Actually Obama gave a time frame of 16 months to start (I think) withdrawals. I definitely remember 16 months.TheStatutoryApe said:I was disappointed in the way Obama spoke about Iraq and Afghanistan. McCain made the proper point that regardless of whether Iraq was a good idea in the first place or not the next president will have to deal with the fallout. Obama simply continued to criticize the original decision. I'm bothered that he doesn't seem to want to discuss in a clear fashion what he thinks ought to be done. What bothers me more is that he kept talking about Afghanistan and sending more troops there. He seemed to be invoking the desire for vengence and probably for little other reason than to show he is not 'soft' and will support military actions. "...and kill Osama bin Laden" was probably the worst part of what he said.
McCain is being faulted for talking about the past. There was very little about the future, too much about talking about "the way it was", "what I remember".LowlyPion said:After carefully listening to the debate, and of course totally discounting and laying aside any mild bias that I may possibly have harbored prior to the debate, I thought that Obama did the far better job.
McCain was petulant, disdainful, not always answering the question directly and tended to ramble. What a sour loser.
If Obama was to be faulted it was perhaps for being a little too gracious and diplomatic and maybe even could have been more provocative in needling McCain. But his account of things seemed the more reasoned.
Evo said:Both came off very well, but I've got to say that Obama completely changed my impression of him tonight. I never cared for Obama, never thought he was that great at speaking, but tonight, he was awesome. He was to the point and had great, focused statements.
So, I take back any reservations on Obama that I had, tonight won me over. He is the only choice.
Just on health care alone, Obama is the only choice. McCain's tax credit for Americans to "shop around" is insane. Obviously he has no idea what getting health insurance is like. He is apparently oblivious to the fact that if you have a pre-existing condition, you will be virtually unable to get health insurance to cover it at any cost. McCain is clueless on health insurance. And he wants to tax my health insurance?
Astronuc, after all of your rants and screaming and tirades on here, have you changed your mind? I've notice that you don't seem to have a side in this anymore. I know you can't vote, but I noticed a change.
TheStatutoryApe said:I was disappointed in the way Obama spoke about Iraq and Afghanistan. McCain made the proper point that regardless of whether Iraq was a good idea in the first place or not the next president will have to deal with the fallout. Obama simply continued to criticize the original decision. I'm bothered that he doesn't seem to want to discuss in a clear fashion what he thinks ought to be done. What bothers me more is that he kept talking about Afghanistan and sending more troops there. He seemed to be invoking the desire for vengence and probably for little other reason than to show he is not 'soft' and will support military actions. "...and kill Osama bin Laden" was probably the worst part of what he said.
Evo said:Actually Obama gave a time frame of 16 months to start (I think) withdrawals. I definitely remember 16 months.
It's a common tactic to say you agree with an opponent in order to not alienate those that agree with your opponent, then say how you disagree. I have been through years of training on how to debate and negotiate, this is Negotiation 101.LowlyPion said:The Republicans are trying to spin it that because Obama agreed with some of McCain's points and McCain didn't agree with any of his, that it was a great victory. I think that is a rather stunning calculus, as if choosing something arbitrary like say the number of prepositional phrases had anything to do with the power of the arguments.
Evo said:It's a common tactic to say you agree with an opponent in order to not alienate those that agree with your opponent, then say how you disagree. I have been through years of training on how to debate and negotiate, this is Negotiation 101.
No, he wants to cut us loose from the employer based tax break and the employer playing doctor. You get a personal tax break instead.Evo said:...Just on health care alone, Obama is the only choice. McCain's tax credit for Americans to "shop around" is insane. Obviously he has no idea what getting health insurance is like. He is apparently oblivious to the fact that if you have a pre-existing condition, you will be virtually unable to get health insurance to cover it at any cost. McCain is clueless on health insurance. And he wants to tax my health insurance?...
A Specific Plan of Action: Ensuring Care for Higher Risk Patients
John McCain's Plan Cares For The Traditionally Uninsurable. John McCain understands that those without prior group coverage and those with pre-existing conditions have the most difficulty on the individual market, and we need to make sure they get the high-quality coverage they need.
John McCain Will Work With States To Establish A Guaranteed Access Plan. As President, John McCain will work with governors to develop a best practice model that states can follow - a Guaranteed Access Plan or GAP - that would reflect the best experience of the states to ensure these patients have access to health coverage. One approach would establish a nonprofit corporation that would contract with insurers to cover patients who have been denied insurance and could join with other state plans to enlarge pools and lower overhead costs. There would be reasonable limits on premiums, and assistance would be available for Americans below a certain income level.
Evo said:Interesting on CNN, with a group of "undecided' voters in Ohio, 64% gave the debate to Obama.
That's what McCain says. Here is what he's really planning.mheslep said:No, he wants to cut us loose from the employer based tax break and the employer playing doctor. You get a personal tax break instead.
adrenaline said:Does anyone else think this is a bad idea?
A study coming out Tuesday from scholars at Columbia, Harvard, Purdue and Michigan projects that 20 million Americans who have employment-based health insurance would lose it under the McCain plan.
For starters, the McCain health plan would treat employer-paid health benefits as income that employees would have to pay taxes on.
“It means your employer is going to have to make an estimate on how much the employer is paying for health insurance on your behalf, and you are going to have to pay taxes on that money,” said Sherry Glied, an economist who chairs the Department of Health Policy and Management at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health.
According to the study: “The McCain plan will force millions of Americans into the weakest segment of the private insurance system — the nongroup market — where cost-sharing is high, covered services are limited and people will lose access to benefits they have now.”
The net effect of the plan, the study said, “almost certainly will be to increase family costs for medical care.”
I agree with this assessment. When McCain talks about tax credits for health insurance, he doesn't seem to get it that those who can't afford health insurance also don't pay much in the way of taxes - because their incomes are too low.Evo said:Just on health care alone, Obama is the only choice. McCain's tax credit for Americans to "shop around" is insane. Obviously he has no idea what getting health insurance is like. He is apparently oblivious to the fact that if you have a pre-existing condition, you will be virtually unable to get health insurance to cover it at any cost. McCain is clueless on health insurance. And he wants to tax my health insurance?
AGGREGATES OF CURRENT POLLS | PROJECTIONS
|
Date RCP1 RCP2 CNN Elec-Vote USAtlas-A Pollster | Elec-Proj USAtlas-P
06/21 238/163 289/249 211/194 317/194 271/191 | 349/189 298/240
06/26 238/163 317/221 211/194 317/194 288/180 | 338/200 298/240
07/01 238/163 304/234 231/194 317/221 268/180 | 338/200 293/245
07/06 238/163 304/234 231/194 320/218 268/177 | 338/200 293/245
07/11 238/163 304/234 231/194 320/215 268/188 | 306/232 293/245
07/16 255/163 304/234 231/194 320/204 268/177 | 311/227 293/245
07/21 255/163 322/216 231/194 312/199 268/172 293/214 | 298/240 293/245
07/26 238/163 322/216 221/189 292/195 264/175 284/147 | 338/200 298/240
08/11 238/163 322/216 221/189 289/236 264/202 284/157 | 298/240 293/245
08/21 228/174 264/274 221/189 264/261 264/210 260/191 | 264/274 293/245
08/26 228/174 273/265 221/189 273/252 259/210 260/176 | 273/265 293/245
09/06 238/174 273/265 243/189 301/224 259/194 260/179 | 278/260 293/245
09/16 207/227 286/252 233/189 247/257 216/246 243/219 | 273/265 273/265
09/26 228/163 286/252 240/200 286/252 264/185 229/174 | 273/265 273/265Ivan Seeking said:... but instead appeared condescending. That will appeal to McCain's base but apparently not many of the undecided voters.
LowlyPion said:and Obama, even to them, didn't sound all that unPresidential.
Ivan Seeking said:I noticed that Obama was doing well with Republicans a number of times in the dynamic trending. And the pundits were saying exactly the same thing. Even to the Republican pundits, Obama looked Presidential.
in place of the ideologically popular choices that the current administration has employed.WASHINGTON - Automakers gained $25 billion in taxpayer-subsidized loans and oil companies won elimination of a long-standing ban on drilling off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts as the Senate passed a sprawling spending bill Saturday.
The 78-12 vote sent the $634 billion measure to President Bush, who was expected to sign it even though it spends more money and contains more pet projects than he would have liked.
The measure is needed to keep the government operating beyond the current budget year, which ends Tuesday. As a result, the legislation is one of the few bills this election year that simply must pass. Bush's signature would mean Congress could avoid a lame-duck session after the Nov. 4 election.
White House spokesman Tony Fratto said the bill "stands as a reminder of the failure of the Democratic Congress to fund the government in regular order." But, he said, it "puts the United States one step closer to ending our dependence on foreign sources of energy" by lifting the offshore drilling ban and opening up huge reserves of oil shale in the West.
The Pentagon is in line for a record budget. In addition to $70 billion approved this summer for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Defense Department would receive $488 billion, a 6 percent increase. The spending bill also offers aid to victims of flooding in the Midwest and recent hurricanes across the Gulf Coast.
Such a huge bill usually would dominate the end-of-session agenda on Capitol Hill. But it went below the radar screen because attention focused on the congressional bailout of Wall Street.
. . . .
Taxpayers for Common Sense, a watchdog group, discovered 2,322 pet projects totaling $6.6 billion. That included 2,025 in the defense portion alone that cost a total of $4.9 billion. Critics of such "earmarks" promise to scrutinize them in coming weeks and months for links to lobbyists and campaign contributions.
Taxpayers for Common Sense said the senator who sought the most pet projects was Alaska Republican Ted Stevens -- on trial for allegedly failing to disclose more than $250,000 in gifts and home renovations. Stevens requested 39 projects totaling $238.5 million, The New York Times reported yesterday.
So she can take out my appendix, not plan the health care economy. Here is what he's 'really planning' according to Bob Herbert of the NYT?Evo said:That's what McCain says. Here is what he's really planning.
Adrenaline had originally posted this, she's a doctor.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/opinion/16herbert.html?hp
Yes that figure includes: illegal aliens, those that qualify for medicaid but never sign up, twenty somethings that can easily afford coverage but still choose not to buy, and those that that don't qualify for government help but still can't afford insurance (pre-existing/chronic).Astronuc said:I agree with this assessment. When McCain talks about tax credits for health insurance, he doesn't seem to get it that those who can't afford health insurance also don't pay much in the way of taxes - because their incomes are too low.
There are about 47 million Americans without health insurance (I wonder if that includes illegal aliens and migrant workers).
http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml
Yes, heavy PPO family plan w/ dependents. ~$20k/yr, employer pays ~60%.Evo said:mheslep, do you currently have employer healthcare?
Yes. Years ago was self employed, used a small business group plan, and more recently I stay on top of quotes for high deductible HSAs. Same exact plan, same insurer as my PPO above but ~half the cost including the cost of the deductible. Just ran it again: $2870/yr + $7500 deductible = $10370, same exact coverage/insurer. As you can see, the HSA plan is much preferable IF I could get my employer to pay me the benefit directly as salary rather than as health care. This point comes up often in my company as there are many that have prior experience as self-employed.Have you ever had to try to get health care insurance in the private market. I have. What experience do you have with getting private health insurance?
Well I hope your mother gets all the care she needs. If your mother is retired, I assume we're not talking about employer based plans in this case? If so, how is that relevant to McCain's plan and this discussion? Doesn't Medicare help out?Do you have a pre-exisiting health condition that prevents you from getting private health insurance (my mother does) and I have had to deal with that financially.
Yes I know, he's 'insane', 'clueless', etc.I can tell you that McCain's plan is disastrous for the average American
I would be shocked if Obama won by 10%. And if nothing disastrous happens over the next month, I will not believe the numbers if they say Obama won by 20%.Astronuc said:I could see 55% of the popular vote for Obama and 45% for McCain, but I would not be surprised if it went 60/40 Obama/McCain.
Gokul43201 said:I would be shocked if Obama won by 10%. And if nothing disastrous happens over the next month, I will not believe the numbers if they say Obama won by 20%.
What about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq - another $500 billion during the next 4 years?The focus right now – and probably for many months to come – is the bailout binge aimed at saving our financial system. All told, the government will likely put more than $1 trillion on the line (with hope the money will be recouped down the road).
Then there are the two wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan. The combined cost is fast approaching $1 trillion, too – and both will eat up the time and budgets of the next president.
Then there is also the prescription drug benefit Bush added to Medicare. It carries a projected price tag of nearly $700 billion over ten years and serves as a powerful reminder of how big – untenably big, many experts say – our entitlement programs have grown.
None of that spending was cooked into the federal budget when Bush took office eight years ago, leaving a budgetary hole almost too deep to comprehend. It will tie the hands of President McCain or President Obama in ways neither candidate has reckoned with yet on the campaign trail.
“It’s really a federal fiscal catastrophe in coming years,” says Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute, a libertarian-oriented think tank. “With all this stuff coming up now, it’s massive, big decisions the next president is going to have to make.”
. . .
How can you cut taxes when the government is so deep in the red? The budget deficit is projected to top $400 billion – and that was before the bailout.
How can you expand health care coverage when the country is broke? The federal debt is now expected to top $11 trillion by 2010.
How can you focus on “earmarks” and “waste” when everyone knows they make up a meaningless fraction of the federal budget?
. . . .