I have heard Obama say more than once that he would NEVER be a VP on Clinton's ticket. He could change his mind with a little persuasion but I think it's pretty doubtful.
I have heard Obama say more than once that he would NEVER be a VP on Clinton's ticket. He could change his mind with a little persuasion but I think it's pretty doubtful.
C.H.U.D.
Well, this is an important stance for him to take as a candidate, since so many people were viewing him, at least until recently, as ideal VP material.Originally Posted by Freak Out
I think Hillary Clinton should state: "I would give strong consideration to being on a ticket with Barak in either position." (note: they are friends now, on first name basis)
Now, most people would say this is crazy. It gives her supporters permission to vote for OBama with the reassurance that they can have the old girl in the bag too. I don't suppose any candidate has ever said something like this before the race was decided.
But I think it would work to her favor, this is an EXTREMELY unusual election. Most Democrats think very highly of both candidates. There would be a surge of good will in her direction. And Obama would be under great pressure to signify his willingness to yeild to the wishes of the party as well.
Damn, if Hillary would just hire me, I could take her, I mean us, right to the top!
It makes sense for Hillary to choose Obama.
It does not make sense for Obama to choose Hillary.
"I've got one word for you- Dallas, Texas, Super Bowl"- Jermichael Finley
Is Obama going to take a slim lead after all the data is in after Tuesday? That would be a little shocking but with all the people I saw out here in Alaska last night it would not surprise me. It was cold (-12) and I have never seen more people out for a caucus. He can pull a crowd that's for sure.
C.H.U.D.
No one who is still running is pushing nationalization of health care. Kucinich was the only one calling for a single-payer system. What Clinton is proposing now is not what she tried to push through in 1993.
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack, a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in - Leonard Cohen
It doesn't matter what people think. If Obama wants to be president, his best chance IMO is to wait it out. Riding someone else's coattails might not be a good idea...especially if the other person doesn't do very well.
In 4 or 8 years, he will still be a top candidate...and a likely favorite...even if he isn't a VP. He also eliminates any potential to be dragged down by circumstances that are mostly out of his control as a VP. VPs also are notoriously absent from public view...Senators typically have far more access to the media and publicity.
My signature has NUDITY in it...whatcha gonna do?
The liberals are just lying low right now. Wait till the general comes around. They will be pimping their "health care for all" cause at an alarming rate.
With the economy the way it is, who knows, they might be able to knock of McCain.
JH, we're the only developed country in the world that doesn't offer health care to its citizens. Its not a fantastic idea.
It doesn't matter what people think. If Obama wants to be president, his best chance IMO is to wait it out.doesn't matter what people think? That's all that matters to a politician.
I agree that a VP position is not the best career advancement position for him. But its hardly a dead end, either.
I don't think the choice of a vice-president makes a huge deal in terms of electability. I think Obama should consider Clinton because she will serve him well in office.
The problems with the health care system are so wide spread that I doubt anything the libs do will fix it.
The extremely poor get health care through state programs already. We all pay for the poorest of the poor.
It's the lower/middle who have jobs but the job might offer extremely pricey health care who suffer. Maybe they can't afford their bills so they take a risk and cut out health coverage. They make too much to get it free, but not enough to live in their Milwaukee home and pay healthcare at the same time. They end up getting Hodgekins cancer. The doctor says you should be recovered within a year so you don't qualify for any type of disabled health care. You end up racking up $150,000 in bills. You cannot pay it. You either file bankruptsy and start yoru life over or you pay $5.00 per month and the hospital never gets it's money back. You think that was free treatment? No, it was not. The people who pay for it are those who pay for health insurance. The bills that acctually do get paid cover teh bills of those who do not get paid.
In the end, the poor get all the health care they need without giving up anything right now. It's the hard workign lower/middle class that sacrafices and then when they sacrafice too much, they pass the price on to everyone who can afford insurance and the bill ends up getting split anyway.
Ultimately, I don't think it's going to get cheaper for the middle class unless they find a way to put a tax curve on it and take more from the rich rather than splitting it evenly (the way it gets split between the payers now by passing on unpaid bills). If they do that, it's going to piss off the top 1% and it's really not going to make the industry any more efficiant or affordable (it's just going to adjust the way it's paid by takign money from doctors, lawyers, and some buisnessmen). The richest of the rich will find a way to avoid it, so it's just going to take from those who really worked hard to get where they are.
I think the ultimate answer is finding a way to make higher competition to drive prices down. I'm OK with a new system of paying, but along with the system has to come some solutions to the inefficiencies of the industry so it ends up saving everyone money.
Another big solution in this country is going to be to find a way to tax gained wealth rather than taxing the piss out of the upper middle class. Those people really work for their money. There are people out there who just steam roll it by doing nothign for society but they were born rich so they will stay rich as long as it's easy as hell to steam roll.
I think wealth and money overall is something that should be earned through decisions, ability and hard work, not through aristocratically passing it through families. By taxing the piss out of the upper middle class it becomes very hard to enter into the extremely rich category. However, the extremely rich are in a position where it's nearly impossible to drop status, no matter how useless the person. In these cases it's not based on what your capable of, how hard you work or the decisions you make. It's based on what family you were born into.
AGain, overall I think something should be done to take the burden off the upper/middle, allowing people to pass into the extremely wealthy sector more freely and the extremely wealthy sector should get taxed in a way that makes it more possible for bad decisions and low contributions to beget bad results. Basically, you decide your lifestyle with the way you live.
For the most part it's that way, but there are some things happening that defy the American ideal of getting what you put in.
JH, you came to the right place, because I have just been through some painful first-hand experience on this issue, and I have found-out that the safety net you envision is a myth. Its true that they will sew-up the poorest of the poor in the emergency room. But that is far from providing them with health care. They aren't gonna schedule a poor person for surgery that they need.
On paper I am among the poorest-of-the-poor, because I've been living largely by selling stock I accumulated in the past, my income is tiny - just the capital gains. I've had to deal with major health problems without health insurance. (I actually have health insurance now, through a state program, but it is very expensive despite my low income.)
Its true that in some states, some categories of poor people are taken care of. Families with children in Wisconsin, for instance, are covered by Badger Care.
I've learned ALL about the reality of health care for the poor and/or uninsured the past couple years, and I assure the system is a disgrace. I am just lucky that I had the means to escape disaster, but I suffered along the way.
I think the way it gets paid could be changed HH. I don't trust governement at all to get it done. I think they'll find ways to line their pockets and their friends pockets and they'll make an inefficient system even more inefficient.
I think a system should be thought up (with the flexibility to change as the conditions change because it's going to have some suprises along the way). The system should not be dreamed up by Hilary Clinton, Bill Clinton and the democratic party filled with contracts that line the pockets of their friends and indirectly themselves along the way and on top of that employ more cushy govt jobs to their friends to go to work and basically do nothing on the tax bill.
Whatever the libs do is going to be a crock of shit. That's my problem with it.
Most developed nations OFFER health care, but it also is often relatively pitiful coverage...not at all timely or effective. In terms of immediate care when needed, those nations you refer to often fall short. There is no point in rushing to creating a system like that.
There are a lot of issues in solving our health care system woes...just throwing out universal coverage alone is not an acceptable solution IMO. It certainly should be considered in the solution, but we need a larger bandage that also covers the over-regulation of the industry and addresses the growing complexity of insurance.
My signature has NUDITY in it...whatcha gonna do?
I'm sure Obama would consider Clinton...I doubt Clinton would ever consider a VP role. She's in it to win it...she wants no part of anything less.
My signature has NUDITY in it...whatcha gonna do?
HOFer
Most, often. Words like this would suggest that MOST do it poorly, but there are a few that do it well. What's wrong with modeling a system after the best universal health care system in the world regardless of where it is?Most developed nations OFFER health care, but it also is often relatively pitiful coverage...not at all timely or effective. In terms of immediate care when needed, those nations you refer to often fall short. There is no point in rushing to creating a system like that.
There are a lot of issues in solving our health care system woes...just throwing out universal coverage alone is not an acceptable solution IMO. It certainly should be considered in the solution, but we need a larger bandage that also covers the over-regulation of the industry and addresses the growing complexity of insurance.
"Greatness is not an act... but a habit.Greatness is not an act... but a habit." -Greg Jennings
I agree 100% and I think insurance as a 3rd party lowers direct competiiton. If yoru doctor or hospital pisses you off or over charges you, you should want to go somewhere else. Natural markets have a funny way of driving prices down.
I'm not against a system that covers everyone, but I think it should be based in competition and personal responsiblity to spend wisely. When you put those things together, I think industries clean themselves up.
It is not an easy solution...and the options I've seen from all the candidates fail to address many of the most common issues with our health care system, such as malpractice litigation, insurance, industry regulation, etc.
Most aspects of our health care are world class. However, there are several gaping holes...and universal coverage is not the answer to most of those gaping holes. Sure, it is the answer in terms of getting coverage for everyone...however, it also brings with it new problems without addressing many of the old ones.
IMO, with some commitment, we can solve the health care woes without federalizing our health care system. Just because everyone else is doing it certainly does not mean it is the best way to go. Many nations with "universal" health care will probably be tottering on the brink of financial disaster in 15-20 years without drastically increasing the tax burden on their citizens. That will be even more true of our own nation, where a massive generation is about to enter their senior years, sending health care needs skyrocketing.
However, the lemmings who follow our political leaders love catch phrases and simiple solutions to issues that should be solved with a far greater debate and examination.
My signature has NUDITY in it...whatcha gonna do?
HOFer
Ding, ding, ding, ding!! We have a winner! This is the problem they're trying to solve. I don't think they're trying to be a cure all, end all right now. This is the problem that needs solving--uninsured people dying on hospital floors and dying after being sent home without having been properly cared for because they were uninsured and got the minimum treatment. People going bankrupt over medical bills because they can't afford healthcare and uninsured kids is what they're trying to fix. They ain't trying to fix the whole works.
"Greatness is not an act... but a habit.Greatness is not an act... but a habit." -Greg Jennings
Of course not.
They are merely trying to get elected.
They don't give a rat's ass about your health care...once elected, they don't have to worry about their health care system either.
My signature has NUDITY in it...whatcha gonna do?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote