The GOP: The Party of pain, punishment, misery, and death

[dre]

They want it - but not unconditionally. In other words, 'they want it, but....' It's the "but" that makes the situation much more complicated than your simple claim indicates. In other words, your simple claim, as it stands, without any qualifications, is false.

I don't think you really understand what the American people want.

Maybe not but neither do you.

Edited November 24, 2011 by dre

[dre]

The US system doesn't have universal access as a goal, but we are more than happy to serve Canadian patients who get tired of suffering in your line. Expensive and slow really sucks!

Will that be cash or charge!

Actually the US does have universal access as the goal. Everyone is covered as long as they wait until they are REALLY sick and visit a hospital ER. The problem is that drives up costs because its much more expensive to treat people once they get to that point.

[bush_cheney2004]

Actually the US does have universal access as the goal. Everyone is covered as long as they wait until they are REALLY sick and visit a hospital ER. The problem is that drives up costs because its much more expensive to treat people once they get to that point.

Nope....the system isn't designed for broad based vote pandering like in Canada. In fact, it's not a system at all.

Edited November 24, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[dre]

Nope....the system isn't designed for broad based vote pandering like in Canada. In fact, it's not a system at all.

Actually it is. You DO have UHC. You just wait until people are REALLY REALLY sick before it kicks in.

And your system is designed just PERFECTLY for broad based vote pandering. In fact the main reason you have your current president is because he promised a public healthcare option.

Edited November 24, 2011 by dre

[bush_cheney2004]

Actually it is. You DO have UHC. You just wait until people are REALLY REALLY sick before it kicks in.

Sounds good to me....we wait for Canadians too...they come to Rochester all the time (Mayo Clinic).

And your system is designed just PERFECTLY for broad based vote pandering. In fact the main reason you have your current president is because he promised a public healthcare option.

Nope...he was elected for a lot of reasons. The public option never happened. Those voters weren't pandered to very well as in Canada where health care is the third rail.

[Guest American Woman]

Maybe not but neither do you.

Wow. That was so profound.

[Guest American Woman]

In fact the main reason you have your current president is because he promised a public healthcare option.

This is rich. Now you're making claims as to why Americans voted for Obama? Thanks for filling me in; I had no idea that's why I voted for him. I'll have to pass the info on to others I know - none of whom voted for him for that reason. I do know several who wouldn't vote for him again, though - because of his moronic health care plan. Does that count?

[jbg]

Actually the US does have universal access as the goal. Everyone is covered as long as they wait until they are REALLY sick and visit a hospital ER. The problem is that drives up costs because its much more expensive to treat people once they get to that point.

Does anyone really think Obamacare will drive down costs? it cannot unless doctors' incomes are reduced further. And that situation is already rather serious.

[GostHacked]

This is rich. Now you're making claims as to why Americans voted for Obama? Thanks for filling me in; I had no idea that's why I voted for him. I'll have to pass the info on to others I know - none of whom voted for him for that reason. I do know several who wouldn't vote for him again, though - because of his moronic health care plan. Does that count?

The American people voted for Hope and Change. Change did happen, but not the change they were hoping for.

[jbg]

The American people voted for Hope and Change. Change did happen, but not the change they were hoping for.

You got that mostly right.

Change hasn't really happened and change, in that sense, is almost impossible in the U.S. We are still very much the country Alexis de Tocquville wrote about in the 1830's; local governments and concerns, not national ones, dominate.

[Smallc]

local governments and concerns, not national ones, dominate.

That's something that I think often gets overlooked when it comes to the United States. Canada is said to be regional, but in many ways, the US is just as regional. That regionalism just takes on a different form in the two countries, and there is less of a language issue involved in the US.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Change hasn't really happened and change, in that sense, is almost impossible in the U.S. We are still very much the country Alexis de Tocquville wrote about in the 1830's; local governments and concerns, not national ones, dominate.

Yep...ultimately, all politics in the United States are local.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_politics_is_local

[Guest American Woman]

The American people voted for Hope and Change. Change did happen, but not the change they were hoping for.

They voted as they always do, on issues that are/were important to them; I doubt they heard Obama's campaign slogan and decided to vote for him. They vote on specifics, not a generalization in a campaign slogan. Some people simply voted against the GOP, the party in office - as has happened in the past.

I think the world in general put much more emphasis on "hope and change" than Americans did.

[bush_cheney2004]

...I think the world in general put much more emphasis on "hope and change" than Americans did.

...and that's the funniest part of all, as "the world" forgot that Obama was still an American.

[jbg]

They voted as they always do, on issues that are/were important to them; I doubt they heard Obama's campaign slogan and decided to vote for him. They vote on specifics, not a generalization in a campaign slogan. Some people simply voted against the GOP, the party in office - as has happened in the past.

I think the world in general put much more emphasis on "hope and change" than Americans did.

Actually I think slogans do make a difference. "Morning in America", "Thousand Points of Light", "It's the Economy Stupid" and "Yes We Can" and "Hope and Change" were all election winners. I'll admit "Where's the Beef" turned out not to be for Mondale.

...and that's the funniest part of all, as "the world" forgot that Obama was still an American.

Obama's a world citizen, not particularly an admirer or lover of America. Comes close to treason in my opinion.

[GostHacked]

Yep...ultimately, all politics in the United States are local.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_politics_is_local

But be damned if you do it without the Federal government stepping in.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Obama's a world citizen, not particularly an admirer or lover of America. Comes close to treason in my opinion.

...in words only. President Obama's actual policies/actions have paralleled President Bush's in many ways, frustrating his early supporters of "hope and change". ('Gitmo is still open.)

My fear that he would get Jimmy Carter disease has been assuaged.

[GostHacked]

They voted as they always do, on issues that are/were important to them; I doubt they heard Obama's campaign slogan and decided to vote for him.

'Yes We Can' ... remember that one?

They vote on specifics, not a generalization in a campaign slogan. Some people simply voted against the GOP, the party in office - as has happened in the past.

Voting for another party just to spite the other is also a horrible way of doing things. And they do vote on generalizations. When the politicians are up there, they are trying to appeal to the largest audience possible, meaning they are dealing with slogans and generalization.

I think the world in general put much more emphasis on "hope and change" than Americans did.

Well he is not the President of the world.

[Smallc]

I think the world in general put much more emphasis on "hope and change" than Americans did.

I think you're making things up.

[Guest American Woman]

...in words only. President Obama's actual policies/actions have paralleled President Bush's in many ways, frustrating his early supporters of "hope and change". ('Gitmo is still open.)

My fear that he would get Jimmy Carter disease has been assuaged.

My fears that he wouldn't have the strength to act when needed have also been assuaged. I know we are on different political pages, but I wanted Hillary because I thought she would have more 'strength of action.' Obama has grown with the job, I believe, and become stronger in this regard. I have more faith in him these days than I did in the beginning.

[Guest American Woman]

'Yes We Can' ... remember that one?

Ummm. Yes. And your point is?

Voting for another party just to spite the other is also a horrible way of doing things.

Thanks for that lesson on morality, but who said voting against the party in power is "just to spite the other?"

And they do vote on generalizations. When the politicians are up there, they are trying to appeal to the largest audience possible, meaning they are dealing with slogans and generalization.

Ummmm. No. They don't. What "politicians are up there doing" and what people actually vote on are not one and the same.

Well he is not the President of the world.

Which didn't stop the world for rooting for him, having undying faith in him, did it?

[bush_cheney2004]

My fears that he wouldn't have the strength to act when needed have also been assuaged. I know we are on different political pages, but I wanted Hillary because I thought she would have more 'strength of action.'

I agree 100% (at least on this issue)....I never had any such fears about Hillary Clinton and preferred her over Obama as well if McCain was not to be.

Obama has grown with the job, I believe, and become stronger in this regard. I have more faith in him these days than I did in the beginning.

I imagine that even as a Senate committee member or presidential candidate it is impossible to appreciate the burden and responsibility of his office. The "candidate" must morph into Chief Executive and Head of State instantly, getting more gray hair in the process. Right now he is battling Congress over meaningful deficit reduction, and that includes members of his own party.

[GostHacked]

I know you purposefully don't follow the flow of your own posts in any given thread, so you asking me 'What my point is?' is not very surprising at all.... Let's recap shall we?

They voted as they always do, on issues that are/were important to them; I doubt they heard Obama's campaign slogan and decided to vote for him.

I said something about hope and change, in which your reply was ......

Ummm. Yes. And your point is?

So, what was YOUR point? Is that too obtuse?

Thanks for that lesson on morality, but who said voting against the party in power is "just to spite the other?"

It's kind of how it goes. Because you said..

Some people simply voted against the GOP, the party in office - as has happened in the past.

Simply votes against the GOP for what reasons? Did they have a reason? Or essentially to spite the other party?

Ummmm. No. They don't. What "politicians are up there doing" and what people actually vote on are not one and the same.

No shit, you don't say!!! Shocking to say the least!

Which didn't stop the world for rooting for him, having undying faith in him, did it?

Hopefully come the next election, things will change ... ...... obligatory :lol:

[dre]

Wow. That was so profound.

About as profound as when you said it I guess.

[dre]

This is rich. Now you're making claims as to why Americans voted for Obama? Thanks for filling me in; I had no idea that's why I voted for him. I'll have to pass the info on to others I know - none of whom voted for him for that reason. I do know several who wouldn't vote for him again, though - because of his moronic health care plan. Does that count?

Actually his origional plan wasnt too bad.

And we dont have to take wild guesses as to why people voted the way they did. Thats what exit polls are for. We know what the big issues of the day were.

Jan. 30, 2008 -- Health care is once again near the top of voters' concerns -- a position it has not held since the 1992 presidential race. A December 2007 poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that health ranked second among issues voters want policymakers to address -- following only the war in Iraq -- among Democrats, Republicans and independents.

That may help explain why Democrats and Republicans running for president have offered up comprehensive health care policy proposals during the primary phase of their campaigns. Health care has long been an important voting issue for Democrats, but less so for the average GOP voter.

No matter which candidate emerges as each party's nominee, the general election will pit a Democrat with a plan to increase government involvement in the health care system against a Republican who wants to change the tax system to use market competition to control health care costs. Here's a sampling of each candidate's health care proposals:

http://www.npr.org/news/specials/election2008/issues/healthcare.html

Edited November 24, 2011 by dre