Effect of Presidential debates?

[Patler]

Have you met anyone who is really swayed by the "debates"? (I use quotes for "debates" because they are glorified press conferences more than real debates.)

I have yet to find anyone who has changed their preference, or who has made the decision based on the debates. Most voters still decide based on a single issue most important to them. Some say the debate was instrumental, but if you question them long and hard you find they were really leaning toward their candidate even before the debate. The candidate they think did the best in the debate is the one they were leaning toward in the first place.

[sheepshead]

Have you met anyone who is really swayed by the "debates"? (I use quotes for "debates" because they are glorified press conferences more than real debates.)

I have yet to find anyone who has changed their preference, or who has made the decision based on the debates. Most voters still decide based on a single issue most important to them. Some say the debate was instrumental, but if you question them long and hard you find they were really leaning toward their candidate even before the debate. The candidate they think did the best in the debate is the one they were leaning toward in the first place.

Its difficult to say. Reagan did well. Quayle got killed, still won. I do think dubya was slightly better than Gore and Kerry and it helped him in close elections. Cheney beats all comers.

[hoosier]

Have you met anyone who is really swayed by the "debates"? (I use quotes for "debates" because they are glorified press conferences more than real debates.)

I have yet to find anyone who has changed their preference, or who has made the decision based on the debates. Most voters still decide based on a single issue most important to them. Some say the debate was instrumental, but if you question them long and hard you find they were really leaning toward their candidate even before the debate. The candidate they think did the best in the debate is the one they were leaning toward in the first place.

Personally I've never been influenced to change my mind based on a presidential debate, but that's probably because I've made my decision before the debates begin. But not everyone decides early; if that were the case we probably would never see significant fluctuations in polling in teh weeks before national elections (polling inaccuracies notwithstanding). For those who don't make up their minds early, how do you know the "I was leaning" isn't just some peoples' way of explaining their decision making process after the fact? The decision is a leap that Kierkegaard called a form of madness. But looking at things retrospectively, nobody wants to see madness. We like to think that we were always leaning in the direction that we have now taken.

[Patler]

For those who don't make up their minds early, how do you know the "I was leaning" isn't just some peoples' way of explaining their decision making process after the fact? The decision is a leap that Kierkegaard called a form of madness. But looking at things retrospectively, nobody wants to see madness. We like to think that we were always leaning in the direction that we have now taken.

I certainly don't have a scientific approach, but in most things I tend to not ask the focal question. So I never ask how they were leaning. I ask about issues, impression, etc. without asking which candidate they thought they preferred. I ask what they learned from the debate and from which candidate, etc. What you find is that their beliefs aligned with the one candidate even before the debates. They simply used the debate to confirm it.

Basically, I hate the debates because they don't DEBATE. If they really debated we might all learn something. But they don't, so we don't.

[SkinBasket]

It seems the debates do more to rile the base into actually going out and voting than changing anyone's mind. Of course, there's a large segment of liberals that have glommed onto the title of "independent" who will claim that they've been swayed by the democrat arguments, but they're usually pretty transparent.

[hoosier]

Basically, I hate the debates because they don't DEBATE. If they really debated we might all learn something. But they don't, so we don't.

I think that is a reflection of the way the media, television and more recently the Internet, have reshaped political discourse over the past four decades. TV and youtube are mediums of the short sound bite, and the "debate" becomes a staging ground for the candidates to try to launch a memorable phrase image (Reagan's "There you go again") instead of comparing ideas, which take much longer to develop and substantiate. McCain's apparent proposal for the fed gov to "buy up bad mortagages" and renegotiate based on revalued home prices was case in point: nobody really knew what he was talking about and he wasn't able to explain it well, at least not in the two minutes alloted at that point.

[LL2]

I don’t really think the debates really change the outcome of the debate, and they certainly are not helping McCain. I actually do not think McCain is going to win this election. If he does it will be a miracle. The issue of the economy is what is going to propel Obama into the Whitehouse, and it’s not because he’s a genius on the subject (neither is McCain for that matter). It’s because McCain is from the party that is in the Whitehouse, and for no other reason. I think every incumbent should be thrown out on both sides of the party from Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, Frank to Hagar, Lugar, and Shelby. Start over! Unfortunately the start over we will probably get is the most socialistic form of government, bordering on that of communism, from Obama.

[Cheesehead Craig]

I don't go by the debates, I get my views from bumper stickers.

[mraynrand]

I go by intestinal cramps. Dems are better at relieving cramps. If I have a cramp on election day, I vote Democrat. The first candidate who offers free pepto gets my vote.

[Zool]

I think they have very interesting things to say sometimes.

http://i35.tinypic.com/dztob9.jpg

[Partial]

That naughty, naughty girl :D

[texaspackerbacker]

The bottom line is that the message of the candidates is UNFILTERED--direct from the candidates' mouths to voters' ears.

This fact INHERENTLY favors the party and candidates which is in tune with the views, values, and positions of the vast majority of the people. It also enhances the cause of the party and candidates that try to appeal to class warfare emotions.

Back as far as Reagan, Republicans have benefited thusly--a net positive of getting their overall views across outweighing the Democrat tactic of excessive taxing of the rich. In 2000 and 2004, in particular, the late comeback wins by Bush were likely attributable in large part to the debates. In fact, in 2004, Bush surged after the debates and then slid back to almost even as the debates effect wore off and media bias began to bring Kerry back.

Will it work this time? The major difference this time around is this "crisis" which seems to be dominating people's thinking and inexplicably (other than media bias) seems to favor Obama. I honestly think the entire economic mess is contrived and overblown. It would be a stretch to conspiratorially blame the start of the whole thing on pro-Dem/pro-Obama motivation, but the hyping of it and dragging it out by the media indeed does seem to be for that reason.

[rdanomly]

I don’t really think the debates really change the outcome of the debate, and they certainly are not helping McCain. I actually do not think McCain is going to win this election. If he does it will be a miracle. The issue of the economy is what is going to propel Obama into the Whitehouse, and it’s not because he’s a genius on the subject (neither is McCain for that matter). It’s because McCain is from the party that is in the Whitehouse, and for no other reason. I think every incumbent should be thrown out on both sides of the party from Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, Frank to Hagar, Lugar, and Shelby. Start over! Unfortunately the start over we will probably get is the most socialistic form of government, bordering on that of communism, from Obama.

I'd like to put my two cents in about the thrown out list. Lugar is worth keeping. There were some people at my office here that thought he would have been a great VP choice for Obama.

[mraynrand]

There are some eerie parallels to Balck Wednesday, when the Pound rapidly devalued in '92 - the British govt. spend something like 50 billion propping up the pound and George Soros made at least a billion. ( some, including Paul Krugman, aka Elsworth Toohey, believed Soros helped to stage the fall of the pound by selling short). The conservative party took a real beating right before elections, since under Thatcher, they had put in the mechanism to control the valuation of the pound in the first place.

[GoPackGo]

Have you met anyone who is really swayed by the "debates"? (I use quotes for "debates" because they are glorified press conferences more than real debates.)

I have yet to find anyone who has changed their preference, or who has made the decision based on the debates. Most voters still decide based on a single issue most important to them. Some say the debate was instrumental, but if you question them long and hard you find they were really leaning toward their candidate even before the debate. The candidate they think did the best in the debate is the one they were leaning toward in the first place.

I use the debates to help make my decision. I want to see the how the candidates handle the pressure of debate because I feel it is an overlooked quality when choosing a leader.

[Patler]

I use the debates to help make my decision. I want to see the how the candidates handle the pressure of debate because I feel it is an overlooked quality when choosing a leader.

So you're the one the hold the debates for!! :lol: :lol:

Interesting. Why is their performance at a debate a quality that is important to you? Are you more concerned with how they perform at the debate than with what they say in situations outside of the debate?

[HowardRoark]

Effect of debate last night?

http://www.dwrobertson-photography.com/Images/gal_Glasgow_big_snore.jpg

[HowardRoark]

That, and the fact I think I might now be in the Maxie the Taxi camp. McCain shoots from the hip with bizzaro programs that he can't even explain.

"Hey, how about we take over all the houses in the country? If you can't afford them we'll buy em."

I wish I would have bought a bigger house. Then I would be in trouble too.

[GoPackGo]

I use the debates to help make my decision. I want to see the how the candidates handle the pressure of debate because I feel it is an overlooked quality when choosing a leader.

So you're the one the hold the debates for!! :lol: :lol:

Interesting. Why is their performance at a debate a quality that is important to you? Are you more concerned with how they perform at the debate than with what they say in situations outside of the debate?

I wouldn't say its more important to me under normal circumstances, but this presidential race is very close in my mind. The candidates' opinions and positions on issues are well documented. I like to see what happens when you get them in the same room and throw them into the fire of debate.

[LL2]

That, and the fact I think I might now be in the Maxie the Taxi camp. McCain shoots from the hip with bizzaro programs that he can't even explain.

"Hey, how about we take over all the houses in the country? If you can't afford them we'll buy em."

I wish I would have bought a bigger house. Then I would be in trouble too.

I might be joing the Maxi the Taxi camp too.

Maxi the Taxi for Prez! :wave:

[mraynrand]

That, and the fact I think I might now be in the Maxie the Taxi camp. McCain shoots from the hip with bizzaro programs that he can't even explain.

"Hey, how about we take over all the houses in the country? If you can't afford them we'll buy em."

I wish I would have bought a bigger house. Then I would be in trouble too.

You weren't alone. For about the last ten years, I've been harping on the consumer debt problem (credit cards, etc.). Had a relative who was over 30K in debt at age 24 - 24!!! I attributed a lot of this to the desire by kids just out f college and a bit older who want everything their parents had, right now Now, with the current environment, it seems as though when this credit debt hits (and it's estimated at about 2 trillion), everyone is going to be looking to the government to bail them out. That's the fall out from the government bail out - nanny state on steroids.

Question: Is health care a responsibility or a right? Your answer is the future of this country.

[Patler]

You weren't alone. For about the last ten years, I've been harping on the consumer debt problem (credit cards, etc.). Had a relative who was over 30K in debt at age 24 - 24!!! I attributed a lot of this to the desire by kids just out f college and a bit older who want everything their parents had, right now Now, with the current environment, it seems as though when this credit debt hits (and it's estimated at about 2 trillion), everyone is going to be looking to the government to bail them out. That's the fall out from the government bail out - nanny state on steroids.

Question: Is health care a responsibility or a right? Your answer is the future of this country.

I couldn't agree more, and we parents of those kids haven't helped matters by making so much available to them through out their growing years. They expect the same availability of "things" when they are on their own, and some do not realize it takes a while to become established financially. (On a personal note, two of my herd of kids who are in their mid and late twenties refuse to even have a credit card, let alone use it. I couldn't be more proud! :lol: )

But the availability of credit is (maybe "was") ridiculous. As soon as they were 18, my kids were deluged with weekly pre-approved offers. Can you imagine $15,000 credit lines to 19 year olds? One used a card for travel purposes, and soon was extended a limit of $30,000.00!!! I harped on them and harped on them about the dangers of overextending via credit cards, and only one made a few mistakes using cards while in college (unbeknown to me at the time). Not bad, he learned from it, and had it straightened away in a couple years. He's quite "cheap" now on himself, but generous with others including his siblings and parents. Again, I am proud! :D

[mraynrand]

Nice job, Patler. What could be more important than raising good kids?

[HowardRoark]

Question: Is health care a responsibility or a right? Your answer is the future of this country.

The silver lining of this financial implosion is hopefully that people will start realizing really bad things can happen. Houses made out of cards eventually crash down.

All of these Entitlements that our country has (with no money backing them up) are the next storm on the horizon. My answer to your question is that it is a responsibility. As well as virtually everything else; the more people are responsible, the more they have ownership, the sounder it will be.

California is a train wreck about to happen. The Entitlements they have on Local and State levels make Obama look like Ayn Rand.

[Oscar]

Interesting point on the credit card thing. I'm 41 and to this day have never owned a credit card. If I can't pay for it I don't need it..Though, I borrowed money to buy my home..Can't say I'm that well off..lol I have a few friends that went into bankruptcy because of credit card debt..

[mraynrand]

Question: Is health care a responsibility or a right? Your answer is the future of this country.

The silver lining of this financial implosion is hopefully that people will start realizing really bad things can happen. Houses made out of cards eventually crash down.

All of these Entitlements that our country has (with no money backing them up) are the next storm on the horizon. My answer to your question is that it is a responsibility. As well as virtually everything else; the more people are responsible, the more they have ownership, the sounder it will be.

California is a train wreck about to happen. The Entitlements they have on Local and State levels make Obama look like Ayn Rand.

I liked referring to it as responsibility because it covers all the bases. We have to be responsible for ourselves and for those who truly cannot afford to pay. Other than costs (which have a whole array of causes), a huge problem with insurance is that the fastest growing and largest groups of uninsured are those who can afford to pay for it, but choose not to do so. And that doesn't mean you have to get bargain basement coverage like from Billy Mays, where you have to set a broken bone with Mighty Putty.

[HowardRoark]

Had a relative who was over 30K in debt at age 24 - 24!!.

Three words:

http://www.grainbeltbeer.com/images/beer_sign.jpg

[Harlan Huckleby]

Question: Is health care a responsibility or a right? Your answer is the future of this country.

The silver lining of this financial implosion is hopefully that people will start realizing really bad things can happen. Houses made out of cards eventually crash down.

All of these Entitlements that our country has (with no money backing them up) are the next storm on the horizon. My answer to your question is that it is a responsibility. As well as virtually everything else; the more people are responsible, the more they have ownership, the sounder it will be.

California is a train wreck about to happen. The Entitlements they have on Local and State levels make Obama look like Ayn Rand.

what "entitelments" are you referring to? Social Security? Medicare?

[HowardRoark]

Question: Is health care a responsibility or a right? Your answer is the future of this country.

The silver lining of this financial implosion is hopefully that people will start realizing really bad things can happen. Houses made out of cards eventually crash down.

All of these Entitlements that our country has (with no money backing them up) are the next storm on the horizon. My answer to your question is that it is a responsibility. As well as virtually everything else; the more people are responsible, the more they have ownership, the sounder it will be.

California is a train wreck about to happen. The Entitlements they have on Local and State levels make Obama look like Ayn Rand.

what "entitelments" are you referring to? Social Security? Medicare?

Yes….prescription drugs too.

In California, the spouse (gay lover…if not chopped up), is entitled to around 90% of the income their spouse received from Government upon retirement (when they die). There is cottage industry of “sugar daddies” going on. Hot, young gal hooks up with old Government employee. They are set for life.

[Patler]

I liked referring to it as responsibility because it covers all the bases. We have to be responsible for ourselves and for those who truly cannot afford to pay. Other than costs (which have a whole array of causes), a huge problem with insurance is that the fastest growing and largest groups of uninsured are those who can afford to pay for it, but choose not to do so. And that doesn't mean you have to get bargain basement coverage like from Billy Mays, where you have to set a broken bone with Mighty Putty.

That is a real problem. It's choices. They "have to" have the better house than they can afford, several new (financed) cars, grown-up toys, memberships for themselves and their kids, etc. They choose to pay for it with money that should go for other things. These same people would not insure their houses if the lenders didn't require it.

We complain about the cost of a gallon of milk, while willingly paying more for a six-pack of beer. We complain about the cost of groceries while spending more for fancy wardrobes and entertainment. Our priorities are screwed up in this country.

[Harlan Huckleby]

..

[Harlan Huckleby]

what "entitelments" are you referring to? Social Security? Medicare?

Yes….prescription drugs too.

In California, the spouse (gay lover…if not chopped up), is entitled to around 90% of the income their spouse received from Government upon retirement (when they die). There is cottage industry of “sugar daddies” going on. Hot, young gal hooks up with old Government employee. They are set for life.

I don't know what you are specifically talking about in CA, but it sounds like red meat thrown to social conservatives and an anti-government audience.

The country has been living beyond its means, and putting it on the tab for the next generation to pay. Our standard of living is artificially high.

I seriously doubt that the problem is that the gov is spending too much money on entitlements, or to be more specific, that it is feasible to cut entitlements significantly. The problem is government hasn't collected enough revenue.

Supply siders have argued for years that revenue can be increased by lowering taxes, growing the economy. Somehow that hasn't worked.

[HowardRoark]

The problem is government hasn't collected enough revenue.
.

Howard Roark laughed.

Then cried.

[HowardRoark]

The problem is government hasn't collected enough revenue.

Howard Roark laughed.

Then cried.

[HowardRoark]

dp

[HowardRoark]

double post

[mraynrand]

The problem is government hasn't collected enough revenue.

Supply siders have argued for years that revenue can be increased by lowering taxes, growing the economy. Somehow that hasn't worked.

It hasn't worked because spending has increased so much. Bush's tax cuts increased revenues by about 150-200 billion/year, but that's not enough if spending is out of control. Same is true on a state by state case, where about 2/3 of state spending goes to medicare, medicaid, and education, and the increases in those programs outstrip inflation. A lot of that is due to the demographics of an aging population, but a lot is also unrestrained spending.

[Patler]

I seriously doubt that the problem is that the gov is spending too much money on entitlements, or to be more specific, that it is feasible to cut entitlements significantly. The problem is government hasn't collected enough revenue.

Supply siders have argued for years that revenue can be increased by lowering taxes, growing the economy. Somehow that hasn't worked.

By gosh, I have complained about that very thing, every year about the middle of April. They just don't collect enough from me, neither the Feds not the state!!!! :roll: :roll: :roll:

[LL2]

Question: Is health care a responsibility or a right? Your answer is the future of this country.

The silver lining of this financial implosion is hopefully that people will start realizing really bad things can happen. Houses made out of cards eventually crash down.

All of these Entitlements that our country has (with no money backing them up) are the next storm on the horizon. My answer to your question is that it is a responsibility. As well as virtually everything else; the more people are responsible, the more they have ownership, the sounder it will be.

California is a train wreck about to happen. The Entitlements they have on Local and State levels make Obama look like Ayn Rand.

When Obama said health care was a right I wish McCain said that everyone felt home ownership is a right and look at the mess we are in right now. There were a few times McCain could've had better answers.

[HowardRoark]

I don't know what you are specifically talking about in CA, but it sounds like red meat thrown to social conservatives and an anti-government audience.

I wish you were right. Just turn on CNBC or Bloomberg during the day. Listen to the nervousness in the voices of California officials when they are interviewed.

If this mess has taught us anything, let it teach us that math doesn't lie.

[HowardRoark]

I don't know what you are specifically talking about in CA, but it sounds like red meat thrown to social conservatives and an anti-government audience.

I wish you were right. Just turn on CNBC or Bloomberg during the day. Listen to the nervousness in the voices of California officials when they are interviewed.

If this mess has taught us anything, let it teach us that math doesn't lie.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Conservatives talk a good game, but then when they get in office, the deficeit soars out of sight.

They are against taxes. They say government can be reduced. But only the tax cuts ever happen. See Reagan or Bush.

When you get down to details, it is not possible to reduce government spending drastically. No republican has ever proposed a large reduction that can actually work. You have military spending, medicare & social security dominating everything.

Rather than raise taxes, conservatives just push the burden on the next generation. The whole Iraq War has been paid for on a credit card.

[Harlan Huckleby]

When Obama said health care was a right I wish McCain said that everyone felt home ownership is a right

Health care should be guaranteed to all citizens. Home ownership is a luxury.

[HowardRoark]

Conservatives talk a good game, but then when they get in office, the deficeit soars out of sight.

A Republican is not always a Conservative.

[Harlan Huckleby]

the libertarian ideal is just a comforting dream. Like communism, or Santa Claus. Brain candy.

[GoPackGo]

When Obama said health care was a right I wish McCain said that everyone felt home ownership is a right

Health care should be guaranteed to all citizens. Home ownership is a luxury.

I agree

[HowardRoark]

When Obama said health care was a right I wish McCain said that everyone felt home ownership is a right

Health care should be guaranteed to all citizens. Home ownership is a luxury.

In a civilized society, I think all citizens should be able to have access to healthcare. How best to accomplish this is the core of the debate. To say that the Federal Government should come guarantee this “Right” is Pollyanna reasoning.

[Patler]

Question: Is health care a responsibility or a right? Your answer is the future of this country.

I admit to missing this part of the "debate".

Is there a difference in saying on one hand that it is a right of all people, and on the other hand saying it is the responsibility of all of us to see that it is available to everyone? Is that even what was meant?

I suppose if it is a right, it should be bestowed on us by the Federal government, form where we all know it will have no cost for any of us. ( :roll: )

If its a responsibility we all have to accept our fair share of its burdens.

Rights tend to cost exorbitantly, with little control and little to no competition. Responsibilities are subject to normal market pressures.

I guess I vote for responsibility..

[hoosier]

When Obama said health care was a right I wish McCain said that everyone felt home ownership is a right and look at the mess we are in right now. There were a few times McCain could've had better answers.

Yeah, some people just don't deserve to have health care.

[retailguy]

When Obama said health care was a right I wish McCain said that everyone felt home ownership is a right and look at the mess we are in right now. There were a few times McCain could've had better answers.

Yeah, some people just don't deserve to have health care.

Ok, hoosier, so what do you do with the ppl who are content to work a minimum wage job their entire life and don't strive to do better? Are they "entitled" to health care, or has "their decision" to be content where they are in life impacted their ability to afford it?

What about the ppl who are content to sit home and subside year after year on welfare. Are they entitled to health care, or have "their choices" impacted their ability to provide for themselves and their families the basic necessities they should have to work for?

Existence is a right. Health care? Not so much. It comes with responsibilities too. When are those responsibilities greater than the cost of "free health care"?

[hoosier]

I admit to missing this part of the "debate".

Is there a difference in saying on one hand that it is a right of all people, and on the other hand saying it is the responsibility of all of us to see that it is available to everyone? Is that even what was meant?

I suppose if it is a right, it should be bestowed on us by the Federal government, form where we all know it will have no cost for any of us. ( :roll: )

If its a responsibility we all have to accept our fair share of its burdens.

Rights tend to cost exorbitantly, with little control and little to no competition. Responsibilities are subject to normal market pressures.

I guess I vote for responsibility..

So let's cut to the chase: What do you do with a family of four where the parents, both of whom work full-time, have jobs that don't provide health care benefits and they can't afford to buy health insurance. Are they (A) out of luck because the rest of us didn't make them poor and shouldn't be expected to shoulder the burden for them? Or (B) should the two children get health insurance for free while the parents go without? Or (C) should all four of them have access to decent health coverage (i.e. NOT be forced to use the ER as primary care, and be covered for both emergency and non-emergency procedures), even though none of them will be able to pay full premiums? I think if you answer (C) then you've said it's a right, if you answer (A) then you're saying it's a privilege, and responsibility is somewhere in between (maybe B but not necessarily limited to B).

My answer is C.

[mraynrand]

When Obama said health care was a right I wish McCain said that everyone felt home ownership is a right and look at the mess we are in right now. There were a few times McCain could've had better answers.

Yeah, some people just don't deserve to have health care.

No one deserves to have 'health care' just as no one deserves to have anything that is provided by someone else. Health Care is a huge concern that involves doctors and nurses becoming skilled at their profession and many scientists and engineers in different fields providing medicines and devices necessary to actually provide health care. IF no one bothered to learn to become a physician or scientist or engineer, what health care would there be? What would you do? Put a gun to the heads of intelligent Americans and force them to go to medical school for your 'right?'

Hoosier, explain to me how you or anyone else deserve health care.

[Cheesehead Craig]

One could make the argument that if we are indeed living in a Christian society in America, that it would be our Christian duty to help the less fortunate. If the poor cannot afford health care, we should then strive to assist them in obtaining it.

[hoosier]

When Obama said health care was a right I wish McCain said that everyone felt home ownership is a right and look at the mess we are in right now. There were a few times McCain could've had better answers.

Yeah, some people just don't deserve to have health care.

Ok, hoosier, so what do you do with the ppl who are content to work a minimum wage job their entire life and don't strive to do better? Are they "entitled" to health care, or has "their decision" to be content where they are in life impacted their ability to afford it?

What about the ppl who are content to sit home and subside year after year on welfare. Are they entitled to health care, or have "their choices" impacted their ability to provide for themselves and their families the basic necessities they should have to work for?

Existence is a right. Health care? Not so much. It comes with responsibilities too. When are those responsibilities greater than the cost of "free health care"?

Frankly I think the "people content to sit on their asses all day" image is a red herring concocted by Reagan that doesn't fit reality. Are there people like that? Of course, and they can be found in all classes and walks of life. But that extremely patronizing image doesn't fit the majority of poor and lower-middle class people/families any more than the companion image of the poor as the salt of the earth.

I don't think you can hold a meaningful, intelligent national debate over something this fundamental with positions that are based on extremely superficial stereotypes like yours.

[mraynrand]

One could make the argument that if we are indeed living in a Christian society in America, that it would be our Christian duty to help the less fortunate. If the poor cannot afford health care, we should then strive to assist them in obtaining it.

Yes, that is the Christian thing to do. I implore every Christian and every other citizen to help provide for the poor, the sick, for the people who really need help.

[HowardRoark]

One could make the argument that if we are indeed living in a Christian society in America, that it would be our Christian duty to help the less fortunate. If the poor cannot afford health care, we should then strive to assist them in obtaining it.

I agree. But without the Government taking over. Notice the names of most of the hospitals in your city. Who started them?

[mraynrand]

I admit to missing this part of the "debate".

Is there a difference in saying on one hand that it is a right of all people, and on the other hand saying it is the responsibility of all of us to see that it is available to everyone? Is that even what was meant?

I suppose if it is a right, it should be bestowed on us by the Federal government, form where we all know it will have no cost for any of us. ( :roll: )

If its a responsibility we all have to accept our fair share of its burdens.

Rights tend to cost exorbitantly, with little control and little to no competition. Responsibilities are subject to normal market pressures.

I guess I vote for responsibility..

So let's cut to the chase: What do you do with a family of four where the parents, both of whom work full-time, have jobs that don't provide health care benefits and they can't afford to buy health insurance. Are they (A) out of luck because the rest of us didn't make them poor and shouldn't be expected to shoulder the burden for them? Or (B) should the two children get health insurance for free while the parents go without? Or (C) should all four of them have access to decent health coverage (i.e. NOT be forced to use the ER as primary care, and be covered for both emergency and non-emergency procedures), even though none of them will be able to pay full premiums? I think if you answer (C) then you've said it's a right, if you answer (A) then you're saying it's a privilege, and responsibility is somewhere in between (maybe B but not necessarily limited to B).

My answer is C.

It would surprise me to find that family you describe unable to afford health care. But if they cannot, then the family you cite is already covered. All children are already covered by existing programs, as are most adults. Those who think they have no coverage actually get enrolled when they go into the hospital. Those who earn more than the lower limit are typically put into an 'economic triage' by the hospitals they go to, where they are put on a schedule to pay as much as they can afford. People who go into the ER for basic care are being rescheduled for clinical visits in many hospitals, and then undergo economic triage, etc.

[hoosier]

When Obama said health care was a right I wish McCain said that everyone felt home ownership is a right and look at the mess we are in right now. There were a few times McCain could've had better answers.

Yeah, some people just don't deserve to have health care.

No one deserves to have 'health care' just as no one deserves to have anything that is provided by someone else. Health Care is a huge concern that involves doctors and nurses becoming skilled at their profession and many scientists and engineers in different fields providing medicines and devices necessary to actually provide health care. IF no one bothered to learn to become a physician or scientist or engineer, what health care would there be? What would you do? Put a gun to the heads of intelligent Americans and force them to go to medical school for your 'right?'

Hoosier, explain to me how you or anyone else deserve health care.

If that is really your position--"no one deserves to have anything that is provded by someone else"--then you've just declared yourself to be opposed to any modern idea of government based on the principle of right. Even the purest of libertarians believe in right to the extent that they want government to protect borders, police the streets and deliver the mail. My position is that health care ought to be a fundamental right in our society, just like education, security, liberty and free expression. What's so confusing about that?

[Patler]

I admit to missing this part of the "debate".

Is there a difference in saying on one hand that it is a right of all people, and on the other hand saying it is the responsibility of all of us to see that it is available to everyone? Is that even what was meant?

I suppose if it is a right, it should be bestowed on us by the Federal government, form where we all know it will have no cost for any of us. ( :roll: )

If its a responsibility we all have to accept our fair share of its burdens.

Rights tend to cost exorbitantly, with little control and little to no competition. Responsibilities are subject to normal market pressures.

I guess I vote for responsibility..

So let's cut to the chase: What do you do with a family of four where the parents, both of whom work full-time, have jobs that don't provide health care benefits and they can't afford to buy health insurance. Are they (A) out of luck because the rest of us didn't make them poor and shouldn't be expected to shoulder the burden for them? Or (B) should the two children get health insurance for free while the parents go without? Or (C) should all four of them have access to decent health coverage (i.e. NOT be forced to use the ER as primary care, and be covered for both emergency and non-emergency procedures), even though none of them will be able to pay full premiums? I think if you answer (C) then you've said it's a right, if you answer (A) then you're saying it's a privilege, and responsibility is somewhere in between (maybe B but not necessarily limited to B).

My answer is C.

I think you and I are looking at "responsibility" somewhat differently. You are looking at it as the responsibility of the individual to provide it for themselves. I questioned whether what was meant was that it was the responsibility of all people to provide it for everyone. A collective responsibility as opposed to an individual responsibility. We have lots of collective responsibilities now, for things like schools, police and fire protection, etc. It allows for local variations with some minimum standards.

Under my definition, A and B are not options because everyone should be entitled to some level of basic care. The problem becomes, what level of care? If you expect everyone to have the right to whatever they need, regardless of cost, it's unworkable. There is a reason that euthanasia is an accepted practice in some socialized medicine programs.

[HowardRoark]

When Obama said health care was a right I wish McCain said that everyone felt home ownership is a right and look at the mess we are in right now. There were a few times McCain could've had better answers.

Yeah, some people just don't deserve to have health care.

No one deserves to have 'health care' just as no one deserves to have anything that is provided by someone else. Health Care is a huge concern that involves doctors and nurses becoming skilled at their profession and many scientists and engineers in different fields providing medicines and devices necessary to actually provide health care. IF no one bothered to learn to become a physician or scientist or engineer, what health care would there be? What would you do? Put a gun to the heads of intelligent Americans and force them to go to medical school for your 'right?'

Hoosier, explain to me how you or anyone else deserve health care.

If that is really your position--"no one deserves to have anything that is provded by someone else"--then you've just declared yourself to be opposed to any modern idea of government based on the principle of right. Even the purest of libertarians believe in right to the extent that they want government to protect borders, police the streets and deliver the mail. My position is that health care ought to be a fundamental right in our society, just like education, security, liberty and free expression. What's so confusing about that?

What happens if all the Doctors move to Galt's Gulch?

[GoPackGo]

Frankly I think the "people content to sit on their asses all day" image is a red herring concocted by Reagan that doesn't fit reality. Are there people like that? Of course, and they can be found in all classes and walks of life. But that extremely patronizing image doesn't fit the majority of poor and lower-middle class people/families any more than the companion image of the poor as the salt of the earth.

I don't think you can hold a meaningful, intelligent national debate over something this fundamental with positions that are based on extremely superficial stereotypes like yours.

I agree. These stereotypes shouldn't even be in the discussion. (admittedly, I used to buy into said stereotypes, then I had a family of my own and it opened my eyes)

[mraynrand]

One could make the argument that if we are indeed living in a Christian society in America, that it would be our Christian duty to help the less fortunate. If the poor cannot afford health care, we should then strive to assist them in obtaining it.

I agree. But without the Government taking over. Notice the names of most of the hospitals in your city. Who started them?

When Ty comes in later to shit on this forum, he is going to point out how all medical care for the common man came from government programs. That's just the facts.

[hoosier]

I admit to missing this part of the "debate".

Is there a difference in saying on one hand that it is a right of all people, and on the other hand saying it is the responsibility of all of us to see that it is available to everyone? Is that even what was meant?

I suppose if it is a right, it should be bestowed on us by the Federal government, form where we all know it will have no cost for any of us. ( :roll: )

If its a responsibility we all have to accept our fair share of its burdens.

Rights tend to cost exorbitantly, with little control and little to no competition. Responsibilities are subject to normal market pressures.

I guess I vote for responsibility..

So let's cut to the chase: What do you do with a family of four where the parents, both of whom work full-time, have jobs that don't provide health care benefits and they can't afford to buy health insurance. Are they (A) out of luck because the rest of us didn't make them poor and shouldn't be expected to shoulder the burden for them? Or (B) should the two children get health insurance for free while the parents go without? Or (C) should all four of them have access to decent health coverage (i.e. NOT be forced to use the ER as primary care, and be covered for both emergency and non-emergency procedures), even though none of them will be able to pay full premiums? I think if you answer (C) then you've said it's a right, if you answer (A) then you're saying it's a privilege, and responsibility is somewhere in between (maybe B but not necessarily limited to B).

My answer is C.

I think you and I are looking at "responsibility" somewhat differently. You are looking at it as the responsibility of the individual to provide it for themselves. I questioned whether what was meant was that it was the responsibility of all people to provide it for everyone. A collective responsibility as opposed to an individual responsibility. We have lots of collective responsibilities now, for things like schools, police and fire protection, etc. It allows for local variations with some minimum standards.

Under my definition, A and B are not options because everyone should be entitled to some level of basic care. The problem becomes, what level of care? If you expect everyone to have the right to whatever they need, regardless of cost, it's unworkable. There is a reason that euthanasia is an accepted practice in some socialized medicine programs.

Agreed that "responsibility" is ambiguous and allows the answerer to emphasize personal or societal responsibility. I suspect Rather deliberately left it open to allow the two candidates to frame their policies as they saw fit. But it would have been interesting for him to have asked them to define "responsibility" if that was the door they chose.

[Patler]

Agreed that "responsibility" is ambiguous and allows the answerer to emphasize personal or societal responsibility. I suspect Rather deliberately left it open to allow the two candidates to frame their policies as they saw fit. But it would have been interesting for him to have asked them to define "responsibility" if that was the door they chose.

That is where a real political debate would help, not the "debates" the candidates agree to.

[Cheesehead Craig]

One could make the argument that if we are indeed living in a Christian society in America, that it would be our Christian duty to help the less fortunate. If the poor cannot afford health care, we should then strive to assist them in obtaining it.

I agree. But without the Government taking over. Notice the names of most of the hospitals in your city. Who started them?
True indeed.

To make the biggest impact though in helping the poor with health care, wouldn't having the government create a "universal" health care program be what to strive for? You then in one stroke help millions of people, both young and old. Granted, I'm fully aware at the difficulties this would encounter, but I'm just arguing the ideal here, not the implementation.

[mraynrand]

When Obama said health care was a right I wish McCain said that everyone felt home ownership is a right and look at the mess we are in right now. There were a few times McCain could've had better answers.

Yeah, some people just don't deserve to have health care.

No one deserves to have 'health care' just as no one deserves to have anything that is provided by someone else. Health Care is a huge concern that involves doctors and nurses becoming skilled at their profession and many scientists and engineers in different fields providing medicines and devices necessary to actually provide health care. IF no one bothered to learn to become a physician or scientist or engineer, what health care would there be? What would you do? Put a gun to the heads of intelligent Americans and force them to go to medical school for your 'right?'

Hoosier, explain to me how you or anyone else deserve health care.

If that is really your position--"no one deserves to have anything that is provded by someone else"--then you've just declared yourself to be opposed to any modern idea of government based on the principle of right. Even the purest of libertarians believe in right to the extent that they want government to protect borders, police the streets and deliver the mail. My position is that health care ought to be a fundamental right in our society, just like education, security, liberty and free expression. What's so confusing about that?

I'm happy with protecting borders and police. That's specified in or constitution. Education and Health care were not. I understand your position that you want health care to be a right. I too, want to ensure that health care is available to all, but I don't think it's a right. Why do people deserve it? Do people deserve an ice cream cone every week, too? Do people deserve perfectly well-balanced nutritional meals? Were these things in our constitution. What to you is the difference between a 'responsibility' and 'right?'

[Cheesehead Craig]

I'm happy with protecting borders and police. That's specified in or constitution. Education and Health care were not. I understand your position that you want health care to be a right. I too, want to ensure that health care is available to all, but I don't think it's a right. Why do people deserve it? Do people deserve an ice cream cone every week, too? Do people deserve perfectly well-balanced nutritional meals? Were these things in our constitution. What to you is the difference between a 'responsibility' and 'right?'

Careful with that argument mraynrand, abolishing slavery and woman's sufferage weren't part of the Constitution at one point. Simply because it's not specifically in there doesn't mean it's not something worth having.

[mraynrand]

Agreed that "responsibility" is ambiguous and allows the answerer to emphasize personal or societal responsibility. I suspect Rather deliberately left it open to allow the two candidates to frame their policies as they saw fit. But it would have been interesting for him to have asked them to define "responsibility" if that was the door they chose.

Rather?

Anyway, I think they were mostly talking about personal responsibility, but it would be fine to regard both aspects - personal and societal. We can be responsible personally and societally without assuming health care is a 'right.'

[HowardRoark]

but I'm just arguing the ideal here, not the implementation.

The implementation is the hard part. And history shows that when competition is lacking, the quality of product goes down, and the prices go up.

For the record, I think the system is VERY flawed right now. We are at a crossroads right now. I think we need to go more towards true free markets in healthcare. With, of course, oversight.

[mraynrand]

I'm happy with protecting borders and police. That's specified in or constitution. Education and Health care were not. I understand your position that you want health care to be a right. I too, want to ensure that health care is available to all, but I don't think it's a right. Why do people deserve it? Do people deserve an ice cream cone every week, too? Do people deserve perfectly well-balanced nutritional meals? Were these things in our constitution. What to you is the difference between a 'responsibility' and 'right?'

Careful with that argument mraynrand, abolishing slavery and woman's sufferage weren't part of the Constitution at one point. Simply because it's not specifically in there doesn't mean it's not something worth having.

You're absolutely correct. I'm not arguing against something being desirable to have - I'm arguing whether it is a 'right.' Slavery and womens' rights are not particularly illuminating in this case, because we simply extended rights to people who should have had them all along. Those rights don't require 8-14 years of education after high school to provide. They are 'self-evident.'

[LL2]

One could make the argument that if we are indeed living in a Christian society in America, that it would be our Christian duty to help the less fortunate. If the poor cannot afford health care, we should then strive to assist them in obtaining it.

Yes, that is the Christian thing to do. I implore every Christian and every other citizen to help provide for the poor, the sick, for the people who really need help.

Yes, it’s the Christian thing to do to help the poor, the lame and the sick, but part of that is to help them become better so that they can rely and provide for themselves. If you just provide for people, and continue to always do that you are enabling them. By that, I mean you are enabling them to be dependent upon others. There are those that no matter how much you help them they will almost never be able to provide for themselves in many ways due to their lack of will to do so. Then there are those that will always need assistance, such as someone with Down Syndrome or a paraplegic, and those we have the responsibility to provide for. It’s interesting how some will mention “Well, isn’t it the Christian thing to do.” You have to put it in it’s proper context, because the Bible also says that if you do not work you do not eat.

[Cheesehead Craig]

I'm happy with protecting borders and police. That's specified in or constitution. Education and Health care were not. I understand your position that you want health care to be a right. I too, want to ensure that health care is available to all, but I don't think it's a right. Why do people deserve it? Do people deserve an ice cream cone every week, too? Do people deserve perfectly well-balanced nutritional meals? Were these things in our constitution. What to you is the difference between a 'responsibility' and 'right?'

Careful with that argument mraynrand, abolishing slavery and woman's sufferage weren't part of the Constitution at one point. Simply because it's not specifically in there doesn't mean it's not something worth having.

You're absolutely correct. I'm not arguing against something being desirable to have - I'm arguing whether it is a 'right.' Slavery and womens' rights are not particularly illuminating in this case, because we simply extended rights to people who should have had them all along. Those rights don't require 8-14 years of education after high school to provide. They are 'self-evident.'
Well, that phrase is from the Declaration of Independence, but I'll give it to you. :wink:

But what about the phrase "promote the general welfare" in the preamble, would not health care fall under that?

[Cheesehead Craig]

Yes, it’s the Christian thing to do to help the poor, the lame and the sick, but part of that is to help them become better so that they can rely and provide for themselves. If you just provide for people, and continue to always do that you are enabling them. By that, I mean you are enabling them to be dependent upon others. There are those that no matter how much you help them they will almost never be able to provide for themselves in many ways due to their lack of will to do so. Then there are those that will always need assistance, such as someone with Down Syndrome or a paraplegic, and those we have the responsibility to provide for. It’s interesting how some will mention “Well, isn’t it the Christian thing to do.” You have to put it in it’s proper context, because the Bible also says that if you do not work you do not eat.
I am speaking of the general agreed upon tenets of Christianity, not about pulling phrases from the Bible to support a claim. I believe that helping those less fortunate than us is the proper context of Christianity.

[LL2]

Yes, it’s the Christian thing to do to help the poor, the lame and the sick, but part of that is to help them become better so that they can rely and provide for themselves. If you just provide for people, and continue to always do that you are enabling them. By that, I mean you are enabling them to be dependent upon others. There are those that no matter how much you help them they will almost never be able to provide for themselves in many ways due to their lack of will to do so. Then there are those that will always need assistance, such as someone with Down Syndrome or a paraplegic, and those we have the responsibility to provide for. It’s interesting how some will mention “Well, isn’t it the Christian thing to do.” You have to put it in it’s proper context, because the Bible also says that if you do not work you do not eat.
I am speaking of the general agreed upon tenets of Christianity, not about pulling phrases from the Bible to support a claim. I believe that helping those less fortunate than us is the proper context of Christianity.

Yes, I will agree with that. I guess it depends on how you define "less fortunate." I already mentioned those with with Down Syndrome or a paraplegic as examples, but do you include that family with a decent job but the employer offers a really crappy health care plan and the out of pocket cost to the employee is high?

[Cheesehead Craig]

Yes, it’s the Christian thing to do to help the poor, the lame and the sick, but part of that is to help them become better so that they can rely and provide for themselves. If you just provide for people, and continue to always do that you are enabling them. By that, I mean you are enabling them to be dependent upon others. There are those that no matter how much you help them they will almost never be able to provide for themselves in many ways due to their lack of will to do so. Then there are those that will always need assistance, such as someone with Down Syndrome or a paraplegic, and those we have the responsibility to provide for. It’s interesting how some will mention “Well, isn’t it the Christian thing to do.” You have to put it in it’s proper context, because the Bible also says that if you do not work you do not eat.
I am speaking of the general agreed upon tenets of Christianity, not about pulling phrases from the Bible to support a claim. I believe that helping those less fortunate than us is the proper context of Christianity.

Yes, I will agree with that. I guess it depends on how you define "less fortunate." I already mentioned those with with Down Syndrome or a paraplegic as examples, but do you include that family with a decent job but the employer offers a really crappy health care plan and the out of pocket cost to the employee is high?
Now you're getting into specific cases and on that I have no definate answers. As I said before, I'm arguing ideals, not implementation and that as HowardRoark pointed out earlier is the hard part and I am in complete agreement on that. I guess you could say that if we give the same access and cost of health care to all, then this example would fall under that.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Speaking of the Constitution, this popped into my head:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_TXJRZ4CFc

I loved Schoolhouse Rock as a kid. I even got the tape of them to show my own kids.

[mraynrand]

I'm happy with protecting borders and police. That's specified in or constitution. Education and Health care were not. I understand your position that you want health care to be a right. I too, want to ensure that health care is available to all, but I don't think it's a right. Why do people deserve it? Do people deserve an ice cream cone every week, too? Do people deserve perfectly well-balanced nutritional meals? Were these things in our constitution. What to you is the difference between a 'responsibility' and 'right?'

Careful with that argument mraynrand, abolishing slavery and woman's sufferage weren't part of the Constitution at one point. Simply because it's not specifically in there doesn't mean it's not something worth having.

You're absolutely correct. I'm not arguing against something being desirable to have - I'm arguing whether it is a 'right.' Slavery and womens' rights are not particularly illuminating in this case, because we simply extended rights to people who should have had them all along. Those rights don't require 8-14 years of education after high school to provide. They are 'self-evident.'
Well, that phrase is from the Declaration of Independence, but I'll give it to you. :wink:

But what about the phrase "promote the general welfare" in the preamble, would not health care fall under that?

That's a phrase people love to refer to. It says promote, not provide and it says 'general' as well. And I'll go back to my central point - there are all sorts of things we as a people can decide to vote in and spend taxpayer monies on that 'promote' the general welfare, some are more appropriate for the government, like infrastructure as in roads etc. But that still doesn't make certain things 'rights.' It's not a trivial point. That attitude determines whether people will tend towards self-reliance or towards dependency on government.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

One could make the argument that if we are indeed living in a Christian society in America, that it would be our Christian duty to help the less fortunate. If the poor cannot afford health care, we should then strive to assist them in obtaining it.

I agree. But without the Government taking over. Notice the names of most of the hospitals in your city. Who started them?

When Ty comes in later to shit on this forum, he is going to point out how all medical care for the common man came from government programs. That's just the facts.

Yeah, it is so troubling when the facts interfere with your reality.

Gov't has always been involved with healthcare.

[Patler]

Gov't has always been involved with healthcare.

So THAT'S where the problems came from!! :shock:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Gov't has always been involved with healthcare.

So THAT'S where the problems came from!! :shock:

I was responding from a historical perspective. The first dedicated hospitals were funded by kings in the far east..and Ashok of India built 20 or so (though there is some that question whether they were hospitals or just rest places for travellers). In the New World the first hospitals were again gov't funded. Cortes i believe built the first for his soldiers, natives, etc.

The problem really came when it became a business..when you had healthcare plans, when doctors went from having 2 jobs to being specialists, to when the AMA became very powerful and forced out anyone who wanted a choice of who to see or if hospitals could even hire people who weren't AMA approved, when the gov't went into the business of giving money to research over care (this was concious choice), etc.

I had a very long post about this to Roark...which when confronted by the truth..he stopped arguing the point.

Gov't will always be involved. The question is implementation.

Those who are quick to blame gov't, ask themselves..is gov't getting the support it needs? Are all members of the gov't helping. Quite clearly the conservatives have been at war with gov't for the past 30 years. They want it to fail so as to prove their point. I take Norquist at his word. They aren't giving their all and best to see that it succeeds.

[mraynrand]

One could make the argument that if we are indeed living in a Christian society in America, that it would be our Christian duty to help the less fortunate. If the poor cannot afford health care, we should then strive to assist them in obtaining it.

I agree. But without the Government taking over. Notice the names of most of the hospitals in your city. Who started them?

When Ty comes in later to shit on this forum, he is going to point out how all medical care for the common man came from government programs. That's just the facts.

Yeah, it is so troubling when the facts interfere with your reality.

Gov't has always been involved with healthcare.

You're even more obedient than my labrador.

[mraynrand]

Quite clearly the conservatives have been at war with gov't for the past 30 years. They want it to fail so as to prove their point. I take Norquist at his word. They aren't giving their all and best to see that it succeeds.

lame

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Quite clearly the conservatives have been at war with gov't for the past 30 years. They want it to fail so as to prove their point. I take Norquist at his word. They aren't giving their all and best to see that it succeeds.

lame

Like your response.

[HowardRoark]

One could make the argument that if we are indeed living in a Christian society in America, that it would be our Christian duty to help the less fortunate. If the poor cannot afford health care, we should then strive to assist them in obtaining it.

I agree. But without the Government taking over. Notice the names of most of the hospitals in your city. Who started them?

When Ty comes in later to shit on this forum, he is going to point out how all medical care for the common man came from government programs. That's just the facts.

Yeah, it is so troubling when the facts interfere with your reality.

Gov't has always been involved with healthcare.

Never said they weren't Ty......just pointing out that religious people have indeed been helping the poor.

[HowardRoark]

Those who are quick to blame gov't, ask themselves..is gov't getting the support it needs? Are all members of the gov't helping. Quite clearly the conservatives have been at war with gov't for the past 30 years. They want it to fail so as to prove their point. I take Norquist at his word. They aren't giving their all and best to see that it succeeds.

And this says it all. We don't believe the Government is something that should fail or succeed. We think that the people should be allowed to fail or succeed. You make it sound as if the U.S. Government was somekind of start up company started in the 60s that we are trying to make work.

Let's all "give it are all" for the government to work. Sorry.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Those who are quick to blame gov't, ask themselves..is gov't getting the support it needs? Are all members of the gov't helping. Quite clearly the conservatives have been at war with gov't for the past 30 years. They want it to fail so as to prove their point. I take Norquist at his word. They aren't giving their all and best to see that it succeeds.

And this says it all. We don't believe the Government is something that should fail or succeed. We think that the people should be allowed to fail or succeed. You make it sound as if the U.S. Government was somekind of start up company started in the 60s that we are trying to make work.

Let's all "give it are all" for the government to work. Sorry.

The type of gov't that you rail against was new..it was started post WW2. If you don't understand that, then you need a basic history lesson. You think all those tract homes in DC were always there? You think the idea of bringing in the best and the brightest to work for gov't was always there? Not a chance. And, ever since then, conservs have been screaming about it..ever since the weathly got pushed out.

[hoosier]

When Obama said health care was a right I wish McCain said that everyone felt home ownership is a right and look at the mess we are in right now. There were a few times McCain could've had better answers.

Yeah, some people just don't deserve to have health care.

No one deserves to have 'health care' just as no one deserves to have anything that is provided by someone else. Health Care is a huge concern that involves doctors and nurses becoming skilled at their profession and many scientists and engineers in different fields providing medicines and devices necessary to actually provide health care. IF no one bothered to learn to become a physician or scientist or engineer, what health care would there be? What would you do? Put a gun to the heads of intelligent Americans and force them to go to medical school for your 'right?'

Hoosier, explain to me how you or anyone else deserve health care.

If that is really your position--"no one deserves to have anything that is provded by someone else"--then you've just declared yourself to be opposed to any modern idea of government based on the principle of right. Even the purest of libertarians believe in right to the extent that they want government to protect borders, police the streets and deliver the mail. My position is that health care ought to be a fundamental right in our society, just like education, security, liberty and free expression. What's so confusing about that?

I'm happy with protecting borders and police. That's specified in or constitution. Education and Health care were not. I understand your position that you want health care to be a right. I too, want to ensure that health care is available to all, but I don't think it's a right. Why do people deserve it? Do people deserve an ice cream cone every week, too? Do people deserve perfectly well-balanced nutritional meals? Were these things in our constitution. What to you is the difference between a 'responsibility' and 'right?'

No, a right to health care is not specified in the US Constitution. And I think you make a good point in reminding us that if something is NOT specified in the Constitution then, politically speaking, it's pretty meaningless. Health care reform will only gain staying power and political weight if it becomes an amendment.

We can argue back and forth about rights and responsibilities, with Retail Guy chiming in occasionally to keep us from forgetting about the freeloaders and the welfare cheats. I look at it this way: we have a choice between two imperfect solutions: either we enact something like universal, guaranteed access to affordable, comprehensive health care (I'm leaving the meaning of comprehensive open-ended) and in the process we open the door to providing services to people who don't want to (rather than cannot) work for them; or we decide that access to that level of health care is contingent on several factors (one's willingness to work, one's good fortune in finding a job with health care benefits, etc.), and in the process we leave uncovered a certain percentage of people who would be willing to work for the services. They are both imperfect, both bad, but in my view one is less bad than the other: the one that prioritizes health and helping others over "what's mine is mine."

[mraynrand]

The type of gov't that you rail against was new..it was started post WW2. If you don't understand that, then you need a basic history lesson. You think all those tract homes in DC were always there? You think the idea of bringing in the best and the brightest to work for gov't was always there? Not a chance. And, ever since then, conservs have been screaming about it..ever since the weathly got pushed out.

The best and the brightest are in government?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

The type of gov't that you rail against was new..it was started post WW2. If you don't understand that, then you need a basic history lesson. You think all those tract homes in DC were always there? You think the idea of bringing in the best and the brightest to work for gov't was always there? Not a chance. And, ever since then, conservs have been screaming about it..ever since the weathly got pushed out.

The best and the brightest are in government?

Certainly not in the executive branch.

[MJZiggy]

The effect of the Presidential debates? Seems to me they just start fights...

[retailguy]

Frankly I think the "people content to sit on their asses all day" image is a red herring concocted by Reagan that doesn't fit reality. Are there people like that? Of course, and they can be found in all classes and walks of life. But that extremely patronizing image doesn't fit the majority of poor and lower-middle class people/families any more than the companion image of the poor as the salt of the earth.

I don't think you can hold a meaningful, intelligent national debate over something this fundamental with positions that are based on extremely superficial stereotypes like yours.

Well, this is about the response I expected. Those people DO exist, I had a bunch of them say they wanted to work, I put them to work, only to find out that they didn't know how, and didn't want to learn...

Also I ran across plenty of people who enjoyed the job they did, and didn't want a new career and didn't care that it didn't pay well.

Keep denying the point if you wish, but plain and simple, THERE WILL ALWAYS BE PEOPLE LEFT BEHIND. Some due to circumstances, (those we need to help), and some due to their choices. We need to let them enjoy the benefits of their decisions while at the same time suffering the consequences of them too.

[GoPackGo]

McCain convinced me his ideas are better than Obama's tonight.

[Partial]

2 min per topic is ridiculous. I don't get why they don't have several open discussions together and have a less rigid forms.