NationStates Jolt Archive

A much condensed summary can be found here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections08/story/0,,2244829,00.html)...

I think Edwards made a good impression, but that there never really were three people in the debate. I liked Obama's jibe at Clinton's history as a corporate lawyer, though...

Maybe it'll give him a boost?

I'm sure Edward's is a nice guy with tolerable policies and all that but, what he did then was pretty lame. Basically, he capitalised on the squabbling between Obama and Clinton to give the typical "think of the children!!!!!" speech, which was kind of... rubbish. He said that it has "nothing to do with us personally", what? It has everything to do with you, since you may be running the country, if you're not up to it or not consistent then you shouldn't be running.

^I thought the same thing when Edwards said that. I also think Clinton came off as a total jerk.

Wow, even our 100% soundbite 0% substance debates aren't that bad. Is LG there doing all the mudslinging?

Wow, even our 100% soundbite 0% substance debates aren't that bad.

That's a lie...

I think both Obama and Edwards did very well, though I must admit that I think Edwards did a bit better. They both, however, beat Clinton, who at times seemed reduced to screeching, "nooo! Look at meee! Barack Obama is a n00b l0l, v0t 4 my Husband... er... me!"

I thought Obama snapping "It's hard to tell who I'm running against sometimes" was great.

That's a lie...
Well, Labour's attack ads were a bit like that for the local elections, I suppose. But at least our politicians have the decency to pretend not to be descending into arguments like they were two year olds screaming "liar, liar, your bum's on fire!!!"

Well, Labour's attack ads were a bit like that for the local elections, I suppose. But at least our politicians have the decency to pretend not to be descending into arguments like they were two year olds screaming "liar, liar, your bum's on fire!!!"

Are you forgetting Boris?

I haven't actually seen it - I've only read the transcript, but I think Obama won on the issues. There was too much sniping and both candidates were going after him some, but I think he held his own.

I love the way they try to turn "I won't fine people for not getting healthcare," into, "Obama doesn't think everyone deserves healthcare." Seriously, are there people who can't see through that bull?

I haven't actually seen it - I've only read the transcript, but I think Obama won on the issues. There was too much sniping and both candidates were going after him some, but I think he held his own.

I love the way they try to turn "I won't fine people for not getting healthcare," into, "Obama doesn't think everyone deserves healthcare." Seriously, are there people who can't see through that bull?

i think there is much to be said for having health insurance for adults be afforable but not mandatory. lots of people dont like the idea of the government having that kind of control over our lives. they should have the option of handling it in some other way. the governments mandate should be to make the price of reasonable insurance be within the reach of every citizen.

v0t 4 my Husband... that is the loudest message I hear from Hillary.

i think there is much to be said for having health insurance for adults be afforable but not mandatory. lots of people dont like the idea of the government having that kind of control over our lives. they should have the option of handling it in some other way. the governments mandate should be to make the price of reasonable insurance be within the reach of every citizen.

Precisely. Hence the reason that I like Obama's plan. We'd be looking at a situation in which there was an insurance plan open to all US citizens - and affordable (through subsidy if necessary), but not mandatory. Any citizen who wanted to could choose a completely different company and different plan or even choose not to have it at all (although I think the latter would be a stupid choice to make).

I can understand mandatory health coverage for children, but I don't think the government should plan to force it on adults.

And I definitely don't think that supporting such a system means that I don't think any given person "deserves" health care.

We do have a really diverse team. We got an african american, uh, a woman, and, uh John. :D:D
-Barak Obama

i think there is much to be said for having health insurance for adults be afforable but not mandatory. lots of people dont like the idea of the government having that kind of control over our lives. they should have the option of handling it in some other way. the governments mandate should be to make the price of reasonable insurance be within the reach of every citizen.

Indeed. And I think there's a lot to be said for "I don't think that people are trying to avoid getting health care. I think people want to be insured; it's just too expensive for them."

I especially dislike how Hillary phrases his plan as "leaving people out," implying that people will be unable to get the insurance. That's not what's happening at all under Barack's plan. Under his plan, every single person will be able to get insurance.

Precisely. Hence the reason that I like Obama's plan. We'd be looking at a situation in which there was an insurance plan open to all US citizens - and affordable (through subsidy if necessary), but not mandatory. Any citizen who wanted to could choose a completely different company and different plan or even choose not to have it at all (although I think the latter would be a stupid choice to make).

I can understand mandatory health coverage for children, but I don't think the government should plan to force it on adults.

And I definitely don't think that supporting such a system means that I don't think any given person "deserves" health care.

Just a caution: The Social Security system used to be optional, too.

Precisely. Hence the reason that I like Obama's plan. We'd be looking at a situation in which there was an insurance plan open to all US citizens - and affordable (through subsidy if necessary), but not mandatory. Any citizen who wanted to could choose a completely different company and different plan or even choose not to have it at all (although I think the latter would be a stupid choice to make).

I can understand mandatory health coverage for children, but I don't think the government should plan to force it on adults.

And I definitely don't think that supporting such a system means that I don't think any given person "deserves" health care.

i agree completely.

even if i dont agree with anyone who would willingly go without affordable health insurance, i support them in making the choice they feel is best for their lives.

and if any plan is going to get passed, it cant seem like giving the government even more control over our lives.

Just a caution: The Social Security system used to be optional, too.

And it still is. You don't have to get a social security check. Even if you get the check, you don't have to cash it. You don't have to rely upon the social security system for your retirement.

It is important to note, however, that there is a huge difference between the social security system - which is money paid into the government and then distributed by the government - and the type of health care plan Obama is pushing. We aren't talking about people paying the government for health insurance and the government then paying for their medical care. It isn't a single-payer system like the UK. Instead, it is a matter of collective bargaining. Just like an employer might bargain for its employees to get a better health insurance deal, the government would do that for its citizens - negotiate a good deal that all citizens could then choose to use. The contract, however, would be between the individual and the insurance company, not between the individual and the government.

And it still is. You don't have to get a social security check. Even if you get the check, you don't have to cash it. You don't have to rely upon the social security system for your retirement.


You don't have a choice about having to pay into it. Originally, you did.

You don't have a choice about having to pay into it. Originally, you did.

If that is your issue, it has even less to do with the subject at hand. Like I said, this is a very different system.

If that is your issue, it has even less to do with the subject at hand. Like I said, this is a very different system.

... so you're not at all concerned about the possibility of what would start as an optional system, which you praised, becoming a mandatory system when there's already historical precedent that such a thing has happened before?

I'm not criticizing the plan as such. I'm only tossing that out there as a caveat.

If that is your issue, it has even less to do with the subject at hand. Like I said, this is a very different system.

What I think he's saying is, it's a different system *now* but what starts out as voluntary may not remain so.

... so you're not at all concerned about the possibility of what would start as an optional system, which you praised, becoming a mandatory system when there's already historical precedent that such a thing has happened before?

I'm not criticizing the plan as such. I'm only tossing that out there as a caveat.

If the systems were similar - if we were talking about a system where you optionally paid the government for your healthcare - I would be worried about that. However, it is not. In fact, this system could not work as a mandatory system, because it relies on competition between different insurance companies.

What I think he's saying is, it's a different system *now* but what starts out as voluntary may not remain so.

Edit: That's not precisely true.

This system relies upon competition between different insurance companies - upon collective bargaining. It could only become mandatory in the sense that Neo B is talking about if it became a single-payer system - one in which the government itself was the insurance company. But that would be an entirely different system - one that I wouldn't support.

If the systems were similar - if we were talking about a system where you optionally paid the government for your healthcare - I would be worried about that. However, it is not. In fact, this system could not work as a mandatory system, because it relies on competition between different insurance companies.

Well it certainly could change... I mean, There are a lot of aspects about Social Security that have changed, not just the voluntary vs mandatory attribute.

What, exactly, prevents it from becoming mandatory? As I understand it, the Government acts as a sort of agent to negotiate the best deal, but that doesn't eliminiate the possibility of making it mandatory for all, thus forcing various insurance companies to compete for that single contract, possibly by region.

What am I missing?

It could only become mandatory in the sense that Neo B is talking about if it became a single-payer system - one in which the government itself was the insurance company.
You are mistaken. In the Massachusetts system, you MUST purchase insurance from one of the approved private companies, or be fined for failure to do so.

Well it certainly could change... I mean, There are a lot of aspects about Social Security that have changed, not just the voluntary vs mandatory attribute.

It could change. But then it would be a different system.

What, exactly, prevents it from becoming mandatory? As I understand it, the Government acts as a sort of agent to negotiate the best deal, but that doesn't eliminiate the possibility of making it mandatory for all, thus forcing various insurance companies to compete for that single contract, possibly by region.

What am I missing?

If you were required to use the government-negotiated insurance, there would only be one insurance company in the nation making money - which would mean there would only be one insurance company. Thus, there would be no other insurance companies to compete.....


You are mistaken. In the Massachusetts system, you MUST purchase insurance from one of the approved private companies, or be fined for failure to do so.

We're talking about a system in which government negotiates for a specific plan that citizens can use. They also have all of the other insurance companies and plans open to them. The individual chooses.

Under that plan, even if you made it mandatory for someone to have health insurance in general (not something I advocate for adults), it still wouldn't be mandatory to have (and thus pay for) the specific government-negotiated plan and thus wouldn't be comparable to social security.

To be comparable to social security, this would have to be a plan in which you directly paid into a government fund, and had no option of not doing so. The government would then pay for your healthcare.

I think Obama's real reasons for not including a mandate are that a mandate

1. Probably wouldn't pass - Republicans don't like to vote for mandates in general.
2. Might be struck down as unconstitutional.
3. Leaves out possibility for an incremental approach.
4. A Republican congress could force it to turn into something like or worse than Massachusets, where all they do is enable some free market bidness, slap on a mandate on it, pat themselves on the back and say "Okay we have universal health care now" while the people who need it most still can't afford it and are fined.
5. Makes it politically more difficult to evolve toward single payer down the road.

Basically, Obama's serious and practical about health care, whereas I suspect the other two major democratic candidates are using it more as a political stance at this time, and may shift their position after taking office and facing the realities of working with Congress.

no debate is ever "won", other then by witnessess, if they learn from it something they might not have otherwise.

=^^=
.../\...