USA Presidential Politics - 2008

[roni]

Odds are still Hillary-Richardson vs. whoever survives the Republican race.

That will probably be Giuiiani - IMO Romney is beyond toast - he will be the Phil Gramm/Howard Dean of this cycle. We'll see. The Dems will be set after Feb 5. The Republicans likely will be too.

Does anyone else find it odd that Obama is complaining about being attacked whilst his campaign is actively shopping every negative thing they have found on Hillary to any and all media that will listen to them?

Does anyone find it odd that a candidate who has a health program that does not provide universal coverage assert that any other candidate telling the truth about that is attacking him?

[roni]

I understand now - he is using it as a fundraising hook.


When I decided to run for president, I accepted that my opponents would dig through my record looking for something to attack.

I didn't realize they'd go all the way back to kindergarten.

I'll respond to each of the Clinton campaign's desperate attacks directly and honestly. But when I respond to each attack, I want to be able to say that I am not alone.

I want to be able to say that 10,000 people responded with me in the first 48 hours. And we're almost there.

Respond now with your donation of $25, and show our opponents that this kind of negativity will only make us stronger in our determination to bring about the change America needs:

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by roni

I understand now - he is using it as a fundraising hook.


When I decided to run for president, I accepted that my opponents would dig through my record looking for something to attack.

I didn't realize they'd go all the way back to kindergarten.

I'll respond to each of the Clinton campaign's desperate attacks directly and honestly. But when I respond to each attack, I want to be able to say that I am not alone.

I want to be able to say that 10,000 people responded with me in the first 48 hours. And we're almost there.

Respond now with your donation of $25, and show our opponents that this kind of negativity will only make us stronger in our determination to bring about the change America needs:

He should go the Asian American Ponzi Scheme Check Bundler route, like Hillary.

[roni]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

He should go the Asian American Ponzi Scheme Check Bundler route, like Hillary.

Thank you for the substantive and thoughful response

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by roni

Thank you for the substantive and thoughful response

Truth hurts? Your candidate just continues the family legacy of financing campaigns through the Asian American community of busboys and waiters. Bill did it and Gore did it. It is a money tree. Now that Hsu has been indicted, lets see who knew what. Could be very interesting for the future of Senator Clinton's plans.

[roni]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

Truth hurts? Your candidate just continues the family legacy of financing campaigns through the Asian American community of busboys and waiters. Bill did it and Gore did it. It is a money tree. Now that Hsu has been indicted, lets see who knew what. Could be very interesting for the future of Senator Clinton's plans.

No, the truth will set you free.

Please pay closer attention to it

BTW, it should be clear from my prior posts that my candidate will be the one who wins the Dem nomination. Most likely case is that it will be Hillary, but that is not the only case that can be made.

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by roni

Odds are still Hillary-Richardson vs. whoever survives the Republican race.

That will probably be Giuiiani - IMO Romney is beyond toast - he will be the Phil Gramm/Howard Dean of this cycle. We'll see. The Dems will be set after Feb 5. The Republicans likely will be too.

Does anyone else find it odd that Obama is complaining about being attacked whilst his campaign is actively shopping every negative thing they have found on Hillary to any and all media that will listen to them?

Does anyone find it odd that a candidate who has a health program that does not provide universal coverage assert that any other candidate telling the truth about that is attacking him?

They are on the defense, IMO. Please take a closer look at Obama's health care plan. I would rather an affordable, realistic plan be enacted rather than the pie-in-the-sky universal coverage dream should fail.


"Obama's plan would not mandate that all people buy health insurance; instead it focuses on lowering costs. Strategists said Clinton chose health care as a target area because she believes she has a large advantage on the issue among many voters."


Clinton Goes On Offense Against Obama, Washington Post: Losing Ground In Latest Iowa Poll, Clinton Mounts Aggressive Attack - CBS News

[roni]

Originally Posted by melliedee

They are on the defense, IMO. Please take a closer look at Obama's health care plan. I would rather an affordable, realistic plan be enacted rather than the pie-in-the-sky universal coverage dream should fail.

Pie in the sky? Tell that to all the millions of people who live in countries with universal coverage - like Canada for example, among others.

It is not pie in the sky - it is the minimum that one of the wealthiest countries on the planet should do. It is a matter of national values and priorities.

I agree that the health care issue will improve regardless of who is elected president. It will even get improved under a Republican president, in large part because labor and business both are starting to insist on that.

My personal preference is universal coverage. People should not die premature deaths, as has happened in the USA, because they do not have health coverage. People should not die, as they did in Oregon, because the Feds cut off the money to pay for their prescriptions.

That should not happen, but it does.

[kirbyfan]

Originally Posted by roni

Pie in the sky? Tell that to all the millions of people who live in countries with universal coverage - like Canada for example, among others.

It is not pie in the sky - it is the minimum that one of the wealthiest countries on the planet should do. It is a matter of national values and priorities.

I agree that the health care issue will improve regardless of who is elected president. It will even get improved under a Republican president, in large part because labor and business both are starting to insist on that.

My personal preference is universal coverage. People should not die premature deaths, as has happened in the USA, because they do not have health coverage. People should not die, as they did in Oregon, because the Feds cut off the money to pay for their prescriptions.

That should not happen, but it does.

Oh and thank God that once we have universal health care there will never be another death because of negligence or an idiot with a govt job who screwed up!!!

[roni]

Originally Posted by kirbyfan

Oh and thank God that once we have universal health care there will never be another death because of negligence or an idiot with a govt job who screwed up!!!

I have thought about your response, and I cannot figure out how it has one iota of connection to my post:

My personal preference is universal coverage. People should not die premature deaths, as has happened in the USA, because they do not have health coverage. People should not die, as they did in Oregon, because the Feds cut off the money to pay for their prescriptions.

I didn't write about negligence or about anyone with a government job

So, is this a new topic you are starting - one about medical negligence?

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by roni

Pie in the sky? Tell that to all the millions of people who live in countries with universal coverage - like Canada for example, among others.

It is not pie in the sky - it is the minimum that one of the wealthiest countries on the planet should do. It is a matter of national values and priorities.

I agree that the health care issue will improve regardless of who is elected president. It will even get improved under a Republican president, in large part because labor and business both are starting to insist on that.

My personal preference is universal coverage. People should not die premature deaths, as has happened in the USA, because they do not have health coverage. People should not die, as they did in Oregon, because the Feds cut off the money to pay for their prescriptions.

That should not happen, but it does.

Again, check out Obama's plan. It's nearly identical to Clinton, yet she's knocking him on how "universal" it really is and splitting hairs about coverage. I like the choice in Obama's plan; the only mandate is coverage for children.


At issue is how "universal" we can expect any health-care reform to be. Obama's plan creates various mechanisms to make both private and public health insurance more readily available. Hillary's plan does the same, but also creates an "individual mandate" requiring every American to buy health insurance. Obama's plan creates an "individual mandate" too, but only for children. Otherwise, under Obamacare, citizens would remain free to buy private health insurance or not as they pleased.

Obama vs. Clinton on "universal" health care. - By Timothy Noah - Slate Magazine

[roni]

Originally Posted by melliedee

Again, check out Obama's plan.

We have both expressed our preferences re: health plans.

They are different.

That's ok.

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by roni

We have both expressed our preferences re: health plans.

They are different.

That's ok.

It's okay that we like different plans. It's not okay for Hillary to attack Obama for his nearly identical one then claim it is everyone who is attacking her.

I was originally responding to your post about political attacks; healthcare just happens to be a good example of Hillary clouding the waters in a rather deliberate attempt to confuse voters over two very similiar plans.

I asked you to reconsider Obama's plan because the Slate article I linked in my response explains very persuasively why it is better. Take or leave it, no matter to me.

[roni]

Originally Posted by melliedee

I was originally responding to your post about political attacks; healthcare just happens to be a good example of Hillary clouding the waters in a rather deliberate attempt to confuse voters over two very similiar plans.

Here's The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn:

The best studies out there—by Urban Institute researchers, the RAND Corporation, and MIT economist Jonathan Gruber--suggest that, without a mandate, improving affordability will cover roughly one-third of the people who don't have coverage. Mandating that kids (but not adults) have coverage bumps that up to about a half. Obama's advisers think that, by really loading up on the subsidies—and making enrollment a lot easier by, for example, having an automatic enrollment with voluntary opt-out at your place of work--they can goose that up to two-thirds. But that's getting optimistic—and, even then, you still have around 15 million people who are uninsured.

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by roni

Here's The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn:

The best studies out there—by Urban Institute researchers, the RAND Corporation, and MIT economist Jonathan Gruber--suggest that, without a mandate, improving affordability will cover roughly one-third of the people who don't have coverage. Mandating that kids (but not adults) have coverage bumps that up to about a half. Obama's advisers think that, by really loading up on the subsidies—and making enrollment a lot easier by, for example, having an automatic enrollment with voluntary opt-out at your place of work--they can goose that up to two-thirds. But that's getting optimistic—and, even then, you still have around 15 million people who are uninsured.

And what part of Hillary's plan outlines how to enforce the mandate? Without that, it's a mandate in name only so she can claim it is "universal" when it is not.