Obama or Clinton by the issues

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: Rio Rebel
I can't speak for most Obama supporters, but I suspect I'm not alone in saying that I support him over Hillary not so much because of the differences on the issues, but because I trust him and I don't trust her.

As for "most liberal" tag: Don't you find it the least bit coincidental that the democratic nominee is ALWAYS tagged as "most liberal" by someone? Do you really believe they pick the most liberal candidate every time? That's a rather fantastic belief.

Pretty much it. Obama and Clinton are 95% similar on issues, but it's Obama's character and the perception of honesty (whether it's genuine or not) that draws people like me in.

Agreed. And more than that, I really like how Obama seems able to draw in support from every part of the political spectrum. He really seems like the kind of candidate that can build a consensus and actually unite the country rather than pandering to his base and pissing everyone else off. We've had enough of that the past several years with Bush, and I think Hillary is poised to carry on the grand partisan tradition. But there's something cool about a candidate able to draw support from me and Pabster at the same time.

My views are already on record as being exactly this. On a whole i'm as liberal as anybody, but the last thing I want is someone who's going to pander to the most liberal people, and piss off everyone who's in the middle and on the other side. I don't want a George Bush mirror image. When Obama says he's interested in governing America as a whole, I believe him. When I hear Clinton talk, I hear too much hate towards Republicans. I fear that she has as many well connected cronies as Bush ever had, and I see that having too much influence on her decisions and costing Americans too much money. I love the fact that Obama hasn't been around long enough to have the number of connections and commitments that she has.

I'm not voting for an issue, i'm voting for a person. For at least 4 years, the president will have to deal with hundreds to thousands of issues, many which i haven't even considered yet. I want the person in office who I trust most to handle every issue fairly and intelligently.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
i like Obama's health plan over Clinton's
Clinton's is more socialist, forcing everyone to participate

making people do stuff doesn't sound like "Freedom" to me


my main gripe against Clinton is that she is corrupt, just look at all the crap she did while Bill was president, travelgate, missing FBI files and her other shenanigans

Frankly, therein lies the fatal flaw in Obama's plan.

Any insurance (auto, house, business, health etc) basically works on the principle of many pay - few claim.

If the plan is not universal then only the sick and higher risk will sign up, healthy people could decide to take their chances or won't sign up until they develop problems. This will increase premiums for everyone.

I know Obama's plan will penalize those who didn't sign up before they need medical attention, but realistically, those people will want to sign up when they can't afford the treatment, so at that point in time they may not even be able to afford the penalty. What are the options then? Deny treatment or give it free on public money?

Once the math comes home to Obama's administration, his statements of no mandates is going to bite him if he tries to to change policy & enforce mandates.

I think he has doomed or seriously reduced his chances of having a successful UHC plan.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: FoBoT
i like Obama's health plan over Clinton's
Clinton's is more socialist, forcing everyone to participate

making people do stuff doesn't sound like "Freedom" to me


my main gripe against Clinton is that she is corrupt, just look at all the crap she did while Bill was president, travelgate, missing FBI files and her other shenanigans

Frankly, therein lies the fatal flaw in Obama's plan.

Any insurance (auto, house, business, health etc) basically works on the principle of many pay - few claim.

If the plan is not universal then only the sick and higher risk will sign up, healthy people could decide to take their chances or won't sign up until they develop problems. This will increase premiums for everyone.

I know Obama's plan will penalize those who didn't sign up before they need medical attention, but realistically, those people will want to sign up when they can't afford the treatment, so at that point in time they may not even be able to afford the penalty. What are the options then? Deny treatment or give it free on public money?

Once the math comes home to Obama's administration, his statements of no mandates is going to bite him if he tries to to change policy & enforce mandates.

I think he has doomed or seriously reduced his chances of having a successful UHC plan.

The insurance industry seems to be getting just fine now without all these currently uninsured people.

The existance, or non-existance of insurance doesn't effect the need fo health care. I,e,. we won't fewer people needing treatment because more have health insurance (we may in fact have, as some tend to over-use their health insurance etc).

So there's no net affect of the amount of health care dollars needed.

Hillary's plan just shifts the burden of paying to those who are young and likely don't really need insurance. It's a "tax" focused on teh wrong crowd - the young.

Fern

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: FoBoT
i like Obama's health plan over Clinton's
Clinton's is more socialist, forcing everyone to participate

making people do stuff doesn't sound like "Freedom" to me


my main gripe against Clinton is that she is corrupt, just look at all the crap she did while Bill was president, travelgate, missing FBI files and her other shenanigans

Frankly, therein lies the fatal flaw in Obama's plan.

Any insurance (auto, house, business, health etc) basically works on the principle of many pay - few claim.

If the plan is not universal then only the sick and higher risk will sign up, healthy people could decide to take their chances or won't sign up until they develop problems. This will increase premiums for everyone.

I know Obama's plan will penalize those who didn't sign up before they need medical attention, but realistically, those people will want to sign up when they can't afford the treatment, so at that point in time they may not even be able to afford the penalty. What are the options then? Deny treatment or give it free on public money?

Once the math comes home to Obama's administration, his statements of no mandates is going to bite him if he tries to to change policy & enforce mandates.

I think he has doomed or seriously reduced his chances of having a successful UHC plan.

The insurance industry seems to be getting just fine now without all these currently uninsured people.

The existance, or non-existance of insurance doesn't effect the need fo health care. I,e,. we won't fewer people needing treatment because more have health insurance (we may in fact have, as some tend to over-use their health insurance etc).

So there's no net affect of the amount of health care dollars needed.

Hillary's plan just shifts the burden of paying to those who are young and likely don't really need insurance. It's a "tax" focused on teh wrong crowd - the young.

Fern

There are three points missing in your analysis.
1. The insurance industry may be getting along fine but it leaves 46 Million without health care coverage.

2. Costs: Current health care premiums for a family average between $8,000 - 11,000 per year. Obama's plans average around $4,500/family/year. A mandated plan will be in the region of $2,700/family/year. Link

3. The current insurance industry is heavily subsidized by the Govt taking over the costs for the most expensive section of the population - the elderly - via Medicare. If current industry had to include all the people in Medicare the average cost would skyrocket.

We may not have fewer people needing insurance, but economies of scale will bring the cost down for everyone.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: FoBoT
i like Obama's health plan over Clinton's
Clinton's is more socialist, forcing everyone to participate

making people do stuff doesn't sound like "Freedom" to me


my main gripe against Clinton is that she is corrupt, just look at all the crap she did while Bill was president, travelgate, missing FBI files and her other shenanigans

Frankly, therein lies the fatal flaw in Obama's plan.

Any insurance (auto, house, business, health etc) basically works on the principle of many pay - few claim.

If the plan is not universal then only the sick and higher risk will sign up, healthy people could decide to take their chances or won't sign up until they develop problems. This will increase premiums for everyone.

I know Obama's plan will penalize those who didn't sign up before they need medical attention, but realistically, those people will want to sign up when they can't afford the treatment, so at that point in time they may not even be able to afford the penalty. What are the options then? Deny treatment or give it free on public money?

Once the math comes home to Obama's administration, his statements of no mandates is going to bite him if he tries to to change policy & enforce mandates.

I think he has doomed or seriously reduced his chances of having a successful UHC plan.

Ask the people in MA who cannot afford healthcare how they like mandated healthcare. This year the penalty for not having healthcare in MA is $1000 per month. Clinton is already on record saying the will garnish wages of those who dont get health insurance. Clinton doesnt address the people who cannot afford health insurance. An unfunded mandate is a horrible idea for healthcare. More so when you start fining people who cannot afford it.

 

[Wreckem]

2. Costs: Current health care premiums for a family average between $8,000 - 11,000 per year. Obama's plans average around $4,500/family/year. A mandated plan will be in the region of $2,700/family/year. Link

Tell that to the tens of thousands of MA citizen thats cannot afford it and are being fined by the state.

 

[superstition]

Here's my definition of the liberal conservative dichotomy, a dichotomy that I think is a by-product of our two party system, not a fundamental universal way of classifying politics.

Liberal: Less resistant to change.
Conservative: More resistant to change.

Anything more makes the terms so muddy they become almost meaningless.

 

[superstition]

Am I the only one who doesn't buy into it?

 

[Nemesis 1]

All I can say about the Dems is this and I am an independent. I just hate that the Dms have used the song yankee Dooodle as one of their battle cries.

Maybe one of our british forum members will explain this to you all . After all it was the Britts who made this song about you yanks. I not a Yank never was never will be.