I love the democratic process, and today is as close to a national primary as we get Super Tuesday (at least until the general election). But for the first time since I have been voting I am still unsure of who to vote for.
I just had a thought if Hillary won, and had Kucinich as her VP, how long before Bill knocks up Elizabeth Kucinich?
But seriously, last time around there were two main candidates (Kerry and Edwards) but the fringe guys Dean, Kucinich were still around. So you had the choice of picking someone who didn't have a realistic shot but that you believed in.
I don't know if I really have a horse in the race. I think Obama is a phony. I don't think he has any ideas of how to do anything. And Clinton's idea is she should be president.
I guess I have to think who can win in November. Is this country ready for a woman or an African American? I like to think we are ready for either. But I guess it comes down to a gut feeling when I step behind the curtain later on today.
15 comments:
I think you are right on about Obama. He's a great motivational speaker, and he says lots of cool buzz words like change and hope, but I'm not confident he knows how to do any of the things he is promising to do. But if you promise every lazy slob health care, you'll get a lot of votes.
Hillary though only has four more years than Obama. So maybe some free blood is good.
Plus it would be nice to get equal healthcare for everyone.
Some folks are just down on their luck and regardless of class or whatnot should get healthcare.
I agree everyone should have healthcare, but I'm not in favor of having only one choice of who I can use as my healthcare provider. When there is competition, the consumer wins. And I don't think it's fair for someone who pays into the healthcare system getting the same level of healthcare as someone who isn't paying a red cent into the system. I liken it to a health club. If Im someone who pays my $40 a month to Ballys to use the Bally's equipment anf facility, is it fair that people who aren't paying their dues get to use the same equipment and facility?
This is why I was behind Ron Paul because he was in favor of opening up the health care system and encouraging competition. I don't want the government telling me which doctors I can see and who I can't see.
I was taking the escalator down to the subway with a bunch of supporters of Sen. Clinton (or KLIN-TONE as Kodos would say). They had a huge sign it must have been 5 x 10. I turned to one of them and asked "so you couldn't get a big sign?"
He just looked at me like I had thirteen slime covered tentacles. And asked if I had voted yet, I said I was on the way to vote. He then asked if I was supporting a democrat, I said perhaps, and walked away. I was waiting for him to slip in a dig at Obama, did you see that Osama Bin Laden endorsed Obama today?
I agree that everyone needs to have health care, but its unfair to have only one level of health care. Because people who pay for their health care are being treated unfairly if free health care is the same as they pay for.
Amen brother!
Read Obama's plan. He's not getting rid of private healthcare or educing all care to one level. His plan is to provide a healthcare plan like that that members of Congress has to anyone who applies, while anyone is still able to go with a private company if he or she so chooses to pay for it.
He wants to increase competitiveness by both leveraging the national healthcare plan and limiting the monopoly powers of the current insurance (and pharmaceutical) providers.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/
Maybe it's all hot air and impossible, but it sounds like a good system where we won't have so many people without care and yet we can all still pay for what ever plan we want.
In my own mind, fair isn't everyone getting what they pay for, it's everyone getting what they need. It's a crap to say a plan isn't fair because we pay but the government (through our taxes dollars) pays for the assistive devices for my legally blind 5th grader or the social work and counseling for any number of my kids (I think it's 7 out of 15) who have abusive pasts. It's fair for them to not get an equal level of treatment because their parents can't afford it?
Sorry, I haven't ranted in a while, and working in DC, I've built up plenty.
I agree having more than one healthcare option is better for everyone but I'd still like for everyone to get universal healthcare system. But a good one for everyone. I know it's unrealistic and it's not working too well in other countries but why can't we be the first country to have it work well. Why should I(yes I know I work) get treated better than the homeless person or the drug addict for my healthcare? I know I'm a bleeding heart liberal. I can't help it.
I just skimmed over the healthcare plan on Barracks webpage. It does sound pretty well planned out. What I didn't see (it may be there and I just missed it), is how this will all be paid for. By offering healthcare to everyone, does that mean they have to pay for it themselves? Or does that mean that people who can't afford it themselves will have their coverage paid for by using tax payer money? And if I opt to do the insurance exchange, do I still have to pay into the national healthcare plan as well as pay for my own families coverage?
Ani I see where you are coming from, but lets look at it realistically. Why not let the homeless and drug addicts live in your apartment. Sure you pay rent every month and they don't but let them live there anyway. And if they need to drive someplace, let them drive your car that you pay for. And don't forget when they bring the car back, you have to fill it back up with gas. And sure you bought all your clothes with the money you and Niel work hard to earn, but let them wear whatever they want from your closet.
I think there should be affordable healthcare for anyone who is willing to pay their share. I think the cost of healthcare is out of control right now, and overhauling the healthcare industry to make it more affordable to the working class is a step in the right direction. I just don't have as much compassion as you and I don't want to pay for a junkie to see a doctor.
That's why we live in a country where everyone's opinions matter. But like I said can't help the way I am. If I can give I do. And I think the government should do more when it comes to healthcare, education, and social security.
I don't think most people would want to be homeless or druggies. Poor choices and mental illness leads some to homelessness.I see a lot more elderly who are homeless than young, starry eyed kids and it kills me. It also kills me when someone does something stupid and starts to take drugs and becomes an addict. It takes over their life and their families life. But I don't think that those group of people are less than me and don't deserve to be covered and helped in some way.
People who are diagnosed with cancer in this country and don’t have private insurance (i.e.: Medicare Medicaid or no insurance at all) have a 50% percent higher mortality rate. How exactly is that fare. I work on the front lines of the health care field and the average person would not believe the disparity in treatment between the insured and the uninsured. Further more it is much more costly for the government to pick up the bill when some one who is uninsured goes to the ER for a non emergency because they have no access to a private doctor. An average ER bill is over 1000 dollars average private doctors office around 100. As for universal health care not working well in other countries how so is it really any worse then what we have here?
If I had the space and money, yeah, I'd share my stuff with more people. I've got a professor who at one time had 7 different high school students living with him and his wife because they were either homeless or had very abusive home situations. Not foster kids, not adopted, just "Hey, do you need a place to stay for a bit?" Shouldn't we all aspire to that level of compassion?
I'm curious too how Obama's plan is going to be funded, I'm guessing through tax dollars. What I'd really like to see is cuts in wasteful practices. I remember jokes in the late 80s about the gov't paying $400 for toilet seats and crap like that, and unfortunately it's still happening. DC public schools are under the authority of the federal gov't and the waste is sickening. There's a school here, McKinley Tech HS, that had something like a half a million dollars put into a fancy in-school radio station to teach technology and journalism. It's been used as a storage room for the last few years because one $500 piece of equipment was never purchased to get it online and it just got forgotten. Seriously, wtf?
More realistically, there'll be more taxes to pay for the plan, and I say money well spent. Who ever is elected will raise taxes, period. But this is at least a good use of that money.
I dont think taxes need to be raised, i think taxs need to be spent more wisely and collected more evenly.
a person making up to $97,000 a yar is taxed on $97,000 a year (at about roughly 25%). ARod who makes $30 Million a year is taxed on $97,000 a year. If he was taxed on his entire salary then we would have an influx of extra money to fund all kinds of crazy things, $400 toilet seats, health care, shopping malls on the moon.
Lets just say everyone paid 10% on evrything they make, a tax decrease on the middle class (and even on thsoe make just above the ceiling).
Annual salary $97,000
- tax liability $9700
Annual salary $30,000,0000
- current tax liabaility $20,000ish
- under my plan $3,000,000
And yes the New York Yankees will have to dig deeper next year but i think they'd be ok. "Oh no I am Arod I will only bring home $27 million dollars how will I live on that?"
what is really sad is I came up with a fair tax plan, that would fund helath care, wars, or whatever, at 6am. And all our candidates for President have nothing with all their advisors.
Umm buddy, I think your math is way off. According to the IRS 2007 Tax Schedule if you are married and filing jointly anyone earning over $349,000 is taxed $94,000 PLUS 35% of the amount over $349,000. So that means A-Rod pays around $10.5 mill assuming he earned $30 mill in 2007. Unless Im reading something wrong, I don't know where you are getting your numbers from.
So if my numbers are right, Arod would end up paying $7 million dollars less under your tax plan. I'm sure he would love that :-). Math isnt my thing, so I could be wrong.
Absolutely Mike, we should do a lot more to help the children of this country. Kids are born into shitty situations that they have no control over. I don't have a problen helping kids. It's the lazy adults who are physically and mentally capable of working and choose to either not work or work someplace that requires a minimum of skill. I have a couple of nieces who fall into that catagory who I would love to give a swift kick in the ass to. So capable and so bright, with 0 motivation or initiative.
Joanne Santana is playing for free next year for the Mets, right? I know A-Rod is the highest paid guy in the majors and he's an easy target, but come on. Is Joanne a triple threat? Is he going to hit for power, average and steal bases? I think not. But I'm a big fan of his dad. Ya know Carlos Santana.
Post a Comment