Go Vote!!

[DaneGarreau]

If you are in one of the super tuesday states, please go out and vote.

[Jonathan Macfarlane]

If you are in one of the super tuesday states, please go out and vote.

For Mike Huckabee.

Chuck Norris approved. :KD:





(as a New Zealander, this really is none of my business)

[Kevin Cronin]

for which one, tweedle dee or tweedle dum?

[Scott Markowitz]

One of the funnier moments of this campaign was when someone asked Huckabee why he didn't say anything when Chuck Norris said McCain was too old to be president. Huckabee responded that he disagreed with the statement, but he didn't say so at the time because Chuck was standing right next to him at the time, and you just don't disagree with Chuck Norris. At which point, McCain noted that Sly Stallone had just endorsed him, and threatened to send him after Chuck and Huck.
Add Arnold's endorsement and I'd have to give that one to McCain.

[DaneGarreau]

for which one, tweedle dee or tweedle dum?

Neither....vote Ron Paul instead.

[Mike Zylinski]

I voted. But it was hard to explain to my 5 yr old that we voted to determine which percent of our states delegates will travel to the national convention and pledge to vote for a certain candidate, but not be bound by that pledge.


:M:

[Josh Kamins]

Neither....vote Ron Paul instead.

Yes, lets abolish the IRS :rolleyes:

[Joshua Davis]

Yes, lets abolish the IRS :rolleyes:

Yes, lets do! The federal income tax is only responsible for 40% of our government's budget, 20% of which gets funneled directly into Iraq. Are you telling me you don't think there is 20% of the government that could be downsized so I don't have to work wage-free from January to March just to break even with my taxes?

Before you answer that question, ask yourself how much time congress spent chasing baseball players for PED's, what their approximate hourly wage was, and how many of them devoted thousands of hours to that cause?

[Jared Alden]

Quarterback

"In a news conference Deanna Favre announced she will be the starting QB
for the Packers this coming Sunday. Deanna asserts that she is qualified
to be starting QB because she has spent the past 16 years married to
Brett while he played QB for the Packers. During this period of time she
became familiar with the definition of a corner blitz, and is now
completely comfortable with other terminology of the Packers offense. A
survey of Packers fans shows that 50% of those polled supported the move.

Does this sound idiotic and unbelievable to you? Well, Hillary Clinton
makes the same claims as to why she is qualified to be President and 50%
of democrats polled agreed. She has never run a City, County, or State.

When told Hillary Clinton has experience because she has 8 years in the
white house, Dick Morris stated "so has the pastry chef"."

[Josh Kamins]

Personally I'm an Obama supporter, not Hillary, but that is ridiculous, you realize. Do Governors or Mayors only get to run for office? It is hard as a Senator to run because of deals that must be made that are natural to the position. However, I think experience as a Senator and on many committees, and being involved in politics regardless of her husband for many many years, shows she does have experience in running things...

Though I will give it to you, she didn't run the olympics like Romney claims :D

[Josh Kamins]

By the way, I take Chuck Norris over the Terminator or Rocky....Not only was he a kickboxing champ, but he received a black belt in BJJ from Helio himself...

[Matt Brouse]

Neither....vote Ron Paul instead.
This was my intention. I thought that the gates were open until 9:30 but they were closed by 8:00 which is when I got off work, oddly enough...

Poorly planned on my part. I hope I get the chance to vote for him in Nov.

[Jonathan Macfarlane]

Neither....vote Ron Paul instead.


Mike Huckabee... Chuck Norris approved.


John McCain... Rambo and Terminator approved.

Ron Paul... Dieselweasel approved.

http://feat.putfile.com/profilepics/main/6/dieselweasel-20361180515.jpg

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/aySlb6BnMsU&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/aySlb6BnMsU&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>


(no serious)

[James Whisman]

Mike Huckabee... Chuck Norris approved.


John McCain... Rambo and Terminator approved.

Ron Paul... Dieselweasel approved.

http://feat.putfile.com/profilepics/main/6/dieselweasel-20361180515.jpg

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/aySlb6BnMsU&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/aySlb6BnMsU&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>


(no serious)

I vote Jono spends too much time on YouTube...

[Jonathan Macfarlane]

I vote Jono spends too much time on YouTube...


Probably true. All I did was subscribed to DW's videos, dude has got strong lately. That vid just creeped me out, so I remembered it.

"Matt Brouse has seen every video on youtube, making him Ron Paul's plan to replace the CIA."

(yes weird, yes time to sleep)

[Richard Reynolds]

Yes, lets do! The federal income tax is only responsible for 40% of our government's budget, 20% of which gets funneled directly into Iraq. Are you telling me you don't think there is 20% of the government that could be downsized so I don't have to work wage-free from January to March just to break even with my taxes?

Before you answer that question, ask yourself how much time congress spent chasing baseball players for PED's, what their approximate hourly wage was, and how many of them devoted thousands of hours to that cause?

And now Arlen Spector wants to spend his time investigating the Patriots superbowl win over the Rams. Is he bitter they also beat the Eagles? Do something relevant for a change!

[Smith, Andrew]

Yes, lets abolish the IRS :rolleyes:


Even if you didn't agree with his position on the IRS, look at his stance on civil liberties as well as state's rights. He's the only candidate that actually votes according to what upholds the Constitution. He's not for big power and government, and that makes him extremely unpopular, especially with today's Neocons. At the rate we're going, we're not going to have any personal freedoms left. 1984 is quickly becoming a reality.

I've said from day one that I'd write Ron Paul in, but I'll do what it takes to not have McCain in office, even if that means voting for Hilary Clinton. Yes I said it, and may God have mercy on my soul haha.

[Matt Brouse]

"Matt Brouse has seen every video on youtube, making him Ron Paul's plan to replace the CIA."
Shhhhhh....

[Kevin Cronin]

I've said from day one that I'd write Ron Paul in, but I'll do what it takes to not have McCain in office, even if that means voting for Hilary Clinton. Yes I said it, and may God have mercy on my soul haha.
HTat's funny, because being from NY I know more about Hillary than McCain, and I think that of the current candidates, I hate hate her the most. When Giuliani was still in the race I said that if he got the republican nomination and hillary the democratic one, I was moving to australia.

Put it this way, the first election I was ever old enough to vote in was the 2000 debacle. If you dont think that disillusions one towards politics ... HA!

[dronga]

I choose not to vote, that is my vote.

[James Whisman]

If you all feel that strongly about losing the IRS look at Mike Huchabee's tax plan. It's called the fair tax. Basically all federal taxes are removed and are replace with a federal sales tax. You get to keep 100% of your pay check (no with holdings) and only pay when you consume goods.

[Billy Wolt]

If you all feel that strongly about losing the IRS look at Mike Huchabee's tax plan. It's called the fair tax. Basically all federal taxes are removed and are replace with a federal sales tax. You get to keep 100% of your pay check (no with holdings) and only pay when you consume goods.

Makes sense. I like that plan.

We are effectively being double taxed now as it is, sometimes triple taxed.

sales tax
capital gains tax
income tax
inheretance tax
etc
etc

[Smith, Andrew]

Makes sense. I like that plan.

We are effectively being double taxed now as it is, sometimes triple taxed.

sales tax
capital gains tax
income tax
inheretance tax
etc
etc



I'm finishing up the last semester of my Accounting degree. Among other classes I've got Federal Income tax. The first day in he showed a slide of something like 30-40 different taxes that we have to pay. The Founding Fathers would have a stroke if they saw this crap.

[Smith, Andrew]

HTat's funny, because being from NY I know more about Hillary than McCain, and I think that of the current candidates, I hate hate her the most. When Giuliani was still in the race I said that if he got the republican nomination and hillary the democratic one, I was moving to australia.

Put it this way, the first election I was ever old enough to vote in was the 2000 debacle. If you dont think that disillusions one towards politics ... HA!



Yea, normally I'd rather leave the country than vote for Hilary Clinton but if John McCain gets the nod than I'll do what I can to keep him out. After having a lot of family and friends in military and law enforcement, his actions regarding POWs is unexcusable. He may have a fair amount of support from higher ranking officers, but he has lost the respect of the grunts.

[Josh Kamins]

To be honest the most urgent issue to me in this presidency is that there are at LEAST 2 liberal judges on the court waiting to retire. If we have a Huckabee or even McCain (that spineless, no morals bastard) appointing 2 more judges to the already conservative leading court for the next 30 years that scares the hell out of me. Theocracy becomes stronger, court allows more invasion of privacy, etc. etc.

[Matt Brouse]

If you all feel that strongly about losing the IRS look at Mike Huchabee's tax plan. It's called the fair tax. Basically all federal taxes are removed and are replace with a federal sales tax. You get to keep 100% of your pay check (no with holdings) and only pay when you consume goods.
He's my number 2 behind RP. Man, I hope one of them makes it...

[Paul_Koskinen]

Just not as much fun as an election with Ross Perot!!
:IMHO:

[Ryan Brown]

Yea, normally I'd rather leave the country than vote for Hilary Clinton but if John McCain gets the nod than I'll do what I can to keep him out. After having a lot of family and friends in military and law enforcement, his actions regarding POWs is unexcusable. He may have a fair amount of support from higher ranking officers, but he has lost the respect of the grunts.

I'm not sure this is correct. On the news they are saying that one of the reasons McCain won Oklahoma over Huckabee was because of a high number of military people that favor him. I was a bit surprised by that, but that's what they said.

[Josh Kamins]

Why would military favor Huckabee? His knowledge of foreign affairs is very-limited

[DaneGarreau]

If you all feel that strongly about losing the IRS look at Mike Huchabee's tax plan. It's called the fair tax. Basically all federal taxes are removed and are replace with a federal sales tax. You get to keep 100% of your pay check (no with holdings) and only pay when you consume goods.

Neil Boortz is a radio talk show host here in Atlanta( Scott listens to him all the time), and he is a HUGE proponant of the fair tax, and even wrote a book on the issue. I like the idea, or really any idea where we are taxed less and gov't beurocracy is lessened.

That being said, Huckabee is FAR too conservative for me.

[Ian Duggan]

...his actions regarding POWs is unexcusable. He may have a fair amount of support from higher ranking officers, but he has lost the respect of the grunts.
I'm confused, I thought McCain was a POW.

I've not been following this closely enough obviously...

[ADAMBAUER]

He's my number 2 behind RP. Man, I hope one of them makes it...

Sadly RP will never get the Nod, to many old guard in Washington.

[James Whisman]

Neil Boortz is a radio talk show host here in Atlanta( Scott listens to him all the time), and he is a HUGE proponant of the fair tax, and even wrote a book on the issue. I like the idea, or really any idea where we are taxed less and gov't beurocracy is lessened.

That being said, Huckabee is FAR too conservative for me.

I love Boortz, don't always agree w/ him but I enjoy the way he presents his arguments.

As for Huckabee's conservativeness, I don't think he is as conservative as most people believe. He was a minister, but so are Al Sharpton & Jessie Jackson. Until recently he was pro-amnisty (worker program), raised taxes multiple times as AK govner and pardoned or commuted a lot of criminals. I think the conservative label was put on him b/c of his support by evanjelicals.

As an aside..If McCain is the Rep nominee the Dems will walk into the White House almost uncontested. The big state McCain won last night NY, NJ, CA are all blue state and will go Dem in the general election. McCain won no southern states. A Rep can not win the white house w/o sweeping the south. The only hope McCain would have is if he picked a popular govner from the south (i.e. Huckabee) as VP. Problem is most people don't vote for VP.

[James Whisman]

I'm confused, I thought McCain was a POW.

I've not been following this closely enough obviously...

He was, but there are stories/rumors he left some other POWs behind when he had the chance to get out. Being a politician and not wanting to tarnish his "war hero" image he never reported anyone got left behind. I don't think there is any real evidence though.

[Smith, Andrew]

I'm confused, I thought McCain was a POW.

I've not been following this closely enough obviously...




He was, which is what makes it sting that much worse. Both he and John Kerry served on a Senate Sub Committee that discussed the fact that we still had something like 500 POWs in Laos and Southern Asia. Both McCain and Kerry voted to strengthen ties with these Asian countries, effectively closing the door on the whole situation and destroying any reason that these countries might have to keep the POWs alive.

[Josh Kamins]

Thats funny because I think McCain may win much easier than Romney because he can get a lot of the independent vote. Then again it matters if hes running against Hillary or Obama

[Pat Brody]

Ron Paul- A vote for Liberty is never wasted~

http://www.militaryforpaul.com/Banner.jpg

[DaneGarreau]

I love Boortz, don't always agree w/ him but I enjoy the way he presents his arguments.

As for Huckabee's conservativeness, I don't think he is as conservative as most people believe. He was a minister, but so are Al Sharpton & Jessie Jackson. Until recently he was pro-amnisty (worker program), raised taxes multiple times as AK govner and pardoned or commuted a lot of criminals. I think the conservative label was put on him b/c of his support by evanjelicals.

As an aside..If McCain is the Rep nominee the Dems will walk into the White House almost uncontested. The big state McCain won last night NY, NJ, CA are all blue state and will go Dem in the general election. McCain won no southern states. A Rep can not win the white house w/o sweeping the south. The only hope McCain would have is if he picked a popular govner from the south (i.e. Huckabee) as VP. Problem is most people don't vote for VP.

My main grip with Huckabee is the fact that he wants to amend the constitution to better fit Biblical standards...I am a Christian and that is too radical for me. I like my politics and religion to stay seperate, which is why I would have a hard time voting R.

That being said, I think the worst possible scenario, and the most likely, is Mccain and Hilary being the front runners.

[Ian Duggan]

My main grip with Huckabee is the fact that he wants to amend the constitution to better fit Biblical standards...I am a Christian and that is too radical for me.
He does? Really? Like... literal biblical standards?

That's... ummm... pretty radical as you say.

[DaneGarreau]

He does? Really? Like... literal biblical standards?

That's... ummm... pretty radical as you say.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=D08Dq_iNMRk&feature=related

I'm sure a lot of evangelicals agree with him, but IMO it's not the government's place to make these type of decisions.

[Ian Duggan]

Wow. That is pretty radical.

His whole campaign is on a pretty brave platform. Certainly can't accuse him of not saying what he believes...

[Joshua Davis]

I am blown away by you guys.

This is the only political thread that I have ever seen that has not gotten out of hand.

Regardless of what happens, by the way, it's fantastic that we've got such an interesting political makeup. Even after the primaries everyone is looking in every direction for a candidate and no one has a clear winner.

Granted, I'm frustrated because my candidate has a hard road ahead (if any), but heck, prior to him I was voting for Browne or Badnarik - with that smug libertarian principle of "I'm voting on my principle! You miscreants aren't, so you deserve what you get!". At least now, the youth of America that couldn't live with the restrictive results of either party, have some solace - and many people who would have just voted for the same guy their parents would have, now have been cured of their apathy. I just hope it stays beyond Paul's presidential run, because I want my son to grow up in a country that minds it's own business, pays attention to it's economy, and allows you to be a truly liberated and self-reliant individual.

[Mac Smith]

I am blown away by you guys.

This is the only political thread that I have ever seen that has not gotten out of hand.

Regardless of what happens, by the way, it's fantastic that we've got such an interesting political makeup. Even after the primaries everyone is looking in every direction for a candidate and no one has a clear winner.

Granted, I'm frustrated because my candidate has a hard road ahead (if any), but heck, prior to him I was voting for Browne or Badnarik - with that smug libertarian principle of "I'm voting on my principle! You miscreants aren't, so you deserve what you get!". At least now, the youth of America that couldn't live with the restrictive results of either party, have some solace - and many people who would have just voted for the same guy their parents would have, now have been cured of their apathy. I just hope it stays beyond Paul's presidential run, because I want my son to grow up in a country that minds it's own business, pays attention to it's economy, and allows you to be a truly liberated and self-reliant individual.

NOW THAT'S THE JOSH I REMEMBER!

I'm glad that I live in this time. This election is the most historic of all time. I'm still torn between the two democratic candidates. I was a huge Bill Clinton fan and can imagine Hillary governing a similar style, but because of Bill and her hard (at times) style she is way to polarizing. Bush caused enough devisivness.

Borak is captivating, and seems to be a natural leader, but his lack of exerience bothers. His goals tend to strike me as a little too lofty.

[Steve Trippe]

That being said, I think the worst possible scenario, and the most likely, is Mccain and Hilary being the front runners.

This would be the quickest way to get McCain the conservative vote again. Choose Hilary as the dem nominee.

That said, I have been a McCain supporter since he ran in 2000 against Bush, and am glad that things are turning out with him as the republican nominee. I'm an independent, but haven't made my exact decision on who I will vote for, but Hillary would definitely make me vote republican. I mention this only to bring up that many people hold similar beliefs.

[Josh Kamins]

ALthough McCain was always way too fiscally conservative for me, and I don't like how he meddled in lots of Americans' personal affairs, I respected his character a lot going into 2000. He lost a lot of respect after that when he went and supported Bush after Bush sabotaged his character with the same group that bashed Kerry with that whole Swift boat thing....

[Kevin Cronin]

This would be the quickest way to get McCain the conservative vote again. Choose Hilary as the dem nominee.

That said, I have been a McCain supporter since he ran in 2000 against Bush, and am glad that things are turning out with him as the republican nominee. I'm an independent, but haven't made my exact decision on who I will vote for, but Hillary would definitely make me vote republican. I mention this only to bring up that many people hold similar beliefs.
And your vote will be meaningless, as you live in a blue state. The fallacy of our system... I wonder if the constitution will ever be amended.

[Matt Brouse]

...because I want my son to grow up in a country that minds it's own business, pays attention to it's economy, and allows you to be a truly liberated and self-reliant individual.
Marvelous, my man. If you and I ever meet I'm shaking your hand for that statement.

By each hour I am more and more dissapointed that didn't get in to put my vote in for RP.

[Kevin Dunkerton]

I think in the video posted above Huckabee is saying he wants to amend the constitution so that it says marriage is between a man and a women. Many conservatives feel this should be done so gay marriage isn't allowed in some states and banned in others. A large percentage of Americans are opposed to gay marriage presumably because of their religous beliefs. If that is the context of what he is saying then the video isn't that crazy.

On the topic of voting, I went to my local elementary school the other day to cast my vote for Ron Paul and found out I couldn't because I am registered independent. I think that is stupid, but the really stupid thing was that just about every other person voting was above the age of thirty five. Sometimes I get the feeling that if every person who said Ron Paul was a great candidate on the internet actually voted for him he would win be a mile. Or maybe the internet is just filled with weirdos.

[Matt Brouse]

I think in the video posted above Huckabee is saying he wants to amend the constitution so that it says marriage is between a man and a women. Many conservatives feel this should be done so gay marriage isn't allowed in some states and banned in others. A large percentage of Americans are opposed to gay marriage presumably because of their religous beliefs. If that is the context of what he is saying then the video isn't that crazy.

On the topic of voting, I went to my local elementary school the other day to cast my vote for Ron Paul and found out I couldn't because I am registered independent. I think that is stupid, but the really stupid thing was that just about every other person voting was above the age of thirty five. Sometimes I get the feeling that if every person who said Ron Paul was a great candidate on the internet actually voted for him he would win be a mile. Or maybe the internet is just filled with weirdos.

Good point about the Huck video, the way it's worded in there probably pushes his point further in that direction than him may actually be thinking. (What? haha)

I've heard from many friends and others that they don't think Ron Paul has much "electability" which I translate as money and throat slitting tendencies, but my thought is that if everyone ignored what the TV told them about his "electability" and went ahead and voted for his voting history and his platform than he'd have plenty of "electability." What a crock. TV is far to influencial in peoples minds.

I'm not speaking clearly tonight. Nor typing for that matter.

[Josh Kamins]

For those who hate Hillary Clinton, I was just wondering why? I'm not a huge fan of hers, especially compared to Obama, however I feel she has a lot of misdirected hate aimed at her. I'll wait to say exactly what I see wrong with her, but I was just hoping to get some opinions on that from others...

[Kevin Cronin]

For those who hate Hillary Clinton, I was just wondering why? I'm not a huge fan of hers, especially compared to Obama, however I feel she has a lot of misdirected hate aimed at her. I'll wait to say exactly what I see wrong with her, but I was just hoping to get some opinions on that from others...
I think she's a conservative in liberals' clothing. I dont know how she has been painted as this bleeding heart. She rallied against some video game because it was "too violent" for children to be playing, wanted all sorts of restrictions; listen, I am willing to concede that the Founding Fathers probably didnt have PS3 in mind when they penned the 1st amendment, but I am not comfortable with a govt deciding a) what I can and cant buy just becuase a child might be able to b) what parents can allow or forbid their children to buy c) what kind of products a private business might produce in a free market economy. I feel this is just one example.

Furthermore, she has yet to give any kind of satisfactory explanation (that I have heard) as to her vote in the war. I blame everyone - most of frigging washington - for this quagmire, and I am unwilling to give a free pass to ANYONE who voted for it just because they say they made a mistake. A mistake is when I forget where I put my car keys and spend 5 minutes looking for them; THIS is a true national tragedy, not a mistake. I dont buy that the senate is allowed to just take intelligence given them by the executive branch at face value. Hard questions should have been asked, and apparently not enough of them, or hard enoguh questions were asked.

I have no faith in her commitment to universal healthcare, I consider it a "say anythign to get elected" ploy.

I remarked to a friend recently that she seems to have all of Bill's negative qualities with none of his redeeming ones.

[Joe Bosnick]

I don't like Hillary because (among other things) she is afraid to stand behind her vote to invade Iraq. This is one of the reasons I love McCain (and Bush). He isn't afraid to stand behind his decision no matter how unpopular. I can't stand people who "change their mind" just because they hurt someone's feelings or to get votes. Stick to your guns damnit!

Oh, and I will NEVER vote for a candidate who cries because of the "stresses of the campaign trail" (Hillary). Yet another reason to vote for McCain. After 5 years in the Hanoi Hilton I don't think he's going to crack under the pressure of the job.

[Kevin Cronin]

I find it hilarious that both Joe and I kill Hillary for the same reason (how she handled her Iraq vote) and yet completely DIFFERENT reasons at the same time.

This is American Democracy at its finest, get a candidate everyone can agree upon equally - about how much we dislike them :D

[Joe Bosnick]

I find it hilarious that both Joe and I kill Hillary for the same reason (how she handled her Iraq vote) and yet completely DIFFERENT reasons at the same time.

This is American Democracy at its finest, get a candidate everyone can agree upon equally - about how much we dislike them :D


Haha yeah. Gotta love America! :D

[James Whisman]

I think she's a conservative in liberals' clothing. I dont know how she has been painted as this bleeding heart.

I see it the exact oposite. I see her as a Stallin socialist bent on doing nothing but redistributing welth. Universal health will distroy the US medical indusrty. Her $5000 baby bond proposal is nothing but a vote buying ploy (have kid we'll give you $5000). My favorit quote of hers was "The country can't afford all the things I'd like to do". Meaning welfare give aways and vote buying programs.

[James Whisman]

Just for fun...

http://www.break.com/games/whos-your-candidate.html

[DaneGarreau]

On the topic of voting, I went to my local elementary school the other day to cast my vote for Ron Paul and found out I couldn't because I am registered independent. I think that is stupid, but the really stupid thing was that just about every other person voting was above the age of thirty five. Sometimes I get the feeling that if every person who said Ron Paul was a great candidate on the internet actually voted for him he would win be a mile. Or maybe the internet is just filled with weirdos.

It varies state to state whether or not you can vote in the Dem/Rep. primaries or the independent. In GA on Tuesday you just go to the polls and select dem or rep. But yea, some states you have to apply for a change of party.

[Smith, Andrew]

. After 5 years in the Hanoi Hilton I don't think he's going to crack under the pressure of the job.


Yea, he'll just betray your trust when it's convenient for him...

[Smith, Andrew]

I think in the video posted above Huckabee is saying he wants to amend the constitution so that it says marriage is between a man and a women. Many conservatives feel this should be done so gay marriage isn't allowed in some states and banned in others. A large percentage of Americans are opposed to gay marriage presumably because of their religous beliefs. If that is the context of what he is saying then the video isn't that crazy.




Just to stir the pot...It is crazy. The decision to ban gay marriage, abortion or anything along those lines isn't up to the federal goverment. It is a states' rights issue. According to the Constitution, the decision should be left to the states to decide.

[James Whisman]

Just to stir the pot...It is crazy. The decision to ban gay marriage, abortion or anything along those lines isn't up to the federal goverment. It is a states' rights issue. According to the Constitution, the decision should be left to the states to decide.

I totally agree and am a very big state rights person. However the problem arrises with the interstate commerce laws and the recognition of one state licences in other states. My TN drivers licence will be honored in all 50 states, which is a good thing. If not coast to coast truckers would have to pass drivers tests in all 50 states. My marrage licence will also be honored in all 50 states, again a good thing (don't want to go through that ceramony 50 times). If a couple got married in one a state that allowed gay marriage then states that do not (under the current laws) would have to recognize it. So one state would, by default, would be inacting gay marrage in all 50.

[Smith, Andrew]

I totally agree and am a very big state rights person. However the problem arrises with the interstate commerce laws and the recognition of one state licences in other states. My TN drivers licence will be honored in all 50 states, which is a good thing. If not coast to coast truckers would have to pass drivers tests in all 50 states. My marrage licence will also be honored in all 50 states, again a good thing (don't want to go through that ceramony 50 times). If a couple got married in one a state that allowed gay marriage then states that do not (under the current laws) would have to recognize it. So one state would, by default, would be inacting gay marrage in all 50.



I see where you're coming from, but these issues should be addressed as a whole other matter. I don't think anybody has sat down and tried to figure out how to make those things work. Instead, the popular idea is to let the federal government decide what is best for us as individuals. Following the Constitution isn't going to be easy, but it is what this country was built off of, and the reason so many people work to get here.

[Joshua Davis]

Why does marriage have to be recognized by anyone other than you, your family, and your church? Therein lies the problem. If there were no legal benefits (hence the abolishment of the income tax) to being married, then there would be no reason for anyone to care, really.

I have worked and been friends with several persons with "domestic partners" over the years. Their biggest qualm wasn't the lack of being "recognized", it was the lack of being able to choose beneficiaries and recieve tax benefits like other live together couples.

[Matt Lebo]

WOW I wish I saw this thread earlier! McCain is the prime example of "say anything to get elected". He is moderate for his entire career but when it comes time to run he's the "conservative" candidate. Huckabee is a social conservative but a fiscal liberal. And Romney is a ZERO and a, dare I say, flip flopper... Hillary has experience, regardless of her title as "first lady". She was involved in every way and she TRIED for universal "affordable" health care, which I support, and have had personal experience with. A Hillary-Obama ticket is the best hope this country has after 8 years of DISASTER!!! Senators always get hit with their voting record which is why they almost never get elected. But things are different now and the Dems are taking back Washington!

[Scott Markowitz]

I'm in class so I can't write much now, but...

The clause at issue with recognizing marriage is the Full Faith and Credit clause, not Interstate Commerce. Same effect though.

Most of the secular benefits of marriage can be had already by any two people; it just has to be done one at a time instead of happening automatically (as it does for a marriage).

Gay marriage has been around forever. People can get a religion-based marriage from any religion that recognizes that particular type of relationship. That won't change - that's at the heart of the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment. We (as a whole) decided that we would extend the non-religious attachments to one type of relationship that we (as a whole) decided is beneficial to society. No nefarious theocracy involved, folks.

[Kevin Cronin]

I totally agree and am a very big state rights person. However the problem arrises with the interstate commerce laws and the recognition of one state licences in other states. My TN drivers licence will be honored in all 50 states, which is a good thing. If not coast to coast truckers would have to pass drivers tests in all 50 states. My marrage licence will also be honored in all 50 states, again a good thing (don't want to go through that ceramony 50 times). If a couple got married in one a state that allowed gay marriage then states that do not (under the current laws) would have to recognize it. So one state would, by default, would be inacting gay marrage in all 50.
Maybe this is answered already by Scotts post, but I have a question/observation. As far as I know, when travelling overseas, there is no country that wont recognize my NY driver's license; no country where I'll have to take a driving test before getting on the road or renting a car. Yet gay marriage in England (I dont know if they have it, jsut an example)does not equate to gay marriage in the US. So what's the difference.

We (as a whole) decided that we would extend the non-religious attachments to one type of relationship that we (as a whole) decided is beneficial to society. No nefarious theocracy involved, folks.
Scott, dont you think that many, if not most, folks based their idea on what was beneficial to society on what their religion told them was beneficial? (I hope that sentence makes sense, I'm raising the possibility that people believe only hetero marriage to be of benefit because that's what their religion has told them all their lives. Maybe that's a better way to say it.)

[Mike Zylinski]

Why does marriage have to be recognized by anyone other than you, your family, and your church? Therein lies the problem. If there were no legal benefits (hence the abolishment of the income tax) to being married, then there would be no reason for anyone to care, really.

I have worked and been friends with several persons with "domestic partners" over the years. Their biggest qualm wasn't the lack of being "recognized", it was the lack of being able to choose beneficiaries and recieve tax benefits like other live together couples.

Issues arise like this scenario: 2 men in a domestic partership, legally recognized by the state of Vermont, travel to Texas. Texas does not legally recognize domestic parternships. 1 is seriously injured, and placed on life support. The parents of the injured man fly in, and take exception to his partner's claim to be able to decide for his care.

Marriage / Domestic Parternships provide a lot of legal benefits to both parties, those benefits in a traditional marriage are pretty much consistent state to state. However, issues like dissolution of a domestic partership in states like NJ are not close to defined yet.

Again, great civil discussion going on.

[Matt Lebo]

Maybe this is answered already by Scotts post, but I have a question/observation. As far as I know, when travelling overseas, there is no country that wont recognize my NY driver's license; no country where I'll have to take a driving test before getting on the road or renting a car. Yet gay marriage in England (I dont know if they have it, jsut an example)does not equate to gay marriage in the US. So what's the difference.
Scott, dont you think that many, if not most, folks based their idea on what was beneficial to society on what their religion told them was beneficial? (I hope that sentence makes sense, I'm raising the possibility that people believe only hetero marriage to be of benefit because that's what their religion has told them all their lives. Maybe that's a better way to say it.)
I think you are correct in that assumption but that goes back to the issue of separation of church and state. The basic issue in the gay marriage debate is religious, not moral, because the 2 are mutually exclusive. It's not a matter of the "benefit" to society but more to the issue of "acceptance". It took African Americans and women decades to get the rights they have not because of the "benefits" but because they were viewed as less important or insignificant. Religion didn't factor in at all.

[Kent Smith]

I see it the exact oposite. I see her as a Stallin socialist bent on doing nothing but redistributing welth. Universal health will distroy the US medical indusrty. Her $5000 baby bond proposal is nothing but a vote buying ploy (have kid we'll give you $5000). My favorit quote of hers was "The country can't afford all the things I'd like to do". Meaning welfare give aways and vote buying programs.

Exactly right. If congress would pass even 10% of what she wanted this country(and us as individuals) would be completely screwed economically for a long time to come. It's great and all to say I would give this money to these people, but it has to come from somewhere and all it is socialism at it's core. What we need is the Fair Tax which would provide an absurd revitalization to our economy. It's what Hamilton advocated from the founding of our country even and it's just as viable and beneficial now as it would have been then.

[Kevin Cronin]

I think you are correct in that assumption but that goes back to the issue of separation of church and state. The basic issue in the gay marriage debate is religious, not moral, because the 2 are mutually exclusive. It's not a matter of the "benefit" to society but more to the issue of "acceptance". It took African Americans and women decades to get the rights they have not because of the "benefits" but because they were viewed as less important or insignificant. Religion didn't factor in at all.
I htink we are agreeing. Scott is saying that there's no theocracy because the basis for only extending privileges to hetero marriage is The People, not religion. I'm proffering the notion the the lack of privileges may come THROUGH the people, but is ultimately religious in its origin.

[Scott Markowitz]

When I went to Eastern Europe and wanted to drive, I had to get an "international" license. When I drove in Mexico, I did not. It all depends on the treaty agreements between the countries. Within the US, each state is required to give "Full Faith and Credit ... to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." (US Const, Art IV, sec 1). One of the fears of those pushing the FMA is that one state will enact homosexual marriage, then a federal judge will cite the FFC to require all states to recognize it, thus effectively having the people of one state enact a change in the laws of every other state. The FMA is thus a preemptive measure - protecting federalism from FFC, two constitutional provisions (one stated, one obviously implied) which are in tension with one another.

The source for peoples' collective decision that hetero marriage is more beneficial may well be based on religion. It may or may not be good policy (I'm expressing no opinion on the matter at this point) but it is not unconstitutional.

[Matt Lebo]

I htink we are agreeing. Scott is saying that there's no theocracy because the basis for only extending privileges to hetero marriage is The People, not religion. I'm proffering the notion the the lack of privileges may come THROUGH the people, but is ultimately religious in its origin.
Understood and I agree with you 100%! I just had to disagree that it was about benefits as much as acceptance.

[Richard Reynolds]

But things are different now and the Dems are taking back Washington!

That giant sucking sound is my wallet being emptied so everyone can live equally. College will soon be a fundamental right! yeah! There are no consequences to that. Just like there are no consequences to runaway litigation. The high cost of health care has nothing to do with malpractice insurance, it's all because doctors are greedy.

[Kevin Cronin]

When I went to Eastern Europe and wanted to drive, I had to get an "international" license. When I drove in Mexico, I did not. It all depends on the treaty agreements between the countries. Within the US, each state is required to give "Full Faith and Credit ... to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." (US Const, Art IV, sec 1). One of the fears of those pushing the FMA is that one state will enact homosexual marriage, then a federal judge will cite the FFC to require all states to recognize it, thus effectively having the people of one state enact a change in the laws of every other state. The FMA is thus a preemptive measure - protecting federalism from FFC, two constitutional provisions (one stated, one obviously implied) which are in tension with one another.
Thanks for explaining that. It's very interesting, I will have to digest that for a while.

The source for peoples' collective decision that hetero marriage is more beneficial may well be based on religion. It may or may not be good policy (I'm expressing no opinion on the matter at this point) but it is not unconstitutional.
Oh, I wouldnt go so far as to say it's unconstitutional. But I do think it's a path down which we must tread very carefully, if at all.

[Smith, Andrew]

Romney's out. Suspended his campaign. God, please don't let McCain get the nod.

[Josh Kamins]

See that was kind of my point about Hillary (going back a couple of pages). For some reason, conservatives associate her as a communist. i think she is not very liberal at all besides her health care platform...which isn't fully socialized medicine. Socialized medicine in my opinion can work, just not in America. Same with a fully private system. Our problem is our population size and demographic for both of these systems...

[James Whisman]

Within the US, each state is required to give "Full Faith and Credit ... to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." (US Const, Art IV, sec 1).

Unless it is a concealed gun permit or a hunting licence. They aren't recognized, which sucks b/c out of state hunting licences are really expensive.

[Joshua Davis]

See that was kind of my point about Hillary (going back a couple of pages). For some reason, conservatives associate her as a communist. i think she is not very liberal at all besides her health care platform...which isn't fully socialized medicine. Socialized medicine in my opinion can work, just not in America. Same with a fully private system. Our problem is our population size and demographic for both of these systems...

A fully private system *without* government mandated employer HMO's, preferably. The government basically wrote a blank check to providers when this happened... providers could get more money from individuals who had coverage, not only leaving the uninsured by the wayside, but making the sky the limit on costs because the patient was no longer responsible, the HMO provider was.

If the government no longer mandated that certain employers *must* provide health coverage, the healthcare providers would be forced to drop costs... plain and simple. Government intrusion into our healthcare is what got us into this mess, and you want more government intrusion?

And I don't think that Hillary is a communist. I do believe, however, that "social progressives" have mismashed their political views for so long with the socialist element, that is their common agenda. Personally, I think that most, if not all, government-sponsored social programs have never worked wholesale.

By the same token, many modern conservatives have either melded with a hawkish hard right or a "God's way or no way" christian right - and completely trounced upon the views of the original party.

I love the following quote from Lew Rockwell, but it's long so I'm going to paraphrase it...

"It's ironic that the liberal left feels America shouldn't be forceful in the world, but feel fine in forcing Americans to adhere to heavy taxation. Equally as ironic is how the republican right believes government intervention should be reduced in American's lives, but somehow has the "Midas Touch" when approaching and nation-building abroad"
.

Both parties are broken because ultimately, both feel that by "meddling" in the affairs of others, they will reach their goal of world-improvement.

The Left feels that if they offer enough meddling within our borders, the whole nation will be comprised of road scholars and no one will ever have to be a trashman again.

The Right feels that if they meddle within world politics to make it safe for "democracy" (re: trade), that the ensuing prosperity will trickle down to the walmarts so the trashmen are at least very happy with their plasma screens and nachos.

Neither view is really what our Founders had in mind. Thomas Jefferson said, in his inaugural address "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations -- entangling alliances with none." Does either party really show an attempt to follow this foreign policy?

[Josh Kamins]

No government interference in our medical system really won't drop prices all that much. Medicine is highly expensive right now because of a population problem, and the fact that medicine has become advanced very quickly and we can scan and treat a lot all of a sudden... That and a host of other problems... It will ultimately end up with more uninsured children with no government mandates...

[Kevin Cronin]

Regarding Josh Davis' post above ... the only thing I trust less than Big Government is Big Business. (that may be a slight hyperbole, but I think it gets my point across)

I could probably type out arguments for my view, but in the end, I suppose it really just comes down to what each individual believes. I've worked for the govt and I've worked in the private sector; I've seen gross inefficiencies in both. But when something is as important as healthcare, and as big as all 300 million citizens, I simply do not trust a bunch of cutthroat robber baron-executives to do right by america. Already you can see the results of americans abiding by most employers offer to defer wages in exchange for healthcare coverage: enough people sign on, and THAT becomes the target market, GROUP healthcare plans. The individual coverage market is so small that a company can basically take your money, tell you to go jump in a lake, and even if you and every other independent self-insurer out there takes your business out there, their business only suffers by a fraction of a percent.

The free market may take care of gross injustices, meaning that IF there were some way to undo the group healthcare farce and refocus business service on individuals, those companies who take advantage of the consumer would go out of business - but others [dishonest companies] would spring up. The majority of citizens would likely be treated fairly the majority of the time. But I do not feel comfortable leaving the minority out to dry - or just as bad (perhaps worse) leaving everyone out to dry a minority of the time. If something is small enough that it can be handled by the individual, or unimportant enough that Big Business screwing you over sometimes wont matter, than the govt is likely better off staying out of it.

[Paul_Koskinen]

If someone could explain why the U.S. never adopted a healthcare system like Canada's I would appreciate it.

[Josh Kamins]

Because it doesn't really work with this many people. It barely works in Canada, where people who can afford it still come across to the US to pay cash for scans or anything they need done quickly. Also in countries like Japan and the UK, their socialized systems are running out of money at a quick rate... On the other hand, in smaller countries like Norway, The Netherlands, etc. it works very well...

[Paul_Koskinen]

I see your point. If a country as tiny as Canada barely keeps a population healty there's no comparison to that good ole HMO.

[Smith, Andrew]

Because it doesn't really work with this many people. It barely works in Canada, where people who can afford it still come across to the US to pay cash for scans or anything they need done quickly.


That's one of the biggest reasons. I don't feel like waiting 3 weeks for a X-ray or being denied because my condition is bad enough.

[Mike Landrich]

If someone could explain why the U.S. never adopted a healthcare system like Canada's I would appreciate it.


We don't want it.

Socialized medicine is sub-par health care. Why do you think so many Canadians come to the US to get health care in a more timely manner?

A buddy of mine broke a finger at the Dunnville Mudcat a couple of years ago. The service he got at the hospital there was lackadaisical at best.

Why do you think things are so much cheaper in the States. Even here in NY State, the highest taxed state in the US, they are much lower than in Ontario. Why the high taxes in Canada? To pay for socialized medical care among other things.

[Kevin Cronin]

Why do you think things are so much cheaper in the States. Even here in NY State, the highest taxed state in the US, they are much lower than in Ontario. Why the high taxes in Canada? To pay for socialized medical care among other things.
What about all the drugs americans buy from canada?

[Mike Landrich]

What about all the drugs americans buy from canada?

That is not the same as the health care per se.

[Scott Markowitz]

Jimmy, re: hunting / fishing licenses...
Those, as well as occupational licenses, are not considered part of the public records, etc. mentioned in the clause. And since the Supreme Court said so, that must be right. After all, they've never been wrong before... :BB:

[Joshua Davis]

No government interference in our medical system really won't drop prices all that much. Medicine is highly expensive right now because of a population problem, and the fact that medicine has become advanced very quickly and we can scan and treat a lot all of a sudden... That and a host of other problems... It will ultimately end up with more uninsured children with no government mandates...

You mean to tell me that if all consumers all of a sudden couldn't/wouldn't pay $5 per Tylenol as they do through their hmo provider, that healthcare providers would just agree to not see another patient again for minor issues?

Both my in-laws worked in the healthcare system prior to 1965 (when Medicare/Medicaid was signed in). Doctor's office fees were around $10 plus the cost of medicine/bandages/etc - of course more serious scenarios may have costed more, but that's not my point. Medicaid was signed in, and those $10 fees became $15. Eventually someone realized that just about any medical cost could be rolled in and medicare would pay out, so it became a "blank check".

Then in 1973 the Health Maintenance Act was passed forcing any company with 25 or more employees provide HMO coverage.

One of the major caveats to HMO coverage is the fact that you must see a PCP before moving onto any type of specialist. Ever look at your bill? I go to see my Primary Care Physician and get my blood pressure checked, weighed, and told to see another "specialist" - the cost? My $15 copay is all I see, the bill going to my insurance provider is usually on the upside of $75-100. I sure as hell wouldn't pay $100 to sit in a waiting room for 30 minutes, an empty exam room for another 30, and see a doctor for 10 minutes who tells me I need to "see a specialist", but my Insurance provider has to... again, it's a blank check.

My wife stayed in the hospital after surgery for 3 days. Because it was during the birth of my son, we ended up getting the bill (we had to submit it manually to our insurance because his SSN wasn't created yet). This was an itemized bill, and yes, 3 dosages of Acetaminophen (Tylenol) cost $17, the nasty, nasty meals were well over the cost if you walked down to the cafeteria to eat it, etc. Heck, when we payed the "Boy Tax" and had to out-of-pocket the cost of the "snip" when he was born, insurance wouldn't cover it, and the cost was over $300 out of my pocket. I contemplated converting to Judaism as I'm sure a Bris would have been cheaper :T: .

The fact is, there are many more facets of why our healthcare system is expensive - excessive litigation being one, but government mandates and restrictions on the healthcare system are another.

I work in the medical manufacturing sector and I can tell you the amount of federal compliance we have to document and go through cost us thousands of man-hours annually. We have no choice but to pass that cost on to the consumer.

[James Whisman]

but government mandates and restrictions on the healthcare system are another.

One little know mandate by the government (I'm not sure if it is fed or state) is all women must be covered for pregnancy. Sounds good right? What about an 80 year old grandma? What about the 40 year old who had a full hysterectomy? Why do these individuals need pregnancy coverage? This is just one example of a mandate that sounds good in theory but not in practice.

[Matt Lebo]

One little know mandate by the government (I'm not sure if it is fed or state) is all women must be covered for pregnancy. Sounds good right? What about an 80 year old grandma? What about the 40 year old who had a full hysterectomy? Why do these individuals need pregnancy coverage? This is just one example of a mandate that sounds good in theory but not in practice.
This is NOT true at all. I just went through this personally with my pregnant wife when I was looking into buying a small business. NO insurance company would cover her OR my infant son until he was 2 months old!!! This happening in the richest country in the world! Not to mention the fact that a friend of mine was just diagnosed with Leukemia and the family will not be able to pay for all the medical costs. Medical costs are one of the leading causes of bankruptcy in the country. The US ranks 37th in the world by the WHO and the only reason we even rank that high is because of response time! This should not be the case in a rich country like ours that has billions to spend in other countries... I personally have no problem paying extra in taxes to ensure that my fellow man gets healthcare. The rich shouldn't be the only people able to get the care they need!

[Josh Kamins]

Joshua, I didn't say the HMO system was right or that the companies don't screw us over, but most of your examples have to do with the Insurance companies vs hospital relationships, not the government's interference....

Also, just for your own benefit, many HMOs don't enforce the PCP before a specialist. I thought this was also true, but my HMO actually told me I could just go directly to an Ortho or an Allergy doctor if he was on the list of approved docs. No referral necessary.

[Mike Landrich]

Joshua, I didn't say the HMO system was right or that the companies don't screw us over, but most of your examples have to do with the Insurance companies vs hospital relationships, not the government's interference....


Who do you think the biggest insurance company is? It is government, aka Medicaid. You get a headache, you take a tylenol, because it's cheaper than going to a Dr. A Medicaid recipient gets a headache, they go to the ER, since its free. Going to an ER should never be cheaper than OTC medication. Well cheaper for the recipient anyway. We all, at least all taxpayers, pay for the government's benevolence.

[James Whisman]

This is NOT true at all. I just went through this personally with my pregnant wife when I was looking into buying a small business. NO insurance company would cover her OR my infant son until he was 2 months old!!! This happening in the richest country in the world! Not to mention the fact that a friend of mine was just diagnosed with Leukemia and the family will not be able to pay for all the medical costs. Medical costs are one of the leading causes of bankruptcy in the country. The US ranks 37th in the world by the WHO and the only reason we even rank that high is because of response time! This should not be the case in a rich country like ours that has billions to spend in other countries... I personally have no problem paying extra in taxes to ensure that my fellow man gets healthcare. The rich shouldn't be the only people able to get the care they need!

This explaines it better then I can
http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba224.html

[Kevin Cronin]

Who do you think the biggest insurance company is? It is government, aka Medicaid. You get a headache, you take a tylenol, because it's cheaper than going to a Dr. A Medicaid recipient gets a headache, they go to the ER, since its free. Going to an ER should never be cheaper than OTC medication. Well cheaper for the recipient anyway. We all, at least all taxpayers, pay for the government's benevolence.
This is where I think sentiment begins to swing too far to the opposite end of the spectrum. You're right, ER shouldn't be used for non-emergencies, but I'm not sure the best way of doing that is to jack up ER prices. I certainly wouldn't want to be in a situation where I'm trying to do a cost/benefit analysis of an er trip during a true emergency, and I dont think it's right to ask of others what I wouldnt do myself.

Even as others explain their views I STILL see Big Business as the culprit here, not Big Government. Business takes advantage of the fact that the govt is so big, outrageous costs ($5 tylenols) that are still a minute %age of the overall budget get lost in the shuffle. That can be fixed (i believe); what cant be fixed is the greed that all too often seems to be innate to the human soul. It really just comes down to whom you trust more, biz or gov.

[Joshua Davis]

Joshua, I didn't say the HMO system was right or that the companies don't screw us over, but most of your examples have to do with the Insurance companies vs hospital relationships, not the government's interference....


But (and this was my point) the government mandates that companies with over 25 employees cover their employees with an HMO. Therefore, the healthcare industry has a "majority" of individuals who are able to pay extraordinary prices (thanks to the government interference), leaving those without coverage to go without non-emergency healthcare, they just cannot pay those exorbitant prices.

It's not always on the top level. Many of the issues (not just healthcare) that we face today, are the result of well-meaning but poor decisions made decades ago, that have "butterfly effected" after years of compound abuse. And with most things, you could probably correct the problem by leaving the government out of it.

In this example, the government put the insurance companies into a position that strangles small and medium-sized businesses into forcing them to cover employees. This action bloats the insurance industry, but also enables the healthcare industry to receive a blank check for plenty of services that had reasonable prices.

If 1/2 the insured persons in the US were no longer insured, do you think that the industry would just "take the hit" of having half their customers no longer paying for healthcare besides emergency care? No... they would have to lower costs. Prior to the mid-60's, low cost healthcare was the standard. Now after 30 years of abuse, no one would expect to hear "low cost" and "healthcare" in the same sentence.

[Josh Kamins]

And what happens to the people who's kids are dying of untreated cancer in the meantime?

[Scott Markowitz]

And what happens to the people who's kids are dying of untreated cancer in the meantime?

Nothing worse than happens now.

[Mike Landrich]

And what happens to the people who's kids are dying of untreated cancer in the meantime?


Sensationalism at its finest. I have never heard of a verifiable case of this happening. Name one case where this actually happened.


Socialized medicine is not all that. A buddy of mine from Hamilton, Ont. had a vein wrapped around a testicle. His scrotum swelled to the size of a grapefruit. He was told it would be 3 months before it could be corrected. He came to the States and paid cash.

[Kent Smith]

This is where I think sentiment begins to swing too far to the opposite end of the spectrum. You're right, ER shouldn't be used for non-emergencies, but I'm not sure the best way of doing that is to jack up ER prices. I certainly wouldn't want to be in a situation where I'm trying to do a cost/benefit analysis of an er trip during a true emergency, and I dont think it's right to ask of others what I wouldnt do myself.

Even as others explain their views I STILL see Big Business as the culprit here, not Big Government. Business takes advantage of the fact that the govt is so big, outrageous costs ($5 tylenols) that are still a minute %age of the overall budget get lost in the shuffle. That can be fixed (i believe); what cant be fixed is the greed that all too often seems to be innate to the human soul. It really just comes down to whom you trust more, biz or gov.

I'll trust the businesses. Anywhere where government has tried anything at all that can be done by private business(which is a lot more than folks think, roads for example), it has failed spectacularly. Private enterprise always does a better job for a lower cost and does it faster and better.

[Josh Kamins]

Sensationalism at its finest. I have never heard of a verifiable case of this happening. Name one case where this actually happened.


Socialized medicine is not all that. A buddy of mine from Hamilton, Ont. had a vein wrapped around a testicle. His scrotum swelled to the size of a grapefruit. He was told it would be 3 months before it could be corrected. He came to the States and paid cash.

I never said Socialized medicine was the answer, but purely private does not work either.... And heres some examples that you asked for


Deamonte Driver, died at the age of 12, Prince George's County, Maryland: Deamonte Driver, a seventh grader in Prince George’s County, Maryland, just outside of Washington, D.C., died because he couldn’t find a dentist who would accept Medicaid and his mother couldn’t afford an $80 tooth extraction. The inexcusable loss of this 12-year-old’s life started when he complained of a toothache. His mother, Alyce, who works at low-paying jobs, had been focused on finding a dentist to see Deamonte’s brother, who had six rotting teeth, when Deamonte began complaining of pain.

After an unsuccessful search for a dentist who would accept Medicaid, Alyce took Deamonte to a hospital emergency room where he was given medicine for a headache, sinusitis and dental abscess and then sent home. But his condition soon took a turn for the worse, and he was back at the hospital being rushed to surgery where it was discovered that the bacteria from his abscessed tooth had spread to his brain. Heroic efforts were made to save him, including two operations and eight weeks of additional care and therapy, totaling about $250,000. Unfortunately, it was all too late. He died on February 25. The outrage is that Deamonte’s life could have been saved by a routine dental visit and an inexpensive extraction, if only Medicaid’s reimbursement rates to providers weren’t so low, causing Medicaid providers to be extremely scarce.

Devante

Devante, died at the age of 14, Houston, Texas: Devante was a 13-year-old boy with advanced cancer of the kidneys who went without any health coverage for four months while his mother attempted to renew his Medicaid coverage. Although his mother, Tamika, submitted at least three renewal applications beginning in February 2006—one through the financial counselor at Texas Children's Hospital—and called the CHIP/Medicaid hotline dozens of times, there was no record of Devante's case in the system when advocates contacted the call center on his behalf in August 2006. Because of a state staffing shortage, officials say his application went unprocessed. Meanwhile, Devante went without any health insurance and had to depend on clinical trials for care as his tumors continued to grow.

Only through personal intervention and extensive follow-up with the highest levels of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission was his coverage finally reinstated. He then was able to go to the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, where for a while radiation therapy helped take away his pain. After struggling courageously against his cancer, on March 1, 2007, Devante died at the age of 14 from complications of the disease. He will be remembered as a thoughtful young man who was a devoted brother and son, and who never complained about his illness.

As we can see hear, the government does screw things up...but I believe this has more to do with a flawed Medicaid system that is underfunded and also is overloaded for what it was intended for currently...

[Kevin Cronin]

I'll trust the businesses. Anywhere where government has tried anything at all that can be done by private business(which is a lot more than folks think, roads for example), it has failed spectacularly. Private enterprise always does a better job for a lower cost and does it faster and better.
Good luck with that then. Private enterprise ALWAYS does a better job? Strong statement, and I've seen enough evidence to the contrary not to believe that.

[Mike Landrich]

I never said Socialized medicine was the answer, but purely private does not work either.... And heres some examples that you asked for


Deamonte Driver, died at the age of 12, Prince George's County, Maryland: Deamonte Driver, a seventh grader in Prince George’s County, Maryland, just outside of Washington, D.C., died because he couldn’t find a dentist who would accept Medicaid and his mother couldn’t afford an $80 tooth extraction. The inexcusable loss of this 12-year-old’s life started when he complained of a toothache. His mother, Alyce, who works at low-paying jobs, had been focused on finding a dentist to see Deamonte’s brother, who had six rotting teeth, when Deamonte began complaining of pain.

After an unsuccessful search for a dentist who would accept Medicaid, Alyce took Deamonte to a hospital emergency room where he was given medicine for a headache, sinusitis and dental abscess and then sent home. But his condition soon took a turn for the worse, and he was back at the hospital being rushed to surgery where it was discovered that the bacteria from his abscessed tooth had spread to his brain. Heroic efforts were made to save him, including two operations and eight weeks of additional care and therapy, totaling about $250,000. Unfortunately, it was all too late. He died on February 25. The outrage is that Deamonte’s life could have been saved by a routine dental visit and an inexpensive extraction, if only Medicaid’s reimbursement rates to providers weren’t so low, causing Medicaid providers to be extremely scarce.

Devante

Devante, died at the age of 14, Houston, Texas: Devante was a 13-year-old boy with advanced cancer of the kidneys who went without any health coverage for four months while his mother attempted to renew his Medicaid coverage. Although his mother, Tamika, submitted at least three renewal applications beginning in February 2006—one through the financial counselor at Texas Children's Hospital—and called the CHIP/Medicaid hotline dozens of times, there was no record of Devante's case in the system when advocates contacted the call center on his behalf in August 2006. Because of a state staffing shortage, officials say his application went unprocessed. Meanwhile, Devante went without any health insurance and had to depend on clinical trials for care as his tumors continued to grow.

Only through personal intervention and extensive follow-up with the highest levels of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission was his coverage finally reinstated. He then was able to go to the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, where for a while radiation therapy helped take away his pain. After struggling courageously against his cancer, on March 1, 2007, Devante died at the age of 14 from complications of the disease. He will be remembered as a thoughtful young man who was a devoted brother and son, and who never complained about his illness.

As we can see hear, the government does screw things up...but I believe this has more to do with a flawed Medicaid system that is underfunded and also is overloaded for what it was intended for currently...

The first case is a potential case of malpractice by the ER, and is indeed a tragedy.

The second case is a case that shows governmental incompetence since he "went without any health coverage for four months while his mother attempted to renew his Medicaid coverage" which is why government should be kept out of the health care business.

One thing I have noticed a lot among some who claim to be unable to afford health coverage is conspicuous consumption. While having no medical coverage they do some or all of the following (at least here in upstate NY , with no public transportation):

-smoke 2 packs a day ($8-10 per day, averaged out to $275 per month)
-cell phone, leaving out the cost of the phone, just the monthly fees = let's say $50, minimum
-computer and internet access (let's just average everything to $60 per month)
-vehicle with payments. let's say $200 minimum
-eat out (restaurant or take-out) often. $ unknown, but a lot

All these things add up to several hundred dollars per month.

While not all those who lack coverage do all of these things, most do some. I see it daily.

[Kent Smith]

Good luck with that then. Private enterprise ALWAYS does a better job? Strong statement, and I've seen enough evidence to the contrary not to believe that.
Let's see the evidence then.

[Kevin Cronin]

Let's see the evidence then.
Well, this discussion has remained civil so far, so I will just say that apparently I have not made it clear that I am speaking of personal experience; anecdotal evidence if you will. Again, I say that I have worked in both the public AND private sectors and I have seen incompetence and inefficiency in both. If you have not seen the same things I've seen, that's fine. It doesnt mean I'm right and you're wrong, it doesnt mean I'm wrong and you're right. It means that we have had different life experiences, period.

[Kent Smith]

The first case is a potential case of malpractice by the ER, and is indeed a tragedy.

The second case is a case that shows governmental incompetence since he "went without any health coverage for four months while his mother attempted to renew his Medicaid coverage" which is why government should be kept out of the health care business.

One thing I have noticed a lot among some who claim to be unable to afford health coverage is conspicuous consumption. While having no medical coverage they do some or all of the following (at least here in upstate NY , with no public transportation):

-smoke 2 packs a day ($8-10 per day, averaged out to $275 per month)
-cell phone, leaving out the cost of the phone, just the monthly fees = let's say $50, minimum
-computer and internet access (let's just average everything to $60 per month)
-vehicle with payments. let's say $200 minimum
-eat out (restaurant or take-out) often. $ unknown, but a lot

All these things add up to several hundred dollars per month.

While not all those who lack coverage do all of these things, most do some. I see it daily.

I completely agree here. As far as #2, Government has no incentive to be efficient, unlike the private sector. In fact, single person coverage would go down if tax incentives for companies to purchase health insurance were removed which would solve some of this issue. High deductible health insurance can already be purchased for much less than what you have enumerated here.

[Kent Smith]

Well, this discussion has remained civil so far, so I will just say that apparently I have not made it clear that I am speaking of personal experience; anecdotal evidence if you will. Again, I say that I have worked in both the public AND private sectors and I have seen incompetence and inefficiency in both. If you have not seen the same things I've seen, that's fine. It doesnt mean I'm right and you're wrong, it doesnt mean I'm wrong and you're right. It means that we have had different life experiences, period.

I definitely meant no offense here, but to say that you'd like to forcibly take money from me, yourself and everyone else to provide health insurance to those that either choose not to purchase it or do not have the means, I'd like to hear more than anecdotal evidence (and yes it is forcible, if i refuse to pay my taxes, I'll be thrown in jail). I believe strongly that freedom is what has made this country great, and I'd like for it to become a better country in the future by restoring more economic freedom back to the individual.

[Joshua Davis]

Good luck with that then. Private enterprise ALWAYS does a better job? Strong statement, and I've seen enough evidence to the contrary not to believe that.

I've never had to wait 3 hours at a burger king. I sure as heck have had to wait that long at a DMV. I, for one, look forward to the day I have to wait 3 hours for treatment of a sucking chest wound.

[RyanWilson]

Government control = care for more people, lesser quality and much slower.
Private control = faster care, higher direct costs at time of treatment or soon after.

I did benefit temporarily during my business startup time from state-funded health care that I applied for during my 18 months of no viable income (read: flat broke). Honestly, I'd walk on water to get that kind of program again - $10 max co-pay on clinic visits or prescriptions, $50 max for emergency room visits, and it held up better overall then the current B.S. that saps over $200 out of every paycheck. I'll pay around $2k out of pocket this year for my eye treatments ON TOP of the $2k+ coming out of my paycheck. Ain't insurance great? Of course, if I had to pay for my treatments out of pocket, it'd be around $12-15k per year, effectively ruining my ability do to anything more than pay bills and eat ramen for every meal. The pharmaceutical industry is a HUGE problem when it comes to money and the freakin' RIDICULOUS amouts they charge for medications long after they've recouped costs for development. I'd seen a chart online once from financial specs for one of my treatments, an injection that take all of 7 seconds to complete once I've spent my hour of prep time. According to the info, they're LONG into a heavy profit period beyond reserach expenses, and they charge a whopping $1500 for that thing. Seriously, I only wish I knew what the actual cost was to get a unit of this medication made and shipped to where it is used - most people like me get this thing done 4-8 times per year for what may be an indefinite period, so you can imagine that it makes a tidy sum for that business. But, what can ya do? I take it and pay out the backside, I don't take it and I risk going blind sooner. A no-win situation if there ever was one.

Either way, we're screwed. My advice - don't get hurt, don't get sick. It's the only way to be safe from the bending over you'll get once you need real medical treatment now or in the future. It's not going to get better in my lifetime, I'm sure of that.

[Mike Landrich]

To the Canadians on here, please answer a couple of questions

1. Does your health care cover all medical bills? Or just the office call?

2. Are casts, crutches, splints, prescriptions, x-rays and other miscellaneous costs covered?

3. How long does it take to see a specialist after your initial visit to your family physician?

4. Does universal health care cover dental work?

[Mike Landrich]

If someone could explain why the U.S. never adopted a healthcare system like Canada's I would appreciate it.

Come on Paul. You asked a question, we replied. Please do likewise and answer the questions in my last post, so my fellow Americans can see why the U.S. never adopted a healthcare system like Canada's. Your system sounds great, until one looks deeply into it.

[Kevin Cronin]

To the Canadians on here, please answer a couple of questions

1. Does your health care cover all medical bills? Or just the office call?

2. Are casts, crutches, splints, prescriptions, x-rays and other miscellaneous costs covered?

3. How long does it take to see a specialist after your initial visit to your family physician?

4. Does universal health care cover dental work?
Mike, I'm unclear as to exactly what youre getting at here ... are you saying that a) canada's system has its flaws too or b) america's system is perfect? (or neither of these, dont get me wrong, not trying to put words in your mouth)

I'm just asking because I've never had healthcare that covers dental and I'm not overly pleased with the length of time it takes me to see a specialist - indeed, i think its nonsense that i even have to see a regular doc when i know what he's gonna say.

The other HUGE part of it is that some absurd number of americans dont have healthcare, so they have NO coverage for all medical bills, office calls, casts, crutches, splints, prescriptions,etc etc I just googled it and apparently it was 16% of americans for the year 2006

[Mike Landrich]

Mike, I'm unclear as to exactly what youre getting at here ... are you saying that a) canada's system has its flaws too or b) america's system is perfect? (or neither of these, dont get me wrong, not trying to put words in your mouth)


The point I'm making is that there is a huge personal out-of-pocket expense with Canada's system, a system that is referenced often as an ideal by those who espouse Universal healthcare. If you can't afford medical care here, you probably couldn't afford it there either.

The point with the dental is that in the first example Josh Kamins gave, the kid who died would not have been covered in Canada either.

Could both systems be better? Yes. Is Canada's system the answer to our problems? Absolutely not.

The one thing not stressed enough in this thread is the HUGE cost of litigation and how the cost has been passed on to us, the patients.

Instead of taking my money, your money and everyone else's money via taxes and giving us universal health care, with it's inherent wasteful bureaucracy, give us a tax credit equal to the most basic plan available and let us purchase it ourselves. We could go with that plan, or a better one (with a little of our own money). If you don't purchase the insurance, you don't get the credit. Of course, those who don't pay taxes (ie welfare recipients, etc) wouldn't get the credit, but we could pay for their care by eliminating the Robin Hood inspired "earned income credit", since either way they're stealing from some to reward others.

[DKirby]

Mike, I'm unclear as to exactly what youre getting at here ... are you saying that a) canada's system has its flaws too or b) america's system is perfect? (or neither of these, dont get me wrong, not trying to put words in your mouth)

I'm just asking because I've never had healthcare that covers dental and I'm not overly pleased with the length of time it takes me to see a specialist - indeed, i think its nonsense that i even have to see a regular doc when i know what he's gonna say.

The other HUGE part of it is that some absurd number of americans dont have healthcare, so they have NO coverage for all medical bills, office calls, casts, crutches, splints, prescriptions,etc etc I just googled it and apparently it was 16% of americans for the year 2006

Remember watching Dick Morris (used to work for the Clinton) a few months ago on O'Reilly talk about this. He said for the uninsured in the US, about a 1/3 were illegal aliens, about a 1/3 were eligible for govt programs but have failed to sign up for, and about a 1/3 could afford it but haven't purchased it. Heck, if that were true, force the people who don't have it to get it, get the people who can't afford it but who are eligible for govt programs and aren't signed up signed up = problem solved. (I don't care what anyone says, we're not going to have health insurance for illegal aliens.)

If someone is spending 500-a grand a month on cell phones, cable TV, internet access, and a couple of cars, central AC, but says they can't afford to spend $500- a grand a month on health insurance- BS.

If you look at the # of people who are uninsured who are US Citizens or legal permanent residents, who aren't insured for the majority of the year, who absolutely can't afford it but aren't eligible for any govt programs, the number of uninsured is much smaller.

http://www.ncpa.org/prs/cd/2006/112206-dn.pdf

[DKirby]

A big problem with the cost of medicine is medical malpractice costs. It seems like every year there are more cases either settled out of court or through trial with higher amounts paid out to plaintiffs and trial attorneys which means the doctors' medical malpractice insurance companies pay out higher and higher amounts, which drives up the premiums for the doctors (in the Philli area where I live the average is over 100k per doctor- one reason PA retains only 8% of the residents its trains) which they pass on the costs of to their patients, you and I, which means are insurance companies are billed higher amounts, which means are premiums go up. This also leads to doctors practicing more defensive medicine since in the high risk specialties they are constantly worried about being sued, often ordering expensive but unnecessary tests or referrals to specialists just for cya, which ends up driving up costs further. Tort reform with caps on non economic damages would remedy this situation some. And who is getting rich of of all this. In PA the plaintiffs are only getting 28% of payouts. The bulk of the $ goes to the ambulance chasing trial attorneys like John Edwards (supposedly who is for the little guy but made a FORTUNE off of medical malpractice cases, raking in more $ than the plaintiffs he represented, using some of it to build himself a 28,200 sq foot mansion)

[DKirby]

I think the biggest problem is Americans have no concept of cost, and therefore, there is little incentive to control costs. When people go to gas up their vehicles or get routine maintenance done, they don't send the bill to their auto insurance companies. Then how come when people go to their doctor for routine work all they pay is their co pay or deductible (or in some cases nothing at all), and the bill is sent to the insurance company? How come prices aren't posted in doctor's offices for all procedures?

I'm single, pay over a grand a year for health insurance, and my employer picks up the other 3+ grand. I would love to be able to take that 4+ grand, put say 2 grand a year in an interest bearing Health Savings Account (HSA) with unused $ each year being rolled over, and have the other 2 grand go to high deductible catastrophic. Any doctor's visits would be paid out of that HSA, which most or every year would cover my costs. And if I had a major injury or illness one year which depleted the HSA, then I would have to pay out of pocket up to the high deductible limit, say 10k.

If Prices were posted, people could shop based on doctor's price and experience and reputation Thier would be price competition, which we don't have now. People would be paying their bills directly, instead of someone else (their insurance co) paying them, their would be a concept of cost which they don't have now, and prices would come down.

[brian kling]

Life's a b***h so don't vote for one. ;) I;m really in the vote for dumb or dumberer category but will side with obama as he is the lesser of 2 evils.

[Mike Landrich]

obama as he is the lesser of 2 evils.

Don't get me wrong, I think all the candidates we have are poor choices, but after the primaries are over, he will the greater evil.

[brian kling]

I agree but i still take him over hilary.