I don't think I've ever posted in P&N so maybe this is a noob question, but I was wondering, which of these candidates, as president, do you think would be more successful in pulling off their plans? I'm specifically curious about health care reform, but there are other issues as well.
Obama and Clinton: Who would accomplish what they promise as president?
- Thread starter thirtythree
- Start date
They both are cookie cutters of big government politicians so it doesn't matter really. clinton would get healthcare done but at what cost? Too much IMO. Screw'em both!
BeauJangles
Lifer
- Aug 26, 2001
- 13,941
- 1
- 0
Clinton's healthcare policy does nothing to address the actual problems with our healthcare system. For that reason alone, I'd vote against her.
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,402
- 8,574
- 126
iirc, there is very little difference between obama's and hilldawg's respective medical care plans. they're both stolen from john edwards. i think the main difference is that hilldawg's taxes you if you don't buy medical insurance.
Great change in this country will not come via the ballot box, so it doesnt matter who you vote for. The political establishment will make sure that nobody who might threaten it can reach the presidency, and that is easy to do with a lock on the media and the courts.
OutHouse
Lifer
- Jun 5, 2000
- 36,410
- 616
- 126
neither. they dont give a crap about the public and you are a fool to even think they do. if either of those to get elected you will see the same stetup as you see with bush. nothing but returning favors and protecting the people who got them into office.
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
If the last year is an indication, nothing. Even with a Dem in white house an a simple majority in the senate, GOP will continue to cock block anything.
It would be no different than if the aprties were reversed.
One thing is for sure though. We wont leave Iraq.
It would be no different than if the aprties were reversed.
One thing is for sure though. We wont leave Iraq.
Drakkon
Diamond Member
- Aug 14, 2001
- 8,401
- 1
- 0
Would ANY candidate truly accomplish anything? With a split 50/50 senate the process of bitch and moan and do nothing will continue. blackangst1 has it dead on - if a dem wins everything will be blocked in the senate if a rep like romney/huck/guil wins nothing will change. if an extreme candidate wins (paul, kucinich) then nobody will buy in and we'll really be in a pickle.
if a democrat won the presidency, chances are, the party would pick up additional D seats from people voting party line.
you'd also have a democratic VP to break ties.
you'd also have a democratic VP to break ties.
What cost are you referring to?
There are other aspects to each candidates' health care plan -- what exactly are you referring to? Whether they would actually do anything about these issues is another question, thus this thread.
That's the impression that I get. Here is a decent article comparing the two.
Using the government's insurance is optional, at least with Obama's plan. Private insurance is an option with both.
This is a pretty pessimistic group I see, but surely there's some reason to choose one over the other.
EDIT: One more question: Both say they want to keep insurance companies from denying people based on pre-existing conditions, etc. If this ever was put into action, how many people do you think would just go without insurance until they got an expensive disease/injury. It seems like this would increase premiums for others. (And I know Hillary would supposedly require insurance, but it doesn't seem probable that she'll be able to enforce this. e.g., see the article I linked earlier in this post.)
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
I think Obama would be more successful. That's based upon my belief that the Dems won't be able to get 60 or more seats in the Senate. If they, do the question is mostly moot because whoever become the Dem Pres would have so much Congressional support the only way to fail would be to fight with their own party.
Unlike Bill, I see Hillary as unable & unwilling to work with those across the ailse. L9ike Pelosi & Reid. Bill was great at compromise & persuasion. I don't see these as HRC traits whatsoever. So, if she wins I forsee more partisan acrimony and gridlock due to her inability to perusade & compromise. Her natural tendency seems to be "villifying". I still recall her "vast right wing conspiracy" nonsense.
Obama, OTOH, strikes me as far more naturally capable of getting some Repubs to his side, which will be necessary to getting anything accomplished.
I'd even put Edwards above HRC in this capacity.
Fern
I believe Obama has the best chance of bringing the country together. My proof lies in the fact that even Pabster likes the guy.
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,402
- 8,574
- 126
doesn't solve the underlying problems that a) we spend gobs and gobs of money to extend life very short periods of time near the end of life; and b) as easy stuff is cured it is replaced by progressively harder and more expensive to cure stuff. clean drinking water with separate sanitary sewer systems has done more to extend the quality and length of life in this country than probably all medical care combined.
doesn't even look like these plans reduce the paper pushing costs (which, imho, is the primary and perhaps only cost-saving of moving to a single payer system without asking very hard questions, and can largely be accomplished without moving to a single-payer system).
I doubt anyone is going to touch either of those first two issues. If someone wants to live a bit (or a lot) longer, I'm not sure that it should be up to the government to decide if they're allowed to. Obama does have a plan to reduce the cost of catastrophic illnesses for employers and employees (but of course, the money has to come from somewhere). Both plans also include ideas for decreasing costs in general (including paper pushing costs). For example (these are all part of Obama's plan, at least), investing in health care technology and electronic records, requiring contributions from employers who don't provide adequate health care, improving efficiency and standards for insurance companies, requiring transparency in health care costs, reforming medical malpractice, increasing insurance competition, lowering prescription drug costs, medical research, preventative care, and maybe a couple things I left off.
I don't see Obama and Clinton as being fundamentally different.
I somehow trust Obama more, that's about it. I'd say they both have about an equal shot at getting things done.
Obama does seem more direct and straightforward; I will give him that much. That could help speed things up I guess.
I somehow trust Obama more, that's about it. I'd say they both have about an equal shot at getting things done.
Obama does seem more direct and straightforward; I will give him that much. That could help speed things up I guess.
Jaskalas
Lifer
- Jun 23, 2004
- 35,955
- 10,298
- 136
Liking a person and liking policy can be totally separate. I?m sure Pabster hates the idea of sliding us into communism as much as I do, and that is exactly what pro-government types (Obama included) seek to do to this nation.
I would want the head of any Republican who sides with Obama on such issues merely because they like Obama better than Clinton. A poisoned pill is still poison no matter who the doctor is.
Perhaps I should've made my original post more clear. Pabster has even said he'd vote for the guy against many of the Republican candidates, as have several other traditionally Republican voters on this board.
Jaskalas
Lifer
- Jun 23, 2004
- 35,955
- 10,298
- 136
In that case, I can understand what you?re referring to.
If I had to pick between doctors A and B who both serve up a poisoned pill, I?d at least go with the one I dislike least. In this case Clinton bears a great deal is distaste, but so do several Republican candidates ? which Obama would be the lesser evil, much like George Bush was thought to have been in 04. Doesn?t mean it?ll be a pleasant result or choice though.
Still, this seems fairly irrelevant to who would accomplish anything as President. I?d still want the heads of Republicans that side against us.
Just because we can vote against really s***** leaders doesn?t mean we changed policy.
But still, a choice has to be made. I dunno about sliding us into communism. Seems a bit extreme.
"Sliding into Communism"...
The spirit of Joe McCarthy lives on, and on, and on....
No Democratic president will be able to accomplish a great deal w/o a more sizeable majority in the Senate, and a more secure majority in the House- both distinct possibilities...
The spirit of Joe McCarthy lives on, and on, and on....
No Democratic president will be able to accomplish a great deal w/o a more sizeable majority in the Senate, and a more secure majority in the House- both distinct possibilities...
obama is the idealist president, there is no way he can do even a quarter of what he wants but I am the type that still want to try regardless.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter