WingColors

Haha, that's funny. Times have changed! LMAO

I do think it's funny that he's so quick to distance himself from the elitist and celebrity tags...

Like you said... out of 300 million people he thinks he's the best.

But then again, it tends to be the kiss of death for a Presidential candidate.

I do wonder if he can make up his mind though... he's been fighting tooth an nail for weeks trying to axe the celebrity elitist image, then he builds the acropolis in a football stadium to talk to a sea of people, half of which are hollywood elites and political elites...

The Onion is VERY good at making a point while making a joke at the same time.

Like you said... out of 300 million people he thinks he's the best.

McCain, Hillary, Bush, Kerry, Kennedy, Reagan... you name it, they're all, by definition, elitists. (Let's not forget, Reagan was ALSO a celebrity! OH NOES! As was the awesomeness incarnate, Charlton Heston! What has this world come to!)

But about the "celebrity" tag... remind me why that's a bad thing? Is he popular? Absolutely, and I'd honestly like to know what's wrong with that. Is he visible? Check. Is he therefore a celebrity? Pretty much by definition, yeah, and I'd like to know what's wrong with being a "celebrity". Most "celebrities" have actually done enough in their field to have earned the admiration from others. Einstein, Ford, Beethoven, Eisenhower, Lombardi--all celebrities. Yet all people who deservedly got there, as has Obama, who has become a popular leader. Usually when you're a popular leader it means you're doing what the people who elected you (or are hoping to elect you) want you to do. Leadership is not by definition unpopular. That's Bush logic: "Look how unpopular I am. I'm a great leader!"

And as for filling the coliseum, I fail to see what's wrong with that. Talking to a sea of people? Blasphemy! He should only be talking to the privileged few, the party elite, the bourgeois! Many people in his audience are celebrities? Blasphemy! Who cares if they're Americans, too! They're famous, they shouldn't be able to do things other people are entitled to, like displaying their political leaning and preferences, or exercising their power of free speech!

Frankly, I love the idea of him presenting in a stadium full of people.

I think the Onion's making fun of EVERYBODY here with this one, mostly because to many people that's sort of an unspoken, satirical idea. "Oh look, the black guy is getting called an elitist by a guy who can't remember how many houses he owns." Instead of asking the blatantly obvious, "Is he SERIOUS?!" they ask the funnier, "How great is that?!"

Well he accepted the nomination...have the oceans stopped rising and the world started healing yet or does he have to say a magic word or something?

That comes later when we bestow upon him the title, "President of the World".

Usually when you're a popular leader it means you're doing what the people who elected you (or are hoping to elect you) want you to do.

Usually when you're a popular leader, your supporters can explain in a lucid well formed sentence WHY they support you.

"because"

"he's great!"

"ummmmmm Bush sucks!"

...aren't signs of a solid platform.

There is popularity based on accomplishments and then there is popularity based on generalities... Obama is the latter.

He has promised the world, it will be entertaining watching the delivery.

I think the elitest tag has nothing to do with celebrity, but verything to do with the "do as I say not as I do" example most politicians (on both sides) put out there.

For the Dems, the whole week was pretty much focused on how bad things are out there. They like us to think they're the empathetic party that "feels your pain." So, they feel our pain so well, they build an unprecadented (and really unecessary) venue costing millions, for the man to give a speech. Wasting the precious dollars they need for all these programs that are better pulled from our pockets.

They cry for the sick and dying planet, so they build a giant, AIR CONDITIONED stage OUTSIDE to keep the saviors of our planet cool and fresh looking for the world stage. A bunch of Republicans with a fleet of Hummers probably wouldn't dump as much CO2 into the air as that stage did.

It's all very disengenuous. Nero fiddling while Rome burns.

Like you, the big production and celebrity doesn't bother me - what politician isn't a celebrity?

What gets me is that if you're going to try to convince me of something, than show me with your actions, not your big glorious speeches.

yes, why speak or write eh? sounds more than a little ridiculous coming from a bunch of bloggers!

you've already had 8 years having your country run by a man as dumb as a sack of hammers so yes, damn right you need somebody with brains, communication skills, flexibility, nuance, judgement, etc, etc. President of the United States is not a job that anybody can or should even attempt to do. Just like not everybody should be or attempt to be an airline pilot.

at what point did self belief, conviction and confidence become negative character traits?

McCain and his unintentionally hilarious, never heard of her, met her once, believes the the earth was created in 6 days, Governor of Reindeerville™ VP are going to send you, and the rest of the world, even further down into a big black hole than we already are.

and RightWrong, take a good look around at the architecture in the United States, plenty of pillars and columns, all over the shop. In order to see them however you would have to open your eyes, just once.

at what point did self belief, conviction and confidence become negative character traits?

Apparently, right after McCain named Palin, according to you...

McCain and his unintentionally hilarious, never heard of her, met her once, believes the the earth was created in 6 days, Governor of Reindeerville™ VP are going to send you, and the rest of the world, even further down into a big black hole than we already are.

I don't know much about her political background, but she seems to have the self belief, conviction and confidence thing down. Her experiences in Alaska seem to also reflect she also has some "brains, communication skills, flexibility, nuance, judgement, etc, etc."

Or maybe all that feel good, "you can do it" stuff works only if one is a member of the right party.

Glad to see they let the kids access the computer lab every once in a while.

Within minutes all the arguments against her were laid on the table by Obama's people... the strangest being that she doesn't have ENOUGH executive experience to be the VP.

Lets see here...

Obama - NONE
Biden - NONE

vs.

McCain - NONE
Palin - 2 years as Governor of AK and 6 years as Mayor of Wasilla, AK.

So we have a pair of liberal Senators yukin it up about how unqualified she is due to lack of executive experience... hmmmm something doesn't seem RIGHT to me.

Look, you can be the most charismatic, god-like person on the planet and you can still be a lousy President.

I saw this run by on Twitter earlier and it fit, oh so well...

Obama & Palin were young politicians operating in cesspools of corruption. Palin confronted it; Obama acquiesced to the machine.

I'm not sure what "yukin" is so I'm pretty sure you just made that word up and that's not allowed.

I can find no comment attributed to Biden about Palin but Obama is quoted (by Politico) as saying;

"I haven't met her before. She seems like a compelling person ... with a terrific personal story.

"I'm sure that she will help make the case for Republicans, unfortunately the case is more of the same, and so ultimately John McCain is at the top of the ticket."

"He wants to take the country in the wrong direction, I'm assuming Gov. Palin agrees with him and his policies," he said.

"But the fact that she ... will soon be nominated ... is one more indicator of this country moving forward ... one more hit against that glass ceiling. I congratulate her and look forward to a vigorous debate."

so once again you're just making stuff up.

also, Ms Palin won the Mayorship of Wasilla with 909 votes, she didn't win by 909 votes that's how many people voted for her. Somehow I don't think that counts as executive experience because if it does then any high school president is good to go.

Palin has been chosen to try and nab the, so-called, PUMA's, who are still pissed that Hillary lost the primary. McCain doesn't know her, she's a woman and that's the drving factor which is insulting.

Having followed several national elections McCain and his merry band of muppets are running one of the most pathetic campaigns I've ever seen. They suck at telling the truth, they suck at lying and they have no policies. Other than the ones that you think are going to mean you pay less taxes of course and keep the evil hand of government from stopping you doing stupid things, like driving a 4mpg SUV in a national forest so you can hunt squirrels with an uzi.

One final thing, how long do you think she will be VP candidate when she gets booted from office for improper use of her power? I'm betting 48 hours, because that's how long it'll take McCain's addled brain to work out that's what he needs to do.

...I'm not sure what "yukin" is so I'm pretty sure you just made that word up and that's not allowed.

I can find no comment attributed to Biden about Palin but Obama is quoted (by Politico) as saying;...

You're playing semantics, Article19. The very article you quote was written because Obama had to separate himself and Biden from the "hair trigger" remarks made by their campaign against Palin.

I also find it hilarious how McCain's continued health concerns jumped to deathwatch as soon as he named Palin. Gee, I hope he makes it to the inauguration!

To be honest, I'm not real thrilled with either party having this level of inexperience in the office.

However, given the choice of the lesser of two evils, I'd much rather have a VP learning and being mentored by a President rather than a President getting his prime direction and strategy from the office of the VP. I mean, isn't that what we pretty much have now?

...and I thought you folks were so opposed to a third term of Bush-Cheney.

BTW: Yukkin is making a lot of noise with your mouth, without really saying anything of substance

once again, the only Biden quote on Palin that I can find is from ABC news

"i'm looking forward to meeting her"

The rest of your point is in your own head.

Article...

The spokesmen and women who work for Obama speak FOR Obama. When a staff member makes a comment about another candidate they speak for Obama whether or not Obama actually uttered the words or not.

yes, thank you for the communications 101, i'll go with what Obama actually said!

Obama's words were that she was a fine mother and an up and coming public servant but that it was too early to really have much of an opinion of her. That's fine... it's day 2.

Regardless of what you may think he is just as accountable for HIS words as he is the words of those that represent him. He and Biden both will have to be careful with how they criticize her as polling during the early primary season showed that he lost large numbers of points when he was harsh on Clinton in the 'single mother and married women' segments of the US voter base.

It amazes me how Obama is seemingly not responsible for the actions of his committee spokespeople, but Bush is somehow responsible for every failing in the US, even if the Executive Office has no control over it whatsoever.

Give. Me. A. Break.

that would be because Bush is the President of the United States, so yes, it is his fault. He's a lying, miserable, pathetic son of bitch with a cold heart a delusional mind and pathological inability to admit he's wrong.

Will Obama be any better? the chances are firmly in his favour that he will be, that means you right wing hacks will actually be better off, you might even be happier, you might actually stop being self centered miserable asses, we can only hope.

yes, yes, i know, i've insulted you, i called you names, the mighty ones will be displeased! bite me!

you've already had 8 years having your country run by a man as dumb as a sack of hammers so yes, damn right you need somebody with brains, communication skills, flexibility, nuance, judgement, etc, etc. President of the United States is not a job that anybody can or should even attempt to do. Just like not everybody should be or attempt to be an airline pilot.

McCain and his unintentionally hilarious, never heard of her, met her once, believes the the earth was created in 6 days, Governor of Reindeerville™ VP are going to send you, and the rest of the world, even further down into a big black hole than we already are.

and RightWrong, take a good look around at the architecture in the United States, plenty of pillars and columns, all over the shop. In order to see them however you would have to open your eyes, just once.

you're just making stuff up.

Having followed several national elections McCain and his merry band of muppets are running one of the most pathetic campaigns I've ever seen. They suck at telling the truth, they suck at lying and they have no policies. Other than the ones that you think are going to mean you pay less taxes of course and keep the evil hand of government from stopping you doing stupid things, like driving a 4mpg SUV in a national forest so you can hunt squirrels with an uzi.

The rest of your point is in your own head.

yes, thank you for the communications 101

that would be because Bush is the President of the United States, so yes, it is his fault. He's a lying, miserable, pathetic son of bitch with a cold heart a delusional mind and pathological inability to admit he's wrong.

you might even be happier, you might actually stop being self centered miserable asses

bite me!

I'm sorry, who's the miserable ass here? LMAO

I'll be glad to continue a mature, adult conversation with anyone willing to do so.

Facts and opinions are one thing, insulting someone because they hold different values than you and you cannot find a way to rationalize your thoughts is uncalled for.

Back to the discussion...

Usually when you're a popular leader, your supporters can explain in a lucid well formed sentence WHY they support you.

"because"

"he's great!"

"ummmmmm Bush sucks!"

The problem is that you're talking to people who are more excited about the persona than they are (or they fully understand) the platform. If you actually read what the man says you actually do get a rather comprehensive view of his policies and credentials. Besides, it's much easier to point out what's wrong with something than what's right with it. The reactions you get pro-Obama are like the reactions I get pro-Mccain: "Obama's a liberal!" being by far the most common. "He was a P.O.W.," and "Obama hasn't offered any plans" being the other two, with the later having once been true (at the very, very beginning of his campaign) but no longer.

(By the way, RightOn, who DO you support and why? I remember you being against McCain for his stance on immigration, but haven't seen you declare where you stand insofar as the presidential race is concerned.)

Why I still (despite that wretched phone company immunity vote) support the man: first, his overall economic policy of raising taxes on the people who can afford it while lowering it for the vast majority of the population is, I believe, the right way to go. To cut taxes then increase overall spending and paying for it with foreign loans is nothing short of suicidal. The fact that McCain wants to continue the tax cuts without any clearly outlined method of reducing the deficit without negatively impacting infrastructure and social programs is, to me, by far the worst thing about his campaign. Generally, I don't support the Libertarian platform because it tends to resemble more of a equatorial oligarchy than a liberal government where it is the responsibility of the government to protect its people, hence no Bob Barr. (Whether that responsibility should now be the providence of the Federal government as opposed to the state government is another discussion entirely.)

In addition, I strongly support the concept of universal health care, something which I believe we would be on the road to achieving through Obama's plans, which basically say "let the market do what the market does well, and have the Federal government step in when the market doesn't." This is opposed to the current idea (and one which, it seems, the McCain camp has taken to) that we should privatize the rewards while the government takes on the risks.

There are other reasons, such as my support of his service for college funds plan, whereby doing a certain amount of public service would result in the earning of money for college (an investment in both the public infrastructure and in the long-term education development and improvement of our population's standing in world markets), but I'll keep this post short.

The biggest thing that concerns me is the stance on Universal Healthcare.

Medicare is the closest equivalent we have to Universal Healthcare, and even in it's much smaller footprint of seniors 65+, it has been a mitigated disaster of a program since it's inception in the mid-60's.

I cant even fathom how you make such a program work for the nation at large.

...his overall economic policy of raising taxes on the people who can afford it while lowering it for the vast majority of the population is, I believe, the right way to go.

Oh yeah, tax those rich folk, they don't pay enough as it is...

The top 10% of wage earners in the US pick up 68% of the over all tax bill each year. Why not bleed them for a little more. You're assuming that nothing much is done with all that wealth... that they have stockpiles of untaxed income just waiting to be tapped into.

Business owners that pay a large chunk of this nations tax burden aren't going to be shelling out the jobs if their money is disappearing faster and faster thanks to MORE taxes... in fact they're going to be MORE willing leave the country for employees as they can pull more profit by paying them less for the same jobs.

Generally, I don't support the Libertarian platform because it tends to resemble more of a equatorial oligarchy than a liberal government where it is the responsibility of the government to protect its people

While government DOES have a role in protecting its people, I personally feel that I would much prefer less than more. Protect me from foreign attacks, protect my borders and protect our economy... other than that I'm pretty adept at taking care of me and my own.

Who do I support and why... well given that I am an unwilling participant in the two party election system we've been pigeonholed into (in that I would MUCH prefer a balanced process open to any and ALL political parties and their ideas)... at this spot in the road I MUCH prefer a McCain/Palin ticket to an Obama/Biden one, bearing in mind that no one will ever find a PERFECT candidate.

I agree with his plan to repeal the $.54 per gallon tax on sugar based ethanol and repealing corn based ethanol mandates.

I share his supported expansion for the death penalty and limits on appeals.

I agree with his plan on expanding school choice programs.

I side with McCain on offshore drilling (although I would include drilling in ANWR). I also feel WHILE we're drilling for more oil, we need to be finding alternatives to our current fuel sources. You're NOT going to be able to shut off oil any time soon, better to reduce imports while you do your research.

McCain has supposedly turned the page on his support for amnesty but it has yet to be seen if he would continue this support into office. As of right now, I support his calls for a border fence and a more secure border.

I approve of McCains plans to ease the Bush restrictions on stem cell research...

As for Universal Healthcare... I don't wish to be taxed, to assist anyone else's health concerns. If someone in my life, who means something to me needs assistance I will gladly help. If we can't get Medicaid right, what makes you think the government will be able to get national coverage work?

McCain supports a plan for a $2,500 refundable tax credit for individuals, and a $5,000 credit for families, to make health insurance more affordable.

Protect me from foreign attacks, protect my borders and protect our economy... other than that I'm pretty adept at taking care of me and my own.

deaths at the hands of terrorists including 9/11 over the last 7 years, 3,000. Gun deaths in the US over the same period, over 200,000. Sounds like you need protecting from yourselves more than scary terrorists. Your philosophy is bankrupt, much like your entire country will be if you don't change your attitude.

Protecting your economy means paying taxes. You want roads, schools, healthcare, infrastructure of any kind, then you have to pay for it and the big scary government has to provide it. That big scary government has to be run by smart people though which is the point so often missed by the right.

All that security you want but don't need, who's going to pay for that? Blackwater? oh.... wait, you already pay them billions for doing not very much at all other than protecting US personnel in Iraq which is a mess made by........... you know the rest.

We already shell out TONS of taxes that our so called "representatives" feel they need to filter towards buildings with their names on them and other billion dollar "fluff" projects. If they actually SPENT the money responsibly and the way they SAID they would and cut off the pork projects, they wouldn't NEED to raise any taxes.

name 5 projects that cost a billion dollars that had no meaningful purpose, or even 3!

Article19... you know as well as anyone that I didn't mean ONE project cost $1,000,000,000.

Well not ALL the time... A quick Google search turned up an earmark from 2006 where Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA) wanted to add $1.5 billion to the Deep Water Energy Resources Act to service the metro transit system in his district.

The problem I have with amendments like these isn't because it may BE beneficial to the Metro system to get this $1.5 billion dollars, it's that they wanted to use taxpayer funds in a bill who's primary function was no where close to the same target as the amendment.

In 2007, there were 2,658 add on's to the Defense and Homeland Security Appropriations Acts that had NOTHING to do with Homeland Security or Defense... at a cost of $13.2 BILLION to the tax payers.

When you're adding in funding for state level projects like museum improvements, ball parks, stadiums and libraries you're not doing your job.

Congress' job at the national level is to fund NATIONAL level projects... not state level luxuries.

The biggest thing that concerns me is the stance on Universal Healthcare.

Honestly, fuscom, do you REALLY think we don't already have Universal health care? We do. It's called the Emergency room, and it's by far the most expensive form of health care available. Yet, that's what people are relegated to when they're not covered for any form of preventative care, waiting until it's bad enough that they have to be hospitalized, instead of getting it taken care of early.

Your example of Medicare is a great one. However, the biggest problem with Medicare isn't that it's a huge program, the biggest problem is that for YEARS Medicare has not been allowed to use any sort of negotiatin power when dealing with drug companies, so that something which would cost, say, the VA (which can negotiate prices with drug companies) $150 is costing Medicare (which has to pay sticker value) $1150. (Sadly, that's not an exaggerated example, although I can't cite specifics at the moment.) Give Medicare the same time of negotiating power that any other entity with a large client base has and see how suddenly the costs drop through the floor. You can thank the rather powerful, multi-BILLON-dollar pharma lobby for that one.

If we're going to have a free market, let's have a free market, not one where the tax payer is stuck paying top dollar because they're not allowed to collectively negotiate.

Oh yeah, tax those rich folk, they don't pay enough as it is...

They pay a helluva lot less than they did 8 years ago when we had a budget surplus. And by comparison, the rich folk who would be taxed more (the top 2% -- the bottom 98% would be taxed LESS under Obama's tax plan) have seen personal gain increases hundreds of times higher -- as a percentage -- than the bottom 98% over the same period of time. Frankly, as someone nearing the top 2% income bracket (not quite there yet), I can honestly say that I don't mind being taxed more if I know the money is being used for public infrastructure (like bridges and roads) and being invested in the welfare of the populace via services like a college education and health care.

McCain supports a plan for a $2,500 refundable tax credit for individuals, and a $5,000 credit for families, to make health insurance more affordable.

Last year my health expenditures were approximately $22,500. I was diagnosed with a number of conditions for which no matter how good my health was I could not guard against. (Research idiopathic gastroparesis and see how much you can really do to prevent that, will ya? That's just ONE of the recent, out of the blue diagnosis I received last year.) I have rather good health insurance through my work, so that only $1,500 of that came out of my pocket, NOT INCLUDING the medications they did not cover. (Thank God I can buy medications online for cheaper these days, otherwise I would be paying $6 per pill for my medication.) However, because of medical conditions over which I have NO control, my insurance cost would be somewhere between $600 and $1250 PER MONTH. Translation: the McCain plan would cover me for 4 months, TOPS, not including any co-pays I'd have to make before they would even start covering me. Between my wife and I we now make a fair amount, but I'll tell ya, $22,000 is still steep. I don't care how well you think you can take care of your own, if you come down with, say, multiple sclerosis, and in 5 years are no longer able to provide for your family, what then? What happens when you can't afford the medications or treatments, and when you're actually physically unable to provide for even your own care? What happens to your family then? Oh, what, your parents or siblings will help take care of you? What about those who don't have parents or siblings for one reason or another? Sorry, but the "I've got mine" philosophy endemic to modern libertarian thinking is nothing but heartless selfishness excusing itself by touting fiscal and personal responsibility. As a society we are better than that, better than "I've got mine, you go get yours, and I'll help you only if I really feel like it. Oh, and what's in it for me?"

But anyway, this conversation is getting WAY off topic, so I'll stop here. Interesting though it is, maybe it deserves another thread?

You think you would have been treated even remotely as fast as you had been under any government rule?

Considering I had to end up in the emergency room a few times, yes. Yes I do. Also, if you look at places where government health care is run well, I would be treated with similar efficiency. By the way, ever wonder why most of the citizens of these countries with universal health care have longer lifespans than Americans?

That said, you're using the old conservative tactic of attacking one portion of the issue in order to poke holes in the idea and thereby seemingly strengthen your argument. (Creationists do the same thing.) In other words, your question still skirts the issue without actually addressing it. The issue isn't "Well, where can we get the fastest health care," it's "where can people get ANY health care." Some people can't, and it's not because they're lazy, it's because sometimes you have issues that are completely out of your control. (By the way, did you know that the single biggest reason for filing bankruptcy -- which, by the way, is now harder than ever before -- is because of medical bills? We're not talking about fatasses that wouldn't stop shoveling hamburgers into their mouths, though that's another topic, we're talking about people who wake up one morning to find out that they have rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, multiple sclerosis, cancer, or a myriad of other conditions which will eventually make them unable to work.) Other times, they have preventable issues which go unchecked so long -- because of the lack of checkups or medicine, which they can't afford, regardless of whether their job has insurance or not -- that they become chronic and life threatening, and in the end cost 10-fold more TO THE TAX PAYER than they would had they been treated earlier.

As I said, I'm a proponent of universal health care. That doesn't necessarily mean single-payer health care, although in most first world nations (most of which have considerably better overall health care than we have here) that's what's available and, when managed correctly (ie, not by people who constantly spend every political dime they have talking about how much they hate government) costs less than we pay here for insuring only 84% of the population. It also doesn't mean that I necessarily support Federal health care exclusively, though I do think it makes the most sense.

(Here's a side note: Conservatives LOVE talking about how much they hate government, how it can't do anything right, and how it's really no good. If I was an employer and someone came to me telling me how much they hate my company and what I do, how everything we do is wrong, and how much they hate the idea of their work, why in the HELL would I hire them, or keep them in the job? No wonder government sucks. It's currently run by people who hate their employer!)

Are there failed systems? Absolutely. For example, I'm not sure I'd want to copy either the British or the Canadian system of health care. However, since we'd be starting essentially anew, why not study the best systems and model ours after theirs? France and Sweden, and Norway come to mind. Why does it always have to be "bah! If it's government run it must necessarily be bad"?

The US constitution says that the role of the government is to protect its citizens. The constitution was written at a time when the idea of preventative medicine to the scale we have today was unheard of. Had the constitution been written today, ~230 years later, you can almost guarantee some level of health care would have been included. Why? Because protecting the health of the populace can wel be considered protecting the populace. (Think of it this way: the CDC and surgeons are sort of like our military forces, and primary care physicians are like the police.) But then, maybe it's time we had another constitutional convention. After all, that IS one of the two ways in which the constitution can be changed, as outlined in the constitution itself. But again, that's a subject for another matter.

Let me then turn it around and ask you, if my job didn't cover my insurance, or if I was one of the ~40,000,000 people who didn't have some kind of health insurance, if I didn't have enough to pay for it myself for one reason or another, would I have been treated at all? Or would my first diagnosis come in the emergency room during a life-threatening condition?

...However, since we'd be starting essentially anew, why not study the best systems and model ours after theirs?...

Why try to force fit a square peg in to a round hole? Best practice studies ONLY work when you're modeling something that is relevant to the environment you're in. Perhaps the healthcare programs in France, Norway and Sweden are terrific. The problem though, is the US is not France, Norway and Sweden. Don't get caught in the illusion that just cause it works there, it'll work here too.

As has been pointed out, the US already has healthcare programs. Wouldn't the better solution be to look at what works (and doesn't) in Medicare, Medicaid, Emergency Rooms, Free clinics and the VA, and get those working at full efficiency, before we stack still another program into the mix? The one thing that we are guaranteed is that the addition of a new program will convolute the processes and procedures already established and understood by the existing.

I've had family in the emergency room / hospital since last Thursday. What started out as an initial diagnoses of a severe bladder infection has now progressed to suspicion of cancer. The process to get to this point, and to try and get a transfer to a cancer hospital immediately has been a trial in and of itself. Our experience thus far has consisted of relentless paperwork and tests upon tests and referrals and the need of a "hard" diagnosis to even get transferred. I can't even fathom what a cluster f* it would become should some well meaning program like UHC get dumped on top of and intertwined in this process. Perhaps this potential "bridge to nowhere" can be called the "stairway to Heaven" as people will no doubt lay around dying while waiting for the even higher stack of bureaucratic red tape to be sifted through and unwound.

Promoting a "study" of best case universal healthcare from systems outside of the US is a waste of taxpayer money. Hopefully Obama, if elected, will add it to the list of things to eliminate in the quest to cut down unnecessary government spending.

Speaking of relevancy, thanks for that little slam of creationists in this discussion of healthcare. Your little example is exactly why none of these things which sound great in speeches never work out in reality -- added pork which has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Soo... basically you're saying that it's useless to study successful models in order to create a successful model because what works in one place MIGHT not work in another. (Although it might.) This makes no sense. Seriously, it doesn't. Because what you're assuming is that a study is the same as grabbing someone else's program wholesale and implementing it here, instead of what it is, which is studying what they're doing IN ADDITION TO what we're doing, and seeing what works in a universal healt care setting, whether that be a private/public partnership, single-payer public, or completely privatized. Having over 40,000,000 without health care (some of who, admittedly, don't want it, but but vast majority who do) shows that something is very obviously NOT working with our current system.

For the record, only a fool would refuse to study available material and working examples before embarking on a huge project of a similar kind. When I worked for Verizon we did comparative studies between companies all the time: Sprint, AT&T, and our own efforts. And whenever dealing with an international market, what worked in the US and what worked in that country was studied, to use as a point of comparison. What worked for AT&T in a similar market? What worked for Sprint? What services do they offere there vs. here? What services do we offer there vs here? Everything from advertisements to services offered was studied, to see what worked and what didn't in different locations.

And by the way, the "slam" on creationists was not a slam at all, it was a point of comparison showing the use of similar tactics here and in a highly recognized argument.

Anyway, I'll be starting a thread now as a continuation of this particular line of thought, thereby leavivng this to stay within the originally intended topic: a humorous video that pokes fun at the racial elephant in the electoral room.

New thread on the Health Care issue here:

http://wingcolors.com/politics/notes/16001.

Now, can we keep this thread to the Onion video?

gah! dupe