[Malotis]

Meant to say *not* vote.

My vote would have been for Ron Paul. I agree with almost all of his views with the exception of his beliefs on abortion.

Being that he's out of the running, of the three remaining candidates left I feel like Obama is the lesser of many evils, McCain the worst, Clinton the middle.

Why?

I consider McCain the worst of the worst for many reasons. First off, I believe McCain said something along the lines that if he was in office it would simply be more of the same in reference to the current Bush administration. My main issue with the current administration is policies revolving around this so called “War in Iraq.” I could go on bitching about this stupid war in a multipage rant, however I’d like to focus on McCain. The bottom line is I don’t know how I would live with myself if I voted for a leader who claims (in reference to the war in Iraq) that “Bush led with clarity,” or that the war in Iraq is a “massive victory,” or that we’d stay in Iraq for 100 years it was needed.
It’s literally beyond me how people can justify ever going into this war, why Iraq was invaded instead of N. Korea (McCain denies any parallel between Iraq and Korea), and how anyone can justify staying in this war.

Whether or not Iraq is “better off” now with the U.S. Army patrolling the streets as opposed to when Saddam was in power is I’m sure subject to much controversy. I believe that the current situation is that there’s a huge anti American sentiment within the Iraqi population, Iraqi’s who work for the U.S. Army have to hide their identities for fear of their lives and the lives of their family, U.S. army trained Iraq soldiers have turned against U.S. forces out of venomous hatred, and unemployment in Baghdad is near 50%.
Of course, I lack objective sources to verify these claims, however several Chaldean (Chaldeans are Catholics from Iraq living in U.S.) acquaintances of mine who have multiple relatives living in Iraq claim that the hatred for the U.S. and its troops is nearly universal among Iraqis.

The Iraq war aside, McCain is also in favor of spending further resources on another useless war effort, aka the war on drugs. He’s for the harsher sentencing of (non-violent) drug distributers, is in favor of pushing for more money and military assistance in the attempts to invade drug-supplying nations such as Colombia, and favors bill which offer more money in preventing drug trafficking at our borders. Now I guess these are all noble gestures to say the least, but history seems point out that this war on drugs is a more than wasted and fruitless effort. The U.S. has invaded Columbia in the past. Drug supply did not go down and the cost for drugs did not increase.

All in all, I don’t know how I can vote for a candidate who is in favor of these pointless wars. How much money is being spent on the war on drugs? How much money is being spent on the War in Iraq? I feel like as a country we can make much better use of these resources. What happened social betterment programs? What about citizens who are literally dying because they don’t have health care? What’s going to happen to our social security in the future?

McCain’s views and policies seem so hopelessly bizarre that for the sake of humanity I hope that he has ulterior motives for these clearly irrational claims and policies.

Now I’m not an in any way an advert supporter of the democratic candidates, however, when we’re dealing with someone like McCain how am I to vote otherwise?

[Zadoc]

I voted for Al Gore when I was 18 years old. I voted for John Kerry, twice, in 2004. I campaigned for Joe Biden this time around, supported Edwards post Iowa, voted for Hillary Clinton in the primary, and will most likely end up voting for Ralph Nader.

Normally, I would never "throw away" my vote. I am a liberal Democrat, but I really unnerved by Barack Obama, and I trust him about as much as the current Commander in Chief, and I use that term loosely.

Fortunately, I hail from Arizona and John McCain is certain to win by an overwhelming majority so I don't have to contemplate "holding my nose and voting," or picking the "lesser of two evils."

Nader actually shares my values on most issues, and unlike Obama, I know exactly where he stands. It's actually kind of nice that McCain is the Republican nominee, so I am free to vote for a third party without throwing my vote out the window.

[merid]

I am actually English. From what I pick up from this side of the pond though is that Clinton would be my pick. Obama is just a smug shell, he is a huge flip-flopper that is being saved by the media. McCain is too gung ho for my liking. If something needs doing then do it, however to me, if you have to justify constantly and in a long tirade, then the thing is not worth it.

[Antares]

I put down Obama. I would have voted for Ron Paul, because I agree with all of his views (not on abortion, but he's willing to give us the freedom of choice. That's all I care). John Edwards is also out of running, so I don't suppose he's an option. Now, Obama is the lesser of two (three) evils. Clinton trailing behind, and McCain, not in a million years.

Why I don't support McCain: The reasons listed above
Why I don't support Hillary: She is EXTREMELY conservative for an alleged liberal. That's all I can say. Control-freak too.

[anul]

I voted for Ron Paul in the primaries, since he doesn't have much of a chance. I will probably not vote since no one is running on the platform of liberty. Maybe if Bob Barr can win me over I will vote for him.

[curiousjane]

I don't like any of them. This stinks.

First time since I was 18 that I might not vote.

McCain is a creepy pasty white man who I know absolutely nothing about. He doesn't even have to campaign ... the Democrats are doing enough damage to their party on their own. Obama is a smooth-talker and has a certain presence (liked his "Yes We Can" spot), which draws me in, until I go ... wait a minute! Where do you stand, exactly? Clinton is ... well, as a t-shirt saw recently said ... Monica Lewinsky's ex-boyfriend's wife for president ... and she gets on my nerves. I can't stand her ads. They're sooooo ... political mumbo-jumbo and smug.

Maybe I'll just give it all up and, when the time comes, vote for somebody who actually can lead a country. Like, I dunno .... Papa Smurf or something.

(No. I'm not irritated by politics. AT ALL.)

[Dreamer]

The vacuum of power left by the departure of US troops in Iraq would be horrible. Instead of making the world safer,it would give (yet another) nation-state with the at the hand of Islamic fundamentalists with huge oil reserves.

It would permanently put a dent in US military prestige in the world. It will confirm once and for all that the USA have no staying power and that a few casualties (I don't want to sound harsh,but let's face it,with the casualties the US currently faces, it could stay in Iraq for "a 100 years").

But I guess in the end it will just be another nail in the US coffin. Oh well, it's been a good one USA,now goodbye.

I don't agree with McCain on the war on drugs, I don't think McCain is libertarian enough on guns. No candidate is perfect. I do think it is the best choice the US electorate has for the 08 election.

	Originally Posted by PsychadelicPowe
	It’s literally beyond me how people can justify ever going into this war, why Iraq was invaded instead of N. Korea (McCain denies any parallel between Iraq and Korea), and how anyone can justify staying in this war.

The North Korea crisis could be resolved by diplomacy instead of force. For one, it relies heavily on China for humanitarian aid. It is possible to put leverage on it without resorting to force. Also,you forget that North Korea is a tougher nut to crack than Iraq militarly and it has a nominal alliance with China.

Iraq could have gone on for a while even with the sanctions because it has oil (which was being smuggled out of Iraq on a pretty large scale). There was no way you could have putted enough leverage on it by diplomatic means(it almost suceeded in having sanctions lifted off in the sanctions somewhere in the 90s).

[hauteur]

Honestly, I really don't like any of them either. However, I will most likely vote for McCain if for no other reason than I don't like Obama and I abhor Clinton.

My biggest beef with them is that they seem to want nothing more than to turn us into a socialist nation. Socialized healthcare, rants about taking from the rich and giving to the poor, etc.

I am a firm believer that our captitalistic system has one trait that most other class based systems have not - mobility. I hold very strongly to the old adage, "Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish, feed him for a lifetime." I think that the current model for welfare, taxation, and socialized healthcare actually inhibit mobility.

These types of systems seem to promote dependence on the system. More dependence on the system breaks it. Look at the state of Medicaid, welfare, and social security (and yes, I know that the biggest problem with SS is that we can't keep our hands out of the cookie jar).

I think that there are people within our society that do need help. I think that there are some that need help permanently - the sick, mentally disabled, physically disabled, etc. These are the people that welfare is for. Now, I also think that there are people who need temporary help - single mothers, people in poverty, etc. These are not the people that welfare is for.

Temporary help should not come in the form of cash money, that breeds dependence. It should come in the form of government subsidies. If the government were to give assistance with school, healthcare, childcare, food, etc while a person is in college and is performing above a certain level, think of the results. It is a temporary drain on the system and then the person is off of the system. With welfare, many people stay on the system for years. It is not a temporary drain on the system. People that I know that are on welfare continue to live hand to mouth. They cannot get ahead and they have a very difficult time getting out of poverty. They are not mobile. They cannot change classes.

Plus, if you try to compress the ratio of rich to poor by taking away from the rich to make things more equal, what motiviation is there to excel if the government is just going to take away your reward and give it to someone else? What might that do to our culture and status within world economics over the long run? It just really gets my hackles up when a woman that made $22 million last year (is that number right?) calls me rich. Me. If there is one thing I can assure you, it is that I am not rich.

And, if you think that health insurance companies are the reason that healthcare costs are so high, think again. Some are profit mongers, don't get me wrong. The two primary causes for double-digit inflation in the health care sector, however, have nothing to do with health insurance.

The first primary factor is malpractice insurance. Friviolous law suits cause malpractice insurance to be extremely high. I don't know how many times my doctor has razzed me because I make more money than him after he pays his insurance (my mom works for him).

The second primary factor is the living habits of the United States. If you feel like having a good scare, go take a look at the trends for obesity over the last ten years. Look at the numbers for heart disease, high blood pressure, and diabetes. It is quite alarming (disclaimer: I work for a health insurance company). A close third is that medical practices are notoriously bad at managing administrative costs (hospitals commonly have rates above 50%, but this does include malpractice insurance). These combined costs are driving healthcare costs up.

Now, enter socialized medicine. Since we all know how efficent the government is at managing its money, I'm sure that they will be able to manage much lower administrative costs than the private sector can (as if). I fully believe that the government is just going to jack things up by sticking their hands in what is better left to private companies. If any of you are in health insurance, just look at HIPAA. Good intentions. Horrid execution. And now we have to pay for it. And charge our customers for it. Why, because the government knows health care better than the health care industry.

It might have helped if they had actually asked the industry's opinion before they decided to go mucking around in data standards.

Blah. I better get off my soapbox now. The air is getting thin up here.

[Zadoc]

	Originally Posted by hauteur To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Now, enter socialized medicine. Since we all know how efficent the government is at managing its money, I'm sure that they will be able to manage much lower administrative costs than the private sector can (as if).

Sarcasm aside, what empirical evidence do you have for your claim other than "hic, government is bad with money and stuff." It always sounds like paranoia to me, the extent with which people distrust the government with anything, and yet hail the private sector with near blind worship, when it is actually profit driven and does have a reason to hurt people: money.

(Really, it should be illegal for there to exist a for-profit health care system at all.)

Medicare is actually the most well run and efficient form of health insurance in the United States, despite being government run.

[echoi]

I view Obama as a political demagogue who, once in power, would fail to make tough decisions that make him unpopular in the public eye. Clinton is far too populist.

I would have voted for Ron Paul, but looks like if I do vote at all, it will be for McCain, despite the fact that I disagree with him on some things. But, he is the only one that supports free trade and holds a realistic view of our current situation in Iraq, imo.

[Scantilyclad]

I like Barack Obama. My values fit right in with his, and i enjoy his health care plan.

[Ool]

	Originally Posted by hauteur To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I am a firm believer that our captitalistic system has one trait that most other class based systems have not - mobility. I hold very strongly to the old adage, "Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish, feed him for a lifetime." I think that the current model for welfare, taxation, and socialized healthcare actually inhibit mobility.

You know, my sarcasm gland is exhausted for today on other things I did, otherwise I could have contributed a few really great gems to this thread and the various posts in it, but then I wonder what I’m wasting my virtual breath for? Authoritarian-thinking dog people want a strict master to obey in the White House as much as they want a strict master to obey in the Universe. What’s the point of even ridiculing that?

Oh, right, it’s fun! I almost forgot…

But what I wanted to throw in here is that what gave you mobility most of all was OIL!!! It was the oil that made it possible to criss-cross the continent as frenzied as you did, never settling down in any one plywood McMansion for long…

And as for teaching people to fish, these days that will feed them until they have totally overfished the oceans, at which point they will have to move into deeper and deeper waters to keep fulfilling their quota, until they’re eventually swallowed up by the Perfect Storm…

Geez, it would be tragic if people couldn’t move around any more and forgot how to fish. Maybe they’d have to stay put in one place and to build themselves brickhouses for a change and fishfarms. The horror…!

[hauteur]

Originally Posted by Zadoc To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Sarcasm aside, what empirical evidence do you have for your claim other than "hic, government is bad with money and stuff." It always sounds like paranoia to me, the extent with which people distrust the government with anything, and yet hail the private sector with near blind worship, when it is actually profit driven and does have a reason to hurt people: money. (Really, it should be illegal for there to exist a for-profit health care system at all.) Medicare is actually the most well run and efficient form of health insurance in the United States, despite being government run.

Actually, I work for a not-for-profit health insurance company. But I do disagree that it should be illegal for there to be a for-profit system any more than it should be illegal for auto or life insurance to be for-profit.

With Medicare (and Medicaid), you should know that it is largely administered by private health insurance companies. Medicare reimburses them. While it is financed by them, it is not totally "run" by them. The company I work for did it for a number of years. We ended up getting out of it because it was not profitable. We still do Medicare part-D, though. The same thing is true for the Federal-Employment-Program (FEP). We do that as well.

For the evidence - it's largely economic theory (meaning mainstream economic theory - not my theory). The government has no competitive need to reduce administrative costs. Each component of the government is allocated a budget. If they don't spend what they are given, they lose it and have difficulty justifying it for the next fiscal year. There is no concept of profit and there is no real need to compete with other agencies or the private sector. So, by their very nature they are less efficient.





hauteur added to this post, 6 minutes and 35 seconds later...

Originally Posted by Ool To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You know, my sarcasm gland is exhausted for today on other things I did, otherwise I could have contributed a few really great gems to this thread and the various posts in it, but then I wonder what I’m wasting my virtual breath for? Authoritarian-thinking dog people want a strict master to obey in the White House as much as they want a strict master to obey in the Universe. What’s the point of even ridiculing that? Oh, right, it’s fun! I almost forgot… But what I wanted to throw in here is that what gave you mobility most of all was OIL!!! It was the oil that made it possible to criss-cross the continent as frenzied as you did, never settling down in any one plywood McMansion for long… And as for teaching people to fish, these days that will feed them until they have totally overfished the oceans, at which point they will have to move into deeper and deeper waters to keep fulfilling their quota, until they’re eventually swallowed up by the Perfect Storm… Geez, it would be tragic if people couldn’t move around any more and forgot how to fish. Maybe they’d have to stay put in one place and to build themselves brickhouses for a change and fishfarms. The horror…!

Um... I think you read too fast. When I speak of mobility, I mean economic mobility - the ability to move between financial classes. Not the ability to physically move around.

And feeding people people versus teaching them to fish? Either I missed your irrelevant sarcasm or you are taking that literally as well. I mean giving people handouts versus helping them to help themselves. Have you never heard that expression?





hauteur added to this post, 3 minutes and 0 seconds later...

	Originally Posted by Scantilyclad To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I like Barack Obama. My values fit right in with his, and i enjoy his health care plan.

Have you ever asked any Canadians how they like socialized health care? I've yet to talk to any that like it. Anyone here that lives in a country with socialized healthcare - that likes it - feel free to speak up.

[catd]

Go Ron Paul!!!

[curiousjane]

	Originally Posted by hauteur To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Have you ever asked any Canadians how they like socialized health care? I've yet to talk to any that like it.

I have had many Canadian friends who have a love/hate relationship with it. They liked that they can walk into an emergency room at a hospital, get treated, and walk out ... without a bill.

They would trade it all, though, once something really serious or longterm hits their life, though. I've heard tales of family members who needed organ transplants who were something like 245th in line ... with no time left.

I've known people who say they want to move to Canada, just for the healthcare. Really? I say to them. Because I'm pretty sure all of my Canadian friends, while waving their country's flag and singing "Oh, Canada! My home and native land!" with all their hearts, would, at the end of the day, admit that their system is still seriously flawed.

And I'm not knocking Canada. I love Canada. I lived there for awhile.

[Ool]

	Originally Posted by hauteur To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Um... I think you read too fast. When I speak of mobility, I mean economic mobility - the ability to move between financial classes. Not the ability to physically move around.

You should have called it upward mobility then. Which, if you enter it into Google, leads to this report among the top ten links returned:


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

	Originally Posted by hauteur To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	And feeding people people versus teaching them to fish? Either I missed your irrelevant sarcasm or you are taking that literally as well. I mean giving people handouts versus helping them to help themselves. Have you never heard that expression?

I’m not taking it literally. But I trust you have heard about the statistics that the 5% of the world’s population in the US use up 25% of the world’s resources, being busy capitalists.

Whip out your pocket calculator and enter these numbers and you’ll realize that if 100% of the world lived as capitalist a lifestyle as the US that we’d need 500% of the presently used world resources.

So in other words your lifestyle is pretty much dependent on other people in the world not sharing it. If they did then you couldn’t be living the way you did any more. In fact, the fact that other people in the world have started to live your lifestyle is the reason why it’s becoming more and more challenging for you to keep it up.

No, it’s not just overfished oceans. It’s a general resource depletion we’re facing. I wasn’t taking your analogy literally and you shouldn’t take my extrapolation of it literally, either.

	Originally Posted by hauteur To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Have you ever asked any Canadians how they like socialized health care? I've yet to talk to any that like it. Anyone here that lives in a country with socialized healthcare - that likes it - feel free to speak up.

Well, I was in Florida when the movie SiCKO came out, and I was glad to show other audience members my German healthcare card when we left the theatre together.

From what I can tell healthcare is fine over here. I certainly get excellent dental, but then, this is a university town where the dentistry students fall over themselves to find patients. I get the gold fillings for the price of the gold…

As for anything else, I haven’t been sick enough yet to test the system. I’m still young. But they automatically test you for high blood pressure and cholesterol and for intraocular pressure and glaucoma if they suspect hereditary health risks in that regard. I feel very well taken care of…

No horror stories in my family, either, other than that they keep you alive for a little too long in hospitals…

[Doppelbock]

I would have voted for Ron Paul.

Now I'll vote for Barr. Not because I think he has a chance in hell (ha!), but to show my massive disrespect for the current 2-party system and politics-as-usual.

[hauteur]

	Originally Posted by Ool To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You should have called it upward mobility then. Which, if you enter it into Google, leads to this report among the top ten links returned: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Actually, this article backs my position. My position is that the current welfare system - where many of the impoverished described in the article reside - is a mobility inhibitor. It breeds dependence on the system and it follows generations. The more well off have the resources to send their children to college. Those that have lived their entire lives on welfare do not.

The article does not attribute the generational repetition to welfare, but my claim is that welfare (in its current form) propogates it.

Originally Posted by Ool To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I’m not taking it literally. But I trust you have heard about the statistics that the 5% of the world’s population in the US use up 25% of the world’s resources, being busy capitalists. Whip out your pocket calculator and enter these numbers and you’ll realize that if 100% of the world lived as capitalist a lifestyle as the US that we’d need 500% of the presently used world resources. So in other words your lifestyle is pretty much dependent on other people in the world not sharing it. If they did then you couldn’t be living the way you did any more. In fact, the fact that other people in the world have started to live your lifestyle is the reason why it’s becoming more and more challenging for you to keep it up. No, it’s not just overfished oceans. It’s a general resource depletion we’re facing. I wasn’t taking your analogy literally and you shouldn’t take my extrapolation of it literally, either.

So are you saying that you think America is solely responsible for over using the planet's resources? So, Japan and Germany aren't major players in manufacturing? The United States hasn't rapidly declined in manufacturing over the last 50 years? Unless of course, you are referring to personal use of resources. I'd like to see those statistics, actually.

And by the way, I lived in Germany for three years. I can't say that I saw things as being all that different in terms of lifestyle.

Originally Posted by Ool To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Well, I was in Florida when the movie SiCKO came out, and I was glad to show other audience members my German healthcare card when we left the theatre together. From what I can tell healthcare is fine over here. I certainly get excellent dental, but then, this is a university town where the dentistry students fall over themselves to find patients. I get the gold fillings for the price of the gold… As for anything else, I haven’t been sick enough yet to test the system. I’m still young. But they automatically test you for high blood pressure and cholesterol and for intraocular pressure and glaucoma if they suspect hereditary health risks in that regard. I feel very well taken care of… No horror stories in my family, either, other than that they keep you alive for a little too long in hospitals…

Let's talk after you are on a six month waiting list to get a surgery.

[Ool]

	Originally Posted by Doppelbock To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I would have voted for Ron Paul.

That guy was something else. Funny, you just had the worst experience with a weak government that’s entirely in the pockets of big money’s special interest lobbyists, and you wanted to vote for a guy who intended to make government even weaker than that and even more dependent on big money sponsorship in order to wield any semblance of power at all.

You have a country with a huge military-industrial complex, too much focus on prisons and not enough on social programs, and you wanted to vote for someone who wished to turn the government even more into a police state—in the sense that the only institutions funded by the state would have been the police (and the military and courts and prisons). All sticks, no carrots.

Yeah, I can see how that would have worked out for you…
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


And then the guy’s a Christian. I mean, he’s allegedly in favor of the weakest, least consolidated government possible in the real world and yet he has no problems with an all-powerful, all-overriding monarchy in an eternal afterlife that he believes in. How deranged is that…?!





Ool added to this post, 8 minutes and 22 seconds later...

	Originally Posted by hauteur To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Let's talk after you are on a six month waiting list to get a surgery.

What kind of surgery would that be? I’ve had surgery. I never had to wait for it for more than a week and I can’t think of any family member who had to wait longer, either. It must be highly specialized surgery you’re thinking of. And as for that, I wonder whether I would get any such surgery at all over at your place if it turned out that I cannot pay or that my insurance doesn’t cover it…

So I guess whether I want to be ill in the US is mainly a question of whether I’m rich or poor.

But since we’re both talking about hypotheticals, I’m getting the feeling that we’re both talking out of our asses at that point, with no actual real life experience to back up our respective claims…





Ool added to this post, 24 minutes and 6 seconds later...

Originally Posted by hauteur To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Actually, this article backs my position. My position is that the current welfare system - where many of the impoverished described in the article reside - is a mobility inhibitor. It breeds dependence on the system and it follows generations. The more well off have the resources to send their children to college. Those that have lived their entire lives on welfare do not. The article does not attribute the generational repetition to welfare, but my claim is that welfare (in its current form) propogates it.

It never occured to you that at some point in your history there was a lot of stuff going around per person and a lot of resources and land still to be claimed, and that today there isn’t that much unclaimed property per person any more and that this is why the whole economic class system has grown a lot more viscous and stratified?

No, the people must have gotten lazier, not just more numerous…

Originally Posted by hauteur To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

So are you saying that you think America is solely responsible for over using the planet's resources? So, Japan and Germany aren't major players in manufacturing? The United States hasn't rapidly declined in manufacturing over the last 50 years? Unless of course, you are referring to personal use of resources. I'd like to see those statistics, actually. And by the way, I lived in Germany for three years. I can't say that I saw things as being all that different in terms of lifestyle.

Europeans are only about half as bad. Meaning if everyone lived European you’d need only 250% of the world’s resources.

The few things about Europe that are different is, everything is closer together, the cars are smaller, the buildings are sturdier and more efficient, and there’s actually public transportation worth speaking of. (I move around by bicycle and by train and, frequently, both. I don’t have a car and I don’t need one.)

The US has about 300 million inhabitants at a population density of around 30 people/km². The EU has about 450 million inhabitants at a density of around 115 people/km². Our commutes aren’t nearly as long.

But this wasn’t about America vs. Europe anyway. This was about capitalism, and the last time I checked Europe was still capitalist, meaning if the European lifestyle isn’t globally sustainable, either, that only goes to prove my point…

[Antares]

	Originally Posted by catd To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Go Ron Paul!!!

If only. Obama is a talker, Hillary is a control freak, and McCain is just too... Republican (I disagree with most of their views)

	Originally Posted by catd To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Go Ron Paul!!!

If only. Obama is a talker, Hillary is a control freak, and McCain is just too... Republican (I disagree with most of their views)

	And then the guy’s a Christian. I mean, he’s allegedly in favor of the weakest, least consolidated government possible in the real world and yet he has no problems with an all-powerful, all-overriding monarchy in an eternal afterlife that he believes in. How deranged is that…?!

If you were expecting a non-religious candidate, I'm afraid you'd have to wait. Survey shows that most Americans wouldn't vote for a candidate for being an atheist; or even agnostic, just for their belief system.

[hauteur]

	Originally Posted by Ool To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It never occured to you that at some point in your history there was a lot of stuff going around per person and a lot of resources and land still to be claimed, and that today there isn’t that much unclaimed property per person any more and that this is why the whole economic class system has grown a lot more viscous and stratified? No, the people must have gotten lazier, not just more numerous…

Really, what does this have to do with my point? I get it that you don't like America. Christians and Americans are bad. Got it. Or maybe you are just inflating your dislike for America because you dislike me because I am Christian (remember, you enjoy insulting me because I am Christian). But what evidence or logic do you have to support the idea that less unclaimed land is the cause for greater stratification of the class system? I'm not opposed to the possiblity of it being a factor, I just don't see your logic.

And I don't recall saying that Europe wasn't globally sustainable. I thought that Obama, Clinton, and McCain were running for presidency in America. I thought I was talking about what impact Obama and Clinton's views might have on the American class system.

	Originally Posted by Ool To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	But this wasn’t about America vs. Europe anyway. This was about capitalism, and the last time I checked Europe was still capitalist, meaning if the European lifestyle isn’t globally sustainable, either, that only goes to prove my point…

I'm sorry, I am not trying to be dense here. But, what is your point? What point are you trying to prove? Is it that Americans are gluttonous? I'm not going to disagree with you there. Remember my earlier comment about American's lifestyles being one of the main factors for healthcare costs?

But my main point about sociallized healthcare is that it is treating a symtom rather than the problem. There are, as you said, 300 million Americans. 60 million of them are without health insurance. As I understand it, roughtly 40% of those 60 million do not have insurance because they do not want insurance. They generally fall into three categories - those that are young and don't believe that they need it, those that qualify for Medicaid and don't apply for it, and those that are rich and "insure" themselves.

I didn't do the math, but that leaves roughly 35 million americans that want insurance but don't have it. That's just over 10% of the population - so let's rip the system out of private control so that 10% can have it.

Let's not actually fix the problems with health care, let's just give it away. Oh wait, we can't just give it away. There's this whole financial funding compenent to insurance. Money gets moved around to pay for stuff. Where, exactly, is that money going to come from? Oh yeah, they will raise taxes to pay for it.

And guess what? The company I work for only made roughly 3% "proft." Only it's not profit. It either goes into cash reserves to fund an epidemic or disaster where claims are coming in but revenue is not or it goes back into the community.

So, if it costs you $400 per month to have family insurance today and it is taken over by the government, what will happen? First, prices may go down because it is spread out over a larger number of people. But, the government is not going to be as efficient as the private sector, so prices will go back up. But then, we will still have double digit increases in cost becase the actual problems have not been solved. Can you guess what boat we'll still in? Everyone will have insurance and we'll still be paying a huge amount for it. Only difference is that now you don't have a choice about whether to pay for it.

Long story short - don't fix the symptoms, fix the problems.

Edit:

Actually, I forgot to talk about a major factor that would affect costs if healthcare was socialized. Today, employers pay a large percentage of the premiums for the vast majority of people who pay for insurance. Move insurance to the public sector and this goes away. That means that instead of the $200 to $400 you are paying now (for a family policy), it will now cost $600 to $800. This would be spread out over more people, as I said. But I believe that there would be very little, if any, net change to the amount you physically pay. You're just giving it to the government. And the original problems are still there. There would still be double digit increases. Oh yeah, and let's not forget about the tens of thousands of health insurance employees that would be out of a job.

I also believe that a large part of the problem with why there can be long waits for care in a socialized system is because becoming a medical professional becomes less lucrative. Many people that would have become doctors are likely to choose a different profession. That means fewer doctors. More patients per doctor means longer wait times.

We all don't get the benefit of living in a college town where they are begging for people to learn on.

Clinton and Obama don't tell you all of that, do they? They just tell you that all Americans have a right to health insurance. They gloss over the trade-offs.

[Ool]

	Originally Posted by hauteur To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm sorry, I am not trying to be dense here. But, what is your point? What point are you trying to prove? Is it that Americans are gluttonous? I'm not going to disagree with you there. Remember my earlier comment about American's lifestyles being one of the main factors for healthcare costs?

Hmmm, what was my original point anyway…?

Oh, right, this thread is originally about presidential candidates. My point was that capitalism is like a party that’s been going on for way too long and the buffet is empty now and there’s no credit card left to max out and buy any more moonshine with and that therefore John McCain is a horrible choice for a presidential candidate.

Republicans are only good at throwing huge bashes and barroom brawls, in which the most sociable and energetic shine and obliterate the room, but they suck at doing the cleaning up afterwards. That must be done by someone who’s actually a little less selfish in their ideology and who can delay gratification for a while…

[hauteur]

Originally Posted by Ool To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Hmmm, what was my original point anyway…? Oh, right, this thread is originally about presidential candidates. My point was that capitalism is like a party that’s been going on for way too long and the buffet is empty now and there’s no credit card left to max out and buy any more moonshine with and that therefore John McCain is a horrible choice for a presidential candidate. Republicans are only good at throwing huge bashes and barroom brawls, in which the most sociable and energetic shine and obliterate the room, but they suck at doing the cleaning up afterwards. That must be done by someone who’s actually a little less selfish in their ideology and who can delay gratification for a while…

I'm not convinced that democratic leaders are any less selfish. They just cover it up with an unselfish (and ultimately, lethal) ideology that they don't seem to prescribe to themselves. Whenever Hillary spouts off about the evil rich people taking advantage of the poor, I think about how much money and how many homes she has. I wonder why she doesn't seem as willing to give up her wealth as she is everyone else's. To her, I am one of the evil wealthy people (not rich). Trouble is, she made 225 times (or so) more last year than I did.

Oh yeah, I forgot. It's OK for you to be selfish so long as you promote an ideology that isn't. And the ideology doesn't even have to work. Gotcha.

[Ool]

Originally Posted by hauteur To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I'm not convinced that democratic leaders are any less selfish. They just cover it up with an unselfish (and ultimately, lethal) ideology that they don't seem to prescribe to themselves. Whenever Hillary spouts off about the evil rich people taking advantage of the poor, I think about how much money and how many homes she has. I wonder why she doesn't seem as willing to give up her wealth as she is everyone else's. To her, I am one of the evil wealthy people (not rich). Trouble is, she made 225 times (or so) more last year than I did.

Oh, ultimately everyone’s selfish. That wasn’t my point. That’s why I suggested you vote for someone who’s “a little less selfish” as opposed to not selfish at all.

You see, selfishness is the end towards which we do everything. But immediate selfishness should not be the only means available to us when ultimately going for our selfish ends.

And that’s the problem of the Republicans. To them selfishness isn’t just the end. It is also the prime means to their end at every step of the way, with devastating results. Everything that doesn’t return an immediate profit is neglected. Public infrastructure is left to rot. Markets go through rollercoaster boom and bust cycles, rather than growing steadily.

You see, Hillary became rich being selfish, but also being able to look at the big picture, to see what kind of little altruistic acts would accumulate towards a more profitable goal. Her husband certainly knew that the true source of the country’s wealth lay in the small, middle-class entrepreneur, not the big corporations, whose CEOs are in positions to skim obscene amounts of cream from the top, all while being totally unable to overlook the structure of the organization they were heading in detail, even with the highest humanly possible attention span.


And besides, you won’t have to choose between Hillary and McCain anyway but between Obama and McCain. Possibly between Obama/Clinton and McCain/whoever, so the point is moot…

	Originally Posted by hauteur To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Oh yeah, I forgot. It's OK for you to be selfish so long as you promote an ideology that isn't. And the ideology doesn't even have to work. Gotcha.

Ah, but that is the problem with your perception of the world. You think hypocrisy is one of the biggest, most potentially destructive flaws imaginable. But it isn’t. Hypocrisy and double standards are a normal, healthy part of life, because different contexts, different scales of a venture entail different priorities, which can come into conflict.

That’s why I mentioned delayed gratification. Something that is good for you in the short run may be bad for you in the long run and vice versa. We must balance these priorities carefully, and their struggle within our minds is what renders us hypocrites quite often.

But a hypocrite isn’t the worst kind of person you can come across. P.J. O’Rourke once wrote that if he had to choose between a hypocrite and a delusional person then he would choose the hypocrite any day.

That’s because the person being hypocritical about something knows the difference between good and bad and decided to go for the bad, for whatever reason. But the delusional person doesn’t even know that what they’re doing is bad. They can be busy committing the worst, most cruel kinds of atrocities all while thinking they’re being benevolent and nurturing.

So what you should really look out for is the person who’s deluded. But, of course, the crux of the matter is that being deluded entails the quality of being unaware of one’s delusion. So if you share the delusions of the people you’re likely to vote for then you might be just as convinced of doing good while being bad as they are…

[Zadoc]

	Originally Posted by hauteur To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	With Medicare (and Medicaid), you should know that it is largely administered by private health insurance companies. Medicare reimburses them. While it is financed by them, it is not totally "run" by them.

I do know, and that's a part of why it's such a successful structure.

	The company I work for did it for a number of years. We ended up getting out of it because it was not profitable.

Another reason why profit needs to be deleted from the health care system.

	For the evidence - it's largely economic theory (meaning mainstream economic theory - not my theory). The government has no competitive need to reduce administrative costs.

I am really going to have to stop you right there. The concept of providing health care is not based in economic theory. One function of government is to provide services, not turn a profit. There is no ROI on much of what the government invests billions of dollars into, yet things such as New Horizons won't get done any other way.