SlowwHand Unplugged, About "The Election"

[Japher]

I miss STeFU

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Doctors will be thrilled. What about universal legal care?

Doctors in Britain are doing quite fine. I know a few of them.

[Kidlicious]

I just saw a Carter Mondale campaign poster the promised change also. Of course the democratic party isn't really about change. That's the way they appeal to the Left.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
No, he's an outright liar, if he says anything at all.
What I'm hearing from Rufus is that he's taking credit for a profound and revolutionary idea, that various presidents have had for decades.
He says he's going to do it in his first term; when the fact is, he won't be doing it at all. Congress would, and not in his first term.

He's not saying it's revolutionary; he's saying it's different than what conservatives have been attempting for the past 30 years. That seems indisputable.

And obviously laws have to be enacted by Congress, but a president still tries to set an agenda. Bush has certainly tried to set one, and a god-awful one at that. But if you want to call him a liar for saying it, then I assume you'll call McCain a liar, too, every time he says he will do something (like cut taxes, which he's said repeatedly). The president can't cut taxes; McCain must be mendacious or a fool, right?

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


Perhaps. But what I heard is that "change" means universal health care in his first term, an energy policy aimed at energy independence by 2018, increased taxes on the wealthy and corporations, withdrawal from Iraq so we can re-invigorate efforts in Afghanistan, and a new call to national service that will allow for something like a civilian GI bill. That's pretty specific, but the details (which don't belong in a speech) are all available at the website. And, after 8 years of government doing absolutely nothing except waging an unnecessary war on borrowed money and spying on its own citizenry, that certainly does constitute change.

What do you think universal healthcare is or should be? Will you admit you were lied to? In rest of the western world, it does not mean health insurance... it means available free* care no matter what, you don't personally plan for the accident you can't foresee, when you get hurt you get taken care of even if you were too young and wild to understand you need to get insurance... or pehaps you were just too poor.

What does Obama promise? Let's see

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

Guaranteed eligibility. No American will be turned away from any insurance plan because of illness or pre-existing conditions.

The guy who were too fat to get insurance before can buy it now? Is this progress? Sounds like same old pay or die system.

Affordable premiums, co-pays and deductibles.

Okay...
So is there no universal care?

Mandatory Coverage of Children: Obama will require that all children have health care coverage. Obama will expand the number of options for young adults to get coverage, including allowing young people up to age 25 to continue coverage through their parents' plans.

Is this is it? If only kids get covered, it's hardly universal.

The page has much more info, how about people who tell others to go check the details actually read it themselves. Yes I know, it's mostly trivial feel good info, but you want to know what you are talking about right??
This is assuming that what is the page isn't also a lie. How about this question... is Obama lying, misleading or does he not even know? Bush lied, but somehow it got watered down to some other word.
That was just first item on your list, but it makes everything else you (and Obama) say about seem suspect. Don't get started on Iraq either, he is speaking with both sides of his mouth.


*taxes taxes, I know, but you already let your taxes get drained by health giants, universal would actually cost less.

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Doctors will be thrilled. What about universal legal care?

Don't worry, only kids will get that... if they are lucky... and your tax money will still mostly go to bombing brown people, even if he wins

[Ramo]

The plan is pretty simple. There's a public insurer anyone can enroll into. The private market is regulated so that they encourage preventative care, standardized documentation and compete on a level playing field with the public insurer. And care is subsidized for those who can't afford. As long as the public system is more efficient, as it's likely to be, this is a pathway to a Canada-like single payer system (but with supplemental insurance). Far more gradual than I'd like, and I'm far from convinced that Canada's the ideal health care system (I like France's), but probably the most feasible step forward within the context of the American political system. There, after all, is a reason why he big three Dems latched onto the same proposal.

[tinyp3nis]

From anarchist to obedient worker and voter.
Perhaps this is simple to you, not to me.

Obama's Plan to Cover Uninsured Americans: Obama will make available a new national health plan to all Americans, including the self-employed and small businesses, to buy affordable health coverage that is similar to the plan available to members of Congress. The Obama plan will have the following features:

Subsidies. Individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need financial assistance will receive an income-related federal subsidy to buy into the new public plan or purchase a private health care plan.

You have taken the most positive assumption there is... can you see anyting wrong with the above? Income-related federal subsidy sure sounds all humans including, trustworthy loophole and crackproof plan.



Obama is honest guy who doesn't lie, why not trust him.
Teh plan B is plan A.

There, after all, is a reason why he big three Dems latched onto the same proposal.

Corporate money talking there, but how about Dennis? Oh right he is a little Dem.

[Ramo]

Can't view videos at the moment, so I have no idea where you're going regarding the subsidy, but Medicare for all is politically a nonstarter. Absolutely no way that gets through a filibuster. Do you not understand how ****ed our system of government is?

[tinyp3nis]

The video is not directly to do with the subsidy. It has a nutty Nader supporter in it. Did you see the Gravel interview I posted in another thread? You should see both videos to know where I'm coming from.

Do you not understand how ****ed our system of government is?

Do you? There's a lot I don't know about it sure, but what I've heard is that the war could have been over if Dems had used this weapon filibustering. This video deals with that



That's three videos for you to watch later

[Ramo]

Still don't know where you're going wrt subsidies. As for the war, you're referring to Dem spinelessness on national security issues. The topic at hand is Republican intransigence against reforming a system where lots of poweril people have a ****ton to lose. I repeat, Medicare for all is a political nonstarter. Obama has at least a plausible plan to get there eventually.

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by Ramo
Still don't know where you're going wrt subsidies. As for the war, you're referring to Dem spinelessness on national security issues. The topic at hand is Republican intransigence against reforming a system where lots of poweril people have a ****ton to lose. I repeat, Medicare for all is a political nonstarter. Obama has at least a plausible plan to get there eventually.

Was not going anywhere with them, you say subsidies, I say if it's even gonna happen, it's not gonna happen as well as you'd have hoped and it's not going towards universal healthcare.
I say what the topic at hand is, it is how useless dems are, not their spine because that would shift the blame to the R.
Did you watch the 3 clips btw?

[Ramo]

Posting from my phone, so no.

I agree that lots of Dems are useless, but that doesn't change the fact that in a situation where extremely wealthy vested interests have a ton to lose, on an issue that's easy to demogogue on, radical change is next to impossible in the American political system. Incremental change is the most reasonable strategy.

As for fostering a climate where radical change is possible, that begins in getting left wingers elected to Congress (IIRC half of House Dems have cosponsored the Conyers legislation). Protest votes at the Presidential level are worse than useless.

[Nugog]

Originally posted by Ramo
As for fostering a climate where radical change is possible,

I would have thought that major change is pretty much impossible in any large western country.

The people do not really want it, and generally get scared when any honest politician starts to talk about it.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I think what Sloww was getting at, is what GePap was referring to, a fundamental change. Raising taxes on the wealthy isn't exactly a fundamental change.

That being said, I think universal health care is a pretty sizable change.. but then Clinton was for that as well.

But Clinton had a Republican Congress that shut him down. Obama will have a Democratic Congress. His version of Univeral Heathcare [which I don't like] or something close to it will be passed in the first year.

If McCain gets elected, he will also have a Democratic Congress, which means at least another four years of do-nothing gridlock.