How Voters Think

[MJZiggy]

Just because Canada has an inefficient health care delivery system does that necessitate the US adopting the exact same system that notably isn't working in Canada? Is there no country on the planet that has a universal health care system that works efficiently for us to model such a program after?**

**Please let it be noted that I'm in no way suggesting that our government is an efficient entity, however inefficiency is better than the wads of money I'm paying for crappy insurance and those people that Harlan mentioned that are completely screwed if their appendix bursts.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Just because we provide health care through the government would not preclude people who can afford it from purchasing private insurance.

We're the only country (of means) in the world that doesn't provide a basic level of health care for all its citizens.

[MJZiggy]

So what you're saying is that not every government sponsored health care system sucks? I thought there were a few over in Europe that were pretty good.

[Joemailman]

We're obviously much better off with our health care system. Canadians are only 11th in the world in life expectancy. USA is...um...well...come on...42nd? WTF!!

[Harlan Huckleby]

So what you're saying is that not every government sponsored health care system sucks? I thought there were a few over in Europe that were pretty good.

I'd suggest a hybrid system where people or employers can purchase insurance plans to provide services beyond what the government will cover. And ya, health care generally works well for people in Europe, they look at us and think we are insane.

Employer-provided health care is just a horrible system. The unintended consequence is that it makes it extremely difficult for people to be entreprenarial, start small businesses.

[Kiwon]

Oh boy! I can't wait for free health care.

There are 58 million Americans without health care. If they get a serious injury, medical bills will prevent them from accumulating any assets, they will ultimately become wards of the state. And people without health insurance often get sicker and end up draining the health care system as emergency room free loaders.

What is your plan to deal with the problem? Oh ya, you got yourself taken care of, fuck 'um. God Bless the Republican Party! The party of high morals and family values.

Yeah, right, like you care about anyone but yourself.

What is your plan to deal with the problem?

Who are you? Secretary of Health and Idiocy?

The answer is the government, of course. It's always the answer.

High morals and family values are passe since Clinton. Britney Spears hasn't endorsed a candidate yet so I'm going Barack Hussein Obama. It's time for a change.

¡Si, Se Puede! - Yes, we can!

[MJZiggy]

That was helpful. Those will be great options when my money runs out and I can't afford the massive premiums any more. Be glib all you want, but I'm not finding it funny at the moment.

[RashanGary]

I think you have some good points, HH.

Here's my current view on the issue of our economic and political system.

There is only so much to go around. There really isn't enough for everybody in this world. There will be haves. There will be have nots. Either that or everyone will be the same, motivation to work harder will go down and everyone will be have nots. That's how I see it. WE have to split up the pie some how.


How should the haves and have nots be separated? I say ability and ambition. I think less should be done for the poor. I think under the table earnings by the extremely wealthy should be taxed because it oppresses those who are acctually contributing to society by working or striving. It's one thing to earn a living and quite another to just roll up wealth with nothing more than using inherited wealth. Again, the goal is to empower the able and ambitious, not the circumstance they were born into. I think it should be easier to get an education for those who want it and are capable of getting it (even if it's 6 or 8 years). I think corperate scandals and political scandals should be investigated and prosecuted at a higher level. I think the laws in statues should be in place in a way that prevents frivilous law suits by holding lawyers accountable which will lower the risks of doing buisness in any field.

I don't think any of the politicians running for president do what I want them to do. Newt was the closest thing, but he's not running. Mit seems intent on helping buisnesses succeed in the world wide market place. I think some of the liberals have the right idea as far as finding ways to tax the extremely wealthy. I want people to be able to achieve and sustain wealth. I just want it to be based on their actions, not an aristocratic system and limiting the abilty to steam roll wealth based on power will force everyone who wants wealth to earn it rather than be given it.

[Harlan Huckleby]

There is only so much to go around. There really isn't enough for everybody in this world. There will be haves. There will be have nots. Either that or everyone will be the same, motivation to work harder will go down and everyone will be have nots. That's how I see it. WE have to split up the pie some how.

I'm not suggesting a socialized economy, or making everyone equal economically. But I am for pooling resources to provide everyone a baseline of health care. This can be done, it is done in every other modernized country in the world. And it will be cheaper overall, the current system is highly inefficient.

And this policy is NOT in conflict with your value of individual initiative. It empowers people who want to start their own businesses. Under the current system, there is a crushing pressure to get a government job or work for a big corporation. Promote entreprenaurial spirit!

[RashanGary]

I'm starting to develop opinions on what I believe. I think there are answers but the political system is set up in such a way that enacting them or finding the right ones is nearly impossible. Interest groups and polarized politics lead to bickering and manipulating.

I'm pretty discouraged with the entire political system. I have some ideas, but they're constantly changing and not based in enough knowledge to really have conviction in them. I really hope we find a way to become more efficient and more competitive in the world wide market place. Our economy is in danger IMO.

[Scott Campbell]

We're obviously much better off with our health care system. Canadians are only 11th in the world in life expectancy. USA is...um...well...come on...42nd? WTF!!

It's the bratwurst.

[The Leaper]

I blame part of the health care problems on the cost of higher education. Why universities have increased tuition 10% annually over the last two decades is beyond me. There is so much deadweight at the executive levels of our universities it is laughable. It puts young workers into great amounts of debt, especially in the medical field where it takes 8-10 years of schooling to earn a doctorate.

[hoosier]

I blame part of the health care problems on the cost of higher education. Why universities have increased tuition 10% annually over the last two decades is beyond me. There is so much deadweight at the executive levels of our universities it is laughable. It puts young workers into great amounts of debt, especially in the medical field where it takes 8-10 years of schooling to earn a doctorate.

Have you considered that higher ed institutions might be competing with other institutions in the private sector to attract capable administrators? You want universities to slash their executive payrolls, but what about the typical seven digit salaries for CEOs in the corporate world? In short, universities don't just compete with other universities....

[The Leaper]

Have you considered that higher ed institutions might be competing with other institutions in the private sector to attract capable administrators? You want universities to slash their executive payrolls, but what about the typical seven digit salaries for CEOs in the corporate world? In short, universities don't just compete with other universities....

I'm not going to disagree that executives in all areas of business/education are overpaid by and large. I want universities to stop spending billions of dollars competing with each other with bigger and better...particularly at the undergraduate level, whick provides a very limited service to the real world at this point in time. You learn far more about your field when you actually get a job...so why waste $75k on a four year education? An undergraduate degree that just gets your foot in the door for a first job should be half that cost. Putting everyone in hock because universities want to have building wars to see who can have the most lavish dorms and amenities is useless IMO.

[Harlan Huckleby]

when you actually get a job...so why waste $75k on a four year education? An undergraduate degree that just gets your foot in the door for a first job should be half that cost. Putting everyone in hock because universities want to have building wars to see who can have the most lavish dorms and amenities is useless IMO.

There's more value to a college education than just a first job ticket. It makes a person more interested and interesting. I'd never have the drive to learn that I have now if I didn't get jump-started by college.

When you look at how expensive it is to hire professors and provide all those facilities, I can understand why college is expensive. I really don't think there is much cost-cutting to be done. If you want college costs to come down, you have to raise taxes and fund it at higher level.

Corporate excecutive salaries: I think it is silly to waste energy on executive salaries. It's a free market. Why should I care if they make a lot of money? And the amount of money that corporations pay on executive salaries is not significant compared to their other costs. The issue is strictly about envy.

[Harlan Huckleby]

If the nomination goes to the convention floor, anything can happen. If a couple of ballots fail to produce a winner, there is the possibility that all the pledged delegates could be released from their obligations.

I think a deadlocked convention is highly unlikely, but it just occurred to me that an obvious choice they might turn to would be Al Gore. He would be acceptable to a broad range of delegates, and would likely accept.

I don't think any of the candidates who were defeated in the primary would be considered.

[Harlan Huckleby]

BTW, read this analysis in "The Fix" blog:

The states in which Edwards is expected to campaign hard, as outlined during the call by former congressman David Bonior (Mich.), an Edwards adviser, are the same that Obama expects to target heavily -- Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, Missouri, Minnesota and North Dakota to name a few. Edwards is also making noise in several strong Clinton states -- California being the most prominent -- but it's clear that Edwards is far more likely to overlap with Obama than Clinton over the next eight days of campaigning.

Now it appears that Edwards' focus on the southern and rural states that should be Obama strongholds is designed to weaken Obama more than Clinton.

As a Clinton supporter, I'm not displeased to see Obama lose some delegates. But since the election is truly down to a very close contest between Clinton and Obama, wouldn't it be better to know which candidate the voters actually prefer? I don't like when results get skewed by vanity candidates.

[Joemailman]

If the nomination goes to the convention floor, anything can happen. If a couple of ballots fail to produce a winner, there is the possibility that all the pledged delegates could be released from their obligations.

I think a deadlocked convention is highly unlikely, but it just occurred to me that an obvious choice they might turn to would be Al Gore. He would be acceptable to a broad range of delegates, and would likely accept.

I don't think any of the candidates who were defeated in the primary would be considered.

Here's why I think the Dem nomination could go to the floor. 2025 delegates are needed to be nominated. In the Democratic Party, there are about 850 "super delegates". These are Dem members of the House and Senate, Governors, elected members of the DNC, and other party leaders. They are not pledged to any candidate. Normally they vote for the candidate who won their state's primary, but they are not required to do so. If my math is correct, this means that either Clinton or Obama would have to win about 63% of the delegates allocated from primaries and caucuses to sew up the nomination before the convention. If Clinton and Obama are virtually deadlocked heading into the convention, in essence the "super delegates" will choose the nominee. If either one has a clear advantage in number of delegates, but still short of the nomination, I suspect the "super delegates" will choose that person. If everything is deadlocked, they could try to find someone else that everyone can agree on. I agree that Gore would be a logical choice in that event.

[MJZiggy]

Wouldn't that suck to spend all that money on campaigning only to have them hand the nomination to Gore.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Just read something interesting: the democrats in Florida want to organize a caucus, and the convention would then have to accept the chosen delegates.

Sounds great to me. The idea of not allowing voting in a state is absurd. All they did wrong was move-up their primary to a date no earlier than other primaries. And group punishment - disenfranchising an entire population because of technical violations by party officials - is worse than absurd.