Who will be the Democratic Nominee?

[chip anderson]

Don't you think Obama would be better off with a Janet Reno, or Madeline Albright?

[Grubendol]

As a Californian, and a liberal, I would HATE to see Feinstein. Biden is better suited to Sec. of State.

I hope for Richardson or Edwards personally, Richardson would be great because of the latino vote garnered there, which of all the racial demographics breaks politically more than any other minority.

[Steve Machol]

you have to be joking,. unless you want to lose all your liberties and if you never ever want to own a firearm again

You mean the Liberties we've already lost - Privacy, Habeas Corpus, and about 7 of the 10 Bill of Rights? We have a Republican Administration and Congress to thank for that (with a good number of sufficiently bullied Democrats providing them cover.)

The Second Amendment does you absolutely no good if the Government can spirit you away to a rendition cell at any time and without anyone knowing. And don't think they can't, or already haven't done so. It's only a matter of degree now.

[Steve Machol]

I hope for Richardson or Edwards personally, Richardson would be great because of the latino vote garnered there, which of all the racial demographics breaks politically more than any other minority.

Richardson would be an excellent choice, although I doubt Edwards would take it.

[Pete Hanlin]

Obama's goal would be 1) to lure potential McCain voters to his ticket and 2) to NOT turn away those who would otherwise vote for him. Biden would be a good choice for the first reason and Clinton would be a poor choice for the second.
For those Democrats who are saying Lieberman wouldn't be their choice- you're missing the point. Democrats are already going to vote for Sen. Obama- what you need to do is throw some sort of "moderate bone" to Republicans (like myself) who really do not like Sen. McCain and are looking for an excuse to cross sides.

Put Biden on the ticket, and I'll either stay home out of frustration or vote McCain- and I WANT to vote for Obama. Personally, I could live with Sen. Feinstien- but I doubt many other Republicans could.

I've already agreed McCain loses to Obama- I don't think its a rout, though. The problem for McCain is, he will lose all the traditional blue states- as well as the religious right red states in The South (that's where Huckabee would help- and you're right 1968, Huckabee is a social conservative- not a fiscal one).

As for the "scare" tactic of universal healthcare. Anyone who isn't scared at that prospect hasn't seriously considered the cost of such a program (or simply doesn't care what it costs). The problem for ME is, McCain isn't a fiscal conservative, either- although I doubt he'd push for universal healthcare. The relief for me is, I don't think any congress in its right mind would pass such a program (but if it does pass, its just another Social Security type program that can never be discontinued- which is why its scary).

As for the "America is fed up with republicans" line. That would have worked, but you've worked so hard at demonizing one person (George W Bush) that most Americans probably feel ambivalent towards the rest of the party. Also, you failed to show us anything when your party took over congress (which has even lower approval ratings than the admin- and that takes a real effort).

If Clinton wins the primary, she loses the general election for a couple reasons. First, it seems clear many democrats will believe (perhaps rightfully so) that the "established party candidate" has stolen the primary. Second, all those young voters who love Obama also happen to think of McCain as an okay guy too (if you remember the 2000 primary). Finally, with Clinton on your ticket, this "up till now demotivated" republican will be personally driving everyone he can find to the polls to vote McCain. Another President Clinton is simply not an option for me at this point- nor is she an option for even moderate republicans.

So, best case scenario- Obama chooses an experienced running mate who is TRULY moderate and the whole country can unite and elect someone by more than a 0.00001% margin. If I were McCain, I'd throw Huckabee on the ticket and hope to energize the religious right and win The South. All he has to do to win the election is somehow convince California to vote for him (and Californians reportedly view McCain somewhat favorably).

[Grubendol]

As for the "scare" tactic of universal healthcare. Anyone who isn't scared at that prospect hasn't seriously considered the cost of such a program (or simply doesn't care what it costs). The problem for ME is, McCain isn't a fiscal conservative, either- although I doubt he'd push for universal healthcare. The relief for me is, I don't think any congress in its right mind would pass such a program (but if it does pass, its just another Social Security type program that can never be discontinued- which is why its scary).

Except, Pete, that the current system we have has EVERYONE paying twice as much as any other industrialized nation and not even getting everyone covered. A universal healthcare system will cost LESS than what we pay now, it will just be paid differently.

[1968]

Except, Pete, that the current system we have has EVERYONE paying twice as much as any other industrialized nation and not even getting everyone covered. A universal healthcare system will cost LESS than what we pay now, it will just be paid differently.

This is like arguing religion. There is NO WAY that one of you is going to persuade the other to take your position on universal healthcare.

[Grubendol]

Oh, I know that fully well, but the hard facts…the data is there for me. It will cost each tax payer, and each individual patient less using universal healthcare than any private insurance program. When it is for profit, someone has to be paid a dividend, thus the cost of healthcare goes up.

Thus, the CEO of United Healthcare got paid 1.4 BILLION dollars in salary last year. That was money paid by subscribers which did not go to any medical treatment.

I know we can argue the benefits of universal healthcare or federally funded healthcare in terms of medical benefits, but the simply reality is that we cannot argue it in terms of the costs involved. Simply put, it IS cheaper.

[1968]

Oh, I know that fully well, but the hard facts…the data is there for me. It will cost each tax payer, and each individual patient less using universal healthcare than any private insurance program. When it is for profit, someone has to be paid a dividend, thus the cost of healthcare goes up.

Thus, the CEO of United Healthcare got paid 1.4 BILLION dollars in salary last year. That was money paid by subscribers which did not go to any medical treatment.

The "hard facts" and data do not support your conclusion... that it is OK to use the money earned by some to pay for the healthcare of others.

[Steve Machol]

One of the major complaints I see over an over again about Universal Healthcare or Single Payer systems (which every other industrial nation provides) is that 'Government Bureaucrats' (quick - HIDE THE KIDS!) will determine which doctors we can see, which healthcare facilities we can go to and which procedures and drugs we can have.

PUHLEEZE! Does anyone really believe that!?!

I know NO ONE - insured or not - that has those choices now in the U.S. Those of us 'lucky' enough to have insurance already are told which Doctors we can see, which specialists we can go to (if they allow it, of course) and which facilities we can visit for treatment. Furthermore everyone I know has had specific Doctor-recommended procedures and medications denied by some nameless 'bureaucrat' sitting in an Insurance Company cubicle somewhere whose job, salary and bonuses depend on denying coverage, not allowing it. By design, 'for profit' companies are only beholden to their shareholders. Perhaps if there was a true free mark for affordable healthcare those companies would have to complete on the services they provide rather than the ones they deny, we'd have a functional system that benefits the consumer not the corporations.. But that system do not exist in this country.

Personally, I would have more trust in a system that provided healthcare care based on my needs rather than the needs of a soulless corporation.

But hey, maybe that's just me. Maybe everyone else is perfectly happy allowing those corporations control over their healthcare. From what I can tell almost all Republicans prefer having corporations tell them what healthcare they can and not have.

[Johns]

Why is it that since Hillary seems to be falling behind, the press has started using her middle name, but you never hear them mention Obama's?

[chip anderson]

Anybody old enough to remember when you paid your own healthcare expenses out of pocket?

[Steve Machol]

Anybody old enough to remember when you paid your own healthcare expenses out of pocket?

Yes, it was almost like yesterday. Wait - it WAS yesterday!

[rbaker]

Anybody old enough to remember when you paid your own healthcare expenses out of pocket?

Yes, I do. My eldest son was born in 1969. The total bill was just a tad over $1,000.00.

That same year patient started to complain that our fee for a comprehensive eye exam went to $25.00. The only reason that we did raise our fee was that the Medicaid rate went from $20.00 to $25.00.

[rbaker]

Oh, I know that fully well, but the hard facts…the data is there for me. It will cost each tax payer, and each individual patient less using universal healthcare than any private insurance program. When it is for profit, someone has to be paid a dividend, thus the cost of healthcare goes up.

Thus, the CEO of United Healthcare got paid 1.4 BILLION dollars in salary last year. That was money paid by subscribers which did not go to any medical treatment.

I know we can argue the benefits of universal healthcare or federally funded healthcare in terms of medical benefits, but the simply reality is that we cannot argue it in terms of the costs involved. Simply put, it IS cheaper.

I wonder where you got this figure (1.4 BILLION?) This is all I could find.

http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2005/0...-ceo-make.html

or here

http://www.harp.org/hmoexecs.htm

Still not too shabby. In any case, what do you have against someone making 1.4 really big ones as long as he makes it legitimately? Do you feel that compensation (wages, salaries, bonuses and perks should be regulated? Who should regulate them? Do you believe that someone can make too much money?

[Spexvet]

The "hard facts" and data do not support your conclusion... that it is OK to use the money earned by some to pay for the healthcare of others.

Healthcare for those unable to pay is now paid for by taxpayers. The Middle Class pays a significant portion of their healthcare, sometimes all of it. Those with high paying jobs have their healthcare paid for by their employers. Flexible Spending Accounts that are pre-tax dollars are also subsidized by taxpayers. In fact, everyone who pays for health insurance and does not use it is paying for other peoples' healthcare - that's the way insurance works.

One of the major complaints I see over an over again about Universal Healthcare or Single Payer systems (which every other industrial nation provides) is that 'Government Bureaucrats' (quick - HIDE THE KIDS!) will determine which doctors we can see, which healthcare facilities we can go to and which procedures and drugs we can have.

PUHLEEZE! Does anyone really believe that!?!

I know NO ONE - insured or not - that has those choices now in the U.S. Those of us 'lucky' enough to have insurance already are told which Doctors we can see, which specialists we can go to (if they allow it, of course) and which facilities we can visit for treatment. Furthermore everyone I know has had specific Doctor-recommended procedures and medications denied by some nameless 'bureaucrat' sitting in an Insurance Company cubicle somewhere whose job, salary and bonuses depend on denying coverage, not allowing it. By design, 'for profit' companies are only beholden to their shareholders. Perhaps if there was a true free mark for affordable healthcare those companies would have to complete on the services they provide rather than the ones they deny, we'd have a functional system that benefits the consumer not the corporations.. But that system do not exist in this country.

Personally, I would have more trust in a system that provided healthcare care based on my needs rather than the needs of a soulless corporation.

But hey, maybe that's just me. Maybe everyone else is perfectly happy allowing those corporations control over their healthcare. From what I can tell almost all Republicans prefer having corporations tell them what healthcare they can and not have.

Well said!

[Grubendol]

Still not too shabby. In any case, what do you have against someone making 1.4 really big ones as long as he makes it legitimately? Do you feel that compensation (wages, salaries, bonuses and perks should be regulated? Who should regulate them? Do you believe that someone can make too much money?

I absolutely believe someone can make too much money. If you go back just 30 or 40 years the average CEO salary was rarely more than 100 times the lowest paid worker in the company. Now, it is more likely 400 times that of the lowest paid worker. We are the only industrialized nation with this kind of disparity. Collecting cash at the top of the heap means less money being spent in the economy and less money available to the poor and middle class to spend (who are the segment of society who actually spend most of their income instead of saving it). Granted savings are necessary, but right now, today the savings rate in the country for its citizens is the lowest its been since the Great Republican Depression. We have a national NEGATIVE savings rate. This is at least in part because the majority of the cash in our economy has accumulated at the top and the average citizen has to live paycheck to paycheck and does not have the wherewithall to save.

[1968]

In fact, everyone who pays for health insurance and does not use it is paying for other peoples' healthcare - that's the way insurance works.

I think you are dropping the context of my previous statement in that there is a difference between the mechanism of insurance and the redistribution of wealth.

This is at least in part because the majority of the cash in our economy has accumulated at the top and the average citizen has to live paycheck to paycheck and does not have the wherewithall to save.

To state that the average citizen does not have the wherewithal to save can have different meanings. There is indeed plenty of doubt in my mind that the average citizen can properly prioritize the dollars that they earn. People need to follow a proper diet, exercise routinely, eliminate risky behavior, and save for their healthcare needs rather than spending money on nicer cars than they need, nicer clothes than they need, soundsystems, CDs, cable TV, HDTV, recreational items, eating out, trips to Europe, trips to Disneyland, etc., etc. When they do those things, they can come back and talk to me about what they think the cap on my income should be.

[chip anderson]

1968: Very well said.

[chip anderson]

Anybody realize that Ralph Nader is the most conservative man running.
Mien Gott, vas has become of us?

[For-Life]

Anybody realize that Ralph Nader is the most conservative man running.

Great sign, in my opinion

Of course I am sure many disagree

[Robert Martellaro]

Why is it that since Hillary seems to be falling behind, the press has started using her middle name, but you never hear them mention Obama's?

If the republicans want to go down that road then they'll not just lose the upcoming election, they'll lose elections for a whole generation.

[chip anderson]

Dey done been down dat road. Ben tol ta back off, went a little faster on de road.
Liberals and thier candidates never hesitated to use Nixon's middle name.


Chip

[Steve Machol]

Dey done been down dat road. Ben tol ta back off, went a little faster on de road.
Liberals and thier candidates never hesitated to use Nixon's middle name.

Really? I was there. You're just making this stuff up as you go along. And you are smart enough to know the symbolic differences between the two names and the reasons the idiots are doing this, right?

[chip anderson]

Dey also takes great pleasure and making note between where Hillary wants to be called Hillary Clinton and called Hillary Rodham Clinton. Both her mood and those talking about her vascillate on this .

If OHbama got a problem with his name he needs to either change it or at least blame his father.

Wasn't Gertrude Stien a democrat when she said: "A rose is a rose but by any other name..."


Chip