Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Cheney Wants Hillary To Run Against Obama.  
User currently offlinefxramper From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 7175 posts, RR: 86
Posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 3155 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Would you vote for her in a primary against Obama? What about the general election?

  

article


47 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAloha717200 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4453 posts, RR: 15
Reply 1, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 3119 times:

Quoting fxramper (Thread starter):
Would you vote for her in a primary against Obama? What about the general election?

Yes and Yes.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8780 posts, RR: 24
Reply 2, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 3119 times:

I don't know if Hillary is still interested, but there are an awful lot of Dems who have come to the realization that Obama is not competent to do the job, and intensely decisive.

Matt Stoller from Salon.com

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/w...011/09/04/favoritesonsanddaughters

Quote:
George W. Bush's approval rating didn't drop this low until Katrina hit. And on the economy, 71 percent of Americans disapprove of how Obama is doing his job. Even among reliably Democratic groups -- union households, women and young people -- he's now unpopular.

No one, not even the president's defenders, expect his coming jobs speech to mean anything. When the president spoke during a recent market swoon, the market dropped another 100 points. Democrats may soon have to confront an uncomfortable truth, and ask whether Obama is a suitable choice at the top of the ticket in 2012. They may then have to ask themselves if there's any way they can push him off the top of the ticket.

...

Obama has ruined the Democratic Party.

As a typical Democrat will do, Mr. Stoller blames this all on the fact that Obama wasn’t liberal enough. He doesn’t note that the majority of Americans consider themselves Conservatives of course, but eh…what else can a liberal do other than to wax philosophically about how great it would have been if only the liberal dream of rainbows and unicorns would have been faithfully executed.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148745/Po...-Stable-Conservatives-Leading.aspx

Either way, it won’t happen. The Democrats pushed Obama as The One, the game changer, the greatest thing since sliced bread…they were blinded by the fact that this man was black, and "historic", instead of looking at the fact that this man had done NOTHING to suggest he was capable of leading this country. And now they have to deal with the failure he has become. Unfortunately, so do we, but not for much longer.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinefxramper From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 7175 posts, RR: 86
Reply 3, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3095 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting fxramper (Thread starter):

Oh just for the heck of it, I'd hit it.   

Quoting Aloha717200 (Reply 1):

If Mittens some how pulls out the GOP nod I'm voting for her too.


User currently offlineAloha717200 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4453 posts, RR: 15
Reply 4, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3091 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2):
He doesn’t note that the majority of Americans consider themselves Conservatives

For once we agree on something, Dreadnought. A statistical majority of Americans do consider themselves conservative. Obama's biggest problem, and what a lot of liberals fail to see, is that it isn't the fact that he didn't push hard enough left...it's that he didn't show a backbone.

I like Obama as a person, I'm sure he's a great guy and a very affable person to work with...but the man compromises so much that he seems weak as a result. It's not that America wants someone inflexible in their agenda...that can be very dangerous. We just want a President that acts like he actually has a pair. Presidents who stand up and fight for their goals are inspirational to the rest of us, they make us feel secure and powerful ourselves as we have a leader that acts like a leader.

When our leader, though, comes across as a wimp, we feel less secure. Liberals don't trust Obama because he doesn't fight very hard for even those principles that are important to himself....and has basically, over the course of his presidency, allowed Conservatives to shape the debate. Obama talks about compromise, but he really comes across as a door mat.

That is why he will lose in 2012. We liked in 2008 how Obama seemed reasonable compared to the rigidness of Bush, and the fiery temper of McCain. But 4 years on we find that Obama is too reasonable. He doesn't put up a fight.

For the the last three years he's walked right into a nicely laid trap...working hard to compromise with a party that wants nothing more than to see him defeated. Smart politicians know that the President gets blamed when things aren't going well, and while the media loves to hype the ultra-low 24% approval rating of Congress, the truth is that statistic means absolute diddly. The Republicans blocked and fillibustered any good agenda Obama may have had knowing full well that the man would cave, and that the man would be blamed for the failure of said agenda. It's worked very well and Obama's over-reasonable approach has blinded him to the reality that he really is being taken for a ride. That's not very inspiring. And it won't win him re-election.


It's funny. If Obama is replaced at the top of the ticket, every news media outlet out there will point out that anytime a sitting President has been challenged for the nomination, a) the sitting president won the nomination anyway, and b) the sitting president always lost the general election as a result of the damage caused by being challenged for the nomination in the first place.


Democrats have a raw deal this time around. We can't win with Obama, and we can't win if someone challenges him...unless that challenger wins the nomination. Even then, it's a long shot.

I'm not a betting man, but I'd put money on a Republican residing in the White House come January, 2013. It's too bad. Obama had so much promise.

[Edited 2011-09-07 19:59:57]

User currently onlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39672 posts, RR: 75
Reply 5, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3059 times:

Quoting Aloha717200 (Reply 1):
Yes and Yes.

  
Same here.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2):
there are an awful lot of Dems who have come to the realization that Obama is not competent to do the job, and intensely decisive.

...and I'm one of those Democrats.

Quoting fxramper (Reply 3):
Oh just for the heck of it, I'd hit it.

No you would NOT!   
Please don't joke like that! You are scaring me!   

Quoting Aloha717200 (Reply 4):
I like Obama as a person, I'm sure he's a great guy and a very affable person to work with...

Me too. As I've said before, I'd like to have a beer summit with Obama and talk some sense in to him. Barack Obama should have gone in to acting instead of politics. He would have been a tremendous actor and everyone would love him in that arena. Obama isn't cut out for politics.
As far as working with Obama, he'd be a great boss because I know he'd give me a raise every time I'd asked for one. Even if I didn't show up for work. 
Quoting Aloha717200 (Reply 4):
while the media loves to hype the ultra-low 24% approval rating of Congress, the truth is that statistic means absolute diddly.

Very true. People may not like Congress but most like their own Congressman.

Quoting Aloha717200 (Reply 4):
The Republicans blocked and fillibustered any good agenda Obama may have had knowing full well that the man would cave, and that the man would be blamed for the failure of said agenda.

Well that is debatable. Obama's agenda was mostly new rules & regulations. That is not a good thing. I am so glad that the Republicans and a handful of level-headed Democrats killed the job killing Cap & Trade bill.

Quoting Aloha717200 (Reply 4):
Democrats have a raw deal this time around. We can't win with Obama, and we can't win if someone challenges him...unless that challenger wins the nomination. Even then, it's a long shot.

The best thing for Obama to do at this point is to not seek a 2nd term.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 6, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3052 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 5):
No you would NOT!   

Yes he would. He really, really would.

Also, I'd vote for Hillary instead of Obama. Honestly, I would. I think Obama is a great guy with great ideas and no idea how to execute.

NS


User currently offlinedxing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3051 times:

Cheney Wants Hillary To Run Against Obama.

That's not exactly what he said.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/2083...n-barack-obama-in-my-time-book.htm

Cheney has been making media rounds to promote his new memoir, "In My Time." He noted in the interview that he wasn't exactly endorsing Clinton, who serves as Secretary of State under Obama and was the former First Lady for two terms while her husband, Bill Clinton was president. But I don't want to be the position of endorsing Hillary Clinton," Cheney told Wallace. "That might be the kiss of death for her." Cheney continued, saying he wouldn't mind seeing Clinton challenge Obama for the Democratic party's 2012 nomination. "You wouldn't discourage it," Wallace asked. "No," Cheney said. "Certainly not. I think it would be good for the Tea Party system."


User currently offlineKngkyle From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 386 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2997 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Yes and yes. I voted for Obama and have been rather disappointed. I think Hillary would have done a better job. Really hope she runs in 2016 but doubt she will.

[Edited 2011-09-07 23:34:46]

User currently offlineairtran737 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3702 posts, RR: 12
Reply 9, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2971 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting fxramper (Reply 3):
Oh just for the heck of it, I'd hit it.

You sick bastard. Having sex with Hillary would be like pulling apart a grilled cheese sandwich.




Nice Trip Report!!! Great Pics, thanks for posting!!!! B747Forever
User currently offlineRara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 2048 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2909 times:

Want an outside perspective? Obama is a fine president, it's the economy that's crap, and he can do very little to fix it (despite, of course, his affirmations of the contrary). In today's globalized economy, the possibilities of national governments to exert influence on economic development are increasingly limited, and your high debt doesn't help. America would be in a very similar situation now under both Clinton and McCain. If the economy picks up before the next election, we'll likely see Obama II. If not, we don't. Unfair or not, that's how it works.

Also - can you say sexist? The topic of a female politician comes up, and all you guys can think of is whether or not to "hit" her? I'm not one of the PC crowd, but come on. That stimulus-response set seems a little too short-wired here. "Look, a woman! Sex?"



Samson was a biblical tough guy, but his dad Samsonite was even more of a hard case.
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7511 posts, RR: 32
Reply 11, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2878 times:

Quoting Rara (Reply 10):
it's the economy that's crap, and he can do very little to fix it

I agree with you - especially that the President has little to no ability to really make the economy better.

However, it does not matter. It is his JOB to make the country better, and no matter what the factors beyond his control - if the economy is crap - it is his fault.

A big part of being President is being responsible for things which he really cannot control or influence. Sometimes bad luck has more to do with the effectiveness of a President than his policies.

Re: Hillary

The possibility of a serious challenge to Obama in the primaries does exist in my opinion, however, she needs to resign as Secretary of State before Jan 1. Overall, no way she is going to run in my opinion.

Campaigning for President while still on the Cabinet would be a very bad idea.

Hillary and Bill Clinton have shown the ability to raise more money from Democratic Party supporters than President Obama, but they are far, far behind what he has raised so far for the 2012 race.

I don't think the way the Democratic Party primary system works to provide delegates to the convention - it would be very hard to take the nomination away from Obama.

Had the Democratic Party primaries worked like the Republican Party primaries, Hillary would have locked up the 2008 nomination by the end of March in 2008.

Re: November General Election

The only way possible for the Republicans to lose the 2012 election is for the Democrats to nominate someone other than President Obama - who could campaign on a change of direction promise.

That won't happen.

PS - for those who think President Obama is being punished for the policies of the past president, and the failure to recover the economy is not his fault - take heart. The Republican winner in 2012 is going to have the same problems in will likely be thrown out in 2016 because of the economy and jobs not getting better by them.

We're going to have another exodus of jobs overseas, lower wages, higher unemployment in 2013 after the Republican president is sworn in - and it won't be fixed during his administration.

It is probably going to be 2024 or 2030 before the people of the United States adjust to the realization that the policies of a global economy started in the 80s and 90s, along with technology growth have changed the world. We will never be back to the 'good days' of the 60s or 80s.


User currently offlineslider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6774 posts, RR: 35
Reply 12, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2833 times:

Quoting Rara (Reply 10):
Want an outside perspective? Obama is a fine president, it's the economy that's crap, and he can do very little to fix it (despite, of course, his affirmations of the contrary).

I will typically acquiesce the point that every president gets too much credit and/or blame for the overall macroeconomy.

HOWEVER, in the case of Obama, this is an administration and president that has absolutely taken every misstep imaginable and done so deliberately. He CAN in fact help fix the economy by getting the F out of the way of Americans and letting them fix it. Government doesn't create jobs. Americans do. Companies do. Small businesses do.

Stop encouraging job-killing legislation, stop with the over-regulation, stop with the haughty preachy speeches and let us LIVE, work, and win. Stop Obamacare. Stop the demagoguery.

There is zero confidence out there right now. Our nation is broke, we are at the edge of the abyss and his answer is to spend MORE?!?!? That's exactly the opposite of what should be done. The porkulus wasn't shovel-ready, still isn't, and hasn't created jobs.

Our monetary policy is totally screwed. The so-called "quantitative easing" is nothing but printing money--and the consequences of that will be (and already are starting to show) disastrous.

This administration has taken every wrong-headed move and done so with the desire to--in Obama's OWN words--transform America into the vision he has for it. And had he been properly vetted and the media not failed maybe people would have woken up to the realization that Obama is in fact a Marxist by training and indoctrination. His answer is more government power. Less individual freedom. Less liberty. More dependence on Washington.


Quoting Rara (Reply 10):
Also - can you say sexist? The topic of a female politician comes up, and all you guys can think of is whether or not to "hit" her? I'm not one of the PC crowd, but come on. That stimulus-response set seems a little too short-wired here. "Look, a woman! Sex?"

I agree completely... I dislike Hillary's politics immensely. But whether female, male, or a Wookiee, at this point, I don't care WHO the next president is as long as he or she has an adherence to the Constitution and gets this runaway Federal goliath in check.


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11160 posts, RR: 52
Reply 13, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2811 times:

Who cares what Dick wants?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2):
He doesn’t note that the majority of Americans consider themselves Conservatives of course,

Because that is not true.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineAloha717200 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4453 posts, RR: 15
Reply 14, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2801 times:

Quoting slider (Reply 12):
HOWEVER, in the case of Obama, this is an administration and president that has absolutely taken every misstep imaginable and done so deliberately. He CAN in fact help fix the economy by getting the F out of the way of Americans and letting them fix it. Government doesn't create jobs. Americans do. Companies do. Small businesses do.

A question for you: Do you agree or disagree with the Public Works projects that FDR set in motion during the depression to put people to work? In my town we still have and take advantage of projects that the PWA built. It sounds to me like Obama wants to do something similar.


User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6574 posts, RR: 24
Reply 15, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2784 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2):
He doesn’t note that the majority of Americans consider themselves Conservatives of course,

If the majority of American's consider themselves Conservatives, why don't conservatives dominate our Congress? If the majority of American's consider themselves Conservatives, why do they support programs like Social Security and Medicare...programs which are the anti-thesis of conservative theory.

Quoting slider (Reply 12):
He CAN in fact help fix the economy by getting the F out of the way of Americans and letting them fix it.

But the Americans with all the wealth and power in this nation don't want it fixed. While times have been tough for many Americans, those at the very top are enjoying unprecedented wealth. Why should they change the status quo? The top 10% of Americans are rolling in more money than ever before.


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5327 posts, RR: 14
Reply 16, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2754 times:

Quoting Aloha717200 (Reply 4):
I like Obama as a person, I'm sure he's a great guy and a very affable person to work with..

I used to think the same thing, but have come to the conclusion that he is egotistical and petulant. I can't hang with someone like that.

Quoting Aloha717200 (Reply 4):
The Republicans blocked and fillibustered any good agenda Obama may have had knowing full well that the man would cave, and that the man would be blamed for the failure of said agenda.

I've said it before, the only concessions that were made by President Obama (on his major legislative agenda) were made to get more Democrats to his side. Look at the vote tallies...the only thing bi-partisan about most of that legislation was the opposition.

Quoting Rara (Reply 10):
Obama is a fine president, it's the economy that's crap, and he can do very little to fix it (despite, of course, his affirmations of the contrary).

No, he is not a fine president. The president set the tone of the government. President Obama's tone has always been anti-rich, anti-business, anti-wealth. His policies have failed to revive the economy because those that are the job creators are fearful of what President Obama may propose next.

Quoting Aloha717200 (Reply 14):
A question for you: Do you agree or disagree with the Public Works projects that FDR set in motion during the depression to put people to work? In my town we still have and take advantage of projects that the PWA built. It sounds to me like Obama wants to do something similar.

The FDR projects were different than just about anything President Obama may try now. Dams, roads, utilities, etc. were not in existence during FDR's time. Their construction, while keeping the US in depression, enabled growth when the US finally climbed out of The Great Depression. That is government's job: to provide an environment where wealth can be created. President Obama is doing the opposite by blaming and attacking the wealth creators.

As for Hillary Clinton...She would have made a fine president. I wouldn't have voted for her, but, I'm thinking she would have beaten Senator McCain and she would have done much better as President than President Obama.

She is also the only one that could challenge President Obama in a primary challenge and come away a winner. But, I don't think she'd do it.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 17, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2733 times:

Quoting slider (Reply 12):
Stop Obamacare.

Ugh. We NEED Obamacare. 50 million Americans don't have healthcare.

It doesn't affect you at all. How can you possibly oppose it? Your taxes haven't and will not go up or down, in fact there hasn't been a meaningful change in our tax rates in our LIFETIMES.

If you don't want it, generally its because you hate poor people.

NS


User currently offlineredflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4312 posts, RR: 28
Reply 18, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2726 times:

Quoting Rara (Reply 10):
Obama is a fine president, it's the economy that's crap, and he can do very little to fix it (despite, of course, his affirmations of the contrary).

If that were true then the American people are really ignorant and stupid to have voted for him - the majority of which did so because they believed he would fix the economy. For that matter, most people in other countries - your own flag as well - vote with their pocketbooks. Did you ever hear of the old adage - coined by a recent Democratic President's campaign staff - "It's the economy, stupid"?

Quoting slider (Reply 12):
HOWEVER, in the case of Obama, this is an administration and president that has absolutely taken every misstep imaginable and done so deliberately. He CAN in fact help fix the economy by getting the F out of the way of Americans and letting them fix it. Government doesn't create jobs. Americans do. Companies do. Small businesses do.

  



I'm not a racist...I hate Biden, too.
User currently offlineCargoLex From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1257 posts, RR: 8
Reply 19, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2726 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 13):
Who cares what Dick wants?

Indeed. Why would anybody give this serious consideration?

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 16):
No, he is not a fine president. The president set the tone of the government. President Obama's tone has always been anti-rich, anti-business, anti-wealth. His policies have failed to revive the economy because those that are the job creators are fearful of what President Obama may propose next.

Am I the only person tired of hearing this ridiculousness? He's so anti-business that he packed his cabinet and financial advisors full of Wall Street guys. He's so anti-wealth that gave everybody tax cuts. Honestly, what you've said here is completely and totally false.

His polices haven't revived the economy, no - but they did keep it from getting a whole lot worse. And as for how to revive the economy, well, your approach certainly would not work.

The problem is not going to be solved here with supply-side solutions, such as giving companies corporate tax breaks or tax incentives, because the problem is not one of supply.

Unfortunately during the good times, our previous President spent us into oblivion, leaving us without the tools we need right now to do more to stimulate the economy - and that's exactly what we need - more stimulus. But thanks to the enormous outgoing cash flow started by two wars paid for off the books, among other things, we don't have the resources or the political will to do that.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 16):
His policies have failed to revive the economy because those that are the job creators are fearful of what President Obama may propose next.

Of the many reasons why the economy is still in the doldrums, this one is WAY down on the list.

What we are enduring now are the long-term effects of a housing sector that's basically still black and blue all over from what happened over the last five years, and corporations who have learned to do more with less and won't hire back employees until there is larger demand. Consumers don't feel confident in spending because they are generally saddled with lots of debt and are not secure about keeping their jobs, if they still have them.

Blaming the situation on "What Obama might hypothetically propose" is a cipher.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 16):

No, he is not a fine president.

Considering the mess he inherited, which Conservatives are largely responsible for, not that they'll ever apologize to us all for it - he's done a decent job.

Great president? Twenty dollar bills falling from the sky because of him? No. Exactly what I thought he was? No. But I'd vote for him in a heartbeat over any of the potential challengers because all of them are full of genuinely bad ideas or openly and willfully ignorant of how to fix things.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 16):
I've said it before, the only concessions that were made by President Obama (on his major legislative agenda) were made to get more Democrats to his side. Look at the vote tallies...the only thing bi-partisan about most of that legislation was the opposition.

And just as before, you're absolutely wrong.

Republicans were given equal seats at the table when it came time to deal with the Stimulus, with Healthcare, and with START. At every turn, they basically stonewalled no matter how many concessions were made to them. Every time they would ask for something, the President met them half way. And then they'd say they wanted more. And he'd try to acommodate them, resulting in watered down legislation that wasn't as effective.

Who's idea was it to spend half of the stimulus on corporate tax cuts and incentives - a supply side solution to a demand side problem? It wasn't Obama's. But he did it because the stimulus had to happen. And much to the consternation of Fox news, it absolutely worked as far as hitting the brakes on our economic free fall. But it couldn't fix the damage already inflicted.

In the end, the Republicans opposed everything no matter what it was, that Obama presented. Even when Obama advocated for things like Pay-Go, a Republican proposition revived by none other than John McCain, they voted against it or attempted to stop it. All the while talking about Kenya, Birth Certificates, Death Panels, and other such nonsense.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 16):
The FDR projects were different than just about anything President Obama may try now. Dams, roads, utilities, etc. were not in existence during FDR's time.

Seriously? Dams, roads, utilities didn't exist in 1932? When did people invent horses?

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 16):
She is also the only one that could challenge President Obama in a primary challenge

Which is never, ever, ever going to happen.

[Edited 2011-09-08 11:11:18]

User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8929 posts, RR: 40
Reply 20, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2706 times:

Quoting gigneil (Reply 17):
Ugh. We NEED Obamacare. 50 million Americans don't have healthcare.

Not having insurance does not equate to not having access to healthcare.

And nobody needs Obamacare because nobody needs Obama or you or anyone else telling them what and how much to buy.

Quoting gigneil (Reply 17):
It doesn't affect you at all.

Oh, it most certainly affects me: it will keep my health costs high and heading north of here.

Quoting gigneil (Reply 17):
If you don't want it, generally its because you hate poor people.

Right  



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 21, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2690 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 20):
And nobody needs Obamacare because nobody needs Obama or you or anyone else telling them what and how much to buy.

Again, it doesn't affect me at all. Why? I have health insurance now and I will never have to change it. Duh?

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 20):
Oh, it most certainly affects me: it will keep my health costs high and heading north of here.

Welp, every economist and the GAO say you're wrong. Also, I'd be happy to pay more if it meant everyone could have access.

Which leads me back to my original point:

Quoting gigneil (Reply 17):
If you don't want it, generally its because you hate poor people.

NS

[Edited 2011-09-08 11:56:16]

[Edited 2011-09-08 11:56:52]

User currently offlineCargoLex From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1257 posts, RR: 8
Reply 22, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2681 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 20):

Not having insurance does not equate to not having access to healthcare.

There's some circular logic here.

You're right, not having health insurance does not mean you have no access to healthcare of any kind. You can always go to the emergency room.

But the question then becomes - who pays for that? If you have no health insurance and no means of paying, then the hospital must charge more to other patients and to the government to provide your care.

By the time you're going to the emergency room, things are not good. The ER is not a good place to get routine care because the costs are much higher and people resist going until there is a serious problem - by which time the treatment needed may cost a lot more than if it were done earlier.

The concept of health insurance is the pooling of risk and costs. If everybody has health insurance, then each person can pay less into the pool, because the pool has more resources to cover each person. You reduce the cost of subsidizing the uninsured in a system like that created by the Affordable Healthcare Act, which in turn lowers costs for everybody.

Now, I don't think the system created by the AHA is really ideal. I'd have preferred a system similar the one in Belgium - but if we did that, despite the fact that their system works far better than ours in spite of their deeply dysfunctional political system - you'd have cried socialism and communism, and that would be the end of it.

When people say things like:

Quoting gigneil (Reply 17):
If you don't want it, generally its because you hate poor people.

it is because there are so many holes in the arguments against providing healthcare to everyone - which is something every other industrialized country does and generally do better than we do. In the absence of logic...


User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 2944 posts, RR: 8
Reply 23, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2659 times:

I voted for Hillary in the primaries. While I'm a Democrat and will support the candidate, (even though we can't vote for president) I still believe Hillary was the better candidate. Oh well!


"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8929 posts, RR: 40
Reply 24, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2643 times:

Quoting gigneil (Reply 21):
Again, it doesn't affect me at all. Why? I have health insurance now and I will never have to change it. Duh?

That's exactly the problem. You need to change your health insurace just like me and every other person in this country. You, I and everybody else need to dump a lot of things out of insurance coverage that should never have been put there in the first place.

Quoting gigneil (Reply 21):
Welp, every economist and the GAO say you're wrong. Also, I'd be happy to pay more if it meant everyone could have access.

The same guys who predicted past healthcare reforms would be positive? This is hardly the first one.

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 22):
You're right, not having health insurance does not mean you have no access to healthcare of any kind. You can always go to the emergency room.

No, you don't have to go to the emergency room.

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 22):
The concept of health insurance is the pooling of risk and costs. If everybody has health insurance, then each person can pay less into the pool, because the pool has more resources to cover each person. You reduce the cost of subsidizing the uninsured in a system like that created by the Affordable Healthcare Act, which in turn lowers costs for everybody.

Insurance does not reduce the cost of healthcare or anything else. Insurance reduces the risk of you getting stuck with a large medical bill that is uncertain to happen to begin with. Anything else your coverage includes does not meet the rationale behind insurance and should therefore be dumped from coverage, providing us a huge cost savings that can be much better managed as an out of pocket expense. As a side benefit, this would drop insurance premiums, and more people will be able to afford it.

Legislation that mandates specific types of coverage that are not 1. risk-based and 2. significant ticket items are doing nothing but lining the pockets of insurance companies at the expense of ours and reducing accessibility to those who struggle to afford it. I don't need anyone managing my contact lense expenses, I can do it myself much more effectively and without overhead costs.

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 22):
When people say things like:

Quoting gigneil (Reply 17):
If you don't want it, generally its because you hate poor people.

it is because there are so many holes in the arguments against providing healthcare to everyone - which is something every other industrialized country does and generally do better than we do. In the absence of logic...

Healthcare costs are rising everywhere, going to another system where costs are also rising cannot be called a solution.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
25 Dreadnought : Just an idea - how about fixing that problem by insisting that you pay the bill? You came to the Emergency room in a car? Impound it. Put a lien on y
26 gigneil : Because then we will have people dying on the streets. This is America, not Burkina Faso. Its all moot anyway: we HAVE universal healthcare in this co
27 D L X : THAT IS AN INDIVIDUAL MANDATE!!!! You do realize that, right?
28 Dreadnought : Interesting, how the left responds almost violently to the idea that people should be responsible to pay their own way... Wanna bet? First of all, Ob
29 gigneil : Not everyone can. And that's what its designed to fix. Even middle class families are bankrupted to poverty DAILY by inability to cover the cost of s
30 CargoLex : And if you cannot pay because you don't have any money? If your house burns down, you lose your job, whatever? The result of this is, as gigniel righ
31 CargoLex : What's funny (and sort of sad, really) is how shooting down a suggestion that would leave millions of people in deep poverty or dead is somehow seen
32 PPVRA : You thinking of the same Burkina Faso as me, the one that is very left wing? Over the past 100 years, numerous socialists ideas have been dumped in t
33 gigneil : My politics aren't manipulative, and I don't believe the logic behind it is flawed. Access to healthcare is a universal right, and I am personally wi
34 PPVRA : Your politics manipulate people into being addicted to government handouts. This keeps people voting over and over again for the same type of politic
35 gigneil : I say this with all due respect, but that opinion makes you a very selfish person. And that's why the government must provide these things, so that n
36 Aloha717200 : I don't find it manipulative to point out realities that already exist. A very dear friend of mine's wife was diagnosed with a brain tumor just a yea
37 CargoLex : If we listened to you, we'd all still be enjoying the wonderful benefits of fuedalism, and don't think historians haven't figured out how wonderful t
38 gigneil : Also interesting to note that the people who are opposed to this socialism are almost universally from districts that accept the MOST tax benefits - p
39 Post contains images BN747 : It's always the ones on the outside looking in that can see the whole picture vs those in the middle of the fray. Not only that, about a good 80% of
40 PPVRA : It makes me a selfish person to argue against slavery? What are you talking about? Huh? I want to do none of those things.
41 PPVRA : The system is broken because government broke it. I am not endorsing the system we had previous to Obamacare, much less Obamacare, which is just what
42 PPVRA : Actually, that's more like the society you are proposing. A world of serfs to the state.[Edited 2011-09-08 17:14:42]
43 fxramper : This thread is about Hillary running in the primary, not Obama and his healthcare or lack thereof.
44 gigneil : Yes, we'll vote for Hillary. She'll maintain universal healthcare and possibly rack up some frags in the process. NS
45 CargoLex : The logical leap between: "There should be a safety net for people who meet unfortunate circumstances, are indigent, very sick, or elderly, and peopl
46 TOMMY767 : I'd vote for her, but she's probably not going to run. If she did, she'd run a campaign probably as an independent but overall would be doing a disser
47 Post contains images Superfly : Correct and yes I wonder about that as well. Unfortunately she would have gone in to Libya too. Hillary won more popular votes than any other candida
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Obama Wants Hillary's Tax Returns! posted Wed Mar 5 2008 16:37:51 by Tsaord
Wyclef Jean To Run For President Of Haiti. posted Wed Aug 4 2010 06:51:29 by fxramper
FL Gov. Crist To Run As Independent posted Wed Apr 28 2010 14:27:20 by Ken777
Hillary To AIPAC: Israel Needs To Shape Up posted Tue Mar 23 2010 10:22:17 by Aaron747
Is There A Successful Way To Run Mac OS On HP? posted Thu Feb 25 2010 22:09:43 by LASoctoberB6
Death Threats Against Obama Vs Bush, Clinton posted Fri Dec 4 2009 07:09:26 by Dreadnought
World Wrestling CEO Steps Down To Run For Senate posted Wed Sep 16 2009 12:17:10 by September11
Secret Service Stretched To Limit Protecting Obama posted Tue Aug 4 2009 19:50:12 by StasisLAX
ABC Tries To Cover Up Obama's "glance" posted Fri Jul 10 2009 07:03:16 by JakeOrion
Mohammad Khatami Decides To Run For Presidency.. posted Sun Feb 8 2009 08:53:58 by Beaucaire
FL Gov. Crist To Run As Independent posted Wed Apr 28 2010 14:27:20 by Ken777
Hillary To AIPAC: Israel Needs To Shape Up posted Tue Mar 23 2010 10:22:17 by Aaron747
Is There A Successful Way To Run Mac OS On HP? posted Thu Feb 25 2010 22:09:43 by LASoctoberB6
Death Threats Against Obama Vs Bush, Clinton posted Fri Dec 4 2009 07:09:26 by Dreadnought
World Wrestling CEO Steps Down To Run For Senate posted Wed Sep 16 2009 12:17:10 by September11
Secret Service Stretched To Limit Protecting Obama posted Tue Aug 4 2009 19:50:12 by StasisLAX
ABC Tries To Cover Up Obama's "glance" posted Fri Jul 10 2009 07:03:16 by JakeOrion
Mohammad Khatami Decides To Run For Presidency.. posted Sun Feb 8 2009 08:53:58 by Beaucaire