2008 USP(G)ET pt. II: counting the days to 2012 primary thread 1

xposts

ed, are you for obama's health care plan, costs aside?

or is it too 'overpriced'?

I think this ad is pretty solid

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/obama_campaign_launches_ad_hit.php

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/obama_campaign_launches_ad_hit.php

Idealistic me, says that you should nationalise your healthcare system if you want to eliminate costs. Relaistic me says there should be a federal insurance scheme open to any and all who wish to join, that employer contributions should be mandated, the poorest segment of society should be paid for, individual contributions should to the federal system should be incentivised and having some kind of health cover should be compulsory.

Obmam's plan is a bit short on compulsion and a lot short on incentives to make the federal system the biggest (and therefore most efficient) healthcare system going. It lacks a degree of vision.

uh, xp

you don't even look before you post, do you

obama's plan recognizes that full federalization is more politically difficult and possibly prohibitive and that it's better to do something. it also sets up a system that could lay the groundwork for later federalization.

Mr. Que and Mr. Queue

i just didn't get a lotta sleep

I understand that but there is nothing to stop the Federal system from being the most attractive deal in town through tax credits, for example.

right, and Obama's approach allows for the possibility of a gradual, market-based 'federalization' of health care through the creation of a national health care program targeted at the uninsured but with universal accessibility and subsidized enrollment

too gradualist, he has to get enough people invested in the success of the system so that dismantling it becomes untenable to whoever follows him in power.

we're not really a dismantling kind of culture, you know? no one is going to win against "they're going to take your health care away"

Thought of the Day
09.15.08 -- 10:21AM By Josh Marshall
The man most responsible for the financial services and banking deregulation that made today possible, fmr. Sen. Phil Gramm, is the man John McCain wants to put in charge of the whole economy.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/216912.php

http://www.youtube.com/v/OviYjJWIYbY

Sorry, maybe this will work:

There we go. The clip is Fox News grilling the McCain campaign for lying.

I think what Ed's getting at is that unless everyone - especially the rich - has access to government health insurance, it runs the risk of being "insurance for poor people" and can then be killed off later, i.e. welfare

I mean, as far as regulations or schemes that protect ordinary people go, America is very much a dismantling culture

STFU PALIN

(yeah I am watching this shit live on sky news at work)

bandwagon-jumping queen bitch

i understand what he and you are getting at, and disagree. i would rather do something that runs the risk of being dismantled than seek something that increases the risk of not doing anything.

afdc did not cover 40 million americans

and afdc recipients had other programs to turn to

What is the point of a universal healthcare system if it only last 4 years?

the biz community now largely favors health care regulation

...

the fear that universal health care might be dismantled is a totally bizarre one

Businesses with large unionised workforces, with longstanding legacy benefits favour minimising their liabilities, I don't think the obama plan does much for them. Small business as seen through the GOP smalltown lens will not want to cough up anything extra. If the benefits are not widely felt then it is an easy easy target for the GOP to hit as a wasteful boondoggle in '10 and '12.

do keep up

Once again, read the article before you post it and please explain how the Obama plan shifts the burden from companies with longs-standing healthcare commitments? Also try and do this without being a supercilious, patronising young fellow.

Tucker Bounds suicide watch

i'm merely pointing out that your suggestion that business would be opposed to a universal plan is not correct

wait, gr8080 is max? wai 2 confuse

federalizing/nationalizing universal health care could just be done like nationlized mortgage backing. We set it up, spin the program off to pay for a war, then buy it back right before it all comes apart at the seams.

I never suggested that business would be opposed (again, read before posting) I am suggesting that the obama plan doesn't necessarily help big business all that much and can be all too easily painted as a un-american, non-free-market drain on all-american small town businesses. Enough people have to benefit from the system to sustain it going forward and to make any proposal to dismantle it politically untenable. The obama plan is not bold enough to achieve these aims.

they aren't, Tracer (i've seen them in the same room)

can be all too easily painted as a un-american, non-free-market drain on all-american small town businesses

and my point, which you keep insisting on missing, is 'by whom'?

can be all too easily painted as a un-american, non-free-market drain on all-american small town businesses

If it's that easy, then I wonder why McCain has not focussed much attention on this line of attack in his campaign ads. Where are the Harry and Louise ads of '08?

Where are the Harry and Louise ads of '08?

http://isbarackobamamuslin.com/

have we figured out which side harry and louise are on this time?

btw, if not rope-a-dope, what do we call lipstick-on-a-pig and this:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Obama_If_you_believe_that_Ive_got_a_bridge_in_Alaska_to_sell_you.html?showall

whatever you want to think the pig line meant, she can't use the lipstick line anymore. we'll see if this does the trick as well.

have we figured out which side harry and louise are on this time?

I can't get to that YouTube link, but the only Harry & Louise ads I've seen this campaign cycle have been a decidedly ambiguous plea for health care reform.

Whenever any party of the right suggests some kind of spending boondoggle or tax cuts, they always say 'efficiency savings' as a magic mantra that explains where the money comes from. Unfortunately the efficiency saving very rarely materialise to the extent that is required.

This is a good point, and McCain is once again following this strategy to a tee. This document does a good job of trying to summarize and put a price tag on all of the promises made by each candidate as well as all their proposed cuts and savings:

http://www.usbudgetwatch.org/files/crfb/usbw0915promises.pdf

Notice that McCain's plan includes $159 billion of "unspecified cuts", vs. $50 billion for Obama's plan. And even with that very generous assumption, McCain's plan would still increase the deficit more than Obama's.

i like this headline:

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/john-farrell/2008/9/15/john-mccains-journey-from-maverick-to-liar.html

i don't see the right ever using 'efficiency savings' as a magic mantra to explain where money comes from - the right doesn't generally talk about all the money it plans to spend. what the right's mantra is, at least over here, is cutting 'wasteful government spending,' which is usually vague but basically means health care and other social services.