Barack Obama just called me.

[Gypsiyee]

What I disagree with Paul on, I agree with Obama on, and vice versa. I think it's very much like a venn diagram - they meet in the middle on issues that are very important to me, and with all of the others they fall on one side or the other and are pretty much equal.

This I can't understand, but fair enough.

Have you seen that electoral compass that was posted on here a while back? if not, you should check it out, it's pretty neat - as an example, as far as dems and republicans go, you can see on the diagram where it places you that out of dems and republicans, Obama and Paul are the closest to each other. I ended up right in the middle of them when I took it, and I think that's mostly due to the fact that I, personally, just don't swing far to either side.

High pay /= Poor benefits. You're whole assumption is that a person has the choice between a job that pays well with poor benefits, or a job that pays crap with good benefits. That is of course, ridiculous. It may be your current situation, but is not all inclusive.

I don't understand why anyone feels it should be necessary for their decisions and personal health to become my responsibility through national healthcare. I don't understand why anyone feels I should have any responsibility to make up for the choices they made in their life. The whole idea stems down to "well I got a crappy deal, let me have your cards."

You're right, high pay doesn't mean crappy benefits; however, you'd be hard pressed to find a majority of people who've found the perfect balance between the two. Finding a position with the whole package just isn't always feasible. If every person could go out there and find this stellar job that offered great benefits and great pay, the world would be quite different. Realistically, this just isn't the case. People weigh pros and cons and pick what best suits them.. more often than not you have to lose a little to gain better in another category.

Every position has to be filled, and every person is qualified for something different. The type of health insurance offered varies from company to company, industry to industry. My take on the matter has nothing to do with wanting someone else to pay my way - anyone who's very close to me knows that my views are generally the polar opposite of that belief. I'm just of the opinion that no matter who you are or where you come from you deserve the chance at a healthy life. In WI I had a job that did give me the whole package and my opinion was still the same.

I just don't look at it in the sense that I'm paying for someone else. I look at it in the sense that I'm making my fair contribution so that everyone can equally benefit.

Considering the principles the nation was founded upon, all for one and one for all should apply, imo. So what if you have to pay a couple extra dollars a paycheck? Currently that money is just going into corrupt insurance companies who don't give two shits about you anyway.. so if I have the conscious decision to allow that money to benefit everyone, including myself no matter what job I go to, I'd certainly rather that.

What would happen to you if, god forbid, you got laid off and soon after fell very ill - all the sudden you don't have a job, can't get one because you're sick, your insurance runs out and there's usually a probationary period for preexisting conditions if you get a new plan. Now you either have to deal with whatever's wrong with you without seeing a doctor or you have to let those bills accumulate putting you thousands of dollars in debt - nevermind that a lot of doctors won't even bother seeing you if you don't have their money taken care of in some form.

People shouldn't have to be without the ability to go to the doctor, no matter if you make 50 million a year or 50k a year. The current system only benefits those who either work for a company who provides good benefits or those who sink a lot of money into their healthcare - it punishes those who a) can't afford it or b) don't have benefits provided with their employer. It puts a monetary value on someone's life and well-being, and that's just a bad way to handle it imo.

[Naethyn]

I forgot the link though =/

[Minrott]

That's a neat diagram. I don't know if I can agree with it 100% as it seems Paul would be much further in the fiscal conservatism than any of the other candidates.

As far as the health care thing, we'll have to agree to disagree. Is there a problem with health care in the US? Sure. But I see different ways of fixing it than socialized medicine. Just for one example, do you know what it costs say, to have a bone set and cast at one hospital versus another? I don't. 99% of people who go to a certain hospital do so because of where it's located, not because of the prices charged. If one hospital would charge you $500, and the next would charge you $1,000, which would you go to? But, because of veiled costs of care, that you'll never see until you're hit with a bill, you can't make that decision.

I will use LASIK as an example. When laser eye surgery hit the open market, it was outrageously expensive. $10,000 per eye. Very very few people could afford it, and insurance companies sure as hell would not cover it. But because the insurance companies wouldn't cover it, because the costs were right there out in the open for all eyes to see, competition took place. Competition lowers prices. That is the basic rule of any economic system. If insurance companies had covered the costs, there would have been no reason for competition, and prices would have remained the same. But today, I've seen people get LASIK for less than $700 an eye.

I know there will be people who say, "We shouldn't have to subject ourselves to cheap healthcare because we're poor!" No, of course you shouldn't. But because of the rules and laws already in place regarding malpractice, that's not going to happen. The best doctors, the most sought after doctors of course will be higher paid. Do the most brilliant doctors work at the VA? But if you socialized medicine, made all care equal for everyone, you would have to compensate all doctors equal to each other. Going down that road is a mistake, because highly educated, highly motivated people like to be paid what they're worth, not what politicians say they're worth.

The health care and insurance industry needs a great deal of work, but I cannot fathom how putting the people who are in control of FEMA, the IRS, the BATFE, or any other dysfunctional federal agency in charge of it could possibly bring us better care. The Insurance Industry surely does not care about you, as you said. They are a business, and business' are in business for profit. Funny how that whenever a governmental agency once gaining control over something works the same way, lest their budgets be cut next cycle.

[Arlos]

Honestly, I don't believe any health-care based business should ever be run on a for-profit basis. People's lives are entirely too important to have their well-being be based on the decisions of a middle-manager trying to make his bonus numbers for that quarter.

-Arlos

[Minrott]

How much should doctors be paid then, in your system? Nurses? Anesthesiologists? Radiologists? Any of the highly skilled, highly trained people who we are already in shortage of? Who already make very high wages, who are offered bonuses and compensation packages to come to work for "x" hospital?

Once your not for profit program is installed, what's to keep any of these intelligent people from leaving the soviet-like system for greener pastures they're obviously able enough to achieve in? Putting smiles on kids faces by cutting the cancer out of their spleen only goes so far. It doesn't pay any bills.

[Lueyen]

The illegal immigration issue is one of contention, and it bothers me so many do not respect other's opinions and beliefs. I think Mccain's plan was smart and did a lot of things right. There is no perfect plan, and there will be no mass deportation of tens of millions of people. I preferred it, many did not. It is certainly not a huge lynchpin, like judges, abortion, or taxes where Mccain has a strong record.

My general stance on illegal immigration is not in favor of mass deportation in that I don't think we need to specifically seek out people to deport. I believe if government enforced the law it would by attrition reduce illegal immigration to a much smaller, much more manageable issue... and in short this carries into my view of the various proposed acts. I want to see us get serious about stopping illegal entry into this country, and the employment of illegal aliens, it would reduce the issue to a much more manageable situation. If you have a leaking pipe in your basement you fix the pipe before you pump out the water, and you pump out the water before you try to build a swimming pool. McCain is a heavy supporter of guest worker style programs. With the hoops people have to jump through to immigrate legally, I find any program that would be easier to gain citizenship under due to being illegal completely unfair to those who try and go about things the right way.

It's a given the primary process is choosing someone most aligned to ones position. I'm not quite sure how you could prefer Romney over Mccain in regards to taxes and abortion. Romney has a much heavier tax history, and is very dodgy and was actually disturbingly pro choice until recently when he decided to run for President.

You say it is not his voting record, but it should be! Hearsay and side comments do not measure up to how one has voted. If they did, I'm not quite sure how you could even put Romney in the same ballpark as Mccain given his overt abortion stance.

My perception based on both what has been said and on voting record trends is that McCain is migrating away from a conservative stance and more toward a liberal stance on quite a few issues. Romney was going the other way, and likely I wanted to believe it was the truth and not playing the political spin game because I felt that what he brought to the table concerning his successes in the private sector would be a very good thing for the country. McCain brings governmental experience, which quite frankly can be good or bad, and likely a mix of both.

The reasoning behind Mccain's opposition to the original tax cut bill was understood and empathized by most conservatives, and is now being overtly taken out of context, such as you have done. Mccain was a stalwart supporter later on, and has been one of the leaders in assuring this bill passed, and likely will be extended again.

If he did not support them previously then why suddenly change to supporting their extension when what you wanted to accompany them has not been added? Is it political spin, or the realization that they had a positive effect to the point they did not necessitate the accompanying cuts in spending? If its the former... well not much to comment on there, if it's the latter then how many times do you have to be wrong before you start taking the right position to begin with, eliminating the need to reverse your stance after what you oppose goes through.

A lot of conservatives do not like Mccain because he isn't polarizing, partisan, and is actually friendly with people of different beliefs. This is exactly the type of person we need leading the country. Not one who has no belief in compromise or listening to counterpoints.

I suppose I'm guilty of this to some extent, as you don't meet someone half way if they aren't making an effort to do the same in kind. Judging from the individuals who are likely to be the democratic candidates, and the current house leadership the left isn't moving toward the center. If you average 1 and 10, or 5 and 6 you end up in the same spot. If however you average 5 and 10 you end up more toward 10... that's not compromise, that's concession.

[Arlos]

Uh, Minrott, where is it written that non-profit companies can't pay salaries? ALL it means is that the company's focus is different. They still need to take in income enough to meet operating costs, and still can pay their employees whatever they wish to. There can even be competition and different pricing. It really only means that all money earned is rolled entirely back into the company, and anything earned over those base operating costs is used to expand services or lower prices, and doesn't go towards profit margins, dividends, etc. etc. etc.

Hell, you did know that a significant percentage of hospitals, including any of them associated with universities, are already non-profit, yes? I mean, you hear such bad things about John's Hopkins Hospital due to it being non-profit, and no doctor would ever want to work there, by your logic, eh? There's nothing whatsoever about a non-profit company that says its employees don't get salaries, or wouldn't get paid the same as they are now. The COMPANY is non-profit. Employees can still make money by their salaries.

The problem is the insurance companies are for profit, and it's THEM who are all to frequently making the decisions on patient's treatments, with their primary purview being profit rather than patient care. I think that's wrong. The focus should be ENTIRELY on the patient's well-being, and NOT with whether or not they make profit numbers for a given quarter.

-Arlos

[Gypsiyee]

lots of stuff

Well Min, I reckon you're right that we'll agree to disagree; I know you just used lasic as an example, but I feel, personally, that it's a poor one to use - lasic is very rarely an absolute necessity. My prescription is a -8.25; would I like lasic? Hell yes I would, I can't see past my nose. Is it necessary? Nope, I have contacts. That's the luxury of an optional procedure - I can't afford it, I don't get it. People don't have this kind of option with cancer, for example. You get care or you die. This is all not taking into consideration that lasic was grossly expensive back then and got less expensive for the same reason computers do - now the technology is commonplace, so it can be provided at a much cheaper rate. Insurance not providing funding for it might've played a role, but I don't believe at all that it was the primary role in reducing the cost.

That said, onto salaries.. government workers are hardly hurting for cash and benefits, and these are people working on airplanes that I work with. Civilian employees are given level and step increases just like anywhere else, not to mention an awards budget that has to be given out throughout the year or wasted because that particular budget is assigned only for awards and can't be shifted around. Fantastic sick and annual leave, and retirement programs that you'd never find offered in the private sector. With that offered to people who are sitting at cushy desk jobs on base, I can't even hesitate to think doctors and nurses would get a bad deal working non-profit - I'd think it can only benefit them, truthfully. I mean I know they wouldn't be paid on the same type of scale, but I hardly think they'd get some sort of bum deal out of it. I don't think there's any non-profit organization that pays on a one size fits all measure.. if there is one, there aren't many.

I think many doctors and nurses go into the field because they have a passion for what they do - I can't imagine how hard it must be on them to tell a patient that needs them 'sorry I can't really help you because the money hungry guy that pays my salary says that you can't pay your bill so you're better off suffering.'

The states aren't in any position of envy when it comes to healthcare - there are certainly flaws to some universal healthcare plans, but that's the beauty of us adopting it so late - we've had the advantage of seeing what does and doesn't work, and with any luck, when and if we switch we'd have the advantage of tweaking it to something that works well for us.

[Minrott]

We're doomed.

[Eziekial]

dat's what I says!

[Evermore]

Uh, Minrott, where is it written that non-profit companies can't pay salaries? ALL it means is that the company's focus is different. They still need to take in income enough to meet operating costs, and still can pay their employees whatever they wish to. There can even be competition and different pricing. It really only means that all money earned is rolled entirely back into the company, and anything earned over those base operating costs is used to expand services or lower prices, and doesn't go towards profit margins, dividends, etc. etc. etc.

Hell, you did know that a significant percentage of hospitals, including any of them associated with universities, are already non-profit, yes? I mean, you hear such bad things about John's Hopkins Hospital due to it being non-profit, and no doctor would ever want to work there, by your logic, eh? There's nothing whatsoever about a non-profit company that says its employees don't get salaries, or wouldn't get paid the same as they are now. The COMPANY is non-profit. Employees can still make money by their salaries.

The problem is the insurance companies are for profit, and it's THEM who are all to frequently making the decisions on patient's treatments, with their primary purview being profit rather than patient care. I think that's wrong. The focus should be ENTIRELY on the patient's well-being, and NOT with whether or not they make profit numbers for a given quarter.

-Arlos

I work in a hospital and we are non-profit. I have to agree with arlos here. he is about right on.

[Tikker]

Honestly, I don't believe any health-care based business should ever be run on a for-profit basis. People's lives are entirely too important to have their well-being be based on the decisions of a middle-manager trying to make his bonus numbers for that quarter.

I would rather see a system implemented that was designed to weed out genetic defaults ( bad organs, carriers, etc)

it of course is uncomfortably close to the slippery slope

[Zanchief]

Honestly, I don't believe any health-care based business should ever be run on a for-profit basis. People's lives are entirely too important to have their well-being be based on the decisions of a middle-manager trying to make his bonus numbers for that quarter.

I would rather see a system implemented that was designed to weed out genetic defaults ( bad organs, carriers, etc)

it of course is uncomfortably close to the slippery slope

That kind of stuff even worries me, and I'm the resident socialist.

[Gaazy]

Some of the most crooked people Ive ever dealth with are the workers comp docs and people. Fuck those godamn assholes. I had a guy 2 years ago pinch a couple fingers off on his off hand, and those dicks fucked him and me all up with bullshit. He was ready to come back to work like less than a week later (he's a welder/fabricator, and nowadays, you can do a lot with just one hand with a MIG welder). Hes a really smart guy, so if anything he wanted to come back and be just a shop foreman or whatever, but the comp guys jerked our chain all over the place

[araby]

We're doomed.

I says it too.

My stupid ex boyfriend was giving me shit the other day. I said, "I'm not paying attention to politics right now, I just can't. We're doomed." haha..

and he says, "oh, it's because your expectations weren't met. did you really think Ron Paul had a chance?"

You know...it's got nothing to do with my expectations not being met. I didn't have any expectations. I told all of you, on this board, that I did not have an unrealistic view of how the campaign would turn out. My disappointment is in this race in it's entirety, the lack of candidates to choose from and being surrounded by sheep that take comfort in being in the majority, and say stupid things like, "you're not paying attention to politics anymore because *your* guy won't win."

I'd rather be in the minority and solid in my convictions than to be in the majority, without a clue as to why.

[Zanchief]

Well I'm glad you're so confident in you're ideology that any oaf who would vote for anyone other than Paul is considered a sheep.

That's more than a little condescending, Araby.

[araby]

Well I'm glad you're so confident in you're ideology that any oaf who would vote for anyone other than Paul is considered a sheep.

That's more than a little condescending, Araby.

stop paying so much attention to me.

[araby]

I assumed everyone on this board who's stated their respective opinion would know they are exempt from my rants..but just in case anyone didn't..like Zanchief...I'll clarify that my post was about my ex boyfriend...who takes pride in being in the majority and has no other reason for voting for Obama, other than that.

[Zanchief]

Well I'm glad you're so confident in you're ideology that any oaf who would vote for anyone other than Paul is considered a sheep.

That's more than a little condescending, Araby.

stop paying so much attention to me.

Jeez it's been like two weeks since the last time I pulled on your pigtails. You're due.

[Lyion]

Going through passive aggressive asshole withdrawal?

[Zanchief]

Going through passive aggressive asshole withdrawal?

Nah, I've just been reading your posts and living vicariously through you.

It doesn't have any of the wit, but I make do.

[Jay]

Paul was probably the best GOP candidate if you paid close enough attention but unfortunately Ron Paul fails at marketing himself. Why does Naethyn have to have a chat with his friend before someone will even look at Ron Paul? It's because Ron sucks at campaigning and fails at that aspect of being a leader. Image is a leadership quality too and Ron doesn't have it. He probably has everything else but lacks that image which as superficial as it may be probably would help him for foreign relations.

[Naethyn]

Paul was probably the best GOP candidate if you paid close enough attention but unfortunately Ron Paul fails at marketing himself. Why does Naethyn have to have a chat with his friend before someone will even look at Ron Paul? It's because Ron sucks at campaigning and fails at that aspect of being a leader. Image is a leadership quality too and Ron doesn't have it. He probably has everything else but lacks that image which as superficial as it may be probably would help him for foreign relations.

All of these images are from CNN.com. Notice any trends? It's the mass media that creates the image. People vote on image, not issues.

[Lyion]

Going through passive aggressive asshole withdrawal?

Nah, I've just been reading your posts and living vicariously through you.

It doesn't have any of the wit, but I make do.

Ding!

[Zanchief]

Damn it feels good~