sick, you are sick, plus they even have doctors that still make house calls! Most of the people reading this probably can't even imagine what it's like to have a doctor make a housecall. And yes, it doesn't cost them one dime as it's also included in the French healthcare system plan. In America, only plumbers make housecalls. Maybe that's why our government and media wants us to hate the French so much. Remember 'freedom fries'? If the media and government can get us to hate them, then we won't be curious about them or want to have a system like they have. The Canadians, British and French ALL have MUCH BETTER healthcare systems than America does, and guess what, those people on average live much longer than Americans do too. Even though the model used in France is truly universal, it costs almost half as much as what is currently in use in America, so we could cut costs by half and still improve coverage for everyone. No one running for president has a true universal healthcare plan.

[dark4181]

^Then why do Canadians come here to be treated for illnesses?

[killbot1000]

^Then why do Canadians come here to be treated for illnesses?

 

Because for one Canada has a shortage of medical professionals, its not that they are being paid unfairly in Canada, its just that they can get paid much more here. This rise in the cost of a doctor in the US is one of the reasons why prices for everything are so high here.

 

Also, Canada's medical system is arranged around need. If you are critical and need to go to the hospital, you will be seen right away. Also depending on where you live, you might have long waits or you might not, in the US, when I had an HMO, I just wanted to have something looked at (cyst or something) and I had to wait 9 months to get seen (this is in the US by the way).

 

Also, its not CANADIANS who come here, its certain Canadians. Think about it, if you come to the US as a Canadian to get a procedure done, you're not going to have any health insurance to back you up here, so you will have to pay full price for everything, if you are a rich Canadian, maybe it would be worth the exorbitant cost to come to the US. If one is a Middle Class or poor Canadian though, I don't think any will be coming here anytime soon.

 

ALSO keep in mind that Canada does not have nearly as many people and does not have nearly as robust an Economy as the US has, and yet they still manage to give their citizen's universal healthcare. With the kinds of resources and potential the US has, you think they could have figured that out by now...I guess not.

 

I love the fact that we all try to argue logically with you, but whenever we come up with a good point, you do not respond to the point we got you on, and you bring up an unrelated point to distract us from the original question. Please respond to our replies

[johan]

At first i like Obama, but he seems a little arrogant. He should have accepted Clintons offer to work together.

 

Clinton and Obama should team up and fight the rebublicans and not each other

[Maxintosh]

Also, its not CANADIANS who come here, its certain Canadians. Think about it, if you come to the US as a Canadian to get a procedure done, you're not going to have any health insurance to back you up here, so you will have to pay full price for everything, if you are a rich Canadian, maybe it would be worth the exorbitant cost to come to the US. If one is a Middle Class or poor Canadian though, I don't think any will be coming here anytime soon.

Yep that's absolutely correct! Back in the late 90's and early 2000 the republicans spread a lot of propaganda about how the Canadian health care system worked. They were afraid that Americans would demand the same type of system and then the health care industry (which paid for their elections) would lose a lot of money. Many uneducated people fell for it. From there the myth grew. The fact of the matter is that many people from the U.S. date other people from Canada for the specific reason to use their heathcare. They are trying to crack down on it but it's almost impossible to do. Not only that but in some countries they actually pay the patient money if they provided their own transportation to get to the hospital. People don't realize it but in America many things are government run and they work just fine; firemen, postal workers, teachers, police and the library system are all similarly run like other countries run their healthcare system. There is NO reason why we couldn't have such a system like that here, well, except for all of the political corruption that blocks it.

 

Also, heart disease, hypertension, lung disease, strokes, cancer, diabetes - are all lower in England than America because the government takes care of their people better. Even the poorest people in England are expected to live longer than the richest people in America, simply because of how their healthcare system is run. The American government doesn't want Americans to be educated about such matters. They want Americans to be fat and stupid so that they can mass manipulate them. It's worked like a charm for the pass 7-8 years, and who do you think was behind the idea of having a HMO system in the first place? Why it was a certain republican named richard nixon, who happened to have several key people working for him at the time - {censored} cheney and bushes father. Imagine that...

 

He should have accepted Clintons offer to work together.

LOL So let me get this straight, you think that the guy who is in the lead, and who also has the popular vote, should play second fiddle for the person who is losing? Sorry, I don't think you'll find many people who can understand that kind of logic...

 

A Obama/Clinton dream team would be nice, but I'm not holding my breath

[Alessandro17]

At first i like Obama, but he seems a little arrogant. He should have accepted Clintons offer to work together.

 

Clinton and Obama should team up and fight the rebublicans and not each other

 

I agree, but only with part of it. Why should Obama accept to be the Vice President when according to the CNN he is about 140 delegates ahead of Clinton and ahead in the opinion polls as well.

[apowerr]

I agree, but only with part of it. Why should Obama accept to be the Vice President when according to the CNN he is about 140 delegates ahead of Clinton and ahead in the opinion polls as well.

QFE. My thoughts exactly.

[dark4181]

Because for one Canada has a shortage of medical professionals, its not that they are being paid unfairly in Canada, its just that they can get paid much more here. This rise in the cost of a doctor in the US is one of the reasons why prices for everything are so high here.

 

Also, Canada's medical system is arranged around need. If you are critical and need to go to the hospital, you will be seen right away. Also depending on where you live, you might have long waits or you might not, in the US, when I had an HMO, I just wanted to have something looked at (cyst or something) and I had to wait 9 months to get seen (this is in the US by the way).

 

Also, its not CANADIANS who come here, its certain Canadians. Think about it, if you come to the US as a Canadian to get a procedure done, you're not going to have any health insurance to back you up here, so you will have to pay full price for everything, if you are a rich Canadian, maybe it would be worth the exorbitant cost to come to the US. If one is a Middle Class or poor Canadian though, I don't think any will be coming here anytime soon.

 

ALSO keep in mind that Canada does not have nearly as many people and does not have nearly as robust an Economy as the US has, and yet they still manage to give their citizen's universal healthcare. With the kinds of resources and potential the US has, you think they could have figured that out by now...I guess not.

 

I love the fact that we all try to argue logically with you, but whenever we come up with a good point, you do not respond to the point we got you on, and you bring up an unrelated point to distract us from the original question. Please respond to our replies

 

meh, i'm just to lazy to keep up with the novels that you guys write. plus i work in a factory, doing manual labor, so my brain has atrophied from lack of use. lol seriously though, i know you guys make good points, i simply don't have the time to do extensive research to try to refute you. i know that means i shouldn't get into the debate at all, sometimes i just feel the need to voice my opinion. i'm not trying to distract you, i'm just positing thoughts as they occur to me, usually without remembering that i've already posted in whatever thread. so if i post and you reply to me, and i post again with a different remark, just take it as a white flag =\

 

although, to be honest, being told i'm an uneducated moron really does make me want to go back to college.

 

 

one more thing though.. as far as all this "universal" everything that hillary and obama want to impose on everyone.. how do they expect to pay for it without taxing us all into oblivion? i'm asking honestly, because the only way i can think of for them to pull it off is higher taxes

[Maxintosh]

as far as all this "universal" everything that hillary and obama want to impose on everyone.. how do they expect to pay for it without taxing us all into oblivion? i'm asking honestly, because the only way i can think of for them to pull it off is higher taxes

One of the areas where these two differ is health care. Hillary wants to make it law that everyone is forced to buy healthcare, just like car insurance. If her law would go into effect and you couldn't afford to pay for healthcare, you would be imposed a penalty fine. Hillary would do this by going after your wages. Basically with clinton you would not be taxed directly, instead you would be forced to pay for whatever the insurance companies wanted to charge, and if you refused - you would be fined via having your wages garnished. Obama wants to lower the cost so that it is affordable for everyone. Estimates are that Obamas plan would cost $2,500.00 less than clintons. Obama also wants to strengthen antitrust laws to prevent insurers from overcharging physicians for their malpractice insurance. Obama feels that employers should be responsible for a certain percentage of the cost, so that taxing won't be necessary. With Obamas plan the additional revenue needed to fund the up-front investments in technology and to help people who cannot afford health insurance is more than covered by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for people making more than $250,000 per year, as they are scheduled to do.

[dark4181]

meh, i've already got awesome health care through my employer. and i like it the way it is