Why McCain is a bad choice.

[usmc1]

Personally, I don't like McCain much either and have been wrestling with the idea of not voting at all. With Obama in as President and the Congress and Senate we have now, economic doom would hit the US pretty quick.

Oh? And things are wonderful right now?

[ki4kxq]

Nope did not read over all 51 pages, skimmed it because I am getting ready for bed. Drove 700 miles last night and I am about to fall out. Specifically, I don't care for a progressive tax plan which punishes those at the top. I don't like that fact that Obama wants to raise the estate tax, taxes on that money was paid already by the wage earner. Obama in a speech not too long ago said he realized that upping the capital gains tax as he plans would hurt the economy. His reply was shocking. He said he knew it would hurt the economy, but that didn't matter to him. He wanted to raise the capital gains tax to make things look fair. Yep, those words actually came out of his mouth during a debate. Are those things specific enough for you.

The only bias of the AFL-CIO is their own pockets.

[ki4kxq]

Made more money this year. Interest rates are down, unemployment is still at about 5%.
Growth could be a little better, but with the democrats and the news media screaming about the non-existant recession every 5 minutes, things should be a lot worse.

We travel this country continuously. Mall parking lots are full. Restaurants are full. Cruise ships are booked till 2010 on some trips. Amusement park parking lots are packed.
When Batman came out, how many millions were spent? Where is the recession? Are some people losing their homes? Yes, homes they couldn't afford in the first place but took out a risky mortgage anyway. That is bad personal finance, not a bad economy. Real estate values are starting to come back up in most cities. Some areas are having a very hard time, like Michigan. However, look at their state governments, high taxes!! Industry leaves those areas and moves to states that are more business friendly.

[Naturist Mark]

WOW, a link to the AFL-CIO website, that is indeed a non biased group if there ever was one. Sounds like you have a bit of a bias too. But bias is OK if you back it up with verifiable facts, like the AFL-CIO article I linked does: http://www.ctj.org/corpfed04an.pdf
As for corporate tax breaks, remember that the government is not giving them moneySure it is! The government is giving corporations LOTS of money; in contracts, in subsidies, in sweetheart resource leases (how many pennies on the barrel do you think is paid back to the US gov't for oil extracted from public lands?), by providing infrastructure and an educated workforce, by providing a system of courts and laws to enforce their contracts and settle disputes (tell me what percentage of time in civil courts is used by corporations and what percentage by individual citizens), and Corporate Welfare (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8230) <--that one is from the libertarian Cato institute, so you won't have to dirty your eyeballs with reading matter from filthy Bolshevik unionists. The rest of us can read this old Time magazine article (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,989508,00.html), from the "liberal media" at Time-Warner (http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Time_Warner).

-Mark

[ki4kxq]

Have a great day Naturist Mark and USMC-1. As much fun as this is, I have got to wind down so that I can sleep.

Just want to know one little thing, why do you guys want the government to take your money and spend it for you? That is the fundamental question I don't understand. I'm not being funny here, I really don't understand the concept.

This has been fun, most of my friends think like I do, where is the challenge in that?

[Naturist Mark]

why do you guys want the government to take your money and spend it for you? That is the fundamental question I don't understand.

Oh, I don't. I want to be tax free and have the government take someone else's money while I continue to receive the benefits. Just like everyone else. But I know better than that. Maybe I'm a little more mature in that I realize that If I expect anyone else to pay their fair share, I have to also.

Reminds me of Joe Republican ... A Day in the Life of Joe Republican

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised.

All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too.

He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air.

He walks on the government-provided sidewalk to subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union.

If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

It is noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe also forgets that his in addition to his federally subsidized student loans, he attended a state funded university.

Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards to go along with the tax-payer funded roads.

He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans.

The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.

He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.

Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."

-John Gray

-Mark

[Naturist Mark]

A Day in the Life of a True Conservative (http://www.thomhartmann.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=715&Itemid=118)
Joe Conservative wakes up in the morning and goes to the bathroom. He flushes his toilet and brushes his teeth, mindful that each flush & brush costs him about 43 cents to his privatized water provider. His wacky, liberal neighbor keeps badgering the company to disclose how clean and safe their water is, but no one ever finds out. Just to be safe, Joe Conservative boils his drinking water.

Joe steps outside and coughs–the pollution is especially bad today, but the smokiest cars are the cheapest ones, so everyone buys ‘em. Joe Conservative checks to make sure he has enough toll money for the 3 different private roads he must drive to work. There is no public transportation, so traffic is backed up and his 10 mile commute takes an hour.

On the way, he drops his 12 year old daughter off at the clothing factory she works at. Paying for kids to go to private school until they’re 18 is a luxury, and Joe needs the extra income coming in. Times are hard and there’re no social safety nets.

He gets to work 5 minutes late and misses the call for Christian prayer, and is immediately docked by his employer. He is not feeling well today, but has no health insurance, since neither his employer nor his government provide it, and paying for it himself is really expensive, since he has a precondition. He just hopes for the best.

Joe’s workday is 12 hours long, because there is no regulation over working hours, and Joe will lose his job if he complains or unionizes. Today is an especially bad day. Joe’s manager demands that he work until midnight, a 16 hour day. Joe does, knowing that he’ll lose his job if he does not.

Finally, after midnight, Joe gets to pick up his daughter and go home. His daughter shows him the deep cut she got on the industrial sewing machine today. Joe is outraged and asks why she doesn’t have metal mesh gloves or other protection. She says the company will not provide it and she’ll have to pay for it out of her own pocket. Joe looks at the wound and decides they’ll use an over the counter disinfectant and bandages until it heals. She’ll have a scar, but getting stitches at the emergency room is expensive.

His daughter also complains that the manager made suggestive overtures towards her. Joe counsels her to be a “good girl” and not rock the boat, or she’ll get fired and they’ll be out the income.

His daughter says she can’t wait until she’s 18 so she can vote for change or go to the Iraq War.

They get home and there’s a message from his elderly father who can’t afford to pay his medical or heating bills. Joe can hear him coughing and shivering.

Joe turns on the radio and the top story is a proposal in Congress to raise the voting age to 25. A rare liberal opinionator states that it’s an attempt to keep power out of the hands of working class Americans. The conservative host immediately quashes him, calling him “a utopian idealist,” and agreeing that people aren’t mature enough to make good choices until they’re at least 25.

Joe chuckles at the wine-swilling, cheese eating liberal egghead and thinks, “Thank God I live in America where I have freedom!”

-Mark

[Boreas]

Thanks for putting things into perspective Mark. I know the stories are a little extreme, but if we don't do something, extreme will become the norm. I for one do not want that.

ki4xq - I hope you had a restful sleep. I have been enjoying your contributions. Thank you for doing so with civility. I have a couple of questions.

1. you said that the government has no business funding healthcare. As a Canadian, that is a very foreign statement for me. Our government funds healthcare, though it does not run it directly. There is the Canada Health Act which provides guidelines and standards, with a fair amount of room for creativity in how the funding is used. It also allows (or did traditionally, until we got more corporatized healthcare) for communities to create the health services they need. So, my question is, if the government does not fund healthcare, who does? From my veiwpoint, HMO's and such have not been doing well. This is truly an honest question, with no sarcasm. I'd love to hear your views.

2. You commented that you did not want government spending our money. Then who should supply infrastructure like public transit, roads, courts, military etc?

You commented about all the malls and such being full, and how people are spending their money. People today have record amounts of debt. That would likely account for a lot of this business. When the market economy is held up as the ideal, absolute capitalism ensues. I do believe there is a place for the market and capitalism. I just do not see it as the primary ideal for a society. Greed is destructive in the long run.

I think you said you weren't sure if you wanted to vote this time. I know the feeling. On the other hand, we live in democracies, and we have the privilege of voting. I personally know that in this part of the country, my vote is like spitting into the wind, since I live in a very conservative area. Never-the-less, I feel it is important to voice my opinion, and that I only get complaining rights when I vote. :D

[usmc1]

And, I'd like to add a whole passel of McCain's lies and misrepresentations...documented!

http://www.newsweek.com/id/151621/output/print

[Fitz1980]

I don't like that fact that Obama wants to raise the estate tax, taxes on that money was paid already by the wage earner. Obama in a speech not too long ago said he realized that upping the capital gains tax as he plans would hurt the economy. His reply was shocking. He said he knew it would hurt the economy, but that didn't matter to him. He wanted to raise the capital gains tax to make things look fair. Yep, those words actually came out of his mouth during a debate. Are those things specific enough for you.


I can't find any reference to him saying it would hurt the economy. The closest that I found was:

http://www.nysun.com/business/obama-capital-gains-tax-hike-would-hit-new-york/81902/

"We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year — $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That's not fair," Mr. Obama said. "What I want is not oppressive taxation. I want businesses to thrive, and I want people to be rewarded for their success. But what I also want to make sure is that our tax system is fair and that we are able to finance health care for Americans who currently don't have it and that we're able to invest in our infrastructure and invest in our schools. And you can't do that for free."

When 50 of the richest people in the world are paying tax at a lower rate than their secretaries that isn't right.

[usmc1]

I don't like that fact that Obama wants to raise the estate tax, taxes on that money was paid already by the wage earner.
.

Huh? Wage-earners with estates? I so seriously want that kind of job!

[NudeAl]

I have nothing to offer on this topic except to say thank you to all contributors. This has been a wonderful read I can see the give and take and really enjoy reading the comments. I think this has been a most civil debate.

[ki4kxq]

Hey guys. I did say that there should be a flat tax of some amount to pay for things like defense of our nation, infrastructure, those types of things called for in our constitution. Of course we do have to pay some taxes.

The insane amount we pay now though is ridiculous because we are trying to pay for every little pet project and feel good thing that comes along. No, our government should not be funding health insurance. There are some things that people should provide on their own. If I go and say that everyone needs health care so therefore, gov should provide it. Where does that logic stop. Everyone needs food too, maybe gov should pay for that. How about housing? Everyone needs shelter, let the government supply that. Look, everyone falls on hard times, and during those times, they may need a hand up. Nobody has a problem with that. But the help should be a hand up, not a permanent hand out.

Somebody also scoffed at the idea of a wage earner with an estate. Where do you guys think the majority of wealth comes from in this country? It's not trust fund babies, it's ordinary people. Some have worked for the same company for 30 years and some are small business owners. Lots of everyday working folks now are millionaires when they pass away, why does the government deserve to get a second hit at the pie they have already paid taxes on?

Yes, Americans have way too much debt. They too are spending like Congress. Both the American people and our government need to start living within their means. I think the point that most of you are missing from the conservative side is, when your taxes go down, you can spend the money you have for your own health care. We self insure through a lot of things even though we have health insurance. Why? Because then we are in control of our care and not some HMO or the gov. Boreas, you talk about the Canadian system that pays for health care, yet, we here of people who really need medical care have to come to the US because they cannot get the care they need in Canada. High risk pregnancies routinely come here because they cannot get the high tech care they need in Canada. Heart surgeries, MRI's, etc, we have all heard the stories of extremely long waiting lists. The problem is, when someone else is paying your bill, you lose all control of your own health care, period. They are paying the money so they get to make the decisions. Btw guys, have you seen how the government handles things? Sorry, I don't want them running my health care.

[ki4kxq]

Hey Fitz1980, I have no idea where to tell you to look, but I can give you an idea. The remark was made in a debate during the primaries. The moderator I believe, was Chris Matthews or the other guy, Tim Russert. Obama made the statement about cap gains tax. The moderator made the point that raising cap gains always hurts the economy and gave Obama another bite at the apple. Obama then insisted that he knew that, but he would rather things look fair. Needless to say, the moderator was stumped, Hillary's jaw dropped to the floor, and that exchange was all over the news for days. So can't tell you exactly the link or the date, but with that info it should be pretty easy to find.

[ki4kxq]

Ok Mark, in response to your two stories, I have one for you.

Little Susie, who's parents are very liberal democrats, was visiting her conservative republican aunt with her mother.

Upon arriving, Susie was telling her aunt about the homeless man on the corner and how she wanted to help that man by giving him some money so that he could have a place to stay.

The aunt told Susie that she was a sweet girl, and told her that she would help her. The aunt took Susie to the back door and pointed into the back yard where her two labradors were playing. She told Susie, I haven't scooped the dog's yard yet today. I tell you what, you scoop the yard for me and I will pay you $10. You can then go down and give the money to the homeless guy.

Susie thought a minute then replied, "Why can't the homeless man come and scoop the yard instead?" Welcome to the republican party Susie.

[Sanslines]

I think the point that most of you are missing from the conservative side is, when your taxes go down, you can spend the money you have for your own health care. We self insure through a lot of things even though we have health insurance. Why? Because then we are in control of our care and not some HMO or the gov.

Suppose you visited your doctor and were diagnosed with cancer. Expensive treatements were required in order to give you a fighting chance at life. When you approached your insurance company (the same insurance company that you had been paying premiums for years) you were denied coverage. You then had to not only fight your illness but seek legal help and battle the insurance company for the benefits that you had paid for your entire life. In the end, the insurance company was successful in denying your claim. You then had to declare bankruptcy and lose everything that you had worked for your entire life to pay for your six or seven figure treatments.

Insurance companies are not in the business of paying out benefits or taking care of people. They are in business to make money and will use whatever means availible to them to deny claims. If they could, they would leave people to die in the streets rather then fulfill their moral obligations.

If you had such an experience as above, you might believe that an efficiently run national health care system (that is not in business to maximize profit but is in business to provide proper health care for people) is what is needed.

Many of us have discussed the issue of national health and have all come to the same conclusion that such a system, if properly run, can actually substantially lower health costs and provide better heath care then what our present system provides. Preventive health care is what is so lacking today. Have you ever heard the old (sad) joke about "America has the best health care in the world (for those who can actually afford it)" ?

[Illinois59]

With medical insurance being the topic of a few posts, does anybody have any percentage figures on how much of each dollar coming into Medicare goes for payment of medical claims compared to how much of each dollar coming into a for-profit medical insurance company goes into payment of medical claims?

[usmc1]

Hey guys. I did say that there should be a flat tax of some amount to pay for things like defense of our nation, infrastructure, those types of things called for in our constitution. Of course we do have to pay some taxes.

The insane amount we pay now though is ridiculous because we are trying to pay for every little pet project and feel good thing that comes along. No, our government should not be funding health insurance. There are some things that people should provide on their own. If I go and say that everyone needs health care so therefore, gov should provide it. Where does that logic stop. Everyone needs food too, maybe gov should pay for that. How about housing? Everyone needs shelter, let the government supply that. Look, everyone falls on hard times, and during those times, they may need a hand up. Nobody has a problem with that. But the help should be a hand up, not a permanent hand out.

Somebody also scoffed at the idea of a wage earner with an estate. Where do you guys think the majority of wealth comes from in this country? It's not trust fund babies, it's ordinary people. Some have worked for the same company for 30 years and some are small business owners. Lots of everyday working folks now are millionaires when they pass away, why does the government deserve to get a second hit at the pie they have already paid taxes on?

Yes, Americans have way too much debt. They too are spending like Congress. Both the American people and our government need to start living within their means. I think the point that most of you are missing from the conservative side is, when your taxes go down, you can spend the money you have for your own health care. We self insure through a lot of things even though we have health insurance. Why? Because then we are in control of our care and not some HMO or the gov. Boreas, you talk about the Canadian system that pays for health care, yet, we here of people who really need medical care have to come to the US because they cannot get the care they need in Canada. High risk pregnancies routinely come here because they cannot get the high tech care they need in Canada. Heart surgeries, MRI's, etc, we have all heard the stories of extremely long waiting lists. The problem is, when someone else is paying your bill, you lose all control of your own health care, period. They are paying the money so they get to make the decisions. Btw guys, have you seen how the government handles things? Sorry, I don't want them running my health care.

Really? You think? Well lets' say you live in Flint Texas, do you get top-rated cancer and/or heart care right there in downtown Flint? Or do you schlept your butt over to M.D. Anderson or the Heart Institute in Houston? Right! We both know the answer to that. There are regional specialty health centers such as Barnes in St. Louis, Mayo up yonder and so on. When we need what they offer we go to the one nearest us.

About this time last year the conservatives were tearing it up with e-mails about how poor old pregnant Canadian women were flooding hospitals in Seattle because they couldn't find the care they needed in Canada.

Turns out, the women lived in a rural, sparsely populated, area in Western Canada which did not have the resources to provide the expert and specialized neo-natal support they needed. Now, they could have gone to Toronto or other major metropolitan areas in Canada where there were the specialized type beds and nursing care they needed---all the way across the continent, or book it on down to Seattle which, in effect was just down the street, and which provided the services by agreement with the Canadian government which reimbursed the Seattle facilities.

You seem a bright enough lad, but, you do need to get your facts in line. You seem to sound off on things you clearly do not understand, such as attributing the effect of the inheritance tax to wage earners and utterly misconstruing Obama's tax plan. He actually is suggesting extending the estate tax exemption, and reducing the estate tax rate. You wrote otherwise.

That information was available to you in the second paragraph of the first page of the candidate's budget comparison I referred to you and which you claim to have skimmed.

[usmc1]

With medical insurance being the topic of a few posts, does anybody have any percentage figures on how much of each dollar coming into Medicare goes for payment of medical claims compared to how much of each dollar coming into a for-profit medical insurance company goes into payment of medical claims?
Yes, please use the search function and you will see that I, Mark, Nacktman, and others have repeatedly posted that data when it comes up in these debates,

[Boreas]

Thank you usmc1 for doing your homework and busting the spin about Canadian healthcare.

I frankly have more choices here than many in the US have. I know of people, personally, who could not get something like chemo because their insurance policy would not pay for it. That is plain wrong. She would have received chemo here, even in this smallish (20,000 people), remote community.

There are some waiting times for certain things. Some of these wait times are out of line. What you do not hear, is that they are working hard to solve these problems, and it has gotten better. Also, I think that some places in the US are too quick to use MRIs and such because they can. I would have to go to the city two hours away for an MRI. I could do so in a reasonable amount of time. My doctor though, would make sure all other avenues had been addressed first, and would not use it as a first line of defence.

I am speaking with some experience here. Two years ago my neck was very sore, and it reminded me I had always intended to get bone density testing. Anyway, the doctor suggested I get an x-ray of my neck as well. I walked across the street to the hospital to get the x-ray on the same day the doctor signed the requisition. The x-ray revealed some abnormalities, and damage, probably from a past injury. The radiologist said that a CT scan was recommended to rule out a nerve sheath tumour. I went to my doctor on a Monday to talk about this. He told me to call diagnostic imaging on the Wednesday. They called me on the Wednesday and offered me an appointment that Friday. Trouble was, I was in Vancouver. I was able to book one for the following Wednesday. I had the CT and was told the doctor would have the results the following week. His office called me the next day (scared the crap out of me) to say he wanted to talk to me. I was able to get in promptly to find out the results, which by the way, were fine. All of this, including the bone density scan, took place in a few weeks. So much for line ups. Had I needed an MRI, I would have been able to get one promptly.

There are some restrictions on what type of service we can receive. These restrictions are quite reasonable. For instance, an annual health screen is only paid for once per year. We will receive proper treatment, and will not be denied healthcare because of pre-existing conditions, or because some insurance wog deems it too expensive. HMO's and other insurance companies are out to make money. They are not there to provide healthcare. That has serious consequences.

[Qikdraw]

Insurance companies are not in the business of paying out benefits or taking care of people. They are in business to make money and will use whatever means availible to them to deny claims. If they could, they would leave people to die in the streets rather then fulfill their moral obligations.

Yeah and insurance companies have been caught offering bonus programs for the amount of denials they do. They keep doing them because the amount they save is far more than the paltry slap on the wrist they get.

My wife's long term disability carrier tried to deny her, they tried every trick in the book, and some that are outright illegal as well. What they didn't count on is my wife specialised in insurance law, and she ripped into them really good. They kept trying though, every few months they would phone up and lie to her about what her policy covers, they did this for about 2 years, and then the last two years of her coverage they left her alone, I guess realising they were not getting anywhere. But here is the thing, they outright lied to her about her policy and they did illegal things as well. My wife was lucky in that she knew what was going on, how many people are not so lucky? And this is what libertarians and republicans want us to trust our healthcare into.


Many of us have discussed the issue of national health and have all come to the same conclusion that such a system, if properly run, can actually substantially lower health costs and provide better heath care then what our present system provides. Preventive health care is what is so lacking today. Have you ever heard the old (sad) joke about "America has the best health care in the world (for those who can actually afford it)" ?

Yup, I think we've gone over this numerous times, and so far those fighting for teh insurance company side have yet to provide any valid documents to back their side up, its all been rhetoric. Those of us calling for a national healthcare system have provided tons of information, proving our point.

[NudeAl]

I think most Americans would be in favor of some form of national health care. I know the leading cause of bankruptcy in the US is from medical bills and the HMO's are very good at not paying for medical treatment. I think their policy is to automatically reject all claims and then delay as long as possible any payouts for treatment.

I would like to see one of elected officials put together a model of how such a program might look including cost analysis and how we are going to pay for it. I imagine that the HMO's and pharmaceutical companies would be against that though it would ruin their business.

[Sanslines]

I think most Americans would be in favor of some form of national health care. I know the leading cause of bankruptcy in the US is from medical bills and the HMO's are very good at not paying for medical treatment. I think their policy is to automatically reject all claims and then delay as long as possible any payouts for treatment.

I would like to see one of elected officials put together a model of how such a program might look including cost analysis and how we are going to pay for it. I imagine that the HMO's and pharmaceutical companies would be against that though it would ruin their business.

Any President who is serious about a national health policy needs to pass legislation that protects Congress from constant and unrelenting lobbying from the medical and pharma establishment. Lobbyists hound Congressmen day and night and never let up on the intense pressure until Congressmen 'crack' and give in to the lobbyist demands. Threats such as making it very clear that any politician who votes against the establishment will be met with an intense and unrelenting smear campaign that will result in the politician's losing the next election work very well.

I know first hand how some very sick people literally have to get off their sick or death bed to fight insurance companies when they had the least amount of energy to do so. This should be criminal and is just another justification why insurance companies can not be trusted with the people's health. Insurance companies lie, use their size and power to abuse the little guy, and rejoice in saving money at the expense of sick people. Insurance companies certainly have a great deal of blood on their hands.

[Skinview]

the HMO's are very good at not paying for medical treatment. I think their policy is to automatically reject all claims and then delay as long as possible any payouts for treatment.
I have health insurance, and I've used it, and every time the claim was paid without delay.
I like my private health insurance and my private doctor, and I don't want the government mucking it up.

[Naturist Mark]

I have health insurance, and I've used it, and every time the claim was paid without delay.
I like my private health insurance and my private doctor, and I don't want the government mucking it up.

I also have my private health insurance, and in the last year I've been caught in a tug of war between 3 insurance companies, two hospitals, a dozen private doctors, and now the State Attorney General's office.

I'll take 'socialized' health insurance any day.

-Mark

[jon71]

I think the irony is that conservative republicans will give us "socialized medicine". Whenever a Democrat or a R.i.n.o. offers something to improve the system a certain cadre of republicans start crying "socialized medicine" and attack it. In doing so the system is getting worse and worse. Skinview you said you're happy with your insurance. Do you think that people who have no insurance agree with you? What about people who are seeing their premiums go up, their co-pays and deductibles go up, and what their insurance actually covers go down. The pressure is building like water behind a dam. Either we make some changes to improve the situation or the pressure will build and build until it breaks all at once. If enough people get upset enough at the same time we will have national health care and it will be the people who opposed more modest improvements who will be the most to blame. I would prefer to improve the existing system though I don't consider national health care to be the boogie man people on the right make it out to be. We'd pay more and we'd get more too. Countries like Canada and Germany that are often used as examples are better that the U.S. in some areas and worse in others so I think it's more of a break even than either side will admit to.

[Qikdraw]

I like my private health insurance and my private doctor, and I don't want the government mucking it up.

All I see is anecdotal evidence which parrots republican/insurance company talking points. Please provide proof to back your statement up.

[Qikdraw]

Skinview you said you're happy with your insurance. Do you think that people who have no insurance agree with you?

Sorry Jon, but he doesn't care about other people, HE is covered, (so he thinks) so everything is fine in the world. People who believe as he does simply believe that if you do not have health insurance you don't deserve to have it, if you cannot aford it, simply get another job. This is their answer for everything, which is basically puitting blinders on and as long as nothing bad happens to them, everything is fine.

[jon71]

Unfortunately you might be right. I know that while my coverage is by no means extravagant that a lot of people are much worse off. Some people are well covered but the ranks of those who aren't is growing. I look around me and don't like the way things are trending.

[usmc1]

Health care is a basic human right and as such ought not be rationed or turned into a profit center.

[Boreas]

It is interesting that two people have commented about having health insurance and about having two experiences with it. I am inclined to agree with Qikdraw, that as long as a person is covered THEY are okay. I do not believe that Skinview's opinion is unique in the world.

I also wonder Skinview if you have had to actually use your health insurance for something other than mundane, typical health concerns. Mark, knowing your experience, I wonder how often people experience what you did. That anyone should go through what you did in the so called best country in the world, is shameful.

[MoonShadow]

How true, Boreas!

Mark's experience is not unique. I have known others (friends also) who have had a nightmarish experience with their health care coverage - company provided and privately covered. Our health care in this country is an abomination! To think we have over 49 million people who have nothing in this so-called "great" country is more than shameful.

I support socialized medicine any day over what we currently have in this country. No one, no one in this country should be without cradle-to-grave coverage.

[Boreas]

Thanks MoonShadow. I agree. I can never remember the number of people who are uninsured in the US. It is larger than the population of Canada which is now about 33,343,189 people (see http://www.statcan.ca/english/edu/clock/population.htm) This population clock says that Canada's population grows on average one person (unit) per about one and a half minutes. At that rate, it will take us awhile to get to the level of uninsured Americans. That number also is too big to be just people who have decided they are young and do not need health insurance.

I have had a couple of minor health issues in the past couple of years. I am very appreciative that I can get these checked out without worrying about cost. The only fee I had to pay was $40 for allergy testing. Whoopie. Oh, and I had to drive to the two nearby towns, one an hour away and the other two hours. No big deal. I live in a fairly remote area, and the healthcare services cover the region.

[Skinview]

I like my private health insurance and my private doctor, and I don't want the government mucking it up.
All I see is anecdotal evidence which parrots republican/insurance company talking points. Please provide proof to back your statement up.

Proof I like my health insurance and doctor? You want a picture of me smiling?

[Skinview]

Health care is a basic human right and as such ought not be rationed or turned into a profit center.

Food is a basic human right. I know that in countries where the government provides the food for everyone, its poor and scarce. The reason I can go to the super market and pick among an abundance of a vast variety of foods is because its turned into a profit center. The communist counties were a disaster. Some people don't have health insurance because they they don't want to or can't pay for it, and you want to chuck it all for a proven disasterous system? I can't suggest you move to the Soviet Union, I guess. It collapsed. You will just have to forgo the fun experience of spending a day standing in line for the bad cut of fat and gristle that the government employee hands you. Maybe instead of wreaking our health care system, we could buy health insurance for those who can't afford it.

[Boreas]

Food is a basic human right. I know that in countries where the government provides the food for everyone, its poor and scarce. The reason I can go to the super market and pick among an abundance of a vast variety of foods is because its turned into a profit center. The communist counties were a disaster. Some people don't have health insurance because they they don't want to or can't pay for it, and you want to chuck it all for a proven disasterous system? I can't suggest you move to the Soviet Union I guess. It collapsed. Maybe instead of wreaking our health care system, we could buy health insurance for those who can't afford it.

So, it is a Capitalist or a Communist model with nothing in between? Is that what you are saying?

Faulty logic.

[Skinview]

So, it is a Capitalist or a Communist model with nothing in between? Is that what you are saying?

Faulty logic.

Would you like to drink pure water, toxic waste, or a mixture of both?

[Sanslines]

Mark, knowing your experience, I wonder how often people experience what you did. That anyone should go through what you did in the so called best country in the world, is shameful.

I know exactly what Mark went throught for I was rear ended by another vehicle. My insurance company told me that my medical expenses were not covered by my policy and the insurance company of the person who hit me also refused to pay. The insurance company of the person who hit me tried to convince me that they were not required to pay because my injuries did not meet certain threshold guidelines for severity of injuries (ie I was not killed or lost limbs in the accident). This was a load of hogwash and in clear violation of the law. This is why state insurance offices and attorney general offices are needed. Just because someone has insurance does not mean that the insurance company will actually pay for expenses. Denying coverage to people who assumed that they are insured is much more common then most are aware.

[Sanslines]

Proof I like my health insurance and doctor? You want a picture of me smiling?

Only if you have visited your dentist. This assumes, of course, that you have adequate dental insurance.

[Sanslines]

Maybe instead of wreaking our health care system, we could buy health insurance for those who can't afford it.

Then again since we already have a form of national health insurance for many ie medicare, medicaid, and the VA, we can extend the umbrella and place everyone under medicare. Of course the medical and pharma establishment would strongly fight this as doing so would deeply cut into their enormous profit margins. Why should we buy health insurance for those who can't afford it and be at the mercy to pay whatever the insurance companies charge? Why not eliminate this scheme to transfer taxpayer dollars to insurance companies and make them even more profitable when we can bypass all of this and just place everyone on medicare? Doing so is much more cost effective and will provide better health care for all.

[usmc1]

Food is a basic human right. I know that in countries where the government provides the food for everyone, its poor and scarce. The reason I can go to the super market and pick among an abundance of a vast variety of foods is because its turned into a profit center. The communist counties were a disaster. Some people don't have health insurance because they they don't want to or can't pay for it, and you want to chuck it all for a proven disasterous system? I can't suggest you move to the Soviet Union, I guess. It collapsed. You will just have to forgo the fun experience of spending a day standing in line for the bad cut of fat and gristle that the government employee hands you. Maybe instead of wreaking our health care system, we could buy health insurance for those who can't afford it.

Nope, 'taint leavin'. Stayin' put! M'folks has been here since 1709, so got a lot o' plunder I'd have to pack up, if I was to take off. But, don't care to anyhow. So, stayin' put, and continuing the fight to reclaim America for the working families that made her great, in the past, and who will agin!

What country is it by the way that hands out fat and gristle to its people? Shame on them! Must be a bunch of Republicans running that place, making them stand in line all day and all, don't seem right somehow.

Yep food's a basic right, and ought not be rationed or turned into a profit center. You wanna pay all those middleman fees, transportation, packaging, stocking and marketing costs, and markups, I guess you're free to do so. Don't seem the brightest of all possible choices to me.

We grow almost all our own, and use heirloom seeds that produce new seeds that can be used year-after-year. If I could just convince my neighbor to plant some wheat and find us a miller, we'd have it goin' on for shure!

And maybe a Jersey cow for milk. Dang old Jersey cow, getting her fair share of grass and clover will give you some of the sweetest milk in the world. Seal it up in an airtight lard can, and let it cool off dangling on some twine down in the well a few hours and then drink it with some fresh cornbread, and boy, you'll learn to appreciate life.

[Boreas]

Would you like to drink pure water, toxic waste, or a mixture of both?

?????? :confused:

[Skinview]

Nope, 'taint leavin'. Stayin' put! M'folks has been here since 1709,
Welcome latecomer! My folks were on the Mayflower.


so got a lot o' plunder I'd have to pack up, if I was to take off.
Damn socialists, always taking people's stuff...


But, don't care to anyhow. So, stayin' put, and continuing the fight to reclaim America for the working families that made her great, in the past, and who will agin!Don't neglect people like Carnegie, Ford, Gates, and Jobs, who made this country great.


What country is it by the way that hands out fat and gristle to its people? Shame on them! Must be a bunch of Republicans running that place, making them stand in line all day and all, don't seem right somehow.As I wrote, the Soviet Union did that. They don't get fat and gristle in North Korea. I hear they are starving again.


Yep food's a basic right, and ought not be rationed or turned into a profit center. You wanna pay all those middleman fees, transportation, packaging, stocking and marketing costs, and markups, I guess you're free to do so. Don't seem the brightest of all possible choices to me.Cuba is still around, and thats no profit center. You can move there too, if you can get past all the people trying to get out. But food is rationed there, as is everything in communist countries.

[Skinview]

So, it is a Capitalist or a Communist model with nothing in between? Is that what you are saying?

Faulty logic.

Would you like to drink pure water, toxic waste, or a mixture of both?
Water is a metaphor for a free market, toxic waste is a metaphor for socialism. I was not suggesting earlier that there was nothing in between. But it makes no sense to add elements of a terrible system to improve what we have now.

[Boreas]

Water is a metaphor for a free market, toxic waste is a metaphor for socialism. I was not suggesting earlier that there was nothing in between. But it makes no sense to add elements of a terrible system to improve what we have now.

And it makes no sense to love the terrible system you have now. Any talk of socialism in the same sentence as programs such as universal healthcare smacks of paranoia to this Canadian. It seems that many Americans will bring in the fear of communism whenever such talk starts. To me, it is based in irrational thinking rather than any informed thought. I know what it is to live with universal healthcare, and I am very grateful we have it.

[Qikdraw]

Proof I like my health insurance and doctor? You want a picture of me smiling?

No, proof that a government would muck it up. So far all I have seen is rhetoric.

[ki4kxq]

Really Quickdraw, no proof that government would muck it up. Have you taken a cruise through a VA hospital lately? Have you not listened to the billions of dollars wasted within the medicare/medicaid programs?

The constitution of this country provides for three things, life liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness. I have read the constitution many times and have never seen where people in this country are entitled to government provided health care.

[Boreas]

Really Quickdraw, no proof that government would muck it up. Have you taken a cruise through a VA hospital lately? Have y

Have you experienced Canadian universal healthcare? Have you done homework on this? (besides the misinformation you posted from the media before)

[Qikdraw]

And it makes no sense to love the terrible system you have now. Any talk of socialism in the same sentence as programs such as universal healthcare smacks of paranoia to this Canadian. It seems that many Americans will bring in the fear of communism whenever such talk starts. To me, it is based in irrational thinking rather than any informed thought. I know what it is to live with universal healthcare, and I am very grateful we have it.

Boreas,

It is irrational. Skinview knows full well that a national healthcare system is not communism, but it seems he likes the extremes. (like the clean water or toxic waste arguement he put forth) This is an arguement tactic to put those who disagree with him on the defencive, forgetting he has not said anything of substance, so we rush to provide proof he is wrong, then he makes another extreme comment, and again we are on the defencive. So far in this healthcare arguement he has not provided one single thing to back up what he says, not one thing.

[Boreas]

I agree Qikdraw. Like I said before, it is all paranoia. (in my humble opinion) ;)

[Qikdraw]

Really Quickdraw, no proof that government would muck it up. Have you taken a cruise through a VA hospital lately? Have you not listened to the billions of dollars wasted within the medicare/medicaid programs?

I have dealt with this idiotic American system where my doctors have to get permission to take an xray. (if its not an emergency) It takes 2 weeks for me to be allowed to have an xray. I have a bad back, I have been seeing doctors about it since january, I only recently got a simple xray, and I won't see a spine specialist until the end of september. In Canada my primary doctor would have sent me to a spine specialist within a month.



The constitution of this country provides for three things, life liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness. I have read the constitution many times and have never seen where people in this country are entitled to government provided health care.

It also does not talk about firemen or a police force. So by your measure if you are robbed, or your family is heald at gunpoint you will not turn to the police because its not in the Constitution. How about if your house catches on fire, you will simply grab a hose and start watering? You have no right to a fireman either.

[Boreas]

Wow, Qikdraw. When I had a neck x-ray, my doctor filled out the form and I took it across the street to the hospital and had an x-ray that day. The next thing I knew, I was getting a CT scan. It all happened in a matter of a few weeks. Oh, and I managed to slip in a bone density test in there somewhere too. :) Had the CT scan revealed the tumour they suspected, I would have been referred to a specialist quickly. I may have had to go somewhere like Edmonton for it, but that is okay. And I am not even in the same province as Edmonton. :surprised:

I had a cyber-friend who was diagnosed with breast cancer. Her doctor had to get permission to send her for chemo and she was denied that treatment because some wog in the insurance company did not think it was necessary. She could not afford to pay for it out of pocket. That is just plain inconceivable and wrong. shocked

I am really thankful for the Canadian system. Are you going to move back? :sneaky:

[usmc1]

Really Quickdraw, no proof that government would muck it up. Have you taken a cruise through a VA hospital lately? Have you not listened to the billions of dollars wasted within the medicare/medicaid programs?

The constitution of this country provides for three things, life liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness. I have read the constitution many times and have never seen where people in this country are entitled to government provided health care.

I use the VA extensively, it works quite well for me and many, many others. Most recent problems related to the VA stemmed from this criminal administration led by a dry-drunk sociopath, which had inadquate planning and preparation for the number of casualties from Iraq.

Medicare is well-known to be an extremely cost-effective federal program. There are two important areas for improvement:

1) End the boondoogle of the Bush admintrations support of Medicare Advantage plans which siphon off excess dollars through special preferences.

2)Allow Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices as does the V.A.

Each of these steps will add to its solvency.

You persist in sounding off on things about which you display no knowledge. That is your privilege, I suppose.

Your comment about reading the constitution reminds me of an old gunny I once had. He had read the "book" from cover to cover and never bothered to have a thought thereafter. Someone fragged him the third day in the bush.

Quality health care is a neccesity for life, by the way.

[ki4kxq]

Yep, I have done my own homework, and that does not include listening to talk radio etc. The deal is, I believe as our founding fathers believed. The best system is one where everyone has freedom, but with freedom comes responsibility. Each person is responsible for his own wellbeing and that of his family. I know to some that sounds cold, but, it is I believe a much better system in the long run.

As far as misinformation, there is misinformation on both sides. But again, I will stick with our founding fathers intention. The deal is, I don't really care what the Canadian system is, this is the United States. I believe in one of your previous posts, the population for Canada is 33 million. We are 10 times that. What makes you think that your system would work here? I have read extensively on the subject and I am just not impressed with the Canadian health care system. However, it is also a moral argument with me. Our system is based on individual rights and individual responsibilities. Limited government. There are better fixes out there than universal or government funded healthcare.

[usmc1]

Yep, I have done my own homework, and that does not include listening to talk radio etc. The deal is, I believe as our founding fathers believed. The best system is one where everyone has freedom, but with freedom comes responsibility. Each person is responsible for his own wellbeing and that of his family. I know to some that sounds cold, but, it is I believe a much better system in the long run.

As far as misinformation, there is misinformation on both sides. But again, I will stick with our founding fathers intention. The deal is, I don't really care what the Canadian system is, this is the United States. I believe in one of your previous posts, the population for Canada is 33 million. We are 10 times that. What makes you think that your system would work here? I have read extensively on the subject and I am just not impressed with the Canadian health care system. However, it is also a moral argument with me. Our system is based on individual rights and individual responsibilities. Limited government. There are better fixes out there than universal or government funded healthcare.

No that's fine. Stand on your own. As Mark said, be your own police and fire department. Home school your kids. Keep your money in a mattress. Stay off the interstate. Grow your own food, and get totally the hell off the grid. Prepare your own serums and innoculations and hope for the best. Stay off the internet. Don't use a library. And stay off those county and state roads too. Do your own dental work. And grind out your own dentures, when that fails. Pump your own water, and since you're off the grid, you'll want to boil it--or else learn how to home-treat typhus, cholera, or the screaming, pipe-bending, bloody squat and goes. Perform your own surgeries, make your own diagnosis, and prepare your own curative compounds or prescriptions. And, when you finally age out, be prepared to roam about like a feral dog, because you've swallowed the Republican lie about "being on your own"! What that means is, "you ARE on your own!"

Because, otherwise, either directly, or indirectly, you'd be relying on tax dollars at work in one way, or another, buying civilization for the rest of us who were not trepanned at birth.

[MoonShadow]

. There are better fixes out there than universal or government funded healthcare.


Could you give some examples, ki4kxq?

[Boreas]

Well, ki4kxq, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. I agree with usmc1's response to you. I would also suggest that things have changed a bit in the 200+ years since your founding fathers were on the earth and got things started.

For me, it is also a moral argument. It is absolutely immoral in my opinion that people are left with no insurance, or worse, think they have insurance and find out they are not covered after all, because some wog who is not a doctor is declaring what medical services they can receive. That is immoral.

I would also suggest that you have not gotten to this place in life without SOME help from others. You have not been absolutely independent, nor will you go without help in the future. I pray that you continue to enjoy good health and prosperity. If you fall onto hard times, you may not have help. Then you will see the other side.

[MoonShadow]

For me, it is also a moral argument. It is absolutely immoral in my opinion that people are left with no insurance, or worse, think they have insurance and find out they are not covered after all, because some wog who is not a doctor is declaring what medical services they can receive. That is immoral.




Say it again, say it again, Sista!

Insurance companies should have never gotten the control they have now. It is not only immoral but callous!

[Boreas]

:cheering: Okay, this is the closest thing to a hi-five I could come up with! Consider yourself hi-fived! :cool:

It is totally a moral argument with me. It is also sad that our system is going towards a more corporate model, where dollars and cents are valued more than health and sense. :mad:

[Skinview]

Its plainly obvious to anyone who was paying attention during the cold war, or today, that the standard of living in communist countries was far below that of the west. Just compare East v West Germany, North v South Korea, the PRC v Taiwan, or the Soviet Union v Western Europe or the US. Consumer products were scarce, people waited in long lines for what they could get, and the quality was poor. In communist countries, the government provides all goods and services. It was awful. Qikdraw, if you want evidence, get an old almanac out and compare the GDP of those countries. In reality, the Soviet Union managed to keep going for so long because there was an underground economy that people used to get what the government could not provide. Socialism was a spectacular failure.
From what I know of the Canadian system, its a long way from being a purely government operation, which is probably why it doesn't work worse than it does. But any national healthcare plan that has the government running it, is to a greater or lesser extent socialist, or has elements of socialism. Likening national health care plans to "communisim" isn't a scare tactic, its an observation. It isn't a claim that our form of government is going to change, its just a recognition that the plan is to some extent an example of the socialist Soviet way of doing things.
Anything that the government does is force. It forces people to do things, or prohibits them from doing what they want. Plans for government healthcare systems often have the govenment deciding who is going to be your doctor, what procedures you be allowed to have, and how much doctors and nurses will be paid, (which are wage and price controls), and whatever else the government touches. A free market system has complete freedom of choice. All you need is the money.
The freedom to choose isn't just a nice thing to have. The fundamental problem with socialism is that the people making the decisions are removed from the costs and benifits, and never have enough information. Solutions become one size fits all. Wastage and shortages happen because the decision makers can't comprehend all the changing demands for a huge nation. Orders go out for production, but who is evaluating the quality? What is good enough? Is "good enough" good enough for you? The consumer, who is the only one who cares, doesn't get to make choices. There is no competition. We know this is what happened in the Soviet Union.
Some people in a free market don't have the money they need for health care, and that can be fixed all by itself without taking away freedom or imposing a clumsy, hulking system on everyone.

[Sanslines]

There are better fixes out there than universal or government funded healthcare.

Since medicare is a form of universal health care coverage for some of our population, your logic would have us get rid of medicare and leave seniors out on a limb as far as health care coverage ins concerned.

Once you become a senior yourself, you will quickly realize that the stability and comfort of a system such as medicare is worth more then gold to some seniors. Those who are sick need to concentrate on getting well and not spend their final years fighting a broken health care system that would rather have people die if it means an increase in profits to them.

[Sanslines]

Some people in a free market don't have the money they need for health care, and that can be fixed all by itself without taking away freedom or imposing a clumsy, hulking system on everyone.

The clumsy hulking system that you are referring to is medicare and medicare is a basically good and sound sytem that (like any good system) can always be improved. However, to claim that we shoud get rid of medicare because of a few problems ignores the fact that the problems that exist with insurance companies are orders of magnitude higher then medicare.

Because of medicare's size, medicare can and does set the amounts that they are willing to reimburse for procedures. What do insurance companies do except deny converage and continue to raise premiums? How much money do insurance companies need to make and how much misery and suffering must they contribute to society before you are convinced that this 'freedom of choice' is no choice for many.

Why would you dispute and reject a system that can be extremely cost effective and improve the health and well being of millions? Is this not important?

[Skinview]

The clumsy hulking system that you are referring to is medicareNo, its not. Medicare is not a hospital. Its a government insurance company. They pay money, they don't do procedures.


and medicare is a basically good and sound sytem that (like any good system) can always be improved. However, to claim that we shoud get rid of medicare...

Why would you dispute and reject a system that can be extremely cost effective and improve the health and well being of millions?I did no such thing.


because of a few problems ignores the fact that the problems that exist with insurance companies are orders of magnitude higher then medicare.

Because of medicare's size, medicare can and does set the amounts that they are willing to reimburse for procedures. What do insurance companies do except deny converage and continue to raise premiums?My private insurance company does exactly the same thing.


How much money do insurance companies need to makeThe problem with the left is that they care what other people make.


and how much misery and suffering must they contribute to society before you are convinced that this 'freedom of choice' is no choice for many.Who?
There is a choice limiting problem with the current system, and it was created by government. I wonder if someone here knows what it is...

[Qikdraw]

Skinview, you have still not put forth one iota of data to support your side, just your opinion and continued referencing to communism.

You are really doing yourself a disservice here, I know you are smarter than this. Give me some hard facts to back your side up. Compare the US system to Canada's or France's, point out how the US is far better than theirs. Do a cost analysis between them, etc...

Seriously all you've brought so far is rhetoric, anecdotal evidence, and republican/insurance company talking points.

[Boreas]

Seriously all you've brought so far is rhetoric, anecdotal evidence, and republican/insurance company talking points.

I agree. Skinview, you have also continued to bring up communist countries as examples. No one is saying that is what is wanted. Is this the type of universal system people are advocating in the US? If so, I do understand some of the resistance.

Universal healthcare does not have to be under the thumb of the government. I have mentioned that before, and have explained a bit how it works. We have the (federal) Canada Health Act that gives guidelines and a framework under which the provincial governments must provide healthcare. The federal government provides transfer payments to the provinces, and the provinces design the healthcare system they believe suits them. I live in the west. If I were to visit Halifax, Nova Scotia in the east and get sick, I know I will be covered. Also, because I live in a somewhat remote area, I do have to travel to a larger centre such as Edmonton, Calgary or Vancouver for specialists. I can go to either province. Also, my health authority brings visiting specialists to this area.

We are well covered, even in this remote area. It burns me sometimes that I will have travel costs that someone in Vancouver will not have, but I can deal with it.<!-- / message -->

[Sanslines]

No, its not. Medicare is not a hospital. Its a government insurance company. They pay money, they don't do procedures.

They do much more then just 'pay money'. They control costs. They are not an insurance company. They provide security for those who need it most and are non profit. Hence they don't deny coverage so that they can make more profit by leaving people to die in the streets.


I did no such thing.

You are certainly not speaking of Medicare in favorable terms.


My private insurance company does exactly the same thing.

Does this mean that just because you appear to have great private insurance that the rest of society does not matter? The rest of society does not have such insurance.


The problem with the left is that they care what other people make.

Making obscene profit by engaging in highly immoral and unethical standards such as refusing to pay benefits to those who had dutyfully paid their premiums for years is just plain wrong. Giving death sentences to people by abusing their size and power against sick people by denying coverage that is legally due to patients is a 'crime against humanity'!


Who?
There is a choice limiting problem with the current system, and it was created by government. I wonder if someone here knows what it is...

Insurance companies.

[Boreas]

Making obscene profit by engaging in highly immoral and unethical standards such as refusing to pay benefits to those who had dutyfully paid their premiums for years is just plain wrong. Giving death sentences to people by abusing their size and power against sick people by denying coverage that is legally due to patients is a 'crime against humanity'!

Well said Sanslines.

The "Left" is often accused of not liking the fact that some people are rich. I have no problem with well earned wealth. I have a problem with the type of wealth you describe above. Sadly, it is not limited to insurance companies.

[Skinview]

Skinview, you have still not put forth one iota of data to support your side, just your opinion and continued referencing to communism.

You are really doing yourself a disservice here, I know you are smarter than this. Give me some hard facts to back your side up. Compare the US system to Canada's or France's, point out how the US is far better than theirs. Do a cost analysis between them, etc...I don't think you understand what "my side" is.

[Skinview]

They do much more then just 'pay money'. They control costs.Like I wrote before, SO DOES MY INSURANCE COMPANY.


You are certainly not speaking of Medicare in favorable terms.Ok, here is something that should keep you busy for a long time: Find a post that I made with the word "Medicare" in it.


Does this mean that just because you appear to have great private insurance that the rest of society does not matter? The rest of society does not have such insurance.Now we are making progress. There is such a thing as "great private insurance".
Now here is a novel concept that I have only posted a half dozen times so far: Lets have the states buy some of that "great private insurance" for poor people.



Making obscene profit by engaging in highly immoral and unethical standards such as refusing to pay benefits to those who had dutyfully paid their premiums for years is just plain wrong. Giving death sentences to people by abusing their size and power against sick people by denying coverage that is legally due to patients is a 'crime against humanity'!
A really good way to whip them into line is publish such anecdotes and name the company that is doing it. Bad publicity is a great way to light a fire under the bad asses.
Of course the courts can be used as well, but I think the press has a bigger effect.

[jon71]

No one has ever claimed that nobody does well under the current system. The undeniable truth is however that fewer and fewer people are doing well under the current system. More working Americans can't afford insurance at all and more people who have insurance are basically underinsured. On average the insurance companies are getting more brazen in denying coverage to people who have been paying their premiums for years. The fine print and loop holes are increasing the profit margin for the insurance companies at the cost of destroying families. H.M.O.s are even worse. Realistically America has two choices. We can fix the current system now or we can listen to those who say any govt. involvement is "communism" and nonsense like that. If we do that then the system will get worse and worse until it's so bad that Americans demand govt. run health care and people like Skinview bring about what they least want. Personally I'd rather fix the current system but I'm almost expecting the conservatives to inadvertently give us nationalized health care.

[usmc1]

Skinview, you have still not put forth one iota of data to support your side, just your opinion and continued referencing to communism.

You are really doing yourself a disservice here, I know you are smarter than this. Give me some hard facts to back your side up. Compare the US system to Canada's or France's, point out how the US is far better than theirs. Do a cost analysis between them, etc...

Seriously all you've brought so far is rhetoric, anecdotal evidence, and republican/insurance company talking points.

Or Japan's, or Taiwan's, or even Mexico's for that matter. His real problem in this exchange, and so many other exchanges, is that he has an ideological point of view, but, does no research and cites no data or sources to support his extreme positions. His name-calling and labeling obfuscates and distracts others from noticing that he argues from no knowledge base, but rather from bias and prejudice.

I defy him to present one study by anyone, anywhere which indicates that HMOs or insurance provided health care is as cost effective as Medicare. Which, by the way, allows one the doctors and specialists of one's choice, which HMOs do not.

His self-centered world view has been expressed in virtually all of his exchanges. It is always about him and never about his fellow creatures. He is satisfied with his insurance plan, so then should the rest of us his argument goes, and if someone doesn't have a similarly satisfactory plan, there must be something wrong with them.

He thinks we're all on our own, which is the Republican mantra. We're not on our own, and should not be.

Virtually all industrialized western nations, except the USA, provide some measure of single-payer, "government" health care. Some are better than others and virtually all are coping with rising costs.

The HMO and insurance oligarchs have so bought off the right's propaganda mill for so long that I think they actually believe all this "socialized" medicine tripe. I do know, for a fact, that that insufferable bastard Dennis Hastert, during the Clinton health care hearings went with a bipartisan group to Canada and rudely verbally attacked on of the Canadian doctors the group was questioning and stormed out in a huff because he was being told what his preconceived notions were telling him he should hear.

This is the conservative response to virtually every thing: Stake out a position, ignore and attack any evidence to the contrary, and when backed to the wall with facts, cut and run and start another argument.

[Sanslines]

Like I wrote before, SO DOES MY INSURANCE COMPANY.

Ok, here is something that should keep you busy for a long time: Find a post that I made with the word "Medicare" in it.

Now we are making progress. There is such a thing as "great private insurance".
Now here is a novel concept that I have only posted a half dozen times so far: Lets have the states buy some of that "great private insurance" for poor people.


A really good way to whip them into line is publish such anecdotes and name the company that is doing it. Bad publicity is a great way to light a fire under the bad asses.
Of course the courts can be used as well, but I think the press has a bigger effect.

So your entire point is that because you have great insurance, then great insurance exists and there is therefore no need for government programs such as medicare? Is this what you are trying to say?

The question is will your insurance company cover every person that medicare does and will your insurance company treat everyone the same way that medicare does? I think that you are just playing games with us when you allude to government programs but refuse to specify which programs and then make a statement to 'find where I used the word medicare'.

Your whole argument continues to rest upon one single opinion and that is that YOU have great insurance. That's wonderful for you but many of us are talking about society in general and know that your insurance company is not representative of the insurance companies as a whole and are not non-profit entities that offer coverage to people out of the goodness of their hearts. What ruined health care was to allow it to become another for profit business where making money is the primary goal at the expense of the health and well being of so many people. I know that you can not dispute this other then to claim that you have great health insurance and that proves nothing more then just one case that certainly is not representative of the whole.

You also make a claim to have states 'buy great private' insurance for poor people without acknowledging that insurance companies can rip off states just as well as they can rip off individuals. 'Great private insurance' can also become not so great insurance overnight. The only way to stop insurance companies from over charging either individuals or states and then force insurance companies to provide the services that either the state or individual paid for is to REGULATE them. It would be far more cost effective to extend national health ie medicare to all people then to create the enormous oversight required to regulate insurance companies.

[Skinview]

Or Japan's, or Taiwan's, or even Mexico's for that matter. His real problem in this exchange, and so many other exchanges, is that he has an ideological point of view, but, does no research and cites no data or sources to support his extreme positions.Not changing the health insurance system is an "extreme position"? You want to nationalize it, while I want to preserve it as it is, and MY position is "extreme"?


His name-callingWho have I called a "name" and what was it? What post?


and labeling obfuscates and distracts others from noticing that he argues from no knowledge base, but rather from bias and prejudice.I have a pretty good knowledge base of the results of socialst economic policies, which you seem to lack or ignore.


I defy him to present one study by anyone, anywhere which indicates that HMOs or insurance provided health care is as cost effective as Medicare. Which, by the way, allows one the doctors and specialists of one's choice, which HMOs do not.You can choose to join an HMO. When there is a government "single payer", where do you go if you don't like it? Oh yeah, when the government takes over, it will be a paradise, and we couldn't possibly want another choice...


His self-centered world view has been expressed in virtually all of his exchanges. It is always about him and never about his fellow creatures. He is satisfied with his insurance plan, so then should the rest of us his argument goes, and if someone doesn't have a similarly satisfactory plan, there must be something wrong with them.I have called for the state governments to assist the poor to get health insurance over and over and over, and yet I get this slanderous abuse that I am "self-centered", and this baseless allegation that I think its the fault of poor people that they don't have health insurance. I don't.


He thinks we're all on our own, which is the Republican mantra.No, I don't, and its not a Republican mantra. Republicans support a limited government saftey net and call for people to donate to charity and help each other. Don't you remember the "thousand points of light"? Or is that to be ignored because it doesn't fit your slanderous caricature?

I have posted my call for the state governments to buy health insurance for the poor over, and over, and over, and yet here you are calling me "self centered", writing that I think "we're all on our own", and that I think its the fault of poor people that they don't have health insurance. Stop it.

[Naturist Mark]

You can choose to join an HMO. When there is a government "single payer", where do you go if you don't like it? Oh yeah, when the government takes over, it will be a paradise, and we couldn't possibly want another choice...


Most people only have the choice to join the HMO their employer has contracted with, or go without insurance. That is, most of the people who even have a health insurance option, which is a shrinking group. Not much of a choice.

Under most universal health plans I've seen, people will have a menu of plans to choose from. But even in the worst case - take it or leave it, that is the same choice the majority of Americans have today.

-Mark

[Sanslines]

" I am from the government and I am here to help!"

[jon71]

Right Mark. I can't imagine anyone would "choose" to join an H.M.O. unless it was the only thing they could afford. Also I'm not convinced that some sort of govt. run system and private insurance couldn't exist side by side. People who are happy with their insurance could keep it and people under a certain income level could opt in to a govt. system. Alternatitively there could be tax breaks to make insurance attainable to poor and low-middle class Americans. Of course that would have to be accompanied by price controls otherwise the insurance companies would just jack up their prices because there would be more money in play and/or they just don't view poorer Americans as desirable policy holders.

[usmc1]

Right Mark. I can't imagine anyone would "choose" to join an H.M.O. unless it was the only thing they could afford. Also I'm not convinced that some sort of govt. run system and private insurance couldn't exist side by side. People who are happy with their insurance could keep it and people under a certain income level could opt in to a govt. system. Alternatitively there could be tax breaks to make insurance attainable to poor and low-middle class Americans. Of course that would have to be accompanied by price controls otherwise the insurance companies would just jack up their prices because there would be more money in play and/or they just don't view poorer Americans as desirable policy holders.

I wonder what people mean when they say they're happy with their insurance. Afterall, the insurance company provides nothing to the insured other than payment to the providers. They take the premiums with the expectation of investing and earning more off that money than they will pay out in claims. In short, they want your premiums, but want not to have to pay out anything.

Since the insurance companies maximize profits by limiting loss (pay out) it is unlikely that anyone totally satisfied with their insurance has health issues causing them to be scrutinized by the underwriters resulting in denial of procedure, increase in premiums, or outright cancellation.

I'd think that someone who is right proper happy with their insurance company has never had to use it for much of anything other than routine procedures and ordinary healthcare or illnesses.

Such people are hardly legitimate spokespersons since it stands to reason that they have never had to actually use their coverage to its maximum extent.

Right now, those policies and premiums are market-based. If those premiums were actually cost-based and wed to a fair profit margin with rigid controls on administrative costs, premiums would be way down, even in a scenario where people could not be denied for prior conditions or catatrosphic illness.

Speaking as a progressive here's a few things I'd like to see emerge as part of national health plan for all Americans;


Guarantee accessible health care for all.
Create a single standard of high quality, comprehensive, and preventative care for all.
Allow freedom of choice of physicians, hospital, and other health care providers.
Eliminate all financial barriers that prevent families and individuals from obtaining the medically necessary care they need.
Allow physicians, nurses and other licensed health care providers to make health care decisions based on what is best for the health of the patient.

[Qikdraw]

I have posted my call for the state governments to buy health insurance for the poor over, and over, and over, and yet here you are calling me "self centered", writing that I think "we're all on our own", and that I think its the fault of poor people that they don't have health insurance. Stop it.

Skinview

A lot of your posts head to the extreme, water vs toxic waste, and as such how are we to tell what you actually mean? Mention national health care and you start mentioning communism, or comparing 3rd world countries. That is extreme, you are not giving a valid arguement, so from that we can only assume what your intentions are. If you want to have a valid debate, give us valid arguements. (Like your quote above)

I have to disagree with it though. Spending government money on insurance that may be denied is not a wise decision. Insurance companies are not out to care for our health, they are there to make a profit. As such they deny people healthcare to make that profit. You may have great healthcare coverage, which is great for you, and I hope you never get denied on anything serious, but this is not the case for many of us.

To follow what you say about helping poor people, at the very least Medicare and Medicaid should be expended to cover the poor. Not let them enter a system where they may get denied coverage.

[brazhunter]

Eliminate all financial barriers that prevent families and individuals from obtaining the medically necessary care they need.
Like boob jobs?

Taxpayers just love paying for things like that.

[Qikdraw]

Like boob jobs?

Taxpayers just love paying for things like that.


Can you provide proof of this? I looked but could not find any examples.

[Sanslines]

Like boob jobs?

Taxpayers just love paying for things like that.

Since when does medicare pay for elective cosmetic surgery?

[Skinview]

There is a choice limiting problem with the current system, and it was created by government. I wonder if someone here knows what it is...


Most people only have the choice to join the HMO their employer has contracted with, or go without insurance. That is, most of the people who even have a health insurance option, which is a shrinking group. Not much of a choice.


Thats it! Sometime ago, some politicians decided they would help people (politicians wanting to help people are a dangerous lot) by encouraging employers to offer health insurance to their employees. So they passed a law giving tax breaks to companies that did so. It worked. You have described the result. There is still choice. You can choose to work for a different employer with a different insurance plan, but I'm sure I don't have to point out the problems with that.

John McCain wants to change that law. He wants, instead, to give tax breaks to individuals to buy their own health insurance. You could work for whatever company you want, and get whatever insurance you want. There would be total portability. You could switch jobs without switching insurance companies. If you had a preexisting condition, you wouldn't be chained to the employer you had when you got sick.

[brazhunter]

Since when does medicare pay for elective cosmetic surgery?
How long do you think it would be before some judge decides somebody's self-esteem through big bewbies is critical to that individuals mental health and therefore is a necessary medical treatment? Oh wait... judges never MAKE law, that's the responsibility of the legislature.

:rolleyes:

[usmc1]

Skinview

A lot of your posts head to the extreme, water vs toxic waste, and as such how are we to tell what you actually mean? Mention national health care and you start mentioning communism, or comparing 3rd world countries. That is extreme, you are not giving a valid arguement, so from that we can only assume what your intentions are. If you want to have a valid debate, give us valid arguements. (Like your quote above)

I have to disagree with it though. Spending government money on insurance that may be denied is not a wise decision. Insurance companies are not out to care for our health, they are there to make a profit. As such they deny people healthcare to make that profit. You may have great healthcare coverage, which is great for you, and I hope you never get denied on anything serious, but this is not the case for many of us.

To follow what you say about helping poor people, at the very least Medicare and Medicaid should be expended to cover the poor. Not let them enter a system where they may get denied coverage.

The problem is accepting the assumption that the people who do not have access to equitable health insurance are "poor people"--whoever the hell they are?

The facts are that many, many of the uninsured are children, working class and middle class families, single moms and dads, and students.

They are not necessarily "poor" by census standards are whatever mental picture one has of the "poor". But, they do without a lot of necessities, such as health insurance, because it is simply not available to them at a price they can pay and still buy food, clothing, shelter, and transportation.

These people are not indigent, welfare recipients, or slackers and addicts. They are decent Americans, struggling to get by in an economic system which is pernicously predatory and year-by-year rewards fewer and fewer people.

They have jobs, sometimes two and three, but are shafted by employers who put them on a part time or contractors to avoid paying them benefits or paying into worker's comp, or unemployment pools.

They struggle in a ghastly cynical system which exceeds in venality anything described in Dickens.

[Skinview]

Spending government money on insurance that may be denied is not a wise decision. Insurance companies are not out to care for our health, they are there to make a profit. As such they deny people healthcare to make that profit.This is an argument against the free market, but we know free markets work, and work better than socialism. Insurance companies do not deny people coverage to make a profit. It happens, but that is far from the norm. If insurance companies did not pay for health care, no one would buy health insurance, and they would be out of buisness. If I buy a tv, the retailer could make a bigger profit by selling me an empty box with a picture of a tv on it, or a hollow tv, or a really low quality tv that broke after two weeks. But guess what? The tv box that I bought has a tv in it, it works, it has worked for many years, and it works well. Damn, how did that happen?

[Qikdraw]

Thats it! Sometime ago, some politicians decided they would help people (politicians wanting to help people are a dangerous lot) by encouraging employers to offer health insurance to their employees. So they passed a law giving tax breaks to companies that did so. It worked. You have described the result. There is still choice. You can choose to work for a different employer with a different insurance plan, but I'm sure I don't have to point out the problems with that.

John McCain wants to change that law. He wants, instead, to give tax breaks to individuals to buy their own health insurance. You could work for whatever company you want, and get whatever insurance you want. There would be total portability. You could switch jobs without switching insurance companies. If you had a preexisting condition, you wouldn't be chained to the employer you had when you got sick.

Here is the great thing about a national health care system.. Companies do not have to help pay for medical insurance. This helps their bottom line. Not only that but it encourages new businesses to start up, if you do not have to worry about how to pay for health care you are more willing to take a chance and start a business, which leads to a better economy. It also leads to a healthier workforce which is more productive.

As I mentioned I disagree with helping people stay in a broken system. People are denied for simple things, or life threatening things, then all your payments for health insurance don't mean a thing. If insurance companies worked properly and didn't pin bonuses on denials, deny people for no reason, and basically act out of greed, I would not have a problem with it. However, insurance companies do do all these things and more, so we should not use taxpayer money to give insurance companies a better bottom line.

[Qikdraw]

How long do you think it would be before some judge decides somebody's self-esteem through big bewbies is critical to that individuals mental health and therefore is a necessary medical treatment? Oh wait... judges never MAKE law, that's the responsibility of the legislature.

:rolleyes:

Ok so basically your whole arguement has boiled down to hyperbole. You have nothing to back it up, just an opinion based on zero facts around a viewpont against national healthcare.

Have I missed anything out?

[Skinview]

The problem is accepting the assumption that the people who do not have access to equitable health insurance are "poor people"--whoever the hell they are?
They are not necessarily "poor" by census standards are whatever mental picture one has of the "poor". But, they do without a lot of necessities, such as health insurance, because it is simply not available to them at a price they can pay and still buy food, clothing, shelter, and transportation.That sounds poor to me.

[brazhunter]

Ok so basically your whole arguement has boiled down to hyperbole. You have nothing to back it up, just an opinion based on zero facts around a viewpont against national healthcare.

Have I missed anything out?

Well I could waste everybody's time and bandwidth by cut & pasting 'supporting facts' from some advocacy group's website, but if you believe the courts do not create law and rights in that manner, well... ...well I'll hold my comment because it would probably violate the COC.

[Qikdraw]

This is an argument against the free market, but we know free markets work, and work better than socialism. Insurance companies do not deny people coverage to make a profit. It happens, but that is far from the norm. If insurance companies did not pay for health care, no one would buy health insurance, and they would be out of buisness.

Yes insuance companies do deny people to make a profit. If you believe otherwise you are not living in reality. Yes they pay out for somethings and some people don't have a problem, but a large percentage of people are not so lucky. Medical related bankruptcy has risen astronomically over the past number of years, and this is with people who had insurance. Insurance is a 'risk' business, they are betting that the money coming in will be more than the money going out, yet the hedge their bets by buying politicians and runnng ads against any who go against them. They get legislation changed to favour them, this is all about the bottom line, not about healthcare for people.

You keep bringing up a free market, yet we don't have that at all. When corporations are given tax breaks, that is not a free market. When the government hands out billions of dollars to keep businesses afloat this is not a free market.

[Skinview]

Here is the great thing about a national health care system.. Companies do not have to help pay for medical insurance. This helps their bottom line. Not only that but it encourages new businesses to start up, if you do not have to worry about how to pay for health care you are more willing to take a chance and start a business, which leads to a better economy.Riiight. The government will just print the money to pay for it, and it won't cost anyone anything. Especially companies. There isn't even a corporate income tax to help pay for the ink and paper.


and basically act out of greed, I would not have a problem with it. However, insurance companies do do all these things and more, so we should not use taxpayer money to give insurance companies a better bottom line.The left is there to make sure people don't make too much money. Can't have a company with a better bottom line.

[Qikdraw]

Well I could waste everybody's time and bandwidth by cut & pasting 'supporting facts' from some advocacy group's website, but if you believe the courts do not create law and rights in that manner, well... ...well I'll hold my comment because it would probably violate the COC.

No by all means show us your 'supporting facts'. Thats not wasting time at all. If you don't bring anything to the table your arguements don't hold any water.

[Qikdraw]

Riiight. The government will just print the money to pay for it, and it won't cost anyone anything. Especially companies. There isn't even a corporate income tax to help pay for the ink and paper.

The GAO has come out and said that the money currently used for medicare and medicaid is enough to pay for healthcare for everybody. Read my lips. No. New. Taxes.


The left is there to make sure people don't make too much money. Can't have a company with a better bottom line.

LOL This isn't an arguement on not wanting a company to prosper, so don't try and turn it into one. Its about how insurance companies make massive profits by allowing people to suffer or die rather than pay out on an insurance claim. This is why a national healthcare system is better.

[Skinview]

I'm not convinced that some sort of govt. run system and private insurance couldn't exist side by side. People who are happy with their insurance could keep it and people under a certain income level could opt in to a govt. system. Alternatitively there could be tax breaks to make insurance attainable to poor and low-middle class Americans.I have an even better idea. Impliment my state voucher plan, and cut medicare loose from the government. usmc1 thinks medicare is a great and efficient system. We could put that to the test. Make it compete with private insurance companies for the vouchers. The old folks on medicare could stick with it, or take their voucher to a private company. I predict a nonprofit independent medicare company would find it wasn't as efficient as usmc1 thinks it is. It would probably trim off its labor force and survive, but the bottomless treasury money well would be gone.


Of course that would have to be accompanied by price controls otherwise the insurance companies would just jack up their prices because there would be more money in play and/or they just don't view poorer Americans as desirable policy holders.jon71, have you heard of competition before? Does anyone here understand what effect competition has on prices? We desperately need to teach economics in high school. Adam Smith, where are you? Insurance companies are not utility companies.

[Skinview]

The GAO has come out and said that the money currently used for medicare and medicaid is enough to pay for healthcare for everybody. Read my lips. No. New. Taxes.So somewhere there are hundreds of billions of medicaid dollars hidden in a file cabinet? If it has all this money now that its not using, why are all those dollars being poured into it? This makes no sense. If it were true, it would completely blow apart usmc1's claim that medicare is super efficient. And I remember what happened after the last "read my lips, no new taxes" promise.

[Sanslines]

Sick and Broke
<!--plsfield:stop-->

<!--plsfield:byline-->By Elizabeth Warren

Washington Post

<!--plsfield:disp_date-->Wednesday, February 9, 2005; Page A23


<!--plsfield:description--><NITF>Nobody's safe. That's the warning from the first large-scale study of medical bankruptcy.</NITF>

<NITF>Health insurance? That didn't protect 1 million Americans who were financially ruined by illness or medical bills last year.</NITF>

A comfortable middle-class lifestyle? Good education? Decent job? No safeguards there. Most of the medically bankrupt were middle-class homeowners who had been to college and had responsible jobs -- until illness struck.</NITF>

<NITF>As part of a research study at Harvard University, our researchers interviewed 1,771 Americans in bankruptcy courts across the country. To our surprise, half said that illness or medical bills drove them to bankruptcy. So each year, 2 million Americans -- those who file and their dependents -- face the double disaster of illness and bankruptcy.</NITF>
<NITF>But the bigger surprise was that three-quarters of the medically bankrupt had health insurance.</NITF>

<NITF>How did illness bankrupt middle-class Americans with health insurance? For some, high co-payments, deductibles, exclusions from coverage and other loopholes left them holding the bag for thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket costs when serious illness struck. But even families with Cadillac coverage were often bankrupted by medical problems.</NITF>

<NITF>Too sick to work, they suddenly lost their jobs. With the jobs went most of their income and their health insurance -- a quarter of all employers cancel coverage the day you leave work because of a disabling illness; another quarter do so in less than a year. Many of the medically bankrupt qualified for some disability payments (eventually), and had the right under the COBRA law to continue their health coverage -- if they paid for it themselves. But how many families can afford a $1,000 monthly premium for coverage under COBRA, especially after the breadwinner has lost his or her job?</NITF>

<NITF>Often, the medical bills arrived just as the insurance and the paycheck disappeared.</NITF>

<NITF>Bankrupt families lost more than just assets. One out of five went without food. A third had their utilities shut off, and nearly two-thirds skipped needed doctor or dentist visits. These families struggled to stay out of bankruptcy. They arrived at the bankruptcy courthouse exhausted and emotionally spent, brought low by a health care system that could offer physical cures but that left them financially devastated.</NITF>

<NITF>Many in Congress have a response to the problem of the growing number of medical bankruptcies: make it harder for families to file bankruptcy regardless of the reason for their financial troubles. Bankruptcy legislation -- widely known as the credit industry wish list -- has been introduced yet again to increase costs and decrease protection for every family that turns to the bankruptcy system for help. With the dramatic rise in medical bankruptcies now documented, this tired approach would be no different than a congressional demand to close hospitals in response to a flu epidemic. Making bankruptcy harder puts the fallout from a broken health care system back on families, leaving them with no escape.</NITF>

<NITF>The problem is not in the bankruptcy laws. The problem is in the health care finance system and in chronic debates about reforming it. The Harvard study shows:</NITF>

<NITF>• Health insurance isn't an on-off switch, giving full protection to everyone who has it. There is real coverage and there is faux coverage. Policies that can be canceled when you need them most are often useless. So is bare-bones coverage like the Utah Medicaid program pioneered by new Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt; it pays for primary care visits but not specialists or hospital care. We need to talk about quality, durable coverage, not just about how to get more names listed on nearly-useless insurance policies.</NITF>

<NITF>• The link between jobs and health insurance is strained beyond the breaking point. A harsh fact of life in America is that illness leads to job loss, and that can mean a double kick when people lose their insurance. Promising them high-priced coverage through COBRA is meaningless if they can't afford to pay. Comprehensive health insurance is the only real solution, not just for the poor but for middle-class Americans as well.</NITF>
<NITF>Without better coverage, millions more Americans will be hit by medical bankruptcy over the next decade. It will not be limited to the poorly educated, the barely employed or the uninsured. The people financially devastated by a serious illness are at the heart of the middle class.</NITF>
<NITF>Every 30 seconds in the United States, someone files for bankruptcy in the aftermath of a serious health problem. Time is running out. A broken health care system is bankrupting families across this country.
</NITF>
<NITF>The writer is a law professor at Harvard University.

Yup, it sure looks like our present insurance based system is working like a charm! So much for medical insurance being a problem that is restricted to the 'poor'!</NITF>

[Sanslines]

Here is the rebuttal to claims of medical bankruptcy:

Medical Bankruptcy Claims Are Biased and Grossly Exaggerated

Written By: Greg Scandlen
Published In: Health Care News
Publication Date: March 1, 2005
Publisher: The Heartland Institute

A new article in Health Affairs by David Himmelstein, Elizabeth Warren, Deborah Thorne, and Steffie Woolhandler is summarized in the media as revealing that half of all bankruptcies in the United States are caused by medical problems, especially inadequate insurance coverage.

That is certainly an attention-grabbing headline, and the fact that the authors are associated with the Harvard Medical and Law Schools gives the article an air of authority. But the article is so biased as to be worthless in even identifying a problem, and so grossly exaggerated that it buries rather than illuminates what may very well be a real problem.

Only Five Districts Studied
Most of the media reports seem to be based on a news release issued by Drs. Himmelstein and Woolhandler on Harvard stationery. It is headlined, "Illness and Medical Bills Cause Half of All Bankruptcies--2 Million Americans Financially Ruined Each Year."

The material accompanying the news release includes a state-by-state breakdown of the problem in 2004, even though the Health Affairs article itself is based on only 1,700 cases filed in 2001 in just five federal judicial districts (there are 77 in the nation). The five districts--California, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Texas--were chosen not because they are representative of anything, but because that is where the authors found federal judges who would cooperate with them in gathering bankruptcy information.

In the state-by-state breakdown, the authors claim there were 20,945 medical bankruptcies in Alabama in 2004, and they have similar seemingly precise numbers for each of the 50 states, plus Washington, DC (978 medical bankruptcies), Guam (183), the Northern Mariana Islands (7), and other territories.

This level of precision is obviously intended to forestall further discussion, even though the authors never looked at a single instance of bankruptcy in Alabama, DC, Guam, or any of the 69 other jurisdictions. And, remarkably, in every single state or territory, the rate of medical bankruptcies was just about 50 percent of the total. There were no outliers or exceptions.

Link to Insurance Weak

The authors claim that having health insurance didn't stave off bankruptcy. They say in the news release that on average people with insurance at the start of an illness incurred out-of-pocket costs of $13,460, while the uninsured averaged $10,893 in out-of-pocket costs. Hence, Woolhandler's conclusion that "covering the uninsured isn't enough."

But the greatest flaw in the study is the way it defines medical bankruptcy.
The authors define it as meaning anyone who declared bankruptcy and had at least $1,000 in "medical debts" or were off work for two weeks due to illness. These conditions didn't have to cause the bankruptcy or even contribute to it. They could be merely incidental to someone declaring bankruptcy.

Undoubtedly some families do indeed have a problem when they get sick or injured, lose their jobs, and lose their health insurance as well. But the Health Affairs article provides absolutely no information about those families. Their real plight is lost in an effort to exaggerate and overstate the case.

Liberal Bias

Woolhandler and Himmelstein are cofounders of Physicians for a National Health Program, so it is not surprising they should conclude we need a national insurance plan.

Their news release reads, "According to study co-author Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, an Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard and primary care physician in Cambridge, Massachusetts: 'We need to rethink health reform. Covering the uninsured isn't enough. We must also upgrade and guarantee continuous coverage for those who have insurance.

"Only national health insurance can do that. But we're headed in the wrong direction. An increasing number of employers and politicians are peddling phony insurance--stripped-down plans so riddled with co-payments, deductibles and exclusions that serious illness leads straight to bankruptcy. We need real health security, not counterfeit coverage.'"

But putting everyone on Medicare clearly is not the solution, since the authors themselves conclude Medicare enrollment is no protection against bankruptcy.
Enabling people to own their own insurance plan would help. That would allow people to keep their coverage even when they become too ill to work and thus lose their job and the health insurance that may have come with it.

Need for Market-Based Solution

The best remedy might be widespread adoption of Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). People who are able to save money in an HSA while they are healthy will have a nest egg to fall back on when they become ill and incur extraordinary medical expenses, or when they lose their job and have to pay their own insurance premiums.

President George W. Bush's proposal to create refundable tax credits to help lower-income people afford health insurance coverage would help, too. Those people who can no longer work and enjoy the benefit of an employer subsidy would be able to get help from the federal government instead.

We can be grateful Health Affairs published this article. Though it is grossly exaggerated, it does call attention to a need ... for which consumer-driven health care is the best solution.

<HR>Greg Scandlen (gmscan@aol.com (gmscan@aol.com)) is director of the Galen Institute's Center for Consumer Driven Health Care and assistant editor of Health Care News

It appears that this 'rebuttal' grossly ignores the real problems of the medical insurance industry that the first article that I posted elaborated upon.

[usmc1]

So somewhere there are hundreds of billions of medicaid dollars hidden in a file cabinet? If it has all this money now that its not using, why are all those dollars being poured into it? This makes no sense. If it were true, it would completely blow apart usmc1's claim that medicare is super efficient. And I remember what happened after the last "read my lips, no new taxes" promise.
Nope, you're wrongo-bongo, again, Medicare's cost efficiency compared to market based private insurance has been repeatedly documented in this forum.

Your attempts to assert otherwise are mere self-supporting supposition.

Us the search function if you have a real interest other than kvetching!

[WGANude]

Here are a few steps to make the US healthcare better for all. (You heard if first right here!):
The President, with congressional approval, appoints a national healthcare committee consisting primarily medical professionals and consumers and a very few insurance or HMO people to establish what will be included in a basic national healthcare service plan to be offered by private insurance companies. All care is included except cosmetic and some experimental and with a heavy emphasis on prevention and regular checkups.
Then, all insurance companies must offer this same plan without regard for pre-existing conditions and at the same price for all subscribers. Insurance companies could compete with each other, but they could not charge different rates for different people or refuse to insure anyone. (A level playing field). They could, however, also offer supplemental plans, such as dental, vision, cosmetic, etc., unrestricted that would be above and beyond the basic plan.
A national secure and a need-to-know centralized database of medical records would be established and would be required to submit standardized claims, which could be submitted in bulk. The national comittee would establish standardized charges for all proceedures and prescriptions and insurance companies would be required to pay in full.
Employers would continue to include health insurance as an employee benefit, with a special tax credit for doing so. Switching insurance companies, if you change jobs or quit, etc., would be no problem because the coverage would always be the same. Those who don't get coverage at work would get a tax credit for their premiums. Medicare would be eliminated by everyone buying into the same plan. Elimination of Medicare costs would offset the tax credits.
Now, if we could just get congress to set aside partisian politics and ignore the lobbyists and just do it! But, that's another subject.:surprised:

[Boreas]

Speaking as a progressive here's a few things I'd like to see emerge as part of national health plan for all Americans;


Guarantee accessible health care for all.
Create a single standard of high quality, comprehensive, and preventative care for all.
Allow freedom of choice of physicians, hospital, and other health care providers.
Eliminate all financial barriers that prevent families and individuals from obtaining the medically necessary care they need.
Allow physicians, nurses and other licensed health care providers to make health care decisions based on what is best for the health of the patient.
Okay, here is the heart of the matter. How does this happen in the US? Can it happen in the US? Does it have to be private vs public healthcare?

One of my pet peeves is that people talk in either or terms. Canada/US systems, public/private etc. Total dicotomies. I believe there is good in both.

Is it possible to create a better system with these over-riding principles?

<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[Boreas]

Here is an article about Free Market society and its links with/to addiction.

http://www.cfdp.ca/roots.pdf

FYI.

I think I will start a new thread since this could cause this to go off on a tangent!

The altar of The Free Market is not all good in my opinion. Nor is it totally free.

[jon71]

While capitalism is the best system it is far from perfect and those who worship at it's altar are desperately foolish. The typical conservative knows little or nothing about how the market works as this argument has proven. Adam Smith made the assumption that people in charge of a business would make decisions in their business', and by extention, the entire market place's, best interest. That is less frequently the case. C.E.O.s are intentionally running their businesses into the ground if they can personally squeeze out a little for themselves before the crash. Enron is a perfect example of this. The working people who owned company stock in their 401ks were barred from selling while the people running the company sold every share they had because they knew it was going to crash. This kind of intentionally destructive behavior is something that Adam Smith never envisioned.
Let's look at why price controls would be needed with tax breaks or vouchers. Does anyone not believe that if insurance companies saw that there was more money available to be paid for policies that they would raise their prices accordingly. They don't care that doing so would obliterate the very reason that those tax cuts/vouchers were created in the first place. They want to have the most money possible, not to best serve the American people. If they can make more money by charging great amounts to a few customers instead of smaller amounts to a greater number of people then this is what they will do. It's trending towards insurance being treated as a luxury item and it's not. There is no altruism involved and capitalism doesn't ask that there be any. It's just assumed that competition would bring this out. The catch is there is ALMOST ZERO COMPETITION in the free market today. That is because of oligarchies. Let's use oil for an example of this because they're even more extreme than insurance companies. Big oil has used the Iraq war as camouflage for gouging. If conditions in the middle east cause the price to go up 5 cents they raise their prices 10 to 15 cents. If they only passed on expenses then their profit margin would be unchanged in recent years, neither up or down. Instead they are looking at record profits. That's because of pure gouging. In Adam Smith's theory one or more of these companies would lower prices and get more of the market share. Other's would lower their prices in response and this would continue until prices were as low as they could be and the companies would still have some modest profit to take home at the end of the day. That hasn't happened because these companies have figured out that competition IS NOT in their best interest. They all have an unwritten argreement to keep their prices unnaturally high and take home not an honest profit but ransom money from the American people. This is as uncompetitive as communism except instead of being run by the govt. it's run by a corporate elite.
It was stated that insurance is not a utility (where market rules largely don't and shouldn't apply). That's true now but maybe it shouldn't be. It is appalling that so many Americans either can't afford insurance or can't afford enough insurance. Maybe establishing insurance as a utility is the answer. This is the role that Medicare and Medicade fulfill so very well. I'm not surprised that so many people are in those programs. Private insurance companies either can't or won't provide as much for people at anywhere near the same price. For vouchers to lure people away from Medicare it would have to be huge and the insurance companies would have to be barred from raising their prices even more and rendering those vouchers meaningless. I don't expect to see that happen.

[Skinview]

Nope, you're wrongo-bongo, again, Medicare's cost efficiency compared to market based private insurance has been repeatedly documented in this forum.
I've seen you claim it. I don't recall any numbers being presented with sources.

[Skinview]

Let's look at why price controls would be needed with tax breaks or vouchers. Does anyone not believe that if insurance companies saw that there was more money available to be paid for policies that they would raise their prices accordingly.Then why aren't prices for everything, say, twice whet they are now? Why isn't the cost of a loaf of bread $5? A gallon of gas $8? Why are gas prices falling? Competition.


They don't care that doing so would obliterate the very reason that those tax cuts/vouchers were created in the first place. They want to have the most money possible, not to best serve the American people. If they can make more money by charging great amounts to a few customers instead of smaller amounts to a greater number of people then this is what they will do. It's trending towards insurance being treated as a luxury item and it's not. There is no altruism involved and capitalism doesn't ask that there be any. It's just assumed that competition would bring this out. The catch is there is ALMOST ZERO COMPETITION in the free market today. That is because of oligarchies.What planet are you on? There are a dozen different manufacturers for almost any product you can think of.


Let's use oil for an example of this because they're even more extreme than insurance companies. Big oil has used the Iraq war as camouflage for gouging. If conditions in the middle east cause the price to go up 5 cents they raise their prices 10 to 15 cents.And you know this how? The war has been going on since 2003. Why the five year delay in the price jump? In fact, lately Iraq has been pumping a lot of oil and selling it.


If they only passed on expenses then their profit margin would be unchanged in recent years, neither up or down. Instead they are looking at record profits. That's because of pure gouging.Or uncertainty of supply and speculation, or a lack of refinery capacity because no one wants a new refinery built in their back yard. Or a whole lot of chinese buying cars. The price of oil is inelastic compared to other products. Demand doesn't change a lot with a large price increase. If demand goes up, the price skyrockets. Increases in supply are slow. We have heard figures of ten years to between a decision to drill and more oil being pumped. Starting up old wells again is probably more responsive than that. When supply and demand get out of step, oil companies are going to make big profits. But then thats what moves them to drill more.


In Adam Smith's theory one or more of these companies would lower prices and get more of the market share. Other's would lower their prices in response and this would continue until prices were as low as they could be and the companies would still have some modest profit to take home at the end of the day. That hasn't happened because these companies have figured out that competition IS NOT in their best interest.That was figured out centuries ago, but the thing is, they can't do anything about it.


They all have an unwritten argreementRiiight. You were hiding in a nearby linen closet while dozens of CEOs were shaking hands and breaking the law...


to keep their prices unnaturally high and take home not an honest profit but ransom money from the American people. This is as uncompetitive as communism except instead of being run by the govt. it's run by a corporate elite.Its a fantasy run by your left wing imagination. The price of oil is dropping like a rock right now. It seems your conspiracy theory isn't working.

I swear, you and some others here are a bunch of Chicken Littles! One little glitch and you run in circles screaming "The market is a failure! Conspiracy! Conspiracy! The governent must take over or we are all going to die! And worse, someone is getting rich!!!"


It was stated that insurance is not a utility (where market rules largely don't and shouldn't apply). That's true now but maybe it shouldn't be.Calling them utilities won't make them utilities. Regulating them won't make them utilities. Insurance compaies are not utilities.

[usmc1]

I've seen you claim it. I don't recall any numbers being presented with sources.

As I've already written, and which you seem to ignore as you do so many other things which do not fit your preconceived world view, if you have a serious interest other than merely kvetching, use the search function. Mark, I, Nacktman, and others have cited and posted the sources a number of times.

Look it up, I'm not responsible for your faulty recall!

[ki4kxq]

The federal government is not the ones who handle police and fire departments, that would be your local and state governments. You know, the way it was set up to be. Your post USMC-1 makes my point entirely, about the only thing you mentioned that the federal government is supposed to be responsible for is the highway system, which I have repeatedly pointed out, is part of the federal governments responsibility.

Just about everything you mentioned is either privately run, or is run by state and local governments. That is what our founding fathers wanted, very small and limited federal government, and place the actual day to day running of things within the state and local governments. When things are run closer to home, you can keep an eye on them. You have a huge chip on your shoulder USMC-1, it isn't healthy to be that angry all the time.

As far as the health insurance companies ducking payment, I agree, this should not happen. But let's fix that problem and not turn the system completely upside down. If you as an insurance company have received premiums and issued a policy, you should be forced to live up to your end of the contract, period.

As for the number of uninsured in the US, ya'lls numbers are off. The estimate is 47 million. Of that 47 million, approximately 20 million are here illegally. Sorry, we should not have to pay for their health insurance, period.

You seem to be attributing to me statements that I have not made, I have never said there should be no federal government, or state and local government. I have said the feds should stay where they have constitutionally been mandated to be. Handling and paying for health insurance is not one of those things. You guys are the ones going to the extremes here. No other country does the medical breakthroughs that this country does, not even close. Why is that? Because are doctors and researchers are part of a free market sysem that promotes this.

Again, I am not against taxes, I am against taxes that pay for every little pet project and feel good thing that comes down the pike. I'm sure we pay more taxes than you guys combined. Income tax, fuel and use tax, highway use tax, etc. Here is the problem though, the fuel tax that is supposed to fund highway repair and updating has been spent on things like museums and other pet projects by senators slipping in earmarks to bring home the bacon to their home states. That is done by both parties.

[brazhunter]

spent on things like museums and other pet projects by senators slipping in earmarks to bring home the bacon to their home states.

But wouldn't all of mankind benefit from Federal funds being used for a Woodstock museum?

<sarcasm off>

[Boreas]

Thanks for this post ki4kxq. I am glad you explained yourself. It seemed like you were totally against any help from anywhere because people should fend for themselves. I was interpretting your previous posts as somewhat cold hearted. Now I find I agree with certain things.

I totally agree that services like healthcare should be provided as close to grassroots as possible. In our system, the federal government provides funding, and then the provinces decide how to implement services. It used to be more community based because the province would then fund communities as they provided the care they needed. In this province (British Columbia) our healthcare is now funded by region. The region where I live is from Prince Rupert straight across to the Alberta border, and up to the Yukon. If you check a map, you will see that is an enormous area. I personally do not believe that this has been the best decision. What people need in Atlin (up by the Yukon border) is very different from what they need in Prince George. Some specialty services are provided in Prince George, the main centre. So, the region is divided into smaller areas and each area was supposed to be getting a board. It SEEMS like they are becoming more responsive to each community. As a former employee of this health authority, I am skeptical. This health authority has become more of a corporate model and dollars seem to be more important than sense. I think the corporate model is destructive to healthcare, and you guys have a different version of it with insurance companies.

My question is. Does universal healthcare mean that it has to be provided by the government? I do not think so personally. I imagine that the needs of people in New York City are very different from those who live in a smaller centre in Utah. How could the federal government possibly respond properly to all the diverse needs of your country? At the same time, is it necessary to throw the baby out with the bathwater and say universal healthcare cannot happen. Ever? Can we get the best business brains AND the best health professional brains together to come up with solutions? There is no doubt that some business principles need to be involved. Just not at the expense of providing a good service.

And what about some guiding principles such as usmc1 outlined?




Speaking as a progressive here's a few things I'd like to see emerge as part of national health plan for all Americans;

Guarantee accessible health care for all.
Create a single standard of high quality, comprehensive, and preventative care for all.
Allow freedom of choice of physicians, hospital, and other health care providers.
Eliminate all financial barriers that prevent families and individuals from obtaining the medically necessary care they need.
Allow physicians, nurses and other licensed health care providers to make health care decisions based on what is best for the health of the patient.


Food for thought. :)

[usmc1]

The federal government is not the ones who handle police and fire departments, that would be your local and state governments. You know, the way it was set up to be. Your post USMC-1 makes my point entirely, about the only thing you mentioned that the federal government is supposed to be responsible for is the highway system, which I have repeatedly pointed out, is part of the federal governments responsibility.

Just about everything you mentioned is either privately run, or is run by state and local governments. That is what our founding fathers wanted, very small and limited federal government, and place the actual day to day running of things within the state and local governments. When things are run closer to home, you can keep an eye on them. You have a huge chip on your shoulder USMC-1, it isn't healthy to be that angry all the time.

As far as the health insurance companies ducking payment, I agree, this should not happen. But let's fix that problem and not turn the system completely upside down. If you as an insurance company have received premiums and issued a policy, you should be forced to live up to your end of the contract, period.

As for the number of uninsured in the US, ya'lls numbers are off. The estimate is 47 million. Of that 47 million, approximately 20 million are here illegally. Sorry, we should not have to pay for their health insurance, period.

You seem to be attributing to me statements that I have not made, I have never said there should be no federal government, or state and local government. I have said the feds should stay where they have constitutionally been mandated to be. Handling and paying for health insurance is not one of those things. You guys are the ones going to the extremes here. No other country does the medical breakthroughs that this country does, not even close. Why is that? Because are doctors and researchers are part of a free market sysem that promotes this.

Again, I am not against taxes, I am against taxes that pay for every little pet project and feel good thing that comes down the pike. I'm sure we pay more taxes than you guys combined. Income tax, fuel and use tax, highway use tax, etc. Here is the problem though, the fuel tax that is supposed to fund highway repair and updating has been spent on things like museums and other pet projects by senators slipping in earmarks to bring home the bacon to their home states. That is done by both parties.

Mostly a bunch of cray-fishing and backing off your positions here. So, now you allow that some taxation is ok, but, you only want to pay that which you agree with.

Cool, I'd like that too. I don't want to pay for star wars, Halliburton and Blackwater contractors, the brief war against and interminable occupation of Iraq, corporate bailouts for careless and stupidly managed companies merely to protect Wall street and investment banks, "bridges to nowhere", Bush's deficits, or Cheney's booze and shotgun shells.

Chip on my shoulder? Maybe. But, for sure, I'm reading the same old conservative tripe of being confronted on nonsense and screaming abuse!

Keep on truckin' lad, someday you might catch a clue!

[Naturist Mark]

Or uncertainty of supply and speculation, or a lack of refinery capacity because no one wants a new refinery built in their back yard.

I wish people would stop dragging out this old shibboleth of there being no new refineries in the US for 30 years because the oil companies can't get permits.

They haven't applied for permits.

They don't want more refineries.

Instead they have chosen to CLOSE a large number of plants. To keep up with production needs they have expanded capacity at some other existing plants, but their goal has been to limit overall capacity in order to keep profits high. That has been far more important than having greater reserve capacity or the ability to quickly make production changes.

I have been unable to find a single example of a permit for a new refinery being denied. The ONLY example I have found of a new refinery permit being applied for has been approved. That is for Arizona Clean Fuels Yuma - who should have their new plant in service by 2012. To be fair, that new plant has had more than its share of NIMBY problems and took far longer to get overall approvals than it should have, but if a small start up can achieve it, you can be certain that the oil oligarchs can - they seem to have little trouble getting permits for expansion of existing plants.

No, the 'lack of oil refinery capacity' has nothing to do with NIMBY politics and permits and everything to do with deliberately constraining supply.

-Mark

[Sanslines]

I wish people would stop dragging out this old shibboleth of there being no new refineries in the US for 30 years because the oil companies can't get permits.

They haven't applied for permits.

They don't want more refineries.

Instead they have chosen to CLOSE a large number of plants. To keep up with production needs they have expanded capacity at some other existing plants, but their goal has been to limit overall capacity in order to keep profits high. That has been far more important than having greater reserve capacity or the ability to quickly make production changes.


-Mark

Exactly and so why does the Obama team keep saying that opening the Strategic Oil Reserve will lead to lower oil prices. We do not have the expanded refinery capacity to process this oil and so releasing this oil will accomplish nothing except deliver false hope to people who are ignorant of the entire process. If the market is flooded with oil, then I bet you that there will suddenly be 'maintenance' issues at refineries and the prices will go even higher. Why oh why does the Obama team also insist upon taxing oil companies. If the oil companies are taxed, then you can be certain that the oil companies will turn around and raise prices. Oil price regulation was attempted in the early '70's, was a failure, and has not been implimented since.

The problem is that we are addicted to oil. The latest price drop in gasoline has resulted in increased usage of gasoline which will again result in increased gas prices. Just watch the prices rise over the next couple of weeks. Sadly, people will not do anything unless forced to do so and high prices will finally force them to change. What the Obama team can do (and it is in their best interests to not even mention or discuss this) is to tax gasoline to keep the price steady and high to encourage a long term approach to finally resolving our addiction to oil. Use the tax money to properly fund alternative energy supplies and technologies.

Obama can certainly do better then offer false and misguided hope to people who don't understand the oil process.

[jon71]

Let's try and debunk a few of the more ridiculous claims made. One is comparison between bread and oil. If bread went up to $5 a loaf people simply wouldn't buy it. People can't stop driving to work, driving our kids to school or driving to the store for groceries, whether we buy bread or not. The fact that a small number of companies control something that we (currently) need so much. Some products come from many sources and this wouldn't work some products come from just a few and this is much more doable. I didn't say that there is NO competition, I said that it has declined GREATLY. Occasionally for example the airlines will get in a price war and everybody will lower prices. It'll last for a while and then things go back to normal. It even happened yesterday in Houston for gas believe it or not. Of course it was only one city and only for a few hours (literally just one afternoon). According to Adam Smith this is supposed to be the norm, not something glimpsed slightly more often than bigfoot.
As far as knowing about gouging I pay attention to the real world. I recommend it. Really, this is not a secret. Maybe you should watch the news (I mean real life news not the fox fantasy channel) or read a newspaper. It's why those record profits are happening for these companies. Uncertainty of supply and speculation is a rather transparent euphanism for these compainies doing whatever the he!! they want to. Naturist Mark already shot down the refineries claim.
Is anybody so mindboggling naive to not see how they collute to maintain artificially high prices. LOOK AROUND YOU! This is so obvious it's not funny. I doubt they ever formally met and shook hands. I'm certain they never put anything on paper. They just each figured out that they were better off not engaging in true competition. They each sat back and did nothing when the opportunity to lower prices in exchange for market share came along. If this were not the case then you would see big price wars and it isn't happening. 6-7 years ago gas was about $1 to $1.20 a gallon. It climbed up to $4 this year and has in recent months gone to about $3.50. You call that "falling like a rock". That is either deliberate p.r. work for big oil or the result of conditioning to accept unnatural prices. Either way I find it sad. As for insurance being a utility let's call that food for thought. I doubt it'll happen but it's an intriguing idea.

[jon71]

Opening up the oil reserves will work. It's been done before and the price does fall. It's not a day and night difference but it's always worked before. You're right that it's a short term answer. Our best answer for long term is to be oil free. We have the ability to be there in 10 years but do we have to the political will?

[Naturist Mark]

Exactly and so why does the Obama team keep saying that opening the Strategic Oil Reserve will lead to lower oil prices. We do not have the expanded refinery capacity to process this oil and so releasing this oil will accomplish nothing

It won't effect the amount of crude that is refined in the USA. It will affect the price of the crude on the market by increasing supply.

-Mark

[Sanslines]

It won't effect the amount of crude that is refined in the USA. It will affect the price of the crude on the market by increasing supply.

-Mark

The price of oil is affected by a variety of factors. Overall supply to the domestic USA market consists of not only crude oil supplies but the ability to refine the crude supply and deliver it to the domestic market thereby increasing local supplies. We have been told over and over again in the past that all the oil in the world will not do us much good in terms of increasing supplies or lowering prices if we do not have the increased capacity to refine it. In the past, whenever there have been refinery 'maintenance' issues, the price of domestic gasoline has risen. Suggesting to manipulate oil prices by releasing the strategic reserve will only ultimately result in creating future problems at the expense of minor (if any) relief at the pump. The strategic reserves exist for a purpose and that purpose is not to appease an uninformed and apathetic public by offering possible short term 'easy way out' solutions at the expense of major long term problems. The politicians might as well create short term relief from high gas prices by sending out another batch of stimulus checks. The long term result from doing this will only be to increase the budget deficit but no one seems to care about deficits or national debt anymore.

You are also looking at the possible price effect from releasing oil from the strategic reserve in a logical perspective and I am looking at the release of this oil from the oil company perspective. Oil companies can and will use any and all means necessary to keep raising prices. If they could get away with openly shutting down more of their refineries thereby sending gasoline prices through the roof, then they no doubt would do so. Oil companies are in the business of continuing to increase pofit and if they can do so without providing addition oil, then they certainly will do so.

Our problem in the USA is that we use far too much oil! The only short term solution is to encourage more conservation thereby decreasing demand. One way to do this is to keep the price artifically high through government taxes. These taxes must be exclusively used to properly fund long terms technologies and programs that wean us from oil. If we allow oil companies to manipulate us with up and down oil prices thereby manipulating the increase and decrease in demand of oil, we will never do the hard work that is necessary to once and for all rid us of the oil problem.

The problem is much more severe then just oil. We are also beholding to foreign countries that can and will manipulate us through release and withholding of their oil reserves. Unless we get very serious very fast and strive for energy independence, the overall independence and security of our nation will continue to be at stake. Foreign countries can and will use their influence to cripple us and there is absolutely no excuse for any of us to allow this to happen because we are too apathetic or lazy to change our ways and to do the hard work necessary to improve our country.

[Naturist Mark]

If the 'liberal media' is so in the tank for Obama, why does McCain get a pass on marital infidelity while the stupid libido of John Edwards - who isn't even a candidate anymore - is nonstop news?

Personally I am outraged by the sheer idiocy of Edwards, a man who was my first choice in the primaries. How could he do such a stupid thing, and then how could he - and Elizabeth - believe it could be put behind them as he continued his presidential candidacy last year?

The answer of course is that plenty of other candidates have done so. Bill Clinton for example. And Bob Barr who is running as a libertarian right now. And John McCain. So why is this an issue about Edwards, who is out of the race, and not about Barr. Or McCain who is very much still in the race?

Was it because McCain's was almost 30 years ago? When he was a mere youth? (He was about the same age then as Obama is now). Were the circumstances of Edwards affair worse than McCain's? If John Edwards' infidelity is news, and he's not a candidate for anything, why isn't John McCain's? He reportedly had numerous affairs in the years after returning home from Vietnam to a beautiful wife who had been disfigured in a car accident, and ultimately, by his own reports, he zeroed in like a laser on beautiful a 25-year-old heiress upon meeting her one evening in 1979 while he was still married, promptly lied to her about his age, and almost as promptly left his wife for her. We all extol John McCain for enduring 5 years of extreme hardship in Vietnam. But aren't his first wife's circumstances much like Elizabeth Edwards'? After all, the first Mrs. McCain waited in agony (and presumably fidelity) during those five long years for her beloved husband to return from Vietnam, raising their children while he was away and undergoing dozens of painful operations herself, only to be repaid by a philandering husband who ultimately left her for a younger woman.
- Drew Weston (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/drew-westen/catching-the-wrong-john-w_b_118064.html)
Watch how Sean Hannity and his fellow cons fall all over themselves when Alan Colmes asks them if they are applying a double standard to Edwards and McCain:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/isoDt6uL4u8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/isoDt6uL4u8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Of course, McCain is excused because he spent 5 and 1/2 years as a POW. (That's his 'little black dress' - appropriate for any occasion.) But what about during his 2000 campaign? Why isn't the media falling all over itself to remind the viewers that McCain's own campaign had to intervene to keep him away from a pretty young lobbyist (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/02/21/2008-02-21_john_mccain_affair_rumor_swirls.html)?

Is it because Republican sex scandals don't count if they don't involve children or homosexuality?

-Mark

[Sanslines]

I think that many of us have moved well beyond both party politics nanner nanner name calling nonsense and prefer to focus upon issues and what each candidate stands for. If the best that people can do is to keep some tally count of who calls the other person more names, rather then think through issues and focus upon those issues, then this nation really is doomed to mediocrity.

[Naturist Mark]

I think that many of us have moved well beyond both party politics nanner nanner name calling nonsense and prefer to focus upon issues and what each candidate stands for. If the best that people can do is to keep some tally count of who calls the other person more names, rather then think through issues and focus upon those issues, then this nation really is doomed to mediocrity.

Sounds good. Too bad the corporate media isn't among the "many of us".

-Mark

[Sanslines]

Sounds good. Too bad the corporate media isn't among the "many of us".

-Mark

True, so we all ignore the media and eventually they will cease and desist.

[Naturist Mark]

True, so we all ignore the media and eventually they will cease and desist.

LOL, if only were was so simple! Unfortunately you and I can't convince several million of our neighbors to do the same.

My personal antidote is CBC, BBC, the Daily Show and the internets. Isn't it ... intriguing that you can get a better picture of what is happening in your own country from foreign broadcasters and fake news shows?

-Mark

[Fitz1980]

I like the fact that in that clip Colmes actually stood up to Hannity for once. Shame that Hannity never responded to the point that Edwards is not running for president while McCain is.

[usmc1]

I pretty much rely on NPR, the net, and blogs which I trust.

[Sanslines]

LOL, if only were was so simple! Unfortunately you and I can't convince several million of our neighbors to do the same.

My personal antidote is CBC, BBC, the Daily Show and the internets. Isn't it ... intriguing that you can get a better picture of what is happening in your own country from foreign broadcasters and fake news shows?

-Mark

PBS spends more time and offers much more detail on news items then just the sensationalized blurbs that the networks seem to relish in,

[Naturist Mark]

Stephen Colbert, debating himself, explains offshore drilling and the oil crisis better than the real news does.

<embed FlashVars='videoId=179263' src='http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/video_player/view/default/swf.jhtml' quality='high' bgcolor='#cccccc' width='332' height='316' name='comedy_central_player' align='middle' allowScriptAccess='always' allownetworking='external' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' pluginspage='http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer'></embed>

-Mark

[Boreas]

Rick Mercer, a Canadian comedian, is the best political commentator here. I like that you never know which side he's on. He picks on and critiques everyone.

http://www.rickmercer.com/

[Qikdraw]

Rick Mercer, a Canadian comedian, is the best political commentator here. I like that you never know which side he's on. He picks on and critiques everyone.

http://www.rickmercer.com/

I have yet to find anything similar to 'This hour has 22 minutes' (http://www.cbc.ca/22minutes/) or 'The Royal Canadian Air Farce' (http://www.airfarce.com/) here in the US. Two great political lampooning shows.

[Naturist Mark]

McCain has just dispatched his two closest advisers - Senators Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman to Georgia to "consult" on the crisis between Georgia and Russia.

Hmmmm ....

How long ago was it that Barack Obama was criticized as acting presumptuously like a president by making a tour of the war zones and Europe and meeting with regional leaders (even though McCain had previously done exactly the same thing and met exactly the same leaders)?

And gee ... isn't there a law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act) prohibiting unauthorized persons from engaging in US foreign policy?

Of course, Graham and Lieberman are both members of the Armed Services Committee (but not Foreign Relations). Blogger Digby (http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/08/presumptuous-maverick-by-digby-yglesias.html) asks; "Try to imagine if Obama had announced that he was sending (Senator Joe) Biden and (Senator Carl) Levin to the war zone."

Has anyone noticed that McCain sooner or later personally displays whatever fault he accuses Obama of possessing?

•He calls Obama elitist, yet it was McCain who grew up in privilege and owns 8 homes.
•He accuses Obama of "playing the race card", for making a statement that came straight out of a McCain commercial.
•He calls Obama a "celebrity" yet it is McCain who has hosted Saturday Night Live, appeared in several Hollywood movies, and made endless TV appearances over the last decade.
•He accuses Obama of acting presumptuously presidential by meeting the same foreign leaders he has met.

OMG, I just realized that McCain ran an ad, The One (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mopkn0lPzM8), that essentially accuses Obama of being the anti-Christ ... does that mean ... that in reality ... McCain is ... ?


-Mark

[Skinview]

•He calls Obama elitist, yet it was McCain who grew up in privilege and owns 8 homes. Privilege? McCain comes from a line of career Navy officers. How much money could they have?


•He calls Obama a "celebrity" yet it is McCain who has hosted Saturday Night Live, appeared in several Hollywood movies, and made endless TV appearances over the last decade.Movies? Which ones?
If Obama wasn't such a green, wet behind the ears, no-experience Senator with no accomplishments, he might have gotten on tv before he ran for President.


OMG, I just realized that McCain ran an ad, The One, that essentially accuses Obama of being the anti-Christ ... does that mean ... that in reality ... McCain is ... ?Our Savior!! Praise the Lord, I belieeeeve!!

[usmc1]

Privilege? McCain comes from a line of career Navy officers. How much money could they have?

Movies? Which ones?
If Obama wasn't such a green, wet behind the ears, no-experience Senator with no accomplishments, he might have gotten on tv before he ran for President.

Our Savior!! Praise the Lord, I belieeeeve!!

Yeah? well believe this, even if all this flap-doodle were true, which it isn't, I'd take him over the alternative!

<object height="344" width="425">

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GEtZlR3zp4c&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" height="344" width="425"></object>

[Naturist Mark]

Privilege? McCain comes from a line of career Navy officers. How much money could they have?I said he grew up privileged - as the son and grandson of admirals. I don't know about wealthy, but he was definitely privileged. He graduated from the naval academy at nearly the bottom of his class, yet still received a commission and went on pilot training. Yo! Isn't it rare for a poor student to go on to flight school? (unless you are a McCain or a Bush). As a naval aviator McCain crashed 3 jets, yet his career continued to advance - normally pilots are done after their second. I didn't count the jet that was destroyed on the deck of the USS Forrestal and the one he went down with over Vietnam resulting in his capture by enemy forces - he had a career total of 5 destroyed naval jets - any non privileged aviator's career would have been over.


Movies? Which ones?
Wedding Crashers, Port Town,

Via IMDB

1. Democrazy (2007) (script collaborator)

... aka Demopazzia (Italy)
2. Faith of My Fathers (2005) (TV) (memoir)

Actor:

1. "24" .... Office Staffer (1 episode, 2006)
- Day 5: 1:00 p.m.-2:00 p.m. (2006) TV episode (uncredited) .... Office Staffer

Self:

* 2000s
* 1990s

2. "Late Night with Conan O'Brien" .... Himself / ... (3 episodes, 2004-2008)

3. "Entertainment Tonight" .... Himself (2 episodes, 2008)

4. "Saturday Night Live" .... Himself / ... (2 episodes, 2002-2008)

- Steve Carell/Usher (2008) TV episode (as Senator John McCain) .... Himself
- Senator John McCain/The White Stripes (2002) TV episode .... Himself - Host

5. "Live with Regis and Kathie Lee" .... Himself (1 episode, 2008)

6. "The O'Reilly Factor" .... Himself (4 episodes, 2005-2008)

7. "The Daily Show" .... Himself (12 episodes, 2001-2008)

8. "WWF Raw Is War" .... Himself (1 episode, 2008)

9. "The View" .... Himself (2 episodes, 2005-2008)

10. "Late Show with David Letterman" .... Himself / ... (8 episodes, 2001-2008)

11. "IFC News: 2008 Uncut" .... Himself (2 episodes, 2007-2008)
- Episode #1.10 (2008) TV episode .... Himself
- Introducing the Circus (2007) TV episode .... Himself

13. "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno" .... Himself / ... (10 episodes, 2001-2008)

18. The World Awaits: De La Hoya vs. Mayweather (2007) (TV) (uncredited) .... Himself - Audience Member

26. Port Town (2006) .... Himself
27. 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner (2006) (TV) .... Himself
28. Mr. Conservative: Goldwater on Goldwater (2006) .... Himself

30. "The Tony Danza Show" .... Himself (1 episode, 2005)
- Episode #2.55 (2005) TV episode .... Himself
31. "Quite Frankly with Stephen A. Smith" .... Himself (1 episode, 2005)

33. "ESPN 25: Who's #1?" .... Himself (1 episode, 2005)
- The Best World Series (2005) TV episode .... Himself
34. "Beyond the Glory" .... Himself (1 episode, 2005)
- Ultimate Fighting Championship (2005) TV episode .... Himself
35. Wedding Crashers (2005) (uncredited) .... Himself

37. "ESPN SportsCentury" .... Himself (1 episode, 2005)
- Pat Tillman (2005) TV episode .... Himself
38. Missing, Presumed Dead: The Search for America's POWs (2005)
39. Why We Fight (2005) .... Himself
... aka Nerf de la guerre, Le (France: TV title)
40. "60 Minutes" .... Himself (1 episode, 2004)
... aka TV Land Legends: The 60 Minutes Interviews (USA: rerun title)
- Episode dated 31 October 2004 (2004) TV episode (as Sen. John McCain) .... Himself
44. "Arizona Highways" (2004) TV series .... Himself (unknown episodes)
45. "Listen Up! Charles Barkley with Ernie Johnson" .... Himself (1 episode, 2002)
46. Lewis Black: Taxed Beyond Belief (2002) (TV) .... Himself
47. Return with Honor (1998)

[Skinview]

I said he grew up privileged - as the son and grandson of admirals. I don't know about wealthy, but he was definitely privileged. He graduated from the naval academy at nearly the bottom of his class, yet still received a commission and went on pilot training. Yo! Isn't it rare for a poor student to go on to flight school?
I think its more of the case that the top students get first pick of assignments. Usually that would be to fly fighter jets. McCain started out flying A-1 Skyraider propeller attack aircraft. McCain later flew the A-4 Skyhawk, a jet attack aircraft. Patton had to repeat a year at West Point.


As a naval aviator McCain crashed 3 jets, yet his career continued to advance - normally pilots are done after their second.That would depend on the time and the circumstances. In the 1950's, when McCain graduated from the Naval Academy, military aircraft were crashing like flies. They were much more difficult to fly then. Today, jets crash much less often, and have much better flight characteristics. And of course jets are machines and malfunction. Engines explode, hydraulic fluid leaks, parts break.
McCain's career went very well. He was made commander of the largest squadron in the Navy. You don't get that by favoritism.


I didn't count the jet that was destroyed on the deck of the USS Forrestal and the one he went down with over Vietnam resulting in his capture by enemy forces - he had a career total of 5 destroyed naval jets - any non privileged aviator's career would have been over.His A-4 and twenty other planes were destroyed on the USS Forrestal when a Zuni rocket from an F-4 malfunctioned and launched into the wing tank of an A-4E, either McCain's, or the A-4E next to his. Fires fed by jet fuel raged and nine bombs exploded on the deck, resulting in a terrible loss of life. Having his jet destroyed on the flight deck by a rocket from another jet is hardly McCain's fault.

Getting shot down is no dishonor. Its usually a random thing. The air fills with expoding AAA, and you have to fly through it, and an attack pilot has to fly steady to drop his bomb on the target. It takes guts.

But I will grant you that he did have one opportunity of privilage. While McCain was a POW, he was offered early release because his father had been put in command of US forces in the Vietnam theater. McCain refused it, unless every POW that had been captured before him was allowed to be released too. He then spent years of solitary confinement and torture. Today, as a result of that, he is permanently incapable of raising his arms above his head.

[Fitz1980]

I'm a little curious what Ann "thrax" Coulter has to say about McCain's wife. Back in 2004 she accused John Kerry of being a "poodle to a rich woman" because he is married to a rich heiress. So is McCain, but I'm sure she won't have a problem with that.

[Skinview]

During the war, Kerry was going around calling US servicemen war criminals while McCain was having his arms ripped out for refusing to say the same thing. I wish Kerry was running against McCain. "Poodle" is too kind.

[Sanslines]

But I will grant you that he did have one opportunity of privilage. While McCain was a POW, he was offered early release because his father had been put in command of US forces in the Vietnam theater. McCain refused it, unless every POW that had been captured before him was allowed to be released too. He then spent years of solitary confinement and torture. Today, as a result of that, he is permanently incapable of raising his arms above his head.

Yes and yet people who never served one day in the armed forces think that they have the right to mock McCain by accusing him of 'priviledge'. Let all of those mocking media people rot in a POW prison for years and then let's see what they have to say about 'priviledge'.

[Qikdraw]

Have you noticed that McCain is bringing up his POW experience into everything he is asked?

'This is great weather isn't it?'

'Yes, back when I was a POW I never thought I would see great weather again.'

Yes McCain was a POW, a terrible experience, he truely has an inpirational story in how he has bounced back from that. But I fail to see how being a POW makes him presidential material. But anytime anyone brings up anything bad about McCain they yel, 'But he was a POW!!'. Just look at how Hannity defends McCains adultry against Colmes. 'But he was a POW for 5 years!!'.

***********************

Apparently today the Georgian Prsident turned over control of its airfields and ports to American control. Five minutes after that the Pentagon said 'Huh?'.


"We are not looking to, nor do we need to, take control of any air or seaports to conduct this mission," said Geoff Morrell, Pentagon press secretary. "The role of the U.S. military is strictly to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian assistance to the victims of this conflict."

McCain says he is talking to President Saakashvili a lot, What is he saying to him? And does he have any right to? Should that not be handled through the State Department and higher levels of government than a Senator? Considering McCain has an advisor that is a lobbyist for the Georgian government, McCain should be staying the hell away from this conflict.

[Sanslines]

Have you noticed that McCain is bringing up his POW experience into everything he is asked?

'This is great weather isn't it?'

'Yes, back when I was a POW I never thought I would see great weather again.'

Yes McCain was a POW, a terrible experience, he truely has an inpirational story in how he has bounced back from that. But I fail to see how being a POW makes him presidential material. But anytime anyone brings up anything bad about McCain they yel, 'But he was a POW!!'. Just look at how Hannity defends McCains adultry against Colmes. 'But he was a POW for 5 years!!'.

Given the pure hell that McCain went through as a POW is certainly indirectly relevent to being a President. If McCain can survive deprivation and torture, he certainly can survive the challenges of being President.
This issue was started because McCain was accused of 'priviledge'. If rotting in the Hanoi Hilton for years is a sign of 'priviledge', then McCain is certainly guilty of that.

Both McCain and Obama are guilty of many things. One thing that they share in common is being guilty of being human beings. The difference is that one extreme side accuses the other extreme side of all kinds of misdeeds and yet fails to see the misdeeds of their own side. Hardly fair is it. Both extreme sides are equally guilty and yet neither side will admit to their guilt. Good thing most people are in the middle and can see the bias of both extreme sides.

The bottom line with all of this is that the only thing that should matter is where each candidate stands on issues. All of the other irrelevent nonsense is just entertainment and fodder for the unimformed.

[Qikdraw]

Given the pure hell that McCain went through as a POW is certainly indirectly relevent to being a President. If McCain can survive deprivation and torture, he certainly can survive the challenges of being President.
This issue was started because McCain was accused of 'priviledge'. If rotting in the Hanoi Hilton for years is a sign of 'priviledge', then McCain is certainly guilty of that.

But being a POW doesn't automatically mean you are qualified to be president, or all the other vets who have been POWs can say they are qualified. Should the person who has had the hardest life be given the president's job then? It just doesn't work that way. It also doesn't mean he should be given a pass at everythign because he wa a POW, which is what is happening now.

And to clarify, you were the one who said that rotting in the Hanoi Hilton for years is a sign of priviledge, no one else said that. Mark was saying McCain had priviledge because he was the son of an admiral, and he certainly was. People forget that just like in any of walk of life politics plays a part in the military. Less deserving people get promoted because they kissed butt with their superiors. If your father was an admiral other people would want to gain favour from your father by helping you get good assignments, which is exactly what happened with McCain. I'm not trashing McCain's service at all, but only saying he got help. Why is John McCain hiding his complete service record?


Both McCain and Obama are guilty of many things. One thing that they share in common is being guilty of being human beings. The difference is that one extreme side accuses the other extreme side of all kinds of misdeeds and yet fails to see the misdeeds of their own side. Hardly fair is it. Both extreme sides are equally guilty and yet neither side will admit to their guilt. Good thing most people are in the middle and can see the bias of both extreme sides.

And Obama has played a much straighter game than McCain has. Who has gone negative far more, even after he said he would run a clean campaign? Who has protesters thrown out and who tackles them head on by responding to them?


The bottom line with all of this is that the only thing that should matter is where each candidate stands on issues. All of the other irrelevent nonsense is just entertainment and fodder for the unimformed.

I agree. I wish I knew where McCain stands on issues as he keeps changing his mind most of the time. He's even against bills he wrote!
However it is not just the fault of teh canditates, its the media's fault they get sidelined into idiotic stories and refuse to cover the campaigns honestly.

[Naturist Mark]

While McCain was a POW, he was offered early release because his father had been put in command of US forces in the Vietnam theater. McCain refused it, unless every POW that had been captured before him was allowed to be released too. He then spent years of solitary confinement and torture.

And that is why I consider him a true hero.

But that doesn't negate the fact that his performance in his military career was undistinguished. Or more plainly - substandard. Yet he prospered, precisely because he was military royalty.

-Mark

[MJ_KC]

The bottom line with all of this is that the only thing that should matter is where each candidate stands on issues. All of the other irrelevent nonsense is just entertainment and fodder for the unimformed.
I do not agree with this at all. A person's life experiences shape who they are and their approach to difficult situations. McCain's experience as a POW is very important in seeing how he responds.

[Sanslines]

But being a POW doesn't automatically mean you are qualified to be president, or all the other vets who have been POWs can say they are qualified. Should the person who has had the hardest life be given the president's job then? It just doesn't work that way. It also doesn't mean he should be given a pass at everythign because he wa a POW, which is what is happening now.

I think that you misunderstood what I was trying to say about being a POW. Being a POW in itself is certainly not a prerequisite to being a President. However, the point that I was making is that being a POW is certainly one of the most (if not the most) stressful and hardest parts of a person's life. No one should ever be a POW. With that said, if you have ever talked in depth with any POW from any war, you will find that many who survived are mentally very tough individuals who would not crack under the extreme pressures of being a POW. Being a President is certainly a very stressful and difficult job and the mental toughness that was demonstrated by a POW certainly is of benefit when it comes to being a President.


And to clarify, you were the one who said that rotting in the Hanoi Hilton for years is a sign of priviledge, no one else said that.

Your answer implies that you are not familiar with the infamous 'Hanoi Hilton'. This was a very notorious and infamous POW prison where torture, deprivation, and other atrocities occured. Of course rotting in the Hanoi Hilton would never be a sign of priviledge. It is one of the worst nightmares anyone can ever imagine. Those who survived that place of horrors were indeed lucky to have survived. I made the comment about McCain spending time in the Hanoi Hilton as a 'priviledge' to express the absurdity of raising issues such as who had the most 'priviledge' while growing up.



And Obama has played a much straighter game than McCain has. Who has gone negative far more, even after he said he would run a clean campaign? Who has protesters thrown out and who tackles them head on by responding to them?

Obama has definitely tried to take the higher road in the contest to become president. If McCain does not wise up and stop with the nonsense, then his 'non issue statements' will backfire and he will lose the election.



I agree. I wish I knew where McCain stands on issues as he keeps changing his mind most of the time. He's even against bills he wrote!
However it is not just the fault of teh canditates, its the media's fault they get sidelined into idiotic stories and refuse to cover the campaigns honestly.

Obama has also changed his mind many times. His latest change concerns offshore drilling. All candidates will constantly change their minds. They are in a contest to win the presidency and will say what they must to win as much support as they can. Also, whatever a candidate says must be taken with a grain of salt for just because they say something does not mean that it will ever become policy. They still need to deal with Congress to get anything approved. Congress is where most of the real power in this country resides.

I also posted a series of articles outlining where both Obama and McCain stand concerning the issues.

[Sanslines]

I do not agree with this at all. A person's life experiences shape who they are and their approach to difficult situations. McCain's experience as a POW is very important in seeing how he responds.

The 'irrelevent nonsense' that I refer to concerns comments made about one candidate or the other about silliness such as who wears the bigger lapel pin, who can decorate themselves with more flags, who has or has not an American flag on the tail of their plane, who is more patriotic based upon the color of their suit, etc.

McCain's or Obamas upbringing and past truthful personal experiences are certainly relevent but they do not fit in the same category as who is the bigger patriot based upon the size of the flag on their campaign plane's tail.

[usmc1]

To be eligible to become president of the United States one must be a natural born citizen, or born abroad to parents who are both citizens of the U.S., be at least 35-years old, and have lived in the United States for at least 14-years. (The constitution is vague on that final point, but it has never emerged as an issue)

Those are the only explicit requirements to be eligible for election. All the other, less explicit requirements, change with the times. Once was that if a person did not have military service one had no chance of election, once was that one needed to be from the Midwest, (Ohio-Birthplace of presidents), and one, for sure had to be a white Anglo-Saxon protestant, if one had been divorced or had a history of substance abuse one could not expect to be elected. People, times, mores, and attitudes change, as do the candidates.

McCain, was benefited by having had a distinguished military lineage. Doors were opened, privileges made available, faults and deficiencies overlooked His own military career was lackluster and marginal and only distinguished by his being shot down and made a prisoner of war. None of that qualifies him or disqualifies him for the office he seeks by the constitution or today's standards.

He is a cynical opportunist and a rather poor senator, missing many important votes. His treatment of his first wife and his marriage to a booze heiress whose father financed his first congressional campaign probably does speak to his character, but even by today's standards, character is not the issue, for some, it once was. GWB, I rest my case on that point.

We have a very clear choice in this election, more so than in a very, very long time. We'll either choose more of the same, where pragmatic cynicism, connection, and lack of character trumps decency and idealism and government functions for the betterment of the wealthy, stateless corporations, and powerful international interests.

Or we will choose to take a small step in the direction of change, a change where the government begins working, once again, for the betterment of working families, older Americans, small business, and We The People, rather than the vested interests.

McCain's vision and record speaks to the first option, while Obama's points to the second.

[Fitz1980]

Obama has also changed his mind many times. His latest change concerns offshore drilling. All candidates will constantly change their minds.

Obama has modified his position on offshore drilling from being against it it allowing a LIMITED amount of it. He also flipped on using public funds because of how much money he had raised. McCain has flip-flopped on nearly every position he ever took since 2000.

[Fitz1980]

During the war, Kerry was going around calling US servicemen war criminals while McCain was having his arms ripped out for refusing to say the same thing. I wish Kerry was running against McCain. "Poodle" is too kind.

Oh yes that. He went to Vietnam while Bush was dodging the draft (yet supporting the war for others to fight) he was decorated for heroism in combat, he saw horrible things and realized how pointless the war was. When his hitch was over he came back home and worked to end a war that cost the lives of 55,000 American servicemen and untold numbers of Asian lives and he told the truth about what was really going on over there. What a horrible SOB he is.

[ki4kxq]

USMC-1, maybe you should go back and take another look at my posts. I have said all along that the government should only pay for what they are constitutionally mandated to pay for. Never said I didn't think taxes were necessary, always said federal taxes should be paid, but only spent within the confines of the constitution. Don't know how I can make that point any more clear to you.

Although it doesn't surprise me that you can't seem to make that out from my posts, you have called me a "lad" several times, my posts clearly show that I am of the female variety. It also disheartens me that you seem to have a clear disdain for our constitution, especially since I take from your name that you were a Marine. When I took my Marine Corps oath I distinctly remember that part of the oath includes protected and defending the constitution of the United States.

[Sanslines]

The Biggest Flip Flops of 2008 - McCain AND Obama



By KENNETH P. VOGEL (http://www.politico.com/reporters/KennethPVogel.html) | 8/5/08 7:51 PM EST

In the latest salvo in the war on inconsistency, Barack Obama (http://search.politico.com/results.cfm?subject=Barack+Obama) is being accused of flip-flopping on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

But the presidential race has featured so many alleged flip-flops by either Obama or John McCain (http://search.politico.com/results.cfm?subject=John+McCain) — on issues ranging from tax cuts to offshore drilling, wiretapping to campaign cash — that the charge itself is in danger of losing some of its potency. It’s becoming increasingly difficult to determine on which issues the candidates have actually reversed their positions, and whether their shifts were indeed motivated by political expediency (the implication behind most flip-flop charges) or changing circumstances.

Politico (http://search.politico.com/results.cfm?subject=Politico.com), in conjunction with PolitiFact, a partnership between the St. Petersburg (Fla. (http://search.politico.com/results.cfm?subject=Florida)) Times and Congressional Quarterly, sorts through the charges to get to the truth of five key flip-flop allegations.

Obama on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and offshore drilling

Obama’s announcement this week that he supports tapping a national stockpile of crude oil reverses a position he articulated as recently as last month, when he asserted that oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve should only be released in case of emergency.

His campaign explained his new position, which calls for releasing 70 million barrels of easy-to-refine light oil, by asserting the situation had reached a tipping point and explaining that Obama would replace the barrels later with heavier crude oil.

The shift came just days after Obama dialed back his opposition to drilling for oil off U.S. shores. He said he’d consider supporting limited drilling as part of a comprehensive gas-price-reduction effort, but only after oil companies looked for oil on 68 million untapped acres to which they have access.

PolitiFact ranked the Strategic Petroleum Reserve reversal a “full flop” on its new Flip-O-Meter (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/flip-o-meter/), unveiled Tuesday, but rated the offshore drilling shift a less-severe “half-flip.”

McCain on offshore drilling

McCain’s recent support for offshore drilling is actually not as stark of a flip-flop as has been portrayed (http://www.democrats.org/a/2008/06/mccains_offshor.php).

It’s true that McCain never actively pushed for it until this summer, but there is scant evidence that he opposed it or supported a federal moratorium on it.

Two California newspaper stories from his 2000 presidential run paraphrase McCain as supporting the moratorium, but many more accounts (http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/543/) include direct quotations in which McCain says he would support states’ decisions on whether they want to drill.
<EMBED style="MARGIN: 10px" name=flashObj pluginspage=http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash align=right src=http://services.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f8/1155201977 width=270 height=229 type=application/x-shockwave-flash bgcolor="#FFFFFF" flashvars="videoId=1715728767&playerId=1155201977&viewerSecureGatewayURL=https://console.brightcove.com/services/amfgateway&servicesURL=http://services.brightcove.com/services&cdnURL=http://admin.brightcove.com&domain=embed&autoStart=false&" base="http://admin.brightcove.com" seamlesstabbing="false" swliveconnect="true"></EMBED>
In February 2000, McCain said, “I understand Texans want offshore oil drilling. That’s fine with me. Off Florida, they don’t. I think that we should allow these decisions, to some degree to be made — significant degree to be made by the people who are directly affected by them.”

As for his voting record, McCain in 2003 was among 10 Republicans who voted to call off a survey and inventory of possible offshore oil and natural gas deposits. And in 2006, he voted to authorize drilling in about 8.3-million acres of the eastern Gulf of Mexico, off the coasts of Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas.

However, in 1992, McCain voted against an amendment that would have increased coastal states’ input in federal government decisions about offshore drilling.

Still, the shift from his states-rights position to offshore-drilling cheerleader warranted a half-flip (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/601/) from PolitiFact.


Obama on public financing

Obama clearly reversed himself in June when he announced (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11202.html) he would not participate in the public financing system, which grants taxpayer cash — this year it’s $84 million — to presidential candidates who agree not to raise or spend more than that during their general election campaigns.

Obama had indicated he would participate in the system if the Republican nominee agreed to do the same, which McCain has done (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0307/2965.html). Obama’s campaign told Politico (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0307/2961.html) in March 2007 he would “aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election” and later in the year, it indicated on a questionnaire he would participate if the Republican nominee agreed to “a fundraising truce.”

What changed? Obama demonstrated unrivaled fundraising ability that likely will allow him to raise substantially more than $84 million for the general election.

Obama justified his decision by asserting the private cash would be necessary to fend off attacks from outside groups and by asserting that McCain’s campaign was unwilling to negotiate the terms of a truce.

McCain’s campaign denied Obama even tried to negotiate, but, setting aside the question of a truce, Obama’s positioning brought a full flop (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/586/) ruling from PolitiFact.

McCain on the Bush tax cuts

Fresh off his stinging defeat to George W. Bush (http://search.politico.com/results.cfm?subject=George+W.+Bush) in the 2000 GOP presidential primary, McCain burnished his reputation as a maverick by opposing the tax cuts proposed by President Bush in 2001. He was one of the few Republicans to do so, and he opposed their renewal in 2003, both times asserting they were fiscally imprudent.

But McCain voted in favor of the cuts, which also reduced taxes on capital gains and dividend income, when they came up for renewal again in 2006, as he was working to mend fences with the Republican base in preparation for another bid for the party’s presidential nomination.

McCain explained his reversal by asserting “American businesses and investors need a stable and predictable tax policy to continue contributing to the growth of our economy. These considerations lead me to the conclusion that we should not reverse course by letting higher tax rates take effect.”

Justification aside, this is an actual change of position for McCain, and PolitiFact rated it full flop (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/603/).

Obama on FISA

Obama reversed himself when he voted last month for a wiretapping bill granting retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that helped the government monitor customers’ calls and e-mails without warrants.

Obama had won plaudits from online liberal activists last year when he pledged (http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2007/10/obama_camp_says_it_hell_support_filibuster_of_any_ bill_containing_telecom_immunity.php) to filibuster any bill containing such immunity.

He explained his shift by asserting that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act legislation had changed from when he made his filibuster pledge, partly because it requires internal government watchdogs to investigate the program.

But that did little to sate the Netroots (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/07/netroots-activi.html) or obscure his flip-flop.

[usmc1]

USMC-1, maybe you should go back and take another look at my posts. I have said all along that the government should only pay for what they are constitutionally mandated to pay for. Never said I didn't think taxes were necessary, always said federal taxes should be paid, but only spent within the confines of the constitution. Don't know how I can make that point any more clear to you.

Although it doesn't surprise me that you can't seem to make that out from my posts, you have called me a "lad" several times, my posts clearly show that I am of the female variety. It also disheartens me that you seem to have a clear disdain for our constitution, especially since I take from your name that you were a Marine. When I took my Marine Corps oath I distinctly remember that part of the oath includes protected and defending the constitution of the United States.

I regret missing the obvious clues as to your sex. I guess, that proves one thing, I'm not paying attention to who is male or female. I made a more grievious error back when I interpreted Sanslines writings as being structured in a feminine way--Moonshadow, disabused me of that misguided notion. A notion which certainly proved that my TAD time in G2 did not qualify me as forensics analyst of the writings of others. Dang, I hate it when crap like that happens, don't you?

But, one does not need to be a forensics expert to recognize many of the things you write as being uninformed, naive, and regurgitated cant from eons of conservate flap-doodle about the constitution and what the founders really wanted.

Hence the lad reference, to me, you came across a bit sophomoric, rather like something some 22-year old kid would spout. Granted the reference is a bit patronizing, but you, I think, do leave yourself open for such.

So, listen up, lass, your interpretation of the constituion is yours and not mine. So continually berrating me that I'm missing something, or that I don't understand, hardly suffices to prove your points. If you'd like to square off on the constitutionallity of taxation and how, and, for what, those taxes are spent, I'm game--just tell me which which or what what, it is that you find to be unconstitutional, and we'll get after it.

[Skinview]

But that doesn't negate the fact that his performance in his military career was undistinguished. Or more plainly - substandard. Yet he prospered, precisely because he was military royalty.

Exactly what makes you think that his performance was substandard? Where are you getting this?

[ki4kxq]

Social security, medicare, federal funding for planned parenthood, npr radio, earmarks for pet local projects. This list is no where near complete, but it should get you started.

Btw, the things some of you all say about conservatives and us getting our talking points off of conservative news and talk radio, remember, you liberals sound the same to us. Everything I've read from ya'll is straight from Air America and MSNBC. It is safe to say that we will probably never agree. As a reader of not only the constitution, but the supporting documents written by the founding fathers, I believe my ideas of constitutionality are correct. It is written over and over again in the letters and documents of the founding fathers that our system would work until the population realized that they could vote themselves a largess from the public trough. That and other thoughts within these documents should tell anyone that reads these with a smidgen of impartiality, what our founding fathers thought of a welfare state.

You are more than welcome to try and justify any of these programs any way you like. But I know from reading the constitution that you cannot use that document to support your theories.

[Naturist Mark]

[B]Obama on public financing

Obama clearly reversed himself in June when he announced he would not participate in the public financing system, which grants taxpayer cash — this year it’s $84 million — to presidential candidates who agree not to raise or spend more than that during their general election campaigns.

Obama had indicated he would participate in the system if the Republican nominee agreed to do the same, which McCain has done. Obama’s campaign told Politico in March 2007 he would “aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election” and later in the year, it indicated on a questionnaire he would participate if the Republican nominee agreed to “a fundraising truce.”

What changed? Obama demonstrated unrivaled fundraising ability that likely will allow him to raise substantially more than $84 million for the general election.

Obama justified his decision by asserting the private cash would be necessary to fend off attacks from outside groups and by asserting that McCain’s campaign was unwilling to negotiate the terms of a truce.

McCain’s campaign denied Obama even tried to negotiate, but, setting aside the question of a truce, Obama’s positioning brought a full flop ruling from PolitiFact.

While I agree that Obama's change of position was indeed a flip, I would rate it only a half flip.

Undoubtedly his campaign's ability to raise large sums from multitudes of small donations was the primary reason. But there were others ... McCain had already flipflopped several times on campaign financing - including outright violation of the very campaign financing law he authored. Further by June it was clear that the 527s were going to be pumping additional millions into the campaign milieu, and were running anti-Obama by a 4 to 1 margin. McCain's "official" announcement that he would accept public financing in the general campaign occurred at a hastily scheduled press conference just a few hours after Obama made his decision public.

McCain can afford to settle for public financing while the big money goes to the 527 hitmen. Obama has only MoveON (which has disbanded its 527) and a few unions on his side, and will be largely on his own to counter both the McCain campaign and the even better funded 527s.

score: 1/2 flip.

-Mark

[Qikdraw]

Btw, the things some of you all say about conservatives and us getting our talking points off of conservative news and talk radio, remember, you liberals sound the same to us. Everything I've read from ya'll is straight from Air America and MSNBC. It is safe to say that we will probably never agree.

Very true, but debating is fun, if done in a civil way.


As a reader of not only the constitution, but the supporting documents written by the founding fathers, I believe my ideas of constitutionality are correct.

Where does the Patriot Act fall in under the Constitution??

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Where is 'executive priviledge'? Where the President, Vice President, and everybody who works in the administration cannot be subpeonaed or held accountable for their actions? (as this administration says)

Where does it say in the Constitution that the Vice President in not part of any branch of government, that it is a branch of its own? (As Cheney's office seems to think)


It is written over and over again in the letters and documents of the founding fathers that our system would work until the population realized that they could vote themselves a largess from the public trough.

Actually considering that at the time there was no such this as a 'public trough' I don't know where you get your idea from. Rather they thought the reverse.

"This [the U.S. Constitution] is likely to be administered for a course of years and then end in despotism... when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other."
Benjamin Franklin


That and other thoughts within these documents should tell anyone that reads these with a smidgen of impartiality, what our founding fathers thought of a welfare state.

Yes what would they think of corporate welfare? Of the government acting more on the behalf of corporations than its own citizens?


You are more than welcome to try and justify any of these programs any way you like. But I know from reading the constitution that you cannot use that document to support your theories.

It seems to me that the documents actually go against what the republicans under the Bush administration has been doing for the past 7 years. Can you really, honestly, say that you would want Obama, or if it was Hillary, to have the same powers the Bush administration has given itself over the past 7 years?

[ki4kxq]

I agree with you, the Patriot Act is unconstitutional. I am a republican, but I don't walk in lockstep with the Bush administration, far from it. I also don't agree with him on illegal immigration, the medicare drug program, and other things. I also think McCain is nowhere conservative enough, however, I will take him over Obama if only for the judicial appointments and gun rights.

Corportate welfare? We should have a tax system that taxes every entity the same, person or corporation. 5, 10, 15%, I don't care as long as we all pay the same percentage, regardless of income. We should have neither corporate or personal welfare. That is for federal taxes. If a municipality wants to give local tax breaks to companies that will put it's citizens to work, that is up to the people of that community.

Seems to me I also heard Bill Clinton hollar executive priviledge a time or two. Depends on the situation I guess. Do I think the news media or the people need to know every little detail, no not really as long as another branch of government can oversee, in private.

[Naturist Mark]

Exactly what makes you think that his performance was substandard? Where are you getting this?

LOL ... they never learn ...

John McCain's Military Service (http://www.picassodreams.com/picasso_dreams/2008/05/john-mccains-mi.html)

John McCain: Unfit to serve as Commander-In-Chief
The spoiled son of military privilege got a free ride throughout his military career despite repeated instances of sex scandals and screw-ups . . .

By Ted Sampley
U.S. Veteran Dispatch
January 27, 2008

John Sidney McCain III entered the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis, Maryland in 1954. Young McCain wanted to become an admiral. He planned to be the "first son and grandson of four star admirals" to achieve such a distinction. But that was not to be. McCain III possessed none of the innate character and discipline traits that helped mold his father and grandfather into great military leaders.

His father, John S. "Junior" McCain, and grandfather, John S. McCain, Sr., were famous four-star Admirals in the U.S. Navy. His father commanded U.S. forces in Europe before becoming commander of American forces fighting in Vietnam. His grandfather commanded naval aviation at the Battle of Okinawa in 1945. Both men became highly influential in U.S. Navy operations.

At the Academy, aside being known as a "rowdy, raunchy, underachiever" who resented authority, Cadet McCain became infamous as a leader among his fellow midshipmen for organizing "off-Yard activities" and hard drinking parties. Robert Timberg wrote in his book, The Nightingale's Song, that "being on liberty with John McCain was like being in a train wreck."

McCain's grades were "marginal." He drew so many demerits for breaking curfew and other discipline issues that he graduated fifth from the bottom of the class of 1958. Despite his low "class standing," and no doubt because of the influence of his family of famous Admirals, McCain was leap-frogged ahead of more qualified applicants and granted a coveted slot to be trained as a navy pilot.

Good Party Animal - Bad Pilot:

He spent the next two and a half years as a "naval aviator in training" at Naval Air Station Pensacola in Florida and Naval Air Station Corpus Christi in Texas, flying A-1 Skyraiders.

While a pilot trainee, McCain continued to party hard. He drove a Corvette and dated an exotic dancer named "Marie the Flame of Florida." Timberg wrote that McCain "learned to fly at Pensacola, though his performance was below par, at best good enough to get by. He liked flying, but didn't love it."

McCain Lost Five Military Aircraft

McCain, the "below par" pilot, eventually lost 5 military aircraft, the first during a training flight in 1958 when he plunged into Corpus Christi Bay while trying to land. The Navy ignored the crash and graduated McCain in 1960.

While deployed in the Mediterranean, the hard partying McCain lost a second aircraft. Timberg described the crash: "Flying too low over the Iberian Peninsula, he took out some power lines which led to a spate of newspaper stories in which he was predictably identified as the son of an admiral."

Unscathed, McCain returned to Pensacola Station where he was promoted to flight instructor for Naval Air Station Meridian in Mississippi. The airfield at Meridian, McCain Field, was named in honor of McCain's grandfather.

In 1964 McCain became involved with Carol Shepp, a model from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, he had met at Annapolis. They were married in Philadelphia on July 3, 1965.

Flight instructor McCain lost a third aircraft while flying a Navy trainer solo to Philadelphia for an Army-Navy football game. Timberg wrote that McCain radioed, "I've got a flameout" before ejecting at one thousand feet. McCain parachuted onto a beach moments before his plane slammed into a clump of trees.

The Navy dismissed the crash as "unavoidable" and assigned McCain to the aircraft carrier USS Forrestal in December 1966, which was patrolling the Mediterranean Sea and Atlantic Ocean. In Spring 1967, the Forrestal was assigned to join the Operation Rolling Thunder bombing campaign against North Vietnam.

McCain lost his fourth plane on board the Forrestal on July 29, 1967 when a rocket inadvertently slammed into his bomb laden jet. McCain escaped, but the explosions that followed killed 134 sailors. McCain was transferred from the badly damaged Forrestal to the USS Oriskany. Shortly afterwards, on Oct. 26, 1967, he was shot down and captured by the Vietnamese.

Post-POW Years: Political Ambition and a New, Young, Rich Wife

Upon his release from North Vietnam and return to the United States in 1973, McCain reunited with his wife, Carol, who had been permanently crippled in a car accident while he was a POW.

Still yearning to become an admiral, McCain enrolled in the National War College at Fort McNair in Washington, D.C. and underwent physical therapy in order to fly again. The Navy excused his permanent disabilities and reinstated him to flight status, effectively positioning him for promotion.

Timberg described McCain's advancement: "in the fall of 1974, McCain was transferred to Jacksonville as the executive officer of Replacement Air Group 174, the long-sought flying billet at last a reality. A few months later, he assumed command of the RAG, which trained pilots and crews for carrier deployments. The assignment was controversial, some calling it favoritism, a sop to the famous son of a famous father and grandfather, since he had not first commanded a squadron, the usual career path."

While Executive Officer and later as Squadron Commander McCain used his authority to arrange frequent flights that allowed him to carouse with subordinates and "engage in extra-marital affairs."

This was a clear violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice rules against adultery and fraternization with subordinates. But, as with all his other past behaviors, McCain was never penalized; instead he always got away with his transgressions.

Timberg wrote, "Off duty, usually on routine cross-country flights to Yuma and El Centro, John started carousing and running around with women. To make matters worse, some of the women with whom he was linked by rumor were subordinates . . . At the time the rumors were so widespread that, true or not, they became part of McCain's persona, impossible not to take note of."

In early 1977, Admiral Jim Holloway, Chief of Naval Operations promoted McCain to captain and transferred him from his command position "to Washington as the number-two man in the Navy's Senate liaison office. McCain was promptly given total control of the office. It wasn't long before the "fun loving and irreverent" McCain had turned the liaison office into a "late-afternoon gathering spot where senators and staffers, usually from the Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees, would drop in for a drink and the chance to unwind."

In 1979, while attending a military reception in Hawaii, McCain met and fell in love with Cindy Lou Hensley, 17 years his junior, who was the daughter of James W. Hensley, a wealthy Anheuser-Busch distributor from Phoenix, Arizona. McCain filed for and obtained an uncontested divorce from his wife in Florida on April 2, 1980 and promptly married Cindy on May 17, 1980.

He resigned from the Navy in 1981 and went to work for his father-in-law in Phoenix; where he used the opportunity to make powerful and wealthy friends in Arizona including banker Charles Keating and Duke Tully, the editor-in-chief of the Arizona Republic. Keating was later convicted of fraud, racketeering, and conspiracy and Tully was disgraced for concocting a phony military record of combat in Korea and Vietnam including medals for heroism.

McCain ran for Arizona's First Congressional District in 1982. McCain won the congressional seat. In 1987 McCain was elected to the Senate.

Jeffrey Klein: (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-klein/mccains-secret-questionab_b_107409.html)

From day one in the Navy, McCain screwed-up again and again, only to be forgiven because his father and grandfather were four-star admirals. McCain's sense of entitlement to privileged treatment bears an eerie resemblance to George W. Bush's.

Despite graduating in the bottom 1 percent of his Annapolis class, McCain was offered the most sought-after Navy assignment -- to become an aircraft carrier pilot. According to military historian John Karaagac, "'the Airedales,' the air wing of the Navy, acted and still do, as if unrivaled atop the naval pyramid. They acted as if they owned, not only the Navy, but the entire swath of blue water on the earth's surface." The most accomplished midshipmen compete furiously for the few carrier pilot openings. After four abysmal academic years at Annapolis distinguished, according to his own books, by mediocrity and misdeeds, no one with a record resembling McCain's would have been offered such a prized career path. The justification for this and subsequent plum assignments should be documented in McCain's naval file.

McCain's file should also include records and analytic reviews of McCain's subsequent sub-par performances. Here are a few cited in two highly favorable biographies, both titled John McCain, one by Robert Timberg and the other by John Karaagac.

Timberg:

"[A]fter a European fling with the tobacco heiress, John McCain reported to flight school at Pensacola in August 1958.... [H]is performance was below par, at best good enough to get by. He liked flying, but didn't love it. What he loved was the kick-the-tire, start-the-fire, scarf-in-the-wind life of a naval aviator. ...One Saturday morning, as McCain was practicing landings, his engine quit and his plane plunged into Corpus Christi. Knocked unconscious by the impact, he came to as the plane settled to the bottom....McCain was an adequate pilot, but he had no patience for studying dry aviation manuals.... His professional growth, though reasonably steady, had its troubled moments. Flying too low over the Iberian Peninsula, he took out some power lines, which led to a spate of newspaper stories in which he was predictably identified as the son of an admiral.... [In 1965] he flew a trainer solo to Philadelphia for the Army-Navy game. Flying by way of Norfolk, he had just begun his descent over unpopulated tidal terrain when the engine died. 'I've got a flameout,' he radioed. He went through the standard relight procedures three times. At one thousand feet he ejected, landing on the deserted beach moments before the plane slammed into a clump of trees."

Adds Karaagac:

"In his memoir, everything becomes a kind of game of adolescent brinksmanship, how much can one press the limits of the acceptable and elude the powers that be....The [fighter jocks'] ethos of exaggerated, almost aggressive sociability becomes an end in itself and an excuse for license. There is a tendency for people, not simply to believe their own mythology but, indeed, to exaggerate it.... Fighter jocks, like politicians around their campaign contributions, often press the limits of the acceptable. It is a type of mild corruption that takes place in a highly privileged atmosphere, where restraints are loosened and excuses made....McCain gives some hint in his memoirs about where he stood in the hierarchy among carrier flyers. Instead of the sleek and newer Phantoms and Crusaders, McCain flew the dependable Douglas A-4 Skyhawk in an attack, not a fighter squadron. He was thus on the lower end of the flying totem pole."

What does Hack think? (http://vietnamveteransagainstmccain.com/cin_hacker_2.htm)

There is plenty more. To be fair you can find plenty of articles puffing up McCain's military career, but the veterans can smell the truth. At least the ones I've talked to claim they can. By the way, currently deployed troops have an opinion too - they are contributing to Obama rather than McCain by a 6 to 1 margin (http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/08/troops-deployed-abroad-give-61.html).

-Mark

[Sanslines]

While I agree that Obama's change of position was indeed a flip, I would rate it only a half flip.

Undoubtedly his campaign's ability to raise large sums from multitudes of small donations was the primary reason. But there were others ... McCain had already flipflopped several times on campaign financing - including outright violation of the very campaign financing law he authored. Further by June it was clear that the 527s were going to be pumping additional millions into the campaign milieu, and were running anti-Obama by a 4 to 1 margin. McCain's "official" announcement that he would accept public financing in the general campaign occurred at a hastily scheduled press conference just a few hours after Obama made his decision public.

McCain can afford to settle for public financing while the big money goes to the 527 hitmen. Obama has only MoveON (which has disbanded its 527) and a few unions on his side, and will be largely on his own to counter both the McCain campaign and the even better funded 527s.

score: 1/2 flip.

-Mark

Nah, only those who are objective and not beholding to either party should decide where Obama and McCain stand as far as flip flops are concerned.

[usmc1]

Social security, medicare, federal funding for planned parenthood, npr radio, earmarks for pet local projects. This list is no where near complete, but it should get you started.

Btw, the things some of you all say about conservatives and us getting our talking points off of conservative news and talk radio, remember, you liberals sound the same to us. Everything I've read from ya'll is straight from Air America and MSNBC. It is safe to say that we will probably never agree. As a reader of not only the constitution, but the supporting documents written by the founding fathers, I believe my ideas of constitutionality are correct. It is written over and over again in the letters and documents of the founding fathers that our system would work until the population realized that they could vote themselves a largess from the public trough. That and other thoughts within these documents should tell anyone that reads these with a smidgen of impartiality, what our founding fathers thought of a welfare state.

You are more than welcome to try and justify any of these programs any way you like. But I know from reading the constitution that you cannot use that document to support your theories.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Virtually every program you mention relates back, in one way or another, to those iterations in the preamble to the constitution of its purpose. None of the things you mention are thought to be unconstitutional except by those out there on the fringe. You might not like them, you might not approve, you might have done it other than the way it was done, but they are constitutional, and no one has proven them otherwise.

I don't have to defend any of the things you cite, they are constitutional, and you can present no evidence to the contrary other than your own belief and the thinking of fringezoids.

[ki4kxq]

The great leading objects of the federal government, in which revenue is concerned, are to maintain domestic peace, and provide for the common defense. In these are comprehended the regulation of commerce that is, the whole system of foreign intercourse; the support of armies and navies, and of the civil administration.

Alexander Hamilton, Remarks in the New York Ratifying Convention, June, 1788



I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.

Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Ludlow, September 6, 1824



If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy.

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Cooper, Nov 29, 1802



They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please...Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.

Thomas Jefferson



I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.

Benjamin Franklin, On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor, November 1766



The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security.

James Madison, Federalist No. 45, January 26, 1788



The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.

James Madison, Federalist No. 45, January 26, 1788

[Qikdraw]

Nah, only those who are objective and not beholding to either party should decide where Obama and McCain stand as far as flip flops are concerned.


So I guess that leaves it up to us Canadians then huh?

C'mon Boreas, Journeyman, Triton, hm0504, cgynotanlines, ranul, rguy1978, Midnite Rider, Joontiki, and all the other Canadians on these boards.... I guess we get to tell the Americans some things eh? :D

[Boreas]

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Sanslines http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showthread.php?p=205918#post205918)
Nah, only those who are objective and not beholding to either party should decide where Obama and McCain stand as far as flip flops are concerned.



</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

So I guess that leaves it up to us Canadians then huh?

C'mon Boreas, Journeyman, Triton, hm0504, cgynotanlines, ranul, rguy1978, Midnite Rider, Joontiki, and all the other Canadians on these boards.... I guess we get to tell the Americans some things eh? :D

Flip flops make my feet hurt....bad! :sneaky: How can they even stand in flip flops??? :surprised: :p Okay, I am being silly. One question, has no one here ever changed their mind on some important issue??? I repsect people who can get new information and then modify or change their opinion based on that new information. Even changing one's mind after some thought can be a virtue.

I wrote a brilliant post (really I did :D) that got lost when my computer succumbed to the gremlins. :mad: Anyway, the gist was that I am a Canadian and therefore, am not an expert in the American constitution. I have a passing knowledge of it. I really wonder what the founders would say about the neo-conservative movement ruling the Administration, and arguably the world these days. I do not believe for a second that these current "leaders" are true conservatives. I wouldn't be so opposed to true conservative values. I think the founders and your ancestors may be spinning in their graves. (mine too...and some were conservatives)

ki4kxq I respectfully suggest that you learn about neo-liberalism. It is a wave that has hit the world since the likes of Brian Mulroney, Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were in power. As far as I am concerned, it is a dark force, and something we need to stop.

My Christian values tell me I need to help those in need. That does not make them dependent on my help. In fact, if it does, then I am being disrepectful. As a social worker who has done this work for over 20 years, I have seen the negative effects of heartless, neo-liberal policies that cut in the name of fiscal responsibility. BS. It is mean-ness. A good social safety network will help people up and out of poverty. It will help people become productive members of society.

May I remind you of this passage:

Matthew 25.40-26.4

<SUP class=ww>40</SUP>And the king will answer them, “Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family,<SUP class=fnote>*</SUP> (http://javascript<b></b>:void(0);) you did it to me.” <SUP class=ww>41</SUP>Then he will say to those at his left hand, “You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; <SUP class=ww>42</SUP>for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, <SUP class=ww>43</SUP>I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.” <SUP class=ww>44</SUP>Then they also will answer, “Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not take care of you?” <SUP class=ww>45</SUP>Then he will answer them, “Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.” <SUP class=ww>46</SUP>And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.’

from http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=least+of+these



<!-- / message -->

[ki4kxq]

Boreas, yes if the info warrants it, I can indeed change my mind. No, you are correct, the current administration is not conservative and neither is John McCain. That is why I really am going to have to hold my nose to vote for him.

As for helping those in need, I also believe my christian values tell me that I should do this. And I do. Charity should be done by individuals and churches, not the government. When the government takes my money, and gives to whom they choose, that is not me helping my neighbor, just another government program bogged down in waste and incompetance. When Jesus spoke these words, he was speaking to individuals, not their government. Big difference. Btw, every study I have seen on the issue has shown that conservatives give far more money to charity than their liberal counterparts.

As for safety nets, we do need some very limited safety nets both in help given and time that it is used. Almost all programs touted as being for the good of the people actually weaken them and make them more dependent. Look at social security. Sounds good in theory, however, that particular program has made senior citizens basically destitute when they retire. Why? Because they have given in to the notion that their retirement will be covered by the government. They have become accustomed to not providing for their own well being. Too bad that social security has an average return rate of 2% and is not willable in their death. Our seniors would retire with a lot more dignity if they had been responsible for their own retirement. The last generation has seen the light and has taken to providing for their own future with IRA's and 401k's. Yep, not too much social security on a 2% rate of return, but remember, it's for the good of our people.

Jesus also said that he who does not work shall not eat.

We are probably not too far off in our beliefs, just disagree with how things should be handled and who should handle them.

[nuovonudo]

Social security, medicare, federal funding for planned parenthood, npr radio, earmarks for pet local projects. This list is no where near complete, but it should get you started. . . . As a reader of not only the constitution, but the supporting documents written by the founding fathers, I believe my ideas of constitutionality are correct. It is written over and over again in the letters and documents of the founding fathers that our system would work until the population realized that they could vote themselves a largess from the public trough. That and other thoughts within these documents should tell anyone that reads these with a smidgen of impartiality, what our founding fathers thought of a welfare state.

You are more than welcome to try and justify any of these programs any way you like. But I know from reading the constitution that you cannot use that document to support your theories.

couldn't have said it better. amen, sister!

[ki4kxq]

Nuovonudo, where the hell have you been? I have been basically fending off the wolves by myself here. LOL Anyway, happy to finally see a fellow conservative.

[Boreas]

Actually ki4kxq I think we agree more than disagree. I also do not want to see governments running the show in social services. I live in a province that has too big a government machine that looks after things like welfare. At the same time, how can we totally leave it up to individuals and churches? Many of the people I meet who need the help of social services have had very bad experiences with churches. They do not usually want to go there for help. Also, many churches will try to save peoples' souls in order for them to receive help. That is wrong. So, how do we help the folks who won't go near churches. Suggesting that churches be responsible to help is a good idea in theory. Also, many of the churches have declining memberships. Sure, there are the monster churches in the US. What about the little guys? Our church is a small congregation and while we help where we can, we are struggling financially. How do churches like ours help?

It is also a good idea in theory to suggest that individuals need to help. I agree. Sometimes though, there needs to be some sort of umbrella organization to administer the programs. Sure, that is problematic at times too.

I am keenly aware of some of the disasters in the US such as the housing projects in Chicago and other cities. Government can make a collassal mess of things at times. I guess though, that having had the experience of "transfer payments" where the government funds with guidelines, I know that government can be involved on a hands off basis.

As for people relying on government for things like social security, I agree, that is risky. We do have to take responsibility for our retirement. Sometimes though, people call short. As far as I can see, we are paying into our government retirement plans and they need to ante up.

It is very good to encourage people to work. People working and being productive members of society is far better than people being dependent and despondent. Never-the-less, the reality is that some people can never be productive members of society. Mental illness and addictions can hamper their lives. Also, physical illness. Before you judge folks with addictions, remember it is a multi-dimensional problem, not a moral problem (for more on that read "In The Realm of the Hungry Ghosts by Gabor Mate).

It is getting late. I feel like I am starting to babble. I need to say that just because I believe in a social safety net, does not mean I think that people ought to be dependent on the system, or that they are helpless victims. I do know that some people have some very real barriers that you and I do not experience.

[usmc1]

The great leading objects of the federal government, in which revenue is concerned, are to maintain domestic peace, and provide for the common defense. In these are comprehended the regulation of commerce that is, the whole system of foreign intercourse; the support of armies and navies, and of the civil administration.

Alexander Hamilton, Remarks in the New York Ratifying Convention, June, 1788

I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.

Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Ludlow, September 6, 1824

If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy.

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Cooper, Nov 29, 1802

They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please...Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.

Thomas Jefferson

I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.

Benjamin Franklin, On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor, November 1766

The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security.

James Madison, Federalist No. 45, January 26, 1788

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.

James Madison, Federalist No. 45, January 26, 1788

Proof-texting history is no different than proof-texting the bible. Neither prove anything other than the proof-texter's biases. Nor do your quotes make unconstitutional Social Security, Medicare, or support for the arts and sciences.

You have failed to prove that. Simply saying it does not make it so.

[Sanslines]

We should have a tax system that taxes every entity the same, person or corporation. 5, 10, 15%, I don't care as long as we all pay the same percentage, regardless of income. We should have neither corporate or personal welfare. That is for federal taxes. If a municipality wants to give local tax breaks to companies that will put it's citizens to work, that is up to the people of that community.


The only major problem with a flat tax is that it is grossly unfair and severly penalizes the poor. Consider having a flat tax of 10 percent. Further consider two wage earners, one earns $1000 and the other earns $100,000 for the year. The person who earns $1000 pays $100 in tax and only has $900 left for other expenses. The person who earns $100,000 pays $10,000 in tax and has $90,000 left over for expenses. Certainly the low wage earner is hit much harder by the flat tax then the higher wage earner.

[Sanslines]

So I guess that leaves it up to us Canadians then huh?

C'mon Boreas, Journeyman, Triton, hm0504, cgynotanlines, ranul, rguy1978, Midnite Rider, Joontiki, and all the other Canadians on these boards.... I guess we get to tell the Americans some things eh? :D


I dunno bout that. Last time I was in Toronto, I was told about an American guy who started to criticize Canadian politics. He was promptly told that he was a 'guest' in Canada, and was told that it was very bad manners to come to Canada and criticize the country's leaders. Furthermore, he was shown the direction of the border, told to cross it back to the USA, and not to come back to Canada.

[Qikdraw]

I dunno bout that. Last time I was in Toronto, I was told about an American guy who started to criticize Canadian politics. He was promptly told that he was a 'guest' in Canada, and was told that it was very bad manners to come to Canada and criticize the country's leaders. Furthermore, he was shown the direction of the border, told to cross it back to the USA, and not to come back to Canada.

That sounds more like an urban myth type thing. Like how big the fish was you caught. Us Canadians are far too polite to do anything of that sort. :p

[Qikdraw]

I also think McCain is nowhere conservative enough, however, I will take him over Obama if only for the judicial appointments and gun rights.


If you are a Constitutionalist then rule of law should be your concern, and getting judges that rule based on that, rather than faith or political ties. The United States was formed around British Common Law, not any faith, as such we should have laws based on that, and not start adding faith into our laws. Have Suprerme Court justices that rule according to law and precident, not political or theocratic ideology.


As for helping those in need, I also believe my christian values tell me that I should do this. And I do. Charity should be done by individuals and churches, not the government. When the government takes my money, and gives to whom they choose, that is not me helping my neighbor, just another government program bogged down in waste and incompetance. When Jesus spoke these words, he was speaking to individuals, not their government.

-snip-

Jesus also said that he who does not work shall not eat.


Which goes to prove that you can pick and choose out of the bible what you want to support your ideals. Much like letters of the Founding Fathers. Don't you find it odd that they wrote that 'all men are created equal', yet owned slaves? Obviously not all men were created equal in their eyes.

[brazhunter]

The only major problem with a flat tax is that it is grossly unfair and severly penalizes the poor.

Nonsense... though clothes (to some degree), food, and medicine should be exempt. I'm not sure how clothing could be handled, people need to cloth themselves and their children but if they can afford $200 Nike sneakers and expensive sports logo apparel, they can afford to pay some taxes.

Tell me why you think it is the poor should pay no taxes at all?

[MoonShadow]

Judicial appointments have nothing to do with whether someone is right/left/center, religious, non-religious, color, gender or nationality. Quikdraw said it correctly, "not political or theocratic ideology"... Supreme Court judges INTERPRET the laws, not make them, bend them, or be "politically" swayed to interpret.

ki4kxq, what charity are you referring to by the government?

"Jesus also said that he who does not work shall not eat" There are many people who cannot work due to mental disabilities, physical handicaps, and similar maladies. You are in support that they not eat? Not be helped?

Not being a christian, I find it difficult that he prophet of love would make such a harsh statement.

Sorry, folks, got this off-topic! But was curious

[Sanslines]

That sounds more like an urban myth type thing. Like how big the fish was you caught. Us Canadians are far too polite to do anything of that sort. :p

Yeah right! Sounds like you haven't been to TO in ages.

[Sanslines]

Nonsense... though clothes (to some degree), food, and medicine should be exempt. I'm not sure how clothing could be handled, people need to cloth themselves and their children but if they can afford $200 Nike sneakers and expensive sports logo apparel, they can afford to pay some taxes.

Tell me why you think it is the poor should pay no taxes at all?

The poor will always pay taxes as there are far more taxes then just the federal income tax. Food, clothing, and medicine are exempt from sales tax in some states. I think most Americans would be shocked at just how much tax overall that they do pay and yet we still hear cries from some who want to tax us even more.

[Qikdraw]

Yeah right! Sounds like you haven't been to TO in ages.

I've NEVER been to TO, (thank God). :D I'll take Winnipeg or Halifax over pretty much any other city in Canada. (hated Vancouver)

[Sanslines]

I've NEVER been to TO, (thank God). :D I'll take Winnipeg or Halifax over pretty much any other city in Canada. (hated Vancouver)

You should come to TO on Bastille Day when groups come from Quebec Province and drive around city centre TO waving huge French Tricolors and yelling a whole bunch of separatist inflamatory rhetoric into megaphones. Those in Ontario Province don't take too kindly to that and many have some rather choice words to yell back at the separatists. Too bad I can't repeat some of what they yell back but this is a family forum afterall.

[ki4kxq]

Of course if you are not able to work, you should receive help. However, that is a very small minority. You don't make entire programs around the minority, you structure them to work with the majority and then handle those that are not able to work.

Yes, judges are supposed to interpret the constitution and determine if laws fall within those guidelines. We have had far too many judges making up law as they go along. The recent Heller decision should have been 9-0. The fact that it was 5-4, with 4 voting against, shows that those 4 either cannot read, or wanted to make their own law.

Jesus did indeed say that and other very harsh things like, you may only enter the kingdom of heaven if you believe that he as the Son of God, is your savior. That if you don't, you shall surely perish in the lake of fire. He didn't stop there either. However, can you in good faith believe that we are honestly talking about those who cannot work. That is ridiculous on it's face.

What government programs are charity? Section 8 housing, food stamps, wic, etc. These are charity. Most on these programs are fully capable of working. The taxpayers paying you housing and food when you are capable of doing so yourself, is ridiculous.

[usmc1]

Of course if you are not able to work, you should receive help. However, that is a very small minority. You don't make entire programs around the minority, you structure them to work with the majority and then handle those that are not able to work.

Yes, judges are supposed to interpret the constitution and determine if laws fall within those guidelines. We have had far too many judges making up law as they go along. The recent Heller decision should have been 9-0. The fact that it was 5-4, with 4 voting against, shows that those 4 either cannot read, or wanted to make their own law.

Jesus did indeed say that and other very harsh things like, you may only enter the kingdom of heaven if you believe that he as the Son of God, is your savior. That if you don't, you shall surely perish in the lake of fire. He didn't stop there either. However, can you in good faith believe that we are honestly talking about those who cannot work. That is ridiculous on it's face.

What government programs are charity? Section 8 housing, food stamps, wic, etc. These are charity. Most on these programs are fully capable of working. The taxpayers paying you housing and food when you are capable of doing so yourself, is ridiculous.

You're misrepresenting Section 8 which has means testing, rigid requirements, and, in most instances, demands that recipients pay a substantial portion of their rent, up to a third of their income. Hardly charity.

You're misrepresenting the "food stamp program" which also has extremely rigid income and asset requirements for qualification and does require virtually every able-bodied recipient to be available for work or undergoing job training. Hardly charity.

Both programs have strengths and faults and could use some tuning up. Good, honest bipartisan negotiation could accomplish that. Describing them as "charity" in a derogatory or pejorative sort of way does not advance that process. I would not be surprised but what some of the folks in this forum do, or have had to avail themselves of these programs--or know someone close who does or has.

One lesson I learned in basic school was that while we might need sometimes to lift ourselves by our bootstraps, if someone had no bootstrap they were out of the game, but if those of us with bootstraps laced them together we made them stronger and we could lift a lot more weight and everyone could be lifted up, not just those with bootstraps.

[ki4kxq]

Yes, USMC-1, what you describe above is what these programs tout, but is nowhere near the reality. I have seen first hand people selling their food stamps, or the right to use their no fraud card for 50cents on the dollar. Not just one or two people, but more than I can count.

I have also seen boyfriends living with the welfare receiving mother, working at a good paying job, but keeping a separate address so the welfare people will not find out. Wouldn't matter if the government did find out, they will rarely do anything about out and out fraud. The term "welfare queen" is their for a reason. Take a drive through any major city, folks receiving benefits from taxpayers, yet they can still somehow afford to drive luxury cars and suv's. No that is not a stereotype, I have seen more instances of that than I care to count. Look inside their homes, nice furniture, big tv's, cable or satellite, etc. Do some people really need the help? Yes, but nowhere near what is on the rolls.

I worked in an industry that put me in contact with these folks on a daily basis, inside their homes. Tried to turn several in to no avail. So please USMC-1, don't just blab on about how the program is supposed to work, it doesn't.

[Naturist Mark]

You're misrepresenting the "food stamp program" which also has extremely rigid income and asset requirements for qualification and does require virtually every able-bodied recipient to be available for work or undergoing job training. Hardly charity.

Ever wonder why the Food Stamp program is administered by the Dept. of Agriculture instead of HHS?

Because it is really a price support program for agriculture. Originally intended to benefit farmers, today it mainly benefits large agribusiness/food corporations. It is a market based agricultural subsidy that works by increasing demand for food products thus increasing their price. It was rather a clever idea to apply the subsidy by increasing the spending power of those who needed, but couldn't otherwise afford to buy the commodities, and at the same time compensating for the impact of the higher prices the program deliberately creates on those least able to sustain them.

You rather have to admire the way it was designed. Too bad it no longer does much to benefit family farmers.

-Mark

[Boreas]

That sounds more like an urban myth type thing. Like how big the fish was you caught. Us Canadians are far too polite to do anything of that sort. :p

Depends on the way the American presented himself. If he was "The Ugly American", then it may have happened.

Of course, no one on this board would be so crass! :sneaky:

Of course, we Canadians are mindful that we are commenting on someone else's leaders and will act accordingly.....at least this Canadian will.

Remember though, GWB affects more than just the US. And we do not get the vote. :rolleyes:

[Boreas]

Yes, USMC-1, what you describe above is what these programs tout, but is nowhere near the reality. I have seen first hand people selling their food stamps, or the right to use their no fraud card for 50cents on the dollar. Not just one or two people, but more than I can count.

I have also seen boyfriends living with the welfare receiving mother, working at a good paying job, but keeping a separate address so the welfare people will not find out. Wouldn't matter if the government did find out, they will rarely do anything about out and out fraud. The term "welfare queen" is their for a reason. Take a drive through any major city, folks receiving benefits from taxpayers, yet they can still somehow afford to drive luxury cars and suv's. No that is not a stereotype, I have seen more instances of that than I care to count. Look inside their homes, nice furniture, big tv's, cable or satellite, etc. Do some people really need the help? Yes, but nowhere near what is on the rolls.

I worked in an industry that put me in contact with these folks on a daily basis, inside their homes. Tried to turn several in to no avail. So please USMC-1, don't just blab on about how the program is supposed to work, it doesn't.

You are perpetuating myths. What you are describing is not the norm, at least not in my world.

Some of the people I have met on "welfare" are the best financial managers you will ever meet.

[ki4kxq]

It's not a myth when you have seen it first hand. In parts of the US it is the norm, that is my point. No one minds helping someone who is truly in need. Unfortunately, for a large number of those on the public dole in my neck of the woods, that is not who we are helping.

Again, let me say. This is something I have witnessed first hand, and on a large scale. Because of the line of work I was in before, I had a front row seat to the fraud and abuse. When we stick our heads in the sand and say that these things are myths, the fraud is allowed to continue. I can personally drive you to 3rd generation welfare families. Are they living in poverty? No. Far from it. Are they working? Yep, under the table.

Things may be different in Canada. I can only describe our system and what is going on here in the States.

[Boreas]

I think things must be dramatically different in Canada.

It also seems that your "first hand" is much more valid than mine.

Of course, I am a lefty liberal and not to be believed.

Edit: I am adding a bit to explain my harsh response in this post. I find it highly offensive when people say that all or most of those receiving social assistance (aka welfare) are milking the system or are cheating somehow and therefore are living high on the hog. To me it shows a lack of knowledge about the real people on welfare. I don't know what type of work you did to encounter only the cheaters. My guess is that it was work that showed you the skewed side of things. For whatever reason you did not see the folks who truly needed it and were grateful.

My personal view is that if you look for cheaters you will find them. Anywhere. I also believe that looking out for or taking care of the weaker members of our society is a multi-dimensional approach. We need to do our part as individuals. We professionals need to help people get on their feet where every they can, and to whatever extent they can. Also the government needs to provide some support, ideally by funding rather than running programs.

[WGANude]

(from a forwarded email)

It's a Three-Man Race: Obama vs The Two McCains

stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust Posted August 18, 2008 | 08:49 PM (EST)

"How honest are we if we tell the truth most of the time & stay silent only when telling the truth might get us fired or earn us a broken nose? We need moral courage to be honest all the time."

Those words were written by John McCain in his 2004 book Why Courage Matters: The Way to a Braver Life.

I couldn't agree with them more. I just wish John McCain did. Not the John McCain who wrote them in 2004; the John McCain running for president in 2008. There's a big difference.

When Barack Obama finally secured the Democratic nomination over Hillary Clinton, we all thought it was down to a two-man field. Obama vs. McCain. But it's turned out to be a three-man race: Obama vs the Old, Honorable McCain and his political doppelganger the New, Unprincipled McCain.

After a month dominated by the new-but-definitely-not-improved McCain, it was actually a bit of a shock to see the John McCain so many of us fell in love with in 2000 make a rare appearance at the Rick Warren forum the other night. Engaging, easy-going, able to connect his incredible life story to his view of the world. Hearing him tell the story of how he and Cindy came to adopt their youngest daughter Bridget, you could almost forget this was the same man who for much of the summer has been running a disgraceful, dishonorable campaign.

And even this rare appearance by the old McCain was tainted a bit by the "cone of silence" dust-up (particularly his campaign's ridiculous use of the former-POWs-never-lie defense), and the question of whether McCain lifted his moving "cross in the dirt story" from Solzhenitsyn.

Sightings of the old McCain are becoming more and infrequent. He was there at the beginning of the race, when he pledged to run a "respectful campaign" -- and when his campaign manager, Rick Davis, penned a memo vowing, "Throughout the primary election we saw John McCain reject the type of politics that degrade our civics, and this will not change as he prepares to run head-to-head against the Democratic nominee."

But it did change. And so did those steering McCain's campaign. In July, Davis was replaced with Steve Schmidt, a prot�g� of Karl Rove. Schmidt's nickname is "the bullet," and it's not just because of his bald head -- he practices the kind of politics that shoots for the head. You bring in guys like Steve Schmidt for a reason. And McCain has gotten exactly what he's paying for -- what Joe Klein (a great admirer of the old McCain) calls the "quadrennial Republican scum festival that begins in August of every presidential election year."

So what acts are on the Scum Festival lineup this year? Ads comparing Obama to Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, the claim that Obama "would rather lose a war that we are winning than lose an election," and the claim that Obama hasn't "put his country first."

As Klein asks: "We've got two wars, an energy crisis, an economy teetering on the edge of real serious trouble -- and this is the campaign John McCain wants to run?"

Apparently. And those were just the opening acts on the Schmidt-apalooza scum-fest. Witness McCain's response to the Swiftboat-inspired The Obama Nation. A few years ago it would have been almost impossible to imagine John McCain being the sort who would "stay silent" about something as sleazy, sordid and dishonorable as Jerome Corsi's pack of lies.

In fact, McCain did worse than stay silent; he laughed it off as a big joke, suggesting you "gotta keep your sense of humor." (HuffPost's Seth Colter Walls has more on McCain's increasing use of the "it was only a joke" excuse.) After it was pointed out that this was, perhaps, a less than honorable response, McCain sent out his spokeswoman to clarify that her boss had misheard the question.

Sure he did.

Well here's another question (and I'll type as clearly as I can so McCain doesn't misread it): what would the John McCain of 2000 -- a man who was viciously smeared by the same gang now doing his bidding -- think about the John McCain of today? Back then, John McCain didn't think libelous smears were such knee-slappers.

That McCain would want the media to stop pretending that the old McCain is still around and tell the American people the truth: that the John McCain of 2008 is willing to countenance dishonorable slurs, lies, smears and slanders to make it to the Oval Office.

[Qikdraw]

Edit: I am adding a bit to explain my harsh response in this post. I find it highly offensive when people say that all or most of those receiving social assistance (aka welfare) are milking the system or are cheating somehow and therefore are living high on the hog. To me it shows a lack of knowledge about the real people on welfare. I don't know what type of work you did to encounter only the cheaters. My guess is that it was work that showed you the skewed side of things. For whatever reason you did not see the folks who truly needed it and were grateful.


I worked with a guy whose opinion on Workers Comp was that the amjority of people on WC were cheaters. At the time California was changing its WC laws to benifit teh insurance companies more. We would talk about it and he was dead set against anyone in the system. However he got his information from his wife who worked in the fraud dept of WC. She said that 75% of people were committing fraud, so this is where he got his numbers from. However it was only 75% of a certain percentage who were fraudulent. What was the percentage? Who knows, but considering insurance company hyperbole around malpractice (less than a percentage, yet they make it out to be massive numbers) I highly doubt fraud numbers reached higher than 5%. And for that California got some of the worst WC law around.

My point is to agree with you that if you only see the fraud in the system you do not see the good in the system. Of course there are people commiting fraud, look at Iraq and Katrina contractors for example of billions of dollars gone. Wasted.

The other thing I find really annoying about republicans when they get in power is that they underfund, and appoint idiots to run, a lot of these important programs. They mismanage them, then point to them to say they don't work. But its because of their mismanagement and underfunding that are a problem. But then republicans don't like these programs and so do everything they can to get rid of them.

[Fitz1980]

The other thing I find really annoying about republicans when they get in power is that they underfund, and appoint idiots to run, a lot of these important programs. They mismanage them, then point to them to say they don't work. But its because of their mismanagement and underfunding that are a problem. But then republicans don't like these programs and so do everything they can to get rid of them.

Bill Maher put it best when he said "Republicans have the greatest scam ever going on. They run on the idea that government doesn't work; than they get elected and prove it."

[usmc1]

Yes, USMC-1, what you describe above is what these programs tout, but is nowhere near the reality. I have seen first hand people selling their food stamps, or the right to use their no fraud card for 50cents on the dollar. Not just one or two people, but more than I can count.

I have also seen boyfriends living with the welfare receiving mother, working at a good paying job, but keeping a separate address so the welfare people will not find out. Wouldn't matter if the government did find out, they will rarely do anything about out and out fraud. The term "welfare queen" is their for a reason. Take a drive through any major city, folks receiving benefits from taxpayers, yet they can still somehow afford to drive luxury cars and suv's. No that is not a stereotype, I have seen more instances of that than I care to count. Look inside their homes, nice furniture, big tv's, cable or satellite, etc. Do some people really need the help? Yes, but nowhere near what is on the rolls.

I worked in an industry that put me in contact with these folks on a daily basis, inside their homes. Tried to turn several in to no avail. So please USMC-1, don't just blab on about how the program is supposed to work, it doesn't.

You have such a distorted view of things. You cite a few apocryphal tales as though they were fact and representative of the whole. People like you aren't satisfied unless a poor person is squatting in a hovel without transportation. You lament that they have furniture or TV, or that if someone breaks the law, therefore, in your view everyone is an undeserving crook.

You claim you "reported" violations and nothing was done. You should have taken it up the ladder then. HUD has been aggressively pursuing and persecuting fraud for a number of years now.

I really do not believe what you have written here. It is a rehash of the same old conservative shibboleth about welfare recipients driving golden Cadillacs while using food stamps for booze and cigarettes, only you substituted SUV for Cadillac.

[Sanslines]

What government programs are charity? Section 8 housing, food stamps, wic, etc. These are charity. Most on these programs are fully capable of working. The taxpayers paying you housing and food when you are capable of doing so yourself, is ridiculous.

The taxpayers ultimately pay for everything. I constantly see lines of 20 and 30 year old very capable men and women line up in front of food banks and charities waiting for the doors to open so they can claim their free food. The problems associated with this are not black and white and such individuals generally can not be generalized as either 'poor vicitims' or 'lazy bums'. In some cases, some of those standing in lines would certainly like to work and to provide for themselves, but in depressed economy areas, jobs may not be so easy to find (if there are any jobs at all). In New York State, some politicians refer to the crippling taxes as 'job killing taxes' for they indeed send jobs fleeing for other low cost areas. The only thing left for people are social programs but such programs are absolutely no long term solution for anyone but the few who are honestly unable to work. The majority need to work for there is much more to work then just making money. These individuals who become 'victims' of social programs become discouraged and are actually destroyed by the very programs that are supposed to help them. Of course politicians and their supporters will NEVER admit to this for it destroys their arguments for ultimately more power and control over people.

Back in the 1930's, we had much a much better way of dealing with this issue. Government programs such as the CCC actually paid the capable to do meaningful work. Those who worked under such programs were able to keep their dignity and pride for they worked for their money and contributed much that was very valuable for this country.

It is interesting to note, however, that many who are either for or against social programs will only see this issue in black and white terms in that those on social programs are either all 'poor vicitims' or all 'lazy bums'. The issue actually covers an entire spectrum of people who turn to social programs for a very wide range of needs and issues. In some cases, social programs are actually a band aid approach to masking over much more serious and deeper problems that government can not or will not resolve.

[Sanslines]

I worked with a guy whose opinion on Workers Comp was that the amjority of people on WC were cheaters. At the time California was changing its WC laws to benifit teh insurance companies more. We would talk about it and he was dead set against anyone in the system. However he got his information from his wife who worked in the fraud dept of WC. She said that 75% of people were committing fraud, so this is where he got his numbers from. However it was only 75% of a certain percentage who were fraudulent. What was the percentage? Who knows, but considering insurance company hyperbole around malpractice (less than a percentage, yet they make it out to be massive numbers) I highly doubt fraud numbers reached higher than 5%. And for that California got some of the worst WC law around.

My point is to agree with you that if you only see the fraud in the system you do not see the good in the system. Of course there are people commiting fraud, look at Iraq and Katrina contractors for example of billions of dollars gone. Wasted.

The other thing I find really annoying about republicans when they get in power is that they underfund, and appoint idiots to run, a lot of these important programs. They mismanage them, then point to them to say they don't work. But its because of their mismanagement and underfunding that are a problem. But then republicans don't like these programs and so do everything they can to get rid of them.

The issues surrounding Worker's Compensation in California are much more numerous and severe then you are suggesting. The problems concerning fraud were growing by leaps and bounds year after year. The rates that companies had to pay for Worker's Compensation in California were driving small business out of business. Hence why the chorus was growing ever so loudly about Worker's Compensation reform in California.


Governor Celebrates Workers’ Compensation Success on Reform’s Anniversary

4/19/2006 - On April 19, 2006, Governor Schwarzenegger met with business, non-profit, and local leaders to mark the second anniversary of the enactment of workers' compensation reform (SB 899), legislation that revolutionized California's workers' compensation system. Businesses and employees have realized dramatic gains from his reforms, including reduced costs, improved healthcare, a more accountable system overall. The Governor commits to keeping these reforms in place and supports strong regulations to ensure real, lasting change.


Fixing a crippled, costly system

Workers’ compensation costs were skyrocketing before the Governor’s election. Costs to insurers had jumped from $6.8 billion in 1997 to $21.8 billion in 2003.
Governor Schwarzenegger made workers’ compensation reform a cornerstone of his first six months in office, with remarkable results.
Lowering costs and protecting workers

Workers hurt on the job should never have to wait for help. SB 899 keeps costs down by providing for prompt, effective medical treatment.
SB 899 restored accountability to the evaluation and treatment of injured workers by creating medical provider networks, medical treatment guidelines, and a new permanent disability rating schedule.
SB 899 also established a return-to-work-provision that rewards employers who return injured workers to their jobs.
Helping businesses, non-profits, schools, and government thrive

The impact of these reforms was immediate, and the benefits continue today.

Pure premium rates have dropped 47% since the summer of 2003, including another proposed reduction of 16.4% by the Workers’ Compensation Insurance rating Bureau beginning July 1, 2006.
Charged rates dropped by 31.6% per $100 in payroll between July 2003 – September 2005.

For policies incepting in 2006, cost savings are estimated at:

$8.1 billion compared to 2003 costs
$15 billion compared to projected costs absent any reform

State and local governments are benefiting from workers’ compensation reform.

Los Angeles County reported one-year savings to taxpayers of $141 million and project more than $700 million through 2010. Government agencies across California are replicating these kinds of savings, making money available for critical needs such as public safety and infrastructure.

Rate drops have also provided schools and non-profits with more money to invest in key programs to support students and vulnerable communities.
Ensuring real, lasting change

The Governor’s reform efforts have continued long past the signing of SB 899. Implementing clear, accurate regulations is critical to ensuring that real reform takes hold.
The Administration supports regulations related to SB 899 and prior reforms, including:

Medical provider network (MPN) regulations
Independent medical review (IMR) regulations
Permanent disability rating schedule (PDRS) regulations
Pre-designation of personal physician regulations
Utilization review (UR) regulations
Supplemental job displacement benefit (SJDB) regulations
Workers’ compensation information system (WCIS) regulations.

Other regulatory packages are in progress:

Return to work regulations
Penalties for utilization review violations and Labor Code section 5814.6 penalties Medical treatment guidelines
Revised qualified medical evaluator (QME) regulations
Repackaged drugs
Official medical fee schedule

I'll also be certain to let Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger know how you feel about "......about republicans when they get in power is that they underfund, and appoint idiots to run, a lot of these important programs. They mismanage them, then point to them to say they don't work. But its because of their mismanagement and underfunding that are a problem. But then republicans don't like these programs and so do everything they can to get rid of them......". I am certain that he will be amused.

[Naturist Mark]

This is far from the first time we have discussed the false right characterizations of public assistance.

Here is a reprint of some facts we laid down in one of the earlier cycles. This is from 5 years ago, but the basics are pretty much the same.
.............................

Why do the opponents of welfare always use mythical welfare 'queens' and 'lazy sit abouts waiting for a handout' as examples of the typical welfare family?

How about some facts:

70% if Welfare recipients use TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families - the program that replaced AFDC) for less than 2 years.

About half of TANF recipients are children, not adults who could work. A substantial portion of TANF recipient families have children under 6 years of age. 90% of TANF families are headed by a single mother - or no adult at all.

Welfare does not encourage poor people to 'breed' in order to 'have kids for money' - birth rates to families on assistance are lower than those in the general population.

The average TANF family receives $351 per month - less than 1/4 of the poverty level.

The inflation adjusted amount of benefits have fallen 52% since 1970.

Less than one third of children in families receiving AFDC go on welfare as adults.

"Make them work" is a laudable goal. But keep in mind the the main purpose is to provide for children and keep families together - not to provide make work. Originally welfare was called "mother's pensions" provided to widows - when it was decided that it made more sense to "pay" a mother to care for her children, than to put her children in an institution and pay others to care for them.

The biggest problem with welfare is not laziness - it takes almost superhuman effort to live on such limited resources and raise children. The problem is that there are such strong barriers to transition to work. Two of which are:
Unavailability or unaffordability of day care (and night care or evening care - most women leaving welfare have to work outside of 'normal' daytime hours).
Loss of healthcare coverage. More than half of families who succeed in leaving welfare remain below the poverty level.

Don't ever forget for a minute that living on welfare is hell on Earth, and try to spare a bit of compassion and even admiration for those who manage to turn it into a leg up.

-Mark

[Sanslines]

This is far from the first time we have discussed the false right characterizations of public assistance.

Here is a reprint of some facts we laid down in one of the earlier cycles. This is from 5 years ago, but the basics are pretty much the same.
.............................
-Mark

Can you also please reprint the facts about the false left characteristics of public assistance in order to have a complete and balanced collection of bogus claims by BOTH sides. Wouldn't you agree that fairness and objectivity requires this? Would you also not agree that the real truth lies somewhere in between the outrageous claims of both the extreme left and extreme right?

[Sanslines]

Why do the opponents of welfare always use mythical welfare 'queens' and 'lazy sit abouts waiting for a handout' as examples of the typical welfare family?

How about some facts:

-Mark

For the same reasons that those extremists who exclusively use the 'poor victims' as examples of those (all is implied) as examples of those in need and intentionally ignore any acknowledgements or fair discussions of the waste, fraud, and misuse of the programs. The extreme left is a polar opposite of the extreme right and uses highly biased and purely unobjective 'facts' to prove their point. So yes, how about some COMPLETE and UNBIASED facts that demonstrate those who are legitimately in need of help through welfare as well as those who openly abuse the system. The extreme right and left ALWAYS see everything in terms of 'black and white' or 'either or' situations when in fact the world is anything but. The extreme right will exclusively use the reasons of abuse as a justification to get rid of a system and the extreme left will exclusively use the reasons of help to keep a system but they do themselves no favors by not being honest and upfront about the abuses and they will not acknoweldge that welfare is not always the solution to the real problems of society such as lack of meaningful jobs, other social ills, etc. Fairness and objectivity is to be found in the middle ground.

[hm0504]

It is interesting to note that among the U.S. homeless, who are no doubt the worst of the cheaters and do-nothings, that fully one quarter of them are veterans (well above the actual number of veterans per capita) -- talk about people who have never done anything for their country [1].

Besides saying a lot about the homeless, that appalling statistic says tons about the earnestness of the Whitehouse's plea to "Support the Troops!" [2].

[1] http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21678030/

[2] "Mr. Bush and the G.I. Bill":
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/26/opinion/26mon1.html

[Boreas]

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Qikdraw http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showthread.php?p=206069#post206069)
The other thing I find really annoying about republicans when they get in power is that they underfund, and appoint idiots to run, a lot of these important programs. They mismanage them, then point to them to say they don't work. But its because of their mismanagement and underfunding that are a problem. But then republicans don't like these programs and so do everything they can to get rid of them.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Bill Maher put it best when he said "Republicans have the greatest scam ever going on. They run on the idea that government doesn't work; than they get elected and prove it."

So true on both accounts.
<!-- / message -->
<!-- controls -->

[Sanslines]

It is interesting to note that among the U.S. homeless, who are no doubt the worst of the cheaters and do-nothings, that fully one quarter of them are veterans.........

False and misleading statement. There are a million reasons why people become homeless and this includes cheaters and do nothings as well as people who have become homeless due to a whole range of legitimate reasons such as losing everything to pay for underinsured and uninsured medical treatements. The homeless also includes those who could not afford to continue to pay their mortgage through no fault of their own as well as those who knew up front that they would default and those who speculated.

Either / or doesn't cut it anymore as life is seldom about either / or issues. That's why it is best for society to ignore the extreme right and left and work with moderate Democrats and Republicans who are reasonable and objective.

[Sanslines]

How many people personally do something to make the world a better place to live in? For those who might not be familiar with the enormous good that charity and foundation giving has contributed to society:

From Wiki:

The word "charity" entered the English language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language) through the Old French word "charité" which was derived from the Latin "caritas".<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-0>[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charity_%28practice%29#cite_note-0)</SUP>
Originally in Latin the word caritas meant preciousness, dearness, high price. From this, in Christian theology, caritas became the standard Latin translation for the Greek word agapē (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agap%C4%93), meaning an unlimited loving-kindness to all others, such as the love of God. This much wider concept is the meaning of the word charity in the Christian triplet "faith, hope and charity", as used by the King James Version (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version) of the Bible in its translation of St Paul's Letter to the Corinthians. However the English word more generally used for this concept, both before and since (and by the "King James" Bible at other passages), is the more direct love (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_%28religious_views%29#Christian). (See the article Charity (virtue) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charity_%28virtue%29))
St Paul's agapē was not primarily about good works and giving to the poor (And though I feed the poor with all my goods, and though I give my body, that I be burned, and have not love [agapē], it profiteth me nothing - 1 Cor 13:3, Geneva (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Bible) translation, 1560), although in English the word "charity" has steadily acquired this as its primary meaning, wherein it was first used in Old French at least since the year 1200 A.D..

Almsgiving, the act of giving money, goods or time to the unfortunate, either directly or by means of a charitable trust or other worthy cause, is described as charity or charitable giving. The poor, particularly widows and orphans, and the sick and disabled, are generally regarded as the proper objects of almsgiving. Some groups regard almsgiving as being properly directed toward other members of their group.
Donations to causes that would benefit the unfortunate indirectly, as donations to cancer research hope to benefit cancer victims, are also charity.
The name stems from the most obvious expression of the virtue of charity is giving the objects of it the means they need to survive.
Most forms of charity are concerned with providing food, water, clothing, and shelter, and tending the ill, but other actions may be performed as charity: visiting the imprisoned or the homebound, dowries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowry) for poor women, ransoming captives, educating orphans.
Although giving to those nearly connected to oneself is sometimes called charity -- as in the saying "Charity begins at home" -- normally charity denotes giving to those not related, with filial piety (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filial_piety) and like terms for supporting one's family and friends. Indeed, treating those related to the giver as if they were strangers in need of charity has led to the figure of speech "as cold as charity" -- providing for one's relatives as if they were strangers, without affection.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3a/Sisters_of_Charity.jpg/180px-Sisters_of_Charity.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sisters_of_Charity.jpg) [/URL]
Missionaries of Charity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sisters_of_Charity.jpg), a Roman Catholic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic) order dedicated to caring for the poor


The recipient of charity may offer to pray for the benefactor; indeed, in medieval Europe, it was customary to feast the poor at the funeral in return for their prayers for the deceased. Institutions may commemorate benefactors by displaying their names, up to naming buildings or even the institution itself after the benefactors. If the recipient makes material return of more than a token value, the transaction is normally not called charity.
Originally almsgiving entailed the benefactor directly giving the goods to the receiver. People who could not support themselves -- or who feigned such inability -- would become beggars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging).
Institutions evolved to carry out the labor of assisting the poor, and these institutions are called charities. These include orphanages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphanage), food banks, religious orders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_order) dedicated to care of the poor, hospitals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hospital), organizations that visit the homebound and imprisoned, and many others. Such institutions allow those whose talents do not lend themselves to caring for the poor to enable others to do so, both by providing money for the work and supporting them while they do the work. Institutions can also attempt to more effectively sort out the actually needy from those who fraudulently claim charity. Early Christians particularly recommended the care of the unfortunate to the charge of the local bishop.
In Sunni Islam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunni_Islam) this is called Zakat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zakat), and is one of the five pillars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Pillars_of_Islam) upon which the Muslim religion is based. Charity is also used as a forename (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Given_name), intended to evoke the idea that one so named is a giving person.

Charity is the first and foremost principle of the Knights of Columbus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_of_Columbus) and the Catholic Daughters of the Americas (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_Daughters_of_the_Americas&action=edit&redlink=1).

How to give to Charity:

[URL]http://www.charity.com/

Some favorite charities:


Through the years we have been privileged to be able to support, with contributions of both time and money, many worthy charities. Although the list is too long to print here some of our favorites are: The American Cancer Society (http://www.cancer.org/), Leukemia Foundation (http://www.leukemia.org/), Make-A-Wish (http://www.wish.org/),Muscular Dystrophy (http://www.mdausa.org/), March Of Dimes (http://www.igc.apc.org/ia/mb/mod.html), Ronald McDonald House (http://www.mcdonalds.com/a_community/rmhc/), and Special Olympics Programs (http://www.specialolympics.org/) just to name a few.



Most Americans are very generous and do reach out to help those who are legitimately in need! Many Americans volunteer their time and experience to make a positive difference in this world.

[hm0504]

False and misleading statement. There are a million reasons why people become homeless and this includes cheaters and do nothings as well as people who have become homeless due to a whole range of legitimate reasons such as losing everything to pay for underinsured and uninsured medical treatements. The homeless also includes those who could not afford to continue to pay their mortgage through no fault of their own as well as those who knew up front that they would default and those who speculated.

Either / or doesn't cut it anymore as life is seldom about either / or issues. That's why it is best for society to ignore the extreme right and left and work with moderate Democrats and Republicans who are reasonable and objective.

Yes, I would agree there are a large variety of reasons that people are homeless. The point of my post, however, was to emphasize that one quarter are veterans which I think is very telling.

[hm0504]

I like the post on charity though personally I have made it a principle not to support organizations that oppose gender equality.

[Sanslines]

Yes, I would agree there are a large variety of reasons that people are homeless. The point of my post, however, was to emphasize that one quarter are veterans which I think is very telling.

Yes it is but from my own personal experience you never leave your 'buddies' behind whether you are in the service or out of the service. Your 'buddies' are part of your support network in life and most military personel know to never 'leave anyone behind'.

[ki4kxq]

Well, I can only recount what I have seen first hand. It is nice to throw up whatever little statistics you want, but if you haven't seen some of the abuse first hand, how can you know.

A couple of years ago, a bill was introduced to make government housing recipients work for the housing dept if they were receiving benefits and were not working. The cry that came up from the extreme left made it sound like these poor folks were being shipped off to some sweatshop to work 80 hours a week. How many hours were these folks supposed to work you ask? A whopping 10 hours a week. 2 hours a day. Pure unadulterated torture I guess. The thing is, they were going to work for the most part at the housing complex where they lived, or very close by, so that transportation would not be an issue. Could the outcry from liberals for asking someone living off the public dole, to work 2 hours a day, be part of the reason conservatives have problems with these programs. Hmmmm, I wonder.

Again, no one minds helping those truly in need. However, we do need a definate overhaul of the system. To just throw up stats and say these programs work as intended, does none of us any good.

[Qikdraw]

The issues surrounding Worker's Compensation in California are much more numerous and severe then you are suggesting. The problems concerning fraud were growing by leaps and bounds year after year. The rates that companies had to pay for Worker's Compensation in California were driving small business out of business. Hence why the chorus was growing ever so loudly about Worker's Compensation reform in California.

Insurance companies will use any excuse to raise prices, they make stuff up to raise rates. Where are the actual fraud statistics on WC? I have never seen them and I have looked a number of times for them. Are they looked over by a 3rd party at all, or is it just from the insurance companies?

Where did you get your cut and paste info from? Cause its pretty funny. Its also VERY one sided.


Businesses and employees have realized dramatic gains from his reforms, including reduced costs, improved healthcare, a more accountable system overall. The Governor commits to keeping these reforms in place and supports strong regulations to ensure real, lasting change.

LOL

Lasting change for the insurance companies. Do you realise that you have to go to their doctors, and no one else? All they do is send you back to work, if your well or not. If you have a permanent disability you get a small disability rating that does not accuratily reflect your condition. Pain, pain is not considered a disabling condition. What a crock of ****!



Medical provider network (MPN) regulations (Insurance company doctors)
Independent medical review (IMR) regulations (LOL insurance company doctors)
Permanent disability rating schedule (PDRS) regulations (Which do not accuratly reflect injuries recieved while working)
Pre-designation of personal physician regulations
Utilization review (UR) regulations (Through their paid employee process)
Supplemental job displacement benefit (SJDB) regulations (LOL Have you had to deal with that?)
Workers’ compensation information system (WCIS) regulations. (Yeah, a good information system is good, but all this other crap is ****.)


Have you been through this system? My wife has. She was actually going through the system as they changed the laws, and WC used the worst parts of both laws to screw her up. It took 3 years before she was allowed surgery, during which time she was in large amounts of pain, and her condition was getting worse and worse. The doctor who did her surgery had been doing it for 20+ years for WC, and my wife was his last patient because of the way the system was changing. He also said that in 20+ years of doing an ulnar nerve transposition that my wife's was the worst he had seen.

My wife cannot write more than a sentance or two before the pen drops out of her hand. She also deals with pain all the time. For this they rated her 16% disabled and gave her $7,000. My wife was a lawyer, something she cannot do anymore, (with the amount of writing involved she simply cannot do the job) during the 3 years it took for them to do something she lost well over $100,000 in salary alone. Not only that but they 'released' her before they actually 'fixed' everything. The doctor who did her surgery said they were problems in her neck, which an MRI confirmed, they ignored it.

My neighbour across the street has been dealing with WC for the last 2 years, and is having problems with them. Pretty much everybody I know who is going through the system right now is complaining about the system. The system is set up to make the insurance companies more money by providing less coverage for workers. Its less 'worker's' comp than 'insurance company' comp.


I'll also be certain to let Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger know how you feel about "......about republicans when they get in power is that they underfund, and appoint idiots to run, a lot of these important programs. They mismanage them, then point to them to say they don't work. But its because of their mismanagement and underfunding that are a problem. But then republicans don't like these programs and so do everything they can to get rid of them......". I am certain that he will be amused.

Ohhhh..... Like I care? Tell Arnie to give me a call for an appointment and I'll tell it to his face. I admit he is good on environmental stuff, but anything business oriented he is completely one sided on. Don't you love how he screwed all of California out of 9 BILLION dollars that Enron stole from us as soon as he came into office?

[usmc1]

Again, no one minds helping those truly in need. However, we do need a definate overhaul of the system. To just throw up stats and say these programs work as intended, does none of us any good.
Nor does pejorative phrases such as "extreme left" do us any good.

Your apocryphal tale is interesting and leaves many, many questions unanswered.

Would those assistance recipients have been compelled to work at jobs that private enterprise or city workers were doing? Would using the recipients mean displacement of city employees? One really wants more details, other than your one-sided vituperation.

Certainly if the process had been fair, or legal, it's hard to believe that it would not have gone through. Oh shock and gasp! You're leaving out something!

[Boreas]

The work for welfare programs are great in theory. It is also very good to encourage people to work, or to become able to work. The problem is when you force people to work in order to qualify, or you put limits on how long they can receive benefits. There are always people who do not meet the criteria set out by the holier than though politicians who decide that people must pull themselves up by their boot straps. Not everyone has boot straps.

What about the person who grew up in abject poverty, in a community with multiple social problems and speaking a different language than English. Sure this person wants to work. This person also makes the most of the piddly amount she receives in assistance. She is the best money manager you will meet. Never-the-less, English is her second language (she is Canadian for the record, so don't accuse her of being an illegal immigrant) Her first language and culture are quite different from the mainstream. She is also an alcoholic with mental health issues. It will take her more than three years to get to a point where she is at the level where you describe.

What about the woman who is a registered nurse and a single mother raising two high maintenance boys. Their father has bi-polar disorder and does not participate in their lives. At least one of the boys probably has bi-polar as well, or at least extreme ADHD. When this woman works full time, her mental health suffers. When she works part-time, she loses certain benefits. Now the government says she has to work in x number of years. If her mental health suffers, so do the boys. She is a good mother when she recieves benefits, and works when she can. If she were forced to work full-time the boys would have more problems and the family would likely disintigrate.

Black and white thinking does not solve anything. And god forbid we should look at anything that resembles research and statistics! :rolleyes: They would burst our sense of self-righteousness.

Also, when we blame the individual for their misfortune, then we do not have to take responsiblity for the part we play in creating a society that creates some of the social problems that exist.

[Boreas]

Well, I can only recount what I have seen first hand. It is nice to throw up whatever little statistics you want, but if you haven't seen some of the abuse first hand, how can you know.

What exactly is your sample size for this wise research you have conducted? What methods did you employ? In which journal have you published your results? Tell me about your literature review. Etc.

[Sanslines]

Again, no one minds helping those truly in need. However, we do need a definate overhaul of the system. To just throw up stats and say these programs work as intended, does none of us any good.

The system was overhauled in NYC. Have you heard of 'welfare to workfare', where those people who were able to work were put to work so that the earned their money? Of course the Catholic Church objected to requiring the able bodied to work for their money and used examples such as 'sweeping up dog poop in Central Park was demeanding and dehumanizing', but the workfare program stood and once the intial outcries died down, the whole issue faded into obscurity.

[Sanslines]

Insurance companies will use any excuse to raise prices, they make stuff up to raise rates. Where are the actual fraud statistics on WC? I have never seen them and I have looked a number of times for them. Are they looked over by a 3rd party at all, or is it just from the insurance companies?

Where did you get your cut and paste info from? Cause its pretty funny. Its also VERY one sided.



LOL

Lasting change for the insurance companies. Do you realise that you have to go to their doctors, and no one else? All they do is send you back to work, if your well or not. If you have a permanent disability you get a small disability rating that does not accuratily reflect your condition. Pain, pain is not considered a disabling condition. What a crock of ****!



Medical provider network (MPN) regulations (Insurance company doctors)
Independent medical review (IMR) regulations (LOL insurance company doctors)
Permanent disability rating schedule (PDRS) regulations (Which do not accuratly reflect injuries recieved while working)
Pre-designation of personal physician regulations
Utilization review (UR) regulations (Through their paid employee process)
Supplemental job displacement benefit (SJDB) regulations (LOL Have you had to deal with that?)
Workers’ compensation information system (WCIS) regulations. (Yeah, a good information system is good, but all this other crap is ****.)
Have you been through this system? My wife has. She was actually going through the system as they changed the laws, and WC used the worst parts of both laws to screw her up. It took 3 years before she was allowed surgery, during which time she was in large amounts of pain, and her condition was getting worse and worse. The doctor who did her surgery had been doing it for 20+ years for WC, and my wife was his last patient because of the way the system was changing. He also said that in 20+ years of doing an ulnar nerve transposition that my wife's was the worst he had seen.

My wife cannot write more than a sentance or two before the pen drops out of her hand. She also deals with pain all the time. For this they rated her 16% disabled and gave her $7,000. My wife was a lawyer, something she cannot do anymore, (with the amount of writing involved she simply cannot do the job) during the 3 years it took for them to do something she lost well over $100,000 in salary alone. Not only that but they 'released' her before they actually 'fixed' everything. The doctor who did her surgery said they were problems in her neck, which an MRI confirmed, they ignored it.

My neighbour across the street has been dealing with WC for the last 2 years, and is having problems with them. Pretty much everybody I know who is going through the system right now is complaining about the system. The system is set up to make the insurance companies more money by providing less coverage for workers. Its less 'worker's' comp than 'insurance company' comp.



Ohhhh..... Like I care? Tell Arnie to give me a call for an appointment and I'll tell it to his face. I admit he is good on environmental stuff, but anything business oriented he is completely one sided on. Don't you love how he screwed all of California out of 9 BILLION dollars that Enron stole from us as soon as he came into office?

It would be very helpful if you were to provide your one sided facts instead of opinions. My so called one sided facts speak for themselves. Whether you care to admit it or not, California had a very serious Worker's Compensation Rate Increase problem that was driving small business right out of the state. Something had to be done to reign in costs. Something was done. California is a very high cost and high tax state with a myriad of rules and regulations. How much higher must state income taxes, state disability insurance, and business workers compensation taxes go before you will be satisfied?

http://www.scrma.com/news/CWC3Years.pdf

Even the Democrats offered their own version of Worker's Compensation Reform:

November 20, 2003

Democrats To Offer Workers' Compensation Reform Proposals

In response to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's (R) proposed workers' compensation reforms, Democrats Wednesday said that they would offer their own reforms, the <CITE>Los Angeles Times</CITE> (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-comp20nov20,1,3635496.story?coll=la-headlines-business) reports (Dickerson, <CITE>Los Angeles Times</CITE>, 11/20). On Tuesday, Schwarzenegger proposed cutting up to $11.3 billion in funds from the state's workers' compensation program. Under Schwarzenegger's plan:


<LI type=square>Workers would no longer be able to receive multiple disability payments for the same injury;





<LI type=square>Dispute resolution would be used more often in an effort to reduce litigation costs;





<LI type=square>Companies would be able to consolidate group health insurance and workers' compensation coverage into one system to reduce costs and redundancies;





<LI type=square>Penalties workers can win from insurers or employers over disputed medical bills would be limited;





<LI type=square>Prisoners would not be able to obtain workers' compensation benefits;





<LI type=square>Standards for determining permanent disability would be subject to uniform objective disability guidelines, doctors' determination of disability cases and financial awards caps;





<LI type=square>Cases would be reviewed by an independent medical panel;





<LI type=square>The "cure and relief" standard would be defined as only what is medically necessary to return an injured employee to work;





<LI type=square>All employers would be able to create their own workers' compensation system with a separate pool of funds and alternative dispute resolution like unionized employers are allowed to do; and

The State Compensation Insurance Fund (http://www.scif.com/), which has more than 50% of the market because of insolvencies by workers' compensation insurers, would be audited (<CITE>California Healthline</CITE> (http://www.californiahealthline.org/members/basecontent.asp?contentid=50316&collectionid=3&program=1), 11/19).
Sen. Richard Alarcon (D-Sun Valley) said that he and his Democratic colleagues would introduce several workers' compensation reform bills in the coming weeks, the <CITE>Times</CITE> reports. Alarcon said that some of the reforms he is drafting would exempt the state's smallest employers from the workers' compensation system, overhaul permanent disability benefits and cap rate increases by insurers. However, he stated that Democrats would not "be pressured into signing away worker protections to benefit employers and insurers," according to the <CITE>Times</CITE>.
Speed of Reforms
Hearings began on Wednesday for a bill (ABX4 1 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/abx4_1_bill_20031118_introduced.html)) introduced by Assembly member Abel Maldonado (R-Santa Maria) that includes Schwarzenegger's proposed reforms (<CITE>Los Angeles Times</CITE>, 11/20). Assembly member Paul Koretz (D-West Hollywood) said that more specific information on the proposed cuts was needed, but he "seemed inclined to give the proposal the benefit of the doubt" until more information is available, the <CITE>Sacramento Bee</CITE> (http://www.sacbee.com/content/business/story/7817810p-8758605c.html)<CITE> </CITE>reports. Assembly member Juan Vargas (D-San Diego) said that the Legislature "will race through [workers' compensation reform] as quickly as we can." However, Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi (D) said that the Legislature has until the end of March to pass reforms that will be reflected in 2004 mid-year rate calculations. Garamendi offered to work with lawmakers, saying, "You must take time to do it correctly. It's very easy to do it wrong." But Assembly member John Benoit (R-Bermuda Dunes) said that Schwarzenegger "wants to do something well in advance" of March (Lee, <CITE>Sacramento Bee</CITE>, 11/20).

http://www.californiahealthline.org/articles/2003/11/20/Democrats-To-Offer-Workers-Compensation-Reform-Proposals.aspx?archive=1

I am sorry that you had such a bad experience with Worker's Compensation but that is another problem that has nothing to do with the out of control Worker's Comp rate increases that were making California an exponentially more expensive and difficult place to run a business. Your experience makes it sound like the system is so broken that it should actually be discontinued as from your description it appears that the system is worse then useless and still costing business and taxpayers a huge amount of money.

[Qikdraw]

Oh here's a gem...

Apparently if you abide by Bush's rules on what is torture... McCain was not tortured. (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/was-mccain-tort.html)


In all the discussion of John McCain's recently recovered memory of a religious epiphany in Vietnam, one thing has been missing. The torture that was deployed against McCain emerges in all the various accounts. It involved sleep deprivation, the withholding of medical treatment, stress positions, long-time standing, and beating. Sound familiar?

According to the Bush administration's definition of torture, McCain was therefore not tortured.

Cheney denies that McCain was tortured; as does Bush. So do John Yoo and David Addington and George Tenet. In the one indisputably authentic version of the story of a Vietnamese guard showing compassion, McCain talks of the agony of long-time standing. A quarter century later, Don Rumsfeld was putting his signature to memos lengthening the agony of "long-time standing" that victims of Bush's torture regime would have to endure. These torture techniques are, according to the president of the United States, merely "enhanced interrogation."

No war crimes were committed against McCain. And the techniques used are, according to the president, tools to extract accurate information. And so the false confessions that McCain was forced to make were, according to the logic of the Bush administration, as accurate as the "intelligence" we have procured from "interrogating" terror suspects. Feel safer?

The cross-in-the-dirt story - although deeply fishy to any fair observer - is in the realm of the unprovable. But the actual techniques used on McCain, and the lies they were designed to legitimize, are a matter of historical record. And the government of the United States now practices the very same techniques that the Communist government of North Vietnam once proudly used against American soldiers. When they are used against future John McCains, the victims will know, in a way McCain didn't, that their own government has no moral standing to complain.

Now the kicker: in the Military Commissions Act, McCain acquiesced to the use of these techniques against terror suspects by the CIA. And so the tortured became the enabler of torture. Someone somewhere cried out in pain for the same reasons McCain once did. And McCain let it continue.

These are the prices people pay for power.

And this is the number one reason why I lost all the respect I had for McCain. The one person who should have stood up against torture, is now fully behind it.

[Sanslines]

Also, when we blame the individual for their misfortune, then we do not have to take responsiblity for the part we play in creating a society that creates some of the social problems that exist.

The answer to this statement is that we treat each and every case as an individual case with specific circumstances and stop trying to put people into one of two classes - ie either everyone is to blame for their circumstances or everyone is not to blame for their circumstances. There is a middle ground!

[Boreas]

The answer to this statement is that we treat each and every case as an individual case with specific circumstances and stop trying to put people into one of two classes - ie either everyone is to blame for their circumstances or everyone is not to blame for their circumstances. There is a middle ground!

I totally agree. When I say that structural forces in society help create some of the problems, I am not saying they are helpless victims. I am saying we can help people learn about those forces if they apply, and help them negotiate the world in spite of these challenges.

Things like welfare to work are fine. We must remember that each person is an individual, and not everyone fits in with a grand model. There has to be room for the exceptions, or for the people with issues that make it more difficult to become productive citizens within the alloted time frame.

[ki4kxq]

"When she works full time her mental health suffers." Yeah, so does mine when I have to work full time. That's the problem with the term mental health suffers. What exactly does that mean. All I know is when you question such a phrase, you're labeled as cruel and insensitive.

I made it pretty clear that I am not an expert in social work and obviously have done no scientific studies. However, I can look around and see some very serious flaws in our system. Doesn't take a genius to see that. I guess by some peoples standards, if we haven't been there ourselves, we have no right to complain. However, as a taxpayer, I most certainly not only have the right to complain, but to try to get the system tightened up.

[ki4kxq]

USMC-1, the jobs would have saved the housing dept money by having the residents who lived in the housing communities doing jobs that were done by private contractors. Things like, landscaping, cleaning apartments for new tenants, painting, and in some communities light office work.

The ones who opposed the bill said that it amount to indentured servitude and somehow injured their dignity. Huh???

I noticed you don't mind calling conservatives every name in the book, but boy oh boy, call some folks the extreme left and the whole world is coming to an end. Yes, some folks are on the extreme left and right. I happen to think that's ok, as long as you are honest as to where you stand. The problem is, most folks think they are part of the mainstream when they are to one side or the other. Personally, I think a moderate is someone who doesn't know where they stand, and wait to see which view is more popular. Not me, I am a proud conservative and make no apologies. I am no moderate. Thing is, neither are you although I doubt very seriously that you will admit it.

[MoonShadow]

Most interesting where this thread went.

I am thankful to see that we have the food stamp program, the wic program, and others. Without them, many children would suffer. I fully support as a taxpayer whatever it takes to take care of the children who are living in poverty, low wage income families or units, or with a single parent who struggles to make it for herself/himself and her/his children. When you "punish" the parent(s), which a lot of people want, the children suffer the most. There has to be programs to help them out. I am glad that there are.

[ki4kxq]

How is asking the parents to work their way through their difficult time, punishing them? Did it ever occur to you that maybe these parents would pick up a skill along the way and that they could then lift themselves up out of poverty? I said the system needs to be overhauled, not done away with.

It's not better for the children that their parents are on the dole, living in poverty. It's better that their parents work their way up and make a better life for themselves and their children. That is what mosts folks want. But if people actually have the mindset that putting folks to work is punishing them, we aren't going to achieve that.

[Qikdraw]

It would be very helpful if you were to provide your one sided facts instead of opinions. My so called one sided facts speak for themselves.

Yes, they support my position that workers have less coverage and get less help when injured.


Whether you care to admit it or not, California had a very serious Worker's Compensation Rate Increase problem that was driving small business right out of the state.

Yes, from insurance companies that kept raising rates for no reason. One time when I went to Living Waters I met a guy who owned a small factory making electronics. He hadn't had an accident in over 10 years, yet every year he had to pay more.


Something had to be done to reign in costs. Something was done. California is a very high cost and high tax state with a myriad of rules and regulations. How much higher must state income taxes, state disability insurance, and business workers compensation taxes go before you will be satisfied?

How about we NOT let insurance companies draw up the new rules? Which is exactly what happened. Its like letting the fox choose the security around the hen house.


Even the Democrats offered their own version of Worker's Compensation Reform:

And democrats can do stupid things too. I've never said otherwise.


[LIST]
<LI type=square>Workers would no longer be able to receive multiple disability payments for the same injury; 8) (almost forgot this one)

<LI type=square>Dispute resolution would be used more often in an effort to reduce litigation costs; 1)

<LI type=square>Companies would be able to consolidate group health insurance and workers' compensation coverage into one system to reduce costs and redundancies; 2)

<LI type=square>Penalties workers can win from insurers or employers over disputed medical bills would be limited; 3)

<LI type=square>Prisoners would not be able to obtain workers' compensation benefits; 4)

<LI type=square>Standards for determining permanent disability would be subject to uniform objective disability guidelines, doctors' determination of disability cases and financial awards caps; 5)

<LI type=square>Cases would be reviewed by an independent medical panel; 6)

<LI type=square>The "cure and relief" standard would be defined as only what is medically necessary to return an injured employee to work; 7)


1) Yes, dispute resolution that is entirely done by the inurance companies.
2) One system that is a system run by insurance companies with doctors paid by the insurance companies.
3) Of course, get a permanent injury and get crap for it. Yes lets screw the workers over some more so we can maintain profits.
4) This is idiotic. If they are working they are workers yes? If they get a cripling injury they should be able to get compensation for it. Otherwise why don't we just open up dangerous work to criminals and be done with it? Safety guidelines? Who needs em? Let prisoners work it.
5) Really? The doctors that decide are paid for by insurance companies. The 'uniform objective disability guidelines' were created by the insurance companies.
6) An independant medical panel? Yeah right.
7) Exactly, lets shoot them out the door as quick as possible, without actually fixing everything that needs to be fixed. Get cheap on medical care so we can shoot em back to work.
8) Multiple disability payments. Define that though. If multiple payments brought them to near their pay while they were injured I don't see a problem with it. If they were making more than yes, there is a problem. If changing it so it was just one payment, near their original pay, then I have no problem with it, but if it was just one, small payemnt, then I have a problem with it.


Sen. Richard Alarcon (D-Sun Valley) said that he and his Democratic colleagues would introduce several workers' compensation reform bills in the coming weeks, the Times reports. Alarcon said that some of the reforms he is drafting would exempt the state's smallest employers from the workers' compensation system, overhaul permanent disability benefits and cap rate increases by insurers. However, he stated that Democrats would not "be pressured into signing away worker protections to benefit employers and insurers," according to the Times.

Yeah and they dropped the ball.


I am sorry that you had such a bad experience with Worker's Compensation but that is another problem that has nothing to do with the out of control Worker's Comp rate increases that were making California an exponentially more expensive and difficult place to run a business. Your experience makes it sound like the system is so broken that it should actually be discontinued as from your description it appears that the system is worse then useless and still costing business and taxpayers a huge amount of money.

The system is broken, but its broken because Arnie allowed the insurance companies to write the rules. Yes costs needed to be fixed, but not so the insurance companies can increase their profits by scaling down medical care and 'fixing' the system so only they win. The main problem is that insurance companies wrote the rules.

As I said tell Arnie to call and make an appointment with me and I'll tell him to his face. (PM me and I'll give you my phone number so he can call to make that appointment.)

[Sanslines]

I totally agree. When I say that structural forces in society help create some of the problems, I am not saying they are helpless victims. I am saying we can help people learn about those forces if they apply, and help them negotiate the world in spite of these challenges.

Things like welfare to work are fine. We must remember that each person is an individual, and not everyone fits in with a grand model. There has to be room for the exceptions, or for the people with issues that make it more difficult to become productive citizens within the alloted time frame.

Yes I agree and I can tell you from personal experience that many, if not most, individuals who sincerely want to improve their lives and the lives of their families eventually find a way to do so.

One story immediately comes to mind and it is of a family from Thailand. They came to this country as refugees and were offered assistance in the form of a unit in a housing project, food assistance, help with learning English, and help with finding work. The father was a proud man who worked three jobs to find a way out of the projects as fast as possible. In spite of the many difficulties that they encountered, the father eventually purchased a nice home and provided a college education for his daughter.

Some of the sad things that I had heard from the daughter include the fantastic resentment from those of another minority group who hated anyone who dared to work hard and build a better life for themselves. Individuals such as those would rather find ways to live off the system and no doubt would be life long residents of the projects.

This story just goes to show that everyone is an individual and those individuals who are willing to work to help themselves deserve all of the consideration and help to succeed. Those individuals who would rather hate others who work hard to succeed and find ways to sponge off the system rather then accept help and opportunities will spend their lives wasting the gift of life. How sad! The moral of the story is everyone is uniqu. Some people work very hard to help themselves just as some people work very hard to avoid helping themselves. Social programs can and do help people and generally work best for those who want to help themselves.

[Sanslines]

Yes, they support my position that workers have less coverage and get less help when injured.



Yes, from insurance companies that kept raising rates for no reason. One time when I went to Living Waters I met a guy who owned a small factory making electronics. He hadn't had an accident in over 10 years, yet every year he had to pay more.



How about we NOT let insurance companies draw up the new rules? Which is exactly what happened. Its like letting the fox choose the security around the hen house.



And democrats can do stupid things too. I've never said otherwise.



1) Yes, dispute resolution that is entirely done by the inurance companies.
2) One system that is a system run by insurance companies with doctors paid by the insurance companies.
3) Of course, get a permanent injury and get crap for it. Yes lets screw the workers over some more so we can maintain profits.
4) This is idiotic. If they are working they are workers yes? If they get a cripling injury they should be able to get compensation for it. Otherwise why don't we just open up dangerous work to criminals and be done with it? Safety guidelines? Who needs em? Let prisoners work it.
5) Really? The doctors that decide are paid for by insurance companies. The 'uniform objective disability guidelines' were created by the insurance companies.
6) An independant medical panel? Yeah right.
7) Exactly, lets shoot them out the door as quick as possible, without actually fixing everything that needs to be fixed. Get cheap on medical care so we can shoot em back to work.
8) Multiple disability payments. Define that though. If multiple payments brought them to near their pay while they were injured I don't see a problem with it. If they were making more than yes, there is a problem. If changing it so it was just one payment, near their original pay, then I have no problem with it, but if it was just one, small payemnt, then I have a problem with it.



Yeah and they dropped the ball.



The system is broken, but its broken because Arnie allowed the insurance companies to write the rules. Yes costs needed to be fixed, but not so the insurance companies can increase their profits by scaling down medical care and 'fixing' the system so only they win. The main problem is that insurance companies wrote the rules.

As I said tell Arnie to call and make an appointment with me and I'll tell him to his face. (PM me and I'll give you my phone number so he can call to make that appointment.)


No doubt Arnie would just direct you to the state insurance office for assistance.

As anyone who has worked in California knows, the SDI (state disability insurance) tax that is deducted from each and every paycheck is NOT cheap!

To inform those who might not be familiar with the system:

Wiki:

California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California) State Disability Insurance (SDI or CASDI) is a statutory (state-regulated and state-audited) state disability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_disability_benefits) program of the State of California for short-term disability income replacement. The program has been in effect since 1946 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1946).

The costs of the program are covered by contributions to the State Fund in the form of SDI tax paid by employees, optionally by employers. Employee contributions to the state fund are deductible as state taxes. The contribution Rate for 2008 is 0.8%, and the SDI taxable wage limit is $86,698 per employee for calendar year 2008.

The plan provides a tax-free replacement of income of 55% of an employee's average weekly pay, up to a maximum weekly benefit, which, was http://www.edd.ca.gov/direp/de2588.pdf $917.00 ($50/week minimum) in 2008 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008). Benefits become available on the eighth consecutive day of disability and continue for up to 52 weeks of disability if the beneficiary paid SDI taxes as an employee, 39 weeks the beneficiary had voluntary self-employment coverage.

In 2002, California enacted the Paid Family Leave (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paid_Family_Leave) (PFL) insurance program, also known as the Family Temporary Disability Insurance (FTDI) program, which extends unemployment disability compensation to cover individuals who take time off work to care for a seriously ill family member or bond with a new child.

This is the background on California Worker's Compensation:

http://www.dir.ca.gov/dwc/WCFaqIW.html

[Sanslines]

I said the system needs to be overhauled, not done away with.


I repeat again that the system was overhauled!

[usmc1]

USMC-1, the jobs would have saved the housing dept money by having the residents who lived in the housing communities doing jobs that were done by private contractors. Things like, landscaping, cleaning apartments for new tenants, painting, and in some communities light office work.

The ones who opposed the bill said that it amount to indentured servitude and somehow injured their dignity. Huh???

I noticed you don't mind calling conservatives every name in the book, but boy oh boy, call some folks the extreme left and the whole world is coming to an end. Yes, some folks are on the extreme left and right. I happen to think that's ok, as long as you are honest as to where you stand. The problem is, most folks think they are part of the mainstream when they are to one side or the other. Personally, I think a moderate is someone who doesn't know where they stand, and wait to see which view is more popular. Not me, I am a proud conservative and make no apologies. I am no moderate. Thing is, neither are you although I doubt very seriously that you will admit it.

Wrongo-bongo, I've hardly scratched the surface of the names that conservatives might be called. But, there you go again, just like the mugger in front of the judge comaplaining that his victim assaulted him.

I'm glad you fessed up. No kidding, people were against putting the private sector out of work by forcing welfare recipients to do it. Feature that.

Seems there's one of the hypocricies of conservatism, all for private enterprise and keeping government out of doing what private enterprise can, until it becomes "convenient" to shift away from that.

Let's see, you got a bunch of people on "welfare", very likely unskilled or lacking the skills that the private contractors have. Were it I, this is the approach I would take. Conservatives get happy, residents work, learn skills, start the climb out of poverty, liberals happey, no one being treated like a slave, people get skills and etc..

"Dear contractor, you want to work in my housing project, you're going to need to hire a percentage of the residents, teach them the skills required, and pay them a decent wage. That way they can pay more of their rent, and learn skills which might help them rise out of poverty, give them an employemtn history and reference, and provide you a larger pool of future skilled workers."

Dang, anyone else got any problems I can help them with.

[Boreas]

"When she works full time her mental health suffers." Yeah, so does mine when I have to work full time. That's the problem with the term mental health suffers. What exactly does that mean. All I know is when you question such a phrase, you're labeled as cruel and insensitive.

I made it pretty clear that I am not an expert in social work and obviously have done no scientific studies. However, I can look around and see some very serious flaws in our system. Doesn't take a genius to see that. I guess by some peoples standards, if we haven't been there ourselves, we have no right to complain. However, as a taxpayer, I most certainly not only have the right to complain, but to try to get the system tightened up.

Mental health suffers = she has a diagnosed mental illness. If you also have a diagnosed mental illness then fair enough. Work to the level you can and still be healthy.

You are looking in black and white terms. You have declared that your experience with what you have seen first hand is more important than any old stats. That is suggesting you are an expert. Also, if you want the system "tightened up" fair enough. Make sure you have all the facts. Tightening up ONLY in terms of dollars and cents makes no sense and in fact causes more problems.

You know, I really tried to agree with some of your points. In fact, I have clearly stated that we agree on many things. You seem to insist on being contrary. Is it difficult for you to agree with someone on the left?

Frankly, I really do not understand some rabid conservative views. To me, it seems this gang is measuring things only in dollars and cents. A person's worth is only measured by their work. No other skills seem to be important. To me, it seems mighty callous and hard hearted. Please show my that I am mistaken and that people on the extreme right might have hearts.

[Boreas]

How is asking the parents to work their way through their difficult time, punishing them? Did it ever occur to you that maybe these parents would pick up a skill along the way and that they could then lift themselves up out of poverty? I said the system needs to be overhauled, not done away with.

It's not better for the children that their parents are on the dole, living in poverty. It's better that their parents work their way up and make a better life for themselves and their children. That is what mosts folks want. But if people actually have the mindset that putting folks to work is punishing them, we aren't going to achieve that.

Sometimes it is more important for a parent to be at home actually raising and nuturing their children. It is called parenting. It is called guiding your children so they will be healthy, well-adjusted, productive adults.

[ki4kxq]

I agree, it is better if there is a parent home with the children. Unfortunately, if you put yourself in a position where that is not possible, then yes, you need to work to support your family.

I'm not trying to be contrary, but I really disagree with the premise that coddling people really helps them. I wholeheartedly believe that people function better, even mentally, when they are productive and supporting their own family. I also believe the lessons learned by their children are also better when they see that Mom or Dad is working hard to ensure their future.

What if we all just decided that our time would be better served at home all day raising and nurturing our children? Wouldn't work very well would it? So to expect less of someone else, really puts them at a disadvantage in the long run. Keep in mind, I am not talking about someone who absolutely cannot work, but good grief, I have seen a walmart greeter with half a body, smiling because they, not the state, were in charge of their destiny. What if we had just looked at their obvious disability and said they could not work so the state should support them. They would not have the same sense of satisfaction, how sad. The man told us that not only was he working, but studying accounting at night. How many others have been told that they couldn't make a difference. Boreas, you and I care about the poverty stricken and disadvantaged. I just believe the best choice is to make them responsible for their own lives and children, with as little as possible. That's not worded right, the least amount of assistance while still helping them up.

[ki4kxq]

I hardly agree USMC-1 that putting people to work in their own complexes would put private contractors out of work. Talk about extreme views. I also stand by my point that you seem to be more than happy to dish stuff out, but you sure as hell can't take it. You're the one that resorts to name calling and childspeak when you can't prove your point.

Btw, you dear Mr. Contractor letter is pretty close to what the conservatives wanted. But no, we couldn't make people work to support themselves, that would be inhumane. I find it more than amusing that I actually agree with Boreas on intent, but disagree on technique. However, being a Marine myself, I can say that you are the Marine exception. Most of use are pretty right wing. I guess their has to be a different apple in every bunch. I see though that you haven't admitted yet just how left wing you are USMC-1, still trying to masquerade as a moderate. It's not working. LOL

[Boreas]

I agree, it is better if there is a parent home with the children. Unfortunately, if you put yourself in a position where that is not possible, then yes, you need to work to support your family.

I'm not trying to be contrary, but I really disagree with the premise that coddling people really helps them. I wholeheartedly believe that people function better, even mentally, when they are productive and supporting their own family. I also believe the lessons learned by their children are also better when they see that Mom or Dad is working hard to ensure their future.

What if we all just decided that our time would be better served at home all day raising and nurturing our children? Wouldn't work very well would it? So to expect less of someone else, really puts them at a disadvantage in the long run. Keep in mind, I am not talking about someone who absolutely cannot work, but good grief, I have seen a walmart greeter with half a body, smiling because they, not the state, were in charge of their destiny. What if we had just looked at their obvious disability and said they could not work so the state should support them. They would not have the same sense of satisfaction, how sad. The man told us that not only was he working, but studying accounting at night. How many others have been told that they couldn't make a difference. Boreas, you and I care about the poverty stricken and disadvantaged. I just believe the best choice is to make them responsible for their own lives and children, with as little as possible. That's not worded right, the least amount of assistance while still helping them up.

Making sure people are supported with some sort of welfare is hardly coddling them. Also, you make it sound like anyone who is a single parent put themselves there, and therefore deserves it. It is very patronizing. We are all one accident away from needing help. I pray you can stay healthy and self-sufficient.

I have never ever suggested that people should not be responsible for themselves. Have you not read anything that I posted saying that social assistance can help people become responsible for themselves?

[Naturist Mark]

"When she works full time her mental health suffers." Yeah, so does mine when I have to work full time. That's the problem with the term mental health suffers. What exactly does that mean. All I know is when you question such a phrase, you're labeled as cruel and insensitive.

Good example.

Was that a trick post?

-Mark

[ki4kxq]

Didn't mean to get your undies in a twist, I was responding to something very specific that you said in an earlier post. You said that sometimes it is more important staying home and parenting your children than working. I agree, if you are in a position to do so. But if that means the taxpayers support your children, then I disagree with that premise.

Some people do find themselves in the position of single parent after death or divorce. Some of these people, particularly women have a very hard time if they were a stay at home mom. Yes, we need to help these women get an education or skill so that they can support their family. And, in the case of divorce, to make sure the father is paying his fair share. More than a few people though, do put themselves in that situation. Does that mean we don't help them with an education or job training and show them how to support themselves? No.

I disagree with you that we are all one accident away from needing help. That is simply not true. Some people in this world actually plan for the future because they understand that anything can happen. Some folks do work extra to pay for health insurance or sacrifice some fun so that they have an emergency fund to tap into because of job loss. A lot of folks buy extra disability insurance to support their families if they are injured and off work for a significant period of time. I have no children and I am the last person standing in my family with the exception of in-laws. I know that odds are there will be no family to take care of me when I get old. That is why I prepare now. Yep, I miss a few fun things so that I can put more money aside. When I reach 60, I will buy long term care insurance so that I can live where I choose when I can no longer take care of myself. It's not the taxpayers responsibility to take care of me, it's mine.

Again, didn't mean to get your blood pressure up, but either I read that sentence wrong or it wasn't what you meant to say. Like I said earlier, I think we agree on the basic premise, but just in what should be done and how, we disagree. Maybe if I could get you to think more with your head than your heart, you could get me to think a little more with my heart than my head.

[ki4kxq]

Also, about the nurse who can't work full time. Been thinking about that. Don't know about Canada, but here in the states an RN can work weekends in the ER and make about 45k a year. That leaves 4 days off. Some home health nurses make 60k a year on a part time basis. I guess I'm wondering why she needs assistance if she can work part time. Don't get pissed, I'm just curious. Like I said, your system may be different up there. The other question that us evil conservatives would ask is if she is so disabled she can't work, how in the world did she make it through nursing school? Again, I have obviously done a great job of pissing you off today Boreas, but this is an insight to the conservative brain. These are the questions we would ask. Enlighten me.

[ki4kxq]

No Mark, it wasn't a trick post. My mental health does suffer when I have to work full time. As a matter of fact, we will be pulling out tomorrow and I am feeling an acute case of lake-itis coming on.

My point was, "mental health" without any specifics is one of those all encompassing things that really mean nothing. It can mean anything from I get a little depressed to I go completely stark raving mad. There are a lot of folks working with mental health issues. In some folks, this is a real problem that must be dealt with. In others, it is nothing more than a convenient crutch. However, to some people, these labels and diagnosis are so sacred, they can't even be questioned by someone who is trying to find out if it is a real problem or a crutch.

[Qikdraw]

I disagree with you that we are all one accident away from needing help. That is simply not true. Some people in this world actually plan for the future because they understand that anything can happen. Some folks do work extra to pay for health insurance or sacrifice some fun so that they have an emergency fund to tap into because of job loss. A lot of folks buy extra disability insurance to support their families if they are injured and off work for a significant period of time. I have no children and I am the last person standing in my family with the exception of in-laws. I know that odds are there will be no family to take care of me when I get old. That is why I prepare now. Yep, I miss a few fun things so that I can put more money aside. When I reach 60, I will buy long term care insurance so that I can live where I choose when I can no longer take care of myself. It's not the taxpayers responsibility to take care of me, it's mine.

Cold hearted bull****. Plain and simple.

This completely ignores the fact that the majority of bankruptcies happen from healthcare related issues, and the majority of those come from people who already have health insurance. People ARE one accident away from disaster. People have families to care for, mouths to feed, bills to pay, and many do not have the exra money to pay for any 'extras'. They are just trying to survive in an economy that pays less and costs more.

[jon71]

Actually mental health does have meaning. There are numerous well recognized mental illnesses with their own specific symptoms, prognosises, and diagnosises. The distinctions might not be well known among lay people (I won't claim to be an expert) but claiming it's a catch-all is just plain false. Also many people are just one accident or illness away from ruin. It is NOT a matter of failure to plan. Many Americans (myself included) live on very thin margins and that is all there is to it. After groceries, rent, utilities, and other necessities there is little or nothing left. It is not a matter of frivolously wasting anything extra, there is no extra. We don't even have cable or a landline phone to keep our bills down and we are super careful about running the heat and a.c. Any significant unexpected expense would be ruin and there is literally no possible way to prepare for that. We diligently pay our bills but that's what it takes to tread water. I know good and well that many Americans are in even worse shape than us because we at least have insurance. I think it's very telling that those on the right are blind to this reality.

[ki4kxq]

jon71, don't know what part of Tennessee you live in, but some parts are booming. If expenses are not the issue in your household, then maybe it is income. I listen to Dave Ramsey nearly every day that we are on the road. I can't tell you how many people make little of nothing, but through things like getting an extra job at night, get into a much better financial footing. Does that mean they work that many jobs permanently? NO. But doing so for a year or two can literally accomplish the things I mentioned. In some areas of the country, you can deliver pizza a few nights a week and make an additional $1500 a month. I know, that sounds cold I guess, but hey, I have made some really stupid financial decisions in my life. For a month, I had to sell my blood plasma to eat. But I worked my way through it. But I know it's so much easier to say that I'm cold hearted, but I've been there, done that, found a better way.

As far as bankruptcies, most can actually be worked through. Is it easy? Not by a long shot. No one ever said life was easy or fair. I work bout 80 hours a week. Most wealthy people work 80-100 hours a week. There is no way for me to know what your situation is, but if income is the issue, then that is what needs to be addressed. However, your post makes it sound as if you have absolutely no other options. That you are barely treading water and no other alternatives exist. Again, been there, done that, there are always more ways to bring in extra money.

[Boreas]

ki4kxq I had to think about this post before I wrote it. Yes, I have been annoyed by some of what you have posted. I get pretty passionate about some things. The way I see it, we agree on several points.


People need to be responsible for themselves, and plan ahead.
Governments should not be running things. Governments mess things up.
If you put in some extra work, you can get ahead.
People should not be coddled.
Handouts can create dependency.
There may be more.



Let me state some of my basic premises, and tell you a bit about myself.

I am a social worker. I graduated with my BSW in 1984 and my MSW in 1991. I also have a community college diploma which I earned before I went to university. I have worked to get where I am. I did not rely on rich parents or handouts to get here. I did receive some student loans and student grants. I also worked part-time (in the Canadian Reserves) during my BSW, and full-time while I earned my MSW.
I grew up in a white bread, middle class home. My father was a cop, and my mother was a nurse.....is it any wonder I became a social worker, the blend of both professions. :rolleyes:
I have worked in mental health and addictions for over twenty years. I have of course continued to learn and study in these areas.
I have been involved in teaching the BSW students here in this area, and will be involved with the MSW students this fall as well.
I am currently self-employed
I grew up in a very conservative province (by Canadian standards). My family is made up of more conservatives than liberals, though I think we have both.
My grandfather was a union organizer when it was important because the workers in his plant were being treated horribly.
I think that is enough. I mention my education only to show that I have been known to use my brain on occasion. I am not operating from my heart.

I have learned that there is no simple answers to any problem. Most people can indeed be productive members of society if given half a chance. They say that some people are born with a silver spoon in their mouths. We have all seen that. Others are born with some kind of mallet hanging over their heads, keeping them down. Someone like GWB had help that none of us can expect to receive. He got where he is because of a certain amount of privilege as well as hard work. The black son of a single mother living in an inner city could get to be president. It is just that he will be starting further from the finish line than GWB and will have to work considerably harder to get there.

We have all benefited from social programs. Public education is one example. I have benefited from universal health care for most of my life. We have also benefited from the experiences of our elders if we are lucky. Some of them have given us hand outs.

To twist your example around a bit. You mention working extra jobs and working 80 hours per week. If you had kids, what do you think that would be doing to you family life, whether you are the mother or the father? Often people need to take some social assistance temporarily in order to get out of a rut. The RN (or even BScN) I mentioned earlier, would have only needed help for a few years. Sure, she could have worked weekends. Then who would have looked after her high maintenance sons while she worked? Getting the father to step up to the plate is a great idea. It isn't going to happen though.

If you take some time to learn about mental health issues and addictions, you will see there is no simple answer. We talk about the biopsychosocial/spiritual aspects of addiction. That says that there are biological, psychological, social and spiritual components to addictions. It is not a matter of legislating the problem away. If that were the case, then the war on drugs would have wiped out drugs in the US ages ago. We both know that has not happened.

I could go on. I will step off the soapbox for now.

[ki4kxq]

Yep, I agree with all the points you made. Didn't mean to imply that you don't think, but I know that I do tend to see things in black and white terms. That can make someone like myself come across as cold, however, I am also the first to give if someone is truly in need.

If you have to work 80 hours a week, yes that will definately sacrifice family time. But, it is something that is done short term. If you work those kinds of hours for a year, the family shouldn't have any long term ill effects. Of course, that would be nearly impossible for a single parent family.

Maybe I don't know enough about addiction, but yes I do tend to think of that as a self induced problem. No one forces most folks to drink or do drugs. I know that will make me sound hard hearted, but those are folks I have the least amount of sympathy for. That doesn't mean if someone wants to change, I wouldn't help them with rehab or some other program.

I guess being in social work you see it all. Sounds like you have a good head on your shoulders though. I say we quit arguing and gang up on USMC-1. I really don't like him much. You, I could get along with.

[Boreas]

LOL. usmc1 means well. He has a way with words. :rolleyes:

I have worked in children's mental health and have seen kids that have been neglected and worse. I believe that children need their parents or reliable caregivers more than they need the money.

If you are interested in learning more about addictions, may I suggest "In The Realm of Hungry Ghosts" By Gabor Mate. It will give you a good picture. Dr. Mate works on Vancouver's "Downtown East Side". This is considered Canada's poorest neighbourhood. Some of the folks down there will likely never get sober. It sounds harsh and hopeless, but it is also life. He has a lot of compassion for these people, and also admits to being extremely frustrated with them at times. He outlines some of the research about addictions and brings it into human terms.

While I say that some people will never fins sobriety, I also believe that where there is life there is hope. Imagine. Such optimism after all these years. :eek: Yeah, I do have a cynical side too. :rolleyes:

[ki4kxq]

I will read that. Hopefully, they have it in audiobook. It's much easier for me to do that while I drive. Don't have a whole lot of time to actually read. I understand the frustration, it kind of goes with the saying, "why should I care more about your future than you do."

No, kids should not be abused or neglected. I wish more people would adopt kids out if they don't want them. I also believe that infants should if possible go to a home with a mother and a father. However, if there are qualified singles that want to adopt or gay and lesbian couples that want to adopt, I don't see the problem with letting them adopt older children. I wish it didn't cost quite so much to get the ball rolling, that is a shame. It keeps a lot of qualified, loving folks out of the loop.

I do know about adoption. Both my brother and I were adopted. The only thing I know is that the birth mother was an unwed 15 year old. Thank God she did the unselfish thing and realized she was in no shape financially or mentally to care for a baby when she was a child herself. I was adopted before I was actually born. People used to ask me "where are your real parents"? I would of course reply, "at home, last time I checked". I never considered them anything but my real parents. I still remember to this day going to the orphanage to pick up my brother. I was all of about 4 and very excited. The point of this babbling is I wish if people had no interest in taking care of their kids, they would give them to someone who would. I'm talking about the abused and neglected kids here, not the ones who are poor.

[ki4kxq]

Before anyone has a cow, the only reason I mentioned gay and lesbians in particular is because some states will not let them adopt any child. I believe that is a waste as long as they are qualified in every other way.

[Boreas]

I do some private adoption work. I have helped a few birth mothers who have decided to place their babies for adoption. It is one of the most difficult decision anyone can make. I have had the honour of witnessing when the baby is passed (for lack of a better word) from the birth mother to the adoptive couple and it is amazing.

Why would same sex couples be only able to adopt older children? I know a lesbian couple who became parents through artificial insemination. They are wonderful parents of a healthy, happy young boy.

I have never done child welfare (child protection) work. I could do the actual job. Following dumb rules would be a problem for me. :o It would be incredibly difficult doing the job in this day of cut backs. Our child welfare system is totally inadequately funded. Social workers are expected to do their work with little support. They have obscene case loads quite often and they are expected to make very difficult decisions.

Do you have the option of ever meeting your birth mother? A friend of mine recently discovered she has an older brother that her mother placed for adoption about a year before she was born. It has been a difficult adjustment, but now she has another brother, and he has another family. Considering they all started in England and that they are all in this province (before they reunited, and unknown to each other), it is a cool story. I have two adopted cousins, and one has had contact with her birth mother. I think it is good for her.

[Boreas]

Before anyone has a cow, the only reason I mentioned gay and lesbians in particular is because some states will not let them adopt any child. I believe that is a waste as long as they are qualified in every other way.

Thanks for the explanation. No cows here. :surprised: Just a question. See above. :)

[ki4kxq]

Never really had the desire to meet my birth mother. Don't know why, maybe I thought it might cause more problems than anything else. Sometimes you don't want your past catching up to you and knocking on your door. Especially if you never told your husband and kids.

I also have a gay friend, who actually is my best friend. He has a son through a surrogate mother. His mother is the one who takes care of the baby (16 months old) when he is at work. I know this thinking is puritanical to some, but I think an infant should go to the most qualified home. That is in my view a home with a mother and a father. No matter how loving, or nurturing two women are, they can never be a father. Only a man can do that. No matter how loving two men are, they can never be a mother, only a woman can do that. It's nothing personal against them, it's biology. Mom and Dad bring two totally different things to the table. Children really need both. I know, that this is not possible for all children, but if it is available, that should be the first choice.

In Wayne's case, because his Mom, Dad & Grandmother live with him, his son does have the woman's more nurturing side along with the masculine side of his Dad.

[jon71]

I do think the idea that mothers and fathers both being necessary is an antiquated notion. First of all many single parents (some by choice, some by fate) do a wonderful job as parents as do same sex couples. The main point I wanted to make was what about people who aren't the traditionally masculine or feminine. By that what about a hetero couple where the guy is into cooking and classical music instead of power tools and football. What if the kids mother is into power tools and football. Is she disqualified as a mother? Other than nursing I can't think of anything that can only be done by one gender. I imagine that the birds and bees talk would be easier coming from a parent of the same gender but it's certainly not impossible for the opposite gender parent to do that. Most of us are a mixture of what people think of as masculine and feminine. Right now my little girl is learning cross stitch from her mother. Before our dojo closed she'd take martial arts with me. She said something the other day about wanting to start again. I'd love to but money and schedule would have to be factored in. She also mentioned ballet. In a perfect world she could do both. I'd love to see her in a gi on Mon, Wed, and Fri, and a tutu on Tue, Thur, and Sat. How incredibly cool would that be. Would knowing karate make her insufficiently feminine? Would knowing cross-stitch redeem her? If it did where would that leave my dad? For the most part he's a very traditional even old-fashioned guy but he does cross-stitch and he can cook. All in all I see the notion that kids can only get certain things from just one gender as absurd.

[ki4kxq]

Nature doesn't agree with you. Are there exceptions to the rule? Of course. There are exceptions to every rule. I completely disagree that one gender fits all. By saying that, you are discounting everything the other gender brings to the table. Whether you find it antiquated or not, nature sets up reproduction to include a male and a female.

Men, even if they like cooking and classical music instead of power tools and sports, are still men. Something a woman will never be. He still has the experiences of a man. That you would say you are less important to your children's experience is sad. Either that, or you are saying their mother is irrelevant, which is equally sad and absurd.

[jon71]

I am not saying that either I or my wife are unimportant to our child. We are both important as INDIVIDUALS not becuase I carry an XY and my wife has an XX. You cannot find one thing that only a man can give a child or that only a woman can. Name one thing that I am unable to give her because I'm male? I know that devolpment and puberty will come more naturally from my wife but by no means is that unreachable for me. I'll probably take a supporting role when that moves to the forefront but I'll be part of that discussion too. In fact that's already the case but minimally since our girl is only eight, almost nine. She already wants boobs and we both tell her to be patient, it'll happen when the time is right.
You mentioned me having my experiences as a man. What does that mean? One guy might be R.O.T.C. go into the army and work on cars in his spare time. The next guy might study physics, have a poster of Einstein in his room, and go to M.I.T. The next guy might be well coiffed, listen to Broadway and Judy Garland and be as metro (or bi, or gay) as they come. Even so all three guys can be good and decent people. They can love their kids will all their hearts and be perfectly devoted to them. They can encourage, educate and inspire their children. They can cheer them on whether they follow their own footsteps or take as different a path as possible. What does it mean to have "life experience as a man" when those life experiences are as different as anybody could possibly imagine.
My wife and I love our baby girl. We give her all we can, not because we are a male and a female but because we are PARENTS. Gender is irrelevant, parental love and devotion is monumental.

[usmc1]

I hardly agree USMC-1 that putting people to work in their own complexes would put private contractors out of work. Talk about extreme views. I also stand by my point that you seem to be more than happy to dish stuff out, but you sure as hell can't take it. You're the one that resorts to name calling and childspeak when you can't prove your point.

You don't agree with me? No kidding? You write elsewhere that you don't like me....how can that be? You don't know me! I don't know you, so I don't like or dislike you. I dislike the attitude you portray here. I dislike your prejudices, misguided and preconceived notions, and biases which you reveal in what you write. I have no respect for the sort of politics and social policies which you espouse. But, dislike you, how could I, I don't know you.

Your statement of disliking me, without knowing me, reveals your fundamental lack of emotional maturity.

As to the other, stick by all you want. It doesn't change things: You make derisive comments, and disparaging remarks, with a snotty and snarky tone, and when you get the blow-back you complain. Conservatives have gotten used to beating up on liberals, using liberalism as though it were a pejorative, and as though leftist politics were un-American, and then become abashed and upset when they get served a dish of their own recipe.

Also, you do not know the history of this issue, and how much better people than you have been banned from this forum for the sort of snotty comments you've made. I do not post "childish gibberish". You might not like it, you certainly have no need to agree with it, but labeling it "childish gibberish" will get an "in kind" response from me each and every time. Yeah, I know. Conservatives aren't used to the "shove back". Get over it!

So ditch the "poor me", victimized by liberals, persona, it doesn't make you seem all that fetching a person.

You wrote also, asking others to "gang up" on me. Again quite telling. I bet you were a real hoot in grade school. The terror of the playground, "hey kids I don't like that guy, let's gang up on him!?


Btw, you dear Mr. Contractor letter is pretty close to what the conservatives wanted. But no, we couldn't make people work to support themselves, that would be inhumane. I find it more than amusing that I actually agree with Boreas on intent, but disagree on technique. However, being a Marine myself, I can say that you are the Marine exception. Most of use are pretty right wing. I guess their has to be a different apple in every bunch. I see though that you haven't admitted yet just how left wing you are USMC-1, still trying to masquerade as a moderate. It's not working. LOLWhat sort of Marine am I? Well, I'd say the same sort as James Webb, Anthony Zinni, and Paul Eaton. Yep, I was an exceptional Marine while active, and remain an exceptional person as inactive Marine. You got that right, I am an exception, in a good way!

Masquerading as a moderate? Me? Hah! Hardly! Of course my posts reflect progressive ideology, I've never concealed that. But, again, the inference is that this would be something I would want to hide. I don't.

[Naturist Mark]

However, being a Marine myself, I can say that you are the Marine exception. Most of use are pretty right wing. I guess their has to be a different apple in every bunch.

I think the days of the myth of the military being reliable 'right wingers' is over. It was once true, expecially among the officer corps, but not any more. The current neo-con regime certainly realizes that, which is why they are working to prevent voter registration drives aimed at veterans (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/11/opinion/11bysiewicz.html?_r=2&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin&oref=slogin) and by 'caging the votes' of active troops (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/25/explaining-caging/). Active duty military personnel are donating far more (http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/08/troops-deployed-abroad-give-61.html) to Barack Obama this election cycle than to McCain, especially troops deployed abroad who favor Obama over McCain by 6 to 1.

-Mark

[MoonShadow]

My wife and I love our baby girl. We give her all we can, not because we are a male and a female but because we are PARENTS. Gender is irrelevant, parental love and devotion is monumental.


Well stated, jon71! That is the main ingredient. Being parents...gender aside.

[Sanslines]

I think the days of the myth of the military being reliable 'right wingers' is over. It was once true, expecially among the officer corps, but not any more. The current neo-con regime certainly realizes that, which is why they are working to prevent voter registration drives aimed at veterans (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/11/opinion/11bysiewicz.html?_r=2&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin&oref=slogin) and by 'caging the votes' of active troops (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/25/explaining-caging/). Active duty military personnel are donating far more (http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/08/troops-deployed-abroad-give-61.html) to Barack Obama this election cycle than to McCain, especially troops deployed abroad who favor Obama over McCain by 6 to 1.

-Mark

You have us all convinced that the next election will be a scam, sham, and fraud riddled with cheating, and bogus and mysteriously lost ballots. In short the election will be totally rigged. We are all now convinced that the situation will be hopeless and therefore we are all better off staying home on election night and drowning our sorrows in a bottle of gin rather then going out to participate in the scam. Thank you for enlightening us.

[Boreas]

Wow, this thread is meandering all over! :)

:eatpopcorn: Popcorn anyone?

[ki4kxq]

Ok USMC-1, I guess I'll have to explain it to you. The comment of not liking you much and ganging up on you was obviously done very tongue in cheek. Boreas obviously got that it was not a personal attack on you, just a humorous way to say that you and I do not agree on anything.

As far as childish gibberish, when you are called on something, you have responded with nothing more profound than the likes of yammer yammer flap jacks or whatever you posted. Not only to me, but to others.

Never said you were not a good Marine, I said that most Marines are of the right to center persuasion.

I am not the one that has the poor me attitude. I have made it very clear that people should take care of themselves instead of relying on the government. Pointing out that you are in my opinion wrong on just about every point does not make me a victim. I know you would like to portray me as that, but it just doesn't wash.

As far as derisive comments and a snarky tone, have you read your posts? Everyone but you and those that agree with your liberal drivel are wrong, uneducated, and just plain foolish. I guess you are the enlightened one with no biases or preconceived notions. Yeah, right. Just remember USMC-1, when you point a finger at someone, there are three times as many pointing back at you.

[hm0504]

Gee, I would have thought those who boast that they want less government intrusion in people's lives would be all for removing the laws that limit marriage to opposite sex couples. Yet, strangely they support this profound intrusion into peoples' lives. Why, I wonder.

[ki4kxq]

hm0504, are you implying that I have said I am against gay marriage. I don't believe I have posted that anywhere. Frankly, I couldn't care less who gets married and who doesn't. I am however in favor of States to determine who they will issue a marriage license to. That is the constitutional way to do it. Small federal government with State government making their own decisions. That way, New York will not be telling Alabama what they must do or not do, and vice versa.

[Sanslines]

Is it too early to start a new thread entitled "McCain Stole The Election" or should we wait until after the election?

[hm0504]

hm0504, are you implying that I have said I am against gay marriage. I don't believe I have posted that anywhere. Frankly, I couldn't care less who gets married and who doesn't. I am however in favor of States to determine who they will issue a marriage license to. That is the constitutional way to do it. Small federal government with State government making their own decisions. That way, New York will not be telling Alabama what they must do or not do, and vice versa.

I was speaking generally; your specific position was not clear to me. But given what you have written, why would conservatives not fiercely oppose any level of government dictating who can get married to whom?

[ki4kxq]

I believe in the constitution which says that the federal government butts out and the states make the decision. States are more accountable to their voters, and as such, more closely follow the will of the people. If New York or California want to allow gay marriage, and that's what the people of that state want, great. By the same token, if the people of Texas or Indiana do not want gay marriage, that is ok too.

It should never be a federal issue, period.