Who are you voting for! (US Election)

[Sei]

So, Mccain or Obama, If you can't vote, who would you vote for, if you don't care, skip. 3rd party candidates or write ins can be included as posts, but unsure I'll actually tabulate.

Let's see how close to reality Atlus gets it!

[sora4126]

I actually care about my future, so I'm voting for Obama. Socialism may be a problem, but it's better than a review of the past 8 years.
Plus I'm afraid if McCain is elected this may actually happen:
http://www.fileupyours.com/files/173960/IfMcCainwins.jpg

[SickleCellAnemia]

No making fun of Palin in this thread!!!
http://media.hoover.org/images/sarah_palin.jpg

[Azriel Crusnik]

Voted for Obama. Socialism or not, it's at least something.

[dragonlife29]

WTF at that image! :lol:

[Kakizaki]

I actually care about my future, so I'm voting for Obama.

Okay, this kind of stuff concerns me a little bit. Not your choice, but what you have said here. Do people really think there are going to be that radical of changes after Obama is elected? A president is definitely influential, but I think people are putting a little too much stock into what will happen (not necessarily saying you do Sora, just in general).

I think people sometimes forget about who is/has/and will be sharing power in the house and senate and who has the majority. The Democrats have enjoyed some power in both while Bush was president yet there were still problems. People tend to neglect that. (again, not saying you think this way Sora, but I sometimes wonder if many people do)

The president isn't the be all and end all. It isn't as if this will be some magic pill that will fix everything. The economy is cyclical and many of the problems with it recently were also the fault of previous administrations and both the Dems and Republicans. (for instance, the Dems supported sup prime loans/mortgages)

[StrikeRaider]

Um guys, it actually depends on Congress if we go socialist or not. So if you have that much of a problem with it, if you're state has a senate/representative seat open vote republican for that. The President can't introduce legislation himself. He needs a congressman to.

I personally don't think he is actually socialist at all. He'll be as bad as Bill Clinton in terms of liberalness.

Bah you posting while I was writing.

[Futomimi]

You are a spoilsport, Kaki!

Anyway, I already voted. Anyone that knows me can probably guess who my vote went to.

[Sei]

^ Why you gotta be like that Kaki :(

If I know Mimi, she went Mccain all the doggone way!

[Balrog]

Every time I hear someone say "Obama is a socialist" my brain replaces that phrase with "I'm uninformed". It's probably the nano-machines.

[firehydra2k]

Presidents can't do jack alone. If anything needs to be done, then the House and Senate must agree to it. Remember the system of checks and balances?

And by the way, write in Joe Biden. Barack Obama is not fit to lead.

[sora4126]

I actually care about my future, so I'm voting for Obama.

Okay, this kind of stuff concerns me a little bit. Not your choice, but what you have said here. Do people really think there are going to be that radical of changes after Obama is elected? A president is definitely influential, but I think people are putting a little too much stock into what will happen (not necessarily saying you do Sora, just in general).

I think people sometimes forget about who is/has/and will be sharing power in the house and senate and who has the majority. The Democrats have enjoyed some power in both while Bush was president yet there were still problems. People tend to neglect that. (again, not saying you think this way Sora, but I sometimes wonder if many people do)

The president isn't the be all and end all. It isn't as if this will be some magic pill that will fix everything. The economy is cyclical and many of the problems with it recently were also the fault of previous administrations and both the Dems and Republicans. (for instance, the Dems supported sup prime loans/mortgages)
That's why I'm not gonna be a poli-sci major, I half pay attention to politics. XD So I guess I should prolly back down about statements like that, sorry. *Acknowledged you not saying I think this way, I just know I need to change myself*

[Fuyukaze]

Ron Paul. Sure, it's a wasted vote but I'll be damned if I vote for Vader or the Emperor. Both are rotton to the core and as good for the country as any sith lord would be.

[Sanctine]

If I was American, McCain.

[Futomimi]

And by the way, write in Joe Biden. Barack Obama is not fit to lead.

Making your vote count for absolutely nothing is AWESOME!

And Ron Paul is just as bad as either of the candidates. He claims to be the "closest thing possible to a Libertarian," but wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Dictating the lives of 50% of the population is not libertarianism.

edit: lol Sei.

[jeffx]

If I was American, neither. I hate smokers (sorry Atlus smokers).

[RayFoxSith]

Obama.

[James Fiend]

3rd party candidates or write ins can be included as posts, but unsure I'll actually tabulate.
Third party members are probably used to it anyway.


I don't make enough money to vote based on economics (poor college student), but I'm voting for Obama based on social issues. I'm "pro-abortion" (oh Senator!) and pro gay rights.

[Flußkönig]

McCain

[Fuyukaze]

And by the way, write in Joe Biden. Barack Obama is not fit to lead.

Making your vote count for absolutely nothing is AWESOME!

And Ron Paul is just as bad as either of the candidates. He claims to be the "closest thing possible to a Libertarian," but wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Dictating the lives of 50% of the population is not libertarianism.

edit: lol Sei.

Making federal law out of something that should only be a state issue isnt any better. Besides, it swings both ways. As is, the other half is screwed just as much if not worse.

[Saishu]

I already voted (absentee). Palin.

[Olethros]

If I was American, neither. I hate smokers (sorry Atlus smokers).

What does that have to do with anything?

I really don't care much for either candidate, to tell the truth, but I'm mildly leaning towards McCain. Maybe it's 'cause I'm old.

[shimo]

I am not American but Obama all the way.

[slayn]

I'm voting for the candidate that ran an actual presidential campaign and not a hamfisted and wholly ineffectual smear campaign.

[Olethros]

^ Ralph Nader?

[slayn]

I try not to waste my vote :)

[Futomimi]

No, Olethros! DUHHHH!

http://www.frankmooreforpresident08.com/

[Sei]

Making federal law out of something that should only be a state issue isnt any better. Besides, it swings both ways. As is, the other half is screwed just as much if not worse.

I'm a bit confused, what did you mean by "As is, the other half is screwed just as much if not worse"

[Olethros]

No, Olethros! DUHHHH!

http://www.frankmooreforpresident08.com/

Oh, my bad.

I was actually thinking maybe this one:

http://www.shatnerhasselhoff.com/

[Kakizaki]

And by the way, write in Joe Biden. Barack Obama is not fit to lead.

Making your vote count for absolutely nothing is AWESOME!

And Ron Paul is just as bad as either of the candidates. He claims to be the "closest thing possible to a Libertarian," but wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Dictating the lives of 50% of the population is not libertarianism.

edit: lol Sei.


I really don't think there is a such a thing as a wasted vote if the person voting is truly making a decision they are happy with.

[Pixel]

I'll predict Obama will win by as little as 311 or as much as 349.

[Futomimi]

And by the way, write in Joe Biden. Barack Obama is not fit to lead.

Making your vote count for absolutely nothing is AWESOME!

And Ron Paul is just as bad as either of the candidates. He claims to be the "closest thing possible to a Libertarian," but wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Dictating the lives of 50% of the population is not libertarianism.

edit: lol Sei.


I really don't think there is a such a thing as a wasted vote if the person voting is truly making a decision they are happy with.

If someone is voting for someone who is actually running for President, ok, even if I personally think that voting for a 3rd party (in our system) is counterproductive. Voting for someone that isn't even running is just silly, and a waste of your right to participate in our democracy, IMO.

[Kakizaki]

Voting for someone that isn't even running is just silly, and a waste of your right to participate in our democracy, IMO.

I can understand this view, but I guess personally I don't see it this way if the person isn't simply doing it to be goofy.

I mean even if you know the candidate you support has no viable shot to win, wouldn't you still vote for them if you really believe in what they stand for? I kind of see this as the same sort of thing.

To me who wins or losses doesn't necessarily comprise all or even a overriding portion of participation. The investment in deciding what issues are important to you and finding someone that will best represent those ideals win or lose is equally important. Frustrating at times? Certainly. But I guess I personally don't find that a waste.

[Futomimi]

I guess it's a difference in personal opinion. I would love it if I could do that and feel great about it, but it seems a bit idealistic to me to cast a vote that will never make a difference. In this state, it is already unlikely enough that my votes in the Democratic party will make a difference.

And I think I am also still a little sore that, the last time Nader got a sizable chunk of the swing vote, we ended up getting Bush because of it. :P

[Kakizaki]

^Well, the swing vote thing is pretty subjective. People have said the same about Perot and Dole back in '96, and Bush and Perot in '92.

I would love it if I could do that and feel great about it, but it seems a bit idealistic to me to cast a vote that will never make a difference.

It may be, but I also hope that the numbers are looked at and it is recognized that gains can be made for certain parties in future elections (Independent for instance).

[Sei]

I don't see a realistic scenario where an independent party could reach a significant amount of the vote unless there was some sort of reform that would give it some sort of meaning (like a proportional representation parlamentary system).

The Electoral College system is pretty horrible imho, and it pretty much guarantees that only one monolithic umbrella right and one monolithic umbrella left party can exist in any meaningfull way.

[Kakizaki]

I don't see a realistic scenario where an independent party could reach a significant amount of the vote unless there was some sort of reform that would give it some sort of meaning (like a proportional representation parlamentary system).



It would take more then that unfortunately. There would also have to be massive reforms in regards to campaign funding.

[Iris]

I voted early for Obama today. And I guess I don't quite look my age, because the kindly old lady manning the exit asked if it was my first election. >___>

Since I'm off work tomorrow, I have an entire day to devote to watching the polls and madly refreshing commentary on the Economist's blog! /o/

[James Fiend]

Futomimi is completely right about the catch 22 regarding third parties. It would be even worse if one of the third parties actually became more viable. Whichever side they learned towards, the votes would be completely split apart between the two most popular parties. If the green party ever REALLY takes off, the kids are going to be singing church hymns before class.

[StrikeRaider]

If I was American, McCain.

You mind me asking why? Every foreigner I know prefers McCain.

I always thought Joe Biden was a good choice for VP. It shows that Obama isn't just trying to round out the ticket but picked someone who can assist him in the White House.

[Ike.]

Futomimi is completely right about the catch 22 regarding third parties. It would be even worse if one of the third parties actually became more viable. Whichever side they learned towards, the votes would be completely split apart between the two most popular parties. If the green party ever REALLY takes off, the kids are going to be singing church hymns before class.

Uh, are you familiar with the Green Party's platform?

Voting for Barr.

[Sei]

If I was American, McCain.

You mind me asking why? Every foreigner I know prefers McCain.

I always thought Joe Biden was a good choice for VP. It shows that Obama isn't just trying to round out the ticket but picked someone who can assist him in the White House.

Funny, every foreigner I know sans Sanctine seems to prefer Obama.

[Kakizaki]

Futomimi is completely right about the catch 22 regarding third parties. It would be even worse if one of the third parties actually became more viable. Whichever side they learned towards, the votes would be completely split apart between the two most popular parties. If the green party ever REALLY takes off, the kids are going to be singing church hymns before class.

And you are basing this off of what?

[Ike.]

I think he's confusing the Greens with Pat Robertson's ultra-religious splinter party.

[Olethros]

I think he's confusing the Greens with Pat Robertson's ultra-religious splinter party.

Seems like easy things to confuse! ;)

[dunno001]

*looks at poll results* I'd love to say that it would be that big a win for Obama, but unfortunately, I think it's going to be much closer than that. (What really scares me is that a 269/269 split is still in the realm of possibility.)

As for why, well, besides the fact that both McCain (mmm... potatoes...) and Palin scare me, I do think this country needs a chance to go in a new direction. Switching things over to having both a democratic congress and president will be the best chance. I don't know for certain that it will be a better new direction, nor how sharp a turn, if any, can be made. But I will do what I can do to try to let the rest of the world possibly respect us again. And that WILL take more than one presidency...

[Kakizaki]

^I don't necessarily think a super majority is going to be that great, and I think many people could be disappointed if they are expecting radical changes.

[Sanctine]

You mind me asking why? Every foreigner I know prefers McCain.

Because Obama is trying to incorporate methods into the States that Canada is trying to get rid of. Obama supporters can prepare for their taxes to increase, and their salaries to decrease.

Not that I think either of them are particularly noteworthy, but IMO, McCain is the lesser of two evils.

[Sei]

You mind me asking why? Every foreigner I know prefers McCain.

Because Obama is trying to incorporate methods into the States that Canada is trying to get rid of. Obama supporters can prepare for their taxes to increase, and their salaries to decrease.

Not that I think either of them are particularly noteworthy, but IMO, McCain is the lesser of two evils.

I'm confused, what are those methods that Canada is trying to get rid of?.
I'm Canadian too and haven't really noticed any such thing.

[Sanctine]

I'm confused, what are those methods that Canada is trying to get rid of?.
I'm Canadian too and haven't really noticed any such thing.

It's essentially what the Conservative party's goal has been the last few years. Canada has always had a way with its population where it tries to mother everybody at the expense of everyone else. Health care is a good example of that, but so are our immigration policies. And in Quebec, education.

The current Canadian government is trying to make things more 'American', whereas Obama's is to make everything more 'Canadian', if that makes any sense.

[Ike.]

ILU Sanctine.

[jeffx]

Yeah but with Obama "wanting" to scrap NAFTA; that means this Canadian will have to look for another job. But I understand what you're trying to say, yet our right is still a bit more left than their left.

[Sanctine]

ILU Sanctine.

Get in line.

Yeah but with Obama "wanting" to scrap NAFTA; that means this Canadian will have to look for another job. But I understand what you're trying to say, yet our right is still a bit more left than their left.

It will still be in the foreseeable future. But you understand what I'm shooting at, right?

[Sei]

That is hardly Canada trying to get rid of said things, though. But rather a result of having a single united Right party and a splintered Left in the most terrible "first past the post" system. If you go by percentage, parties on the left got 61.2 of the vote compared with 37.6 for the conservatives, that seems like hardly an endorsement of the policies of the Conservatives. Even going by that, the splintered left got 163 seats compared to the right's 143 (and remember, they are splitting the vote 3 ways, or 4 ways in Quebec, while the conservatives are a united party.

So I really wouldn't say that Canada is trying to move away from anything. And I wouldnt really think, looking at the situation in the states that things being "more american" would be a good thing.

Source: http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/results.html

[jeffx]

@Sei: The BQ is hardcore to the right. Anyway maybe we should let Americans have their political thread and leave our own problems out of it...

[Sei]

I always though the Block is hardcore left ;/ here is their platform: http://www.blocquebecois.org/archivage/blq-depsyntese-anglo1.pdf Mind you I'm only talking about an economic perspective.

But anyways yeah, carry on with the US stuff :)

[Sanctine]

That is hardly Canada trying to get rid of said things, though. But rather a result of having a single united Right party and a splintered Left in the most terrible "first past the post" system. If you go by percentage, parties on the left got 61.2 of the vote compared with 37.6 for the conservatives, that seems like hardly an endorsement of the policies of the Conservatives. Even going by that, the splintered left got 163 seats compared to the right's 143 (and remember, they are splitting the vote 3 ways, or 4 ways in Quebec, while the conservatives are a united party.

The Bloc Quebecois is hardly a left wing party anymore. They may seem like they're off in their own little world, but they're arguably more right wing than left. But that isn't my point.

My point is that when I say 'Canada', I mean the government at the helm, which is the Conservatives. The left may have been divided (ultimately leading in a default for the Conservatives), but they're still in, and they still want to Americanize Canada. Obama's policies are doing the opposite.

[Futomimi]

Futomimi is completely right about the catch 22 regarding third parties. It would be even worse if one of the third parties actually became more viable. Whichever side they learned towards, the votes would be completely split apart between the two most popular parties. If the green party ever REALLY takes off, the kids are going to be singing church hymns before class.

Uh, are you familiar with the Green Party's platform?

Voting for Barr.

I don't think you understood.

Let's say that, hypothetically, the Green Party became almost as big as the other 2 parties. Is a conservative likely to vote for the Green Party? Not so much... its supporters would likely be more left-leaning.

so:
Green Party- gains about 20% of the vote, taken from the Democrats
Democratic party- gains about 30% of the vote... lost 20% to the Green party
Republican party- retains about 50% of the vote.

See?

[Sei]

^ It's the Canadian way!

[Kakizaki]

^Or it can work the other way where more moderate right individual vote for an independent instead of the Republicans.

Why do some of you think voting for an independent automatically means it is taking away a vote for a dem?

[Ike.]

Perhaps I misunderstood because I don't understand the attitude that voting for a third party is somehow stealing a vote from another party. The Dems or Repubs don't have exclusive right to my vote. I happen to disagree pretty solidly on many platforms with both parties. If I vote third party, I'm voting for what I believe, the way the system is supposed to work.

Particularly when people say that Nader 'stole' votes from Gore. Why don't people realize what a mind-bogglingly selfish argument that is? "Arrrgh people would've voted for my guy if that other guy who they agree with more wasn't running! This is theft!"

[Kakizaki]

Because Obama is trying to incorporate methods into the States that Canada is trying to get rid of. Obama supporters can prepare for their taxes to increase, and their salaries to decrease.

Thank you. While I don't plan to vote for McCain (which has more to do with his vp choice), I don't always understand people. I frequently hear people reference universal health care or some other programs in other countries, primarily European, without taking into consideration how these programs are funded.

[Kakizaki]

Perhaps I misunderstood because I don't understand the attitude that voting for a third party is somehow stealing a vote from another party. The Dems or Repubs don't have exclusive right to my vote. I happen to disagree pretty solidly on many platforms with both parties. If I vote third party, I'm voting for what I believe, the way the system is supposed to work.

Particularly when people say that Nader 'stole' votes from Gore. Why don't people realize what a mind-bogglingly selfish argument that is? "Arrrgh people would've voted for my guy if that other guy who they agree with more wasn't running! This is theft!"

I wholeheartedly agree with you. As I said earlier, no one is complaining about the votes Perot "stole" from Bush or from Dole.

[Sanctine]

Why do some of you think voting for an independent automatically means it is taking away a vote for a dem?

I've noticed this trend lately. In the US and Canada, at least.

People seem to be voting more so someone else will lose, rather than voting for the one they actually agree with. It's not about voting for McCain or Obama this time around, I find. It's more about not voting for McCain or Obama.

[Ike.]

Because Obama is trying to incorporate methods into the States that Canada is trying to get rid of. Obama supporters can prepare for their taxes to increase, and their salaries to decrease.

Thank you. While I don't plan to vote for McCain (which has more to do with his vp choice), I don't always understand people. I frequently hear people reference universal health care or some other programs in other countries, primarily European, without taking into consideration how these programs are funded.

People seem to think that "universal health care" means "free health care." I've spoken to people who honestly seem to think that Canada somehow just forces their doctors to not charge for their services.

But hey, as long as I don't have to pay, who cares who foots the bill, right?

[Kakizaki]

@Sanctine

^Exactly.

I really have problems with both candidates - actually all three. So it is either I don't vote or I write in who I believe (not saying this is the case, but just an example).

@Ike

No doubt. I have a degree in poli sci for my undergrad. I spent a decent amount of time studying Western European nations. Tax rates can be pretty horrendous compared to what we enjoy here.

[Ike.]

Why do some of you think voting for an independent automatically means it is taking away a vote for a dem?

I've noticed this trend lately. In the US and Canada, at least.

People seem to be voting more so someone else will lose, rather than voting for the one they actually agree with. It's not about voting for McCain or Obama this time around, I find. It's more about not voting for McCain or Obama.

This exactly. More anecdotal evidence from me, but I had a friend tell me that they don't agree with Obama on a number of issues, yet they're voting for him because, well, "Anybody but Bush."

[Sei]

I think my understanding is that a healthy society is in society's interest thus society pays the bill. I like the system better than the US one. And since everyone's risk is pooled, it costs way less, and gives everyone way better coverage. Sure, the people with bigger than average income, or rich would like faster or better treatment or more options, but a large percent of those go to the states for care. For the majority of the population though, socialized healthcare works better.

Funny thing: I'm in Alberta, the most conservative province in Canada, Ralph Klein, our Premier (sorta like governor or such) got kicked out of office for trying to dismantle the public healthcare system.

[Futomimi]

I was explaining the context of James Fiend's joke... and he specified the Green Party, which is a bit more liberal than conservative. Yeah, there would probably be some moderate Republicans drawn to the party, but typically, it would probably be more Democratic party. I didn't factor in new voters (that didn't vote because they disliked the big 2) just because I didn't want to make the explanation more complicated.

There are obviously independent parties that could draw away Republican votes, but he specified Green, and I just don't see that really happening with that particular party.

edit: damn, I didn't see the whole new page of replies.

[Kakizaki]

@Sei

^I'm sorry but I don't want my risk pooled with people who don't take their own health into consideration. I've also spent a decent amount of time studying "risk pools" when I sold health insurance.

[Kakizaki]

I was explaining the context of James Fiend's joke... and he specified the Green Party, which is a bit more liberal than conservative. Yeah, there would probably be some moderate Republicans drawn to the party, but typically, it would probably be more Democratic party. I didn't factor in new voters (that didn't vote because they disliked the big 2) just because I didn't want to make the explanation more complicated.

There are obviously independent parties that could draw away Republican votes, but he specified Green, and I just don't see that really happening with that particular party.

edit: damn, I didn't see the whole new page of replies.

Okay, I understand mimi.

[Sanctine]

But hey, as long as I don't have to pay, who cares who foots the bill, right?

It's not only that. Our Hospitals are in #### condition, and our doctors are underpaid. Doctors constantly leave the country, and it's all because people don't have to 'pay' to get into the Emergency room.

Think about it. Why make an appointment for a stomach ache when I can get treated right away? This is the mentality it spurs, and it means everyone who really needs the treatment loses. ER is overcrowded, and the country lowers doctors' salaries in order to keep the whole operation running and as cheap as possible.

[Sei]

Then keep your insurance based healthcare! Seems to work great for most Americans from what I read. Personally, I think it's fair, and desirable from a societal point of view. Cancer shouldn't be a death sentence just because you cant afford the meds.

[Sei]

But hey, as long as I don't have to pay, who cares who foots the bill, right?

It's not only that. Our Hospitals are in #### condition, and our doctors are underpaid. Doctors constantly leave the country, and it's all because people don't have to 'pay' to get into the Emergency room.

Think about it. Why make an appointment for a stomach ache when I can get treated right away? This is the mentality it spurs, and it means everyone who really needs the treatment loses. ER is overcrowded, and the country lowers doctors' salaries in order to keep the whole operation running and as cheap as possible.

That's more a problem with funding than with the system. True story, we have 20 billion for a war most Canadians don't support, but we don't have money for health which most Canadians do.

[Kakizaki]

^Well sure, but then I better have my tax rate jacked way the hell to pay for people that stuff their face with sugar laden junk food only to set themselves up for diabetes.

[Kakizaki]

But hey, as long as I don't have to pay, who cares who foots the bill, right?

It's not only that. Our Hospitals are in #### condition, and our doctors are underpaid. Doctors constantly leave the country, and it's all because people don't have to 'pay' to get into the Emergency room.

Think about it. Why make an appointment for a stomach ache when I can get treated right away? This is the mentality it spurs, and it means everyone who really needs the treatment loses. ER is overcrowded, and the country lowers doctors' salaries in order to keep the whole operation running and as cheap as possible.

That's more a problem with funding than with the system. True story, we have 20 billion for a war most Canadians don't support, but we don't have money for health which most Canadians do.


Funding and the system go hand in hand.

[Futomimi]

^ Ummm, if they don't have diabetes YET, then you shouldn't be worried. Unless they skimp on your 6 shots of chocolate sauce.

[Kakizaki]

LOL!!!!

[Sanctine]

Then keep your insurance based healthcare! Seems to work great for most Americans from what I read. Personally, I think it's fair, and desirable from a societal point of view. Cancer shouldn't be a death sentence just because you cant afford the meds.

Privatized healthcare is a much better idea.

Those who need plans like that yet don't have the budget can get treatment that way. It may not be as convenient, or as cheap for the end user, but it's much less exploitable for those who don't really need it. And it's the treatment and quality that counts.

[Sanctine]

That's more a problem with funding than with the system. True story, we have 20 billion for a war most Canadians don't support, but we don't have money for health which most Canadians do.

It's a problem with both, not just one.

[StrikeRaider]

The problem with privatized healthcare is that what happens to the people who are uninsured.

Also if I remember from what my friend told me (HEARSAY) most people don't even pay that much in taxes in the first place. Obama plans on taxing people who make over $250,000 and getting rid of the tax cuts. Since I don't know what % of the US makes over that amount I can't say if that's good or bad, just that I have nothing to worry about cause I'm poor.

If we would just get out of Iraq we wouldn't even have to worry about taxes but that's a discussion we haven't even heard about for a long time.

[Futomimi]

edit: oops, misread something.

[Ike.]

Then keep your insurance based healthcare! Seems to work great for most Americans from what I read. Personally, I think it's fair, and desirable from a societal point of view. Cancer shouldn't be a death sentence just because you cant afford the meds.

Healthcare is an inherently unfair system. Socialized healthcare will work when one day there is a cheap, magic bullet type treatment that just fixes everything, but until that day, there's not going to be a perfect system, or even a good system.

Have you ever heard the saying, 'Democracy is the worst form of government, except for everything else.'? Same principle.

Universal healthcare opens up the can of worms that is the Utilitarian viewpoint on things. When a geriatric retiree requires fifteen different medications, and requires surgery on a near-yearly basis that can total ten thousand or more dollars, at which point does the value of a single human life outweigh the comfort and stability of others? Not only his family, but the entire nation in which he lives?

When the man down the road gains 200 pounds because he took a liking to Ranch flavor Doritos, and came down with diabetes, is it still your responsibility to provide money for his healthcare? If it's not, why? Who judges which cases 'deserve' healthcare and which ones don't? Some bureaucrat?

It's a conundrum. If you can't pick and choose who to cover, and provide blanket healthcare, the 'fakers,' the people whose problems are less-than-legitimate, are taking away money, resources, and precious time from people who have genuine problems.

[Kakizaki]

@StrikeRaider

^Not sure how old you are, but there is talk about taxes every single election year.

Yeah the war sucks, but this is nothing new.

[Kakizaki]

Then keep your insurance based healthcare! Seems to work great for most Americans from what I read. Personally, I think it's fair, and desirable from a societal point of view. Cancer shouldn't be a death sentence just because you cant afford the meds.

Healthcare is an inherently unfair system. Socialized healthcare will work when one day there is a cheap, magic bullet type treatment that just fixes everything, but until that day, there's not going to be a perfect system, or even a good system.

Have you ever heard the saying, 'Democracy is the worst form of government, except for everything else.'? Same principle.

Universal healthcare opens up the can of worms that is the Utilitarian viewpoint on things. When a geriatric retiree requires fifteen different medications, and requires surgery on a near-yearly basis that can total ten thousand or more dollars, at which point does the value of a single human life outweigh the comfort and stability of others? Not only his family, but the entire nation in which he lives?

When the man down the road gains 200 pounds because he took a liking to Ranch flavor Doritos, and came down with diabetes, is it still your responsibility to provide money for his healthcare? If it's not, why? Who judges which cases 'deserve' healthcare and which ones don't? Some bureaucrat?

It's a conundrum. If you can't pick and choose who to cover, and provide blanket healthcare, the 'fakers,' the people whose problems are less-than-legitimate, are taking away money, resources, and precious time from people who have genuine problems.

I'm writing you in.

[Sei]

It's only a better idea if you are both rich and don't care about anyone else but you. From a societal perspective, it doesn't seem to work that great, the US ranks consistently worse in health system comparisons, spends more, and has a lower life expectancy than places with "inferior" socialized systems.

As per charts from the WHO's latest studies into this: http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthy_life_table2.html
http://www.photius.com/rankings/world_health_performance_ranks.html
http://www.photius.com/rankings/total_health_expenditure_as_pecent_of_gdp_2000_to_ 2005.html

Why, the only thing the privatized system is superior in, is cost, notice the top of the Health expenditure per GDP chart.

Then keep your insurance based healthcare! Seems to work great for most Americans from what I read. Personally, I think it's fair, and desirable from a societal point of view. Cancer shouldn't be a death sentence just because you cant afford the meds.

Privatized healthcare is a much better idea.

Those who need plans like that yet don't have the budget can get treatment that way. It may not be as convenient, or as cheap for the end user, but it's much less exploitable for those who don't really need it. And it's the treatment and quality that counts.

[Kakizaki]

It's only a better idea if you are both rich and don't care about anyone else but you.

I'm sorry Sei, but this is a total load of BS. I'm not going to even go into why - although this depends more on opinion than it does "fact" so you would have a hard time justifying anything.

The roots of the problem run much deeper. As Ike pointed out we shouldn't have to be responsible for those that can't respect themselves. Yes, sometimes financial considerations can play into diet and health and I am perfectly willing to help those individuals. A more logical approach would be some sort of national health initiative, stress preventative measures, and a restructuring of channels of food distribution to the impoverished.

Again, it has little to do with not caring. I will throw this out there - I had to go through some counseling a few years back for some alcohol related problems. Had I continued with what I was doing, and had I hurt myself or people during this period, I would never expect someone else to foot the bill. I look at people who stuff their face with crap and don't take care of themselves in the same manner.

[Futomimi]

Sanctine, I like you, but until you pay 800-1000 US dollars just to have an ambulance come to your house, I'm not giving any weight to your opinions on healthcare.

I agree with Kaki's views, and they make sense, but unfortunately, I think all of those programs would be painted as "pork" by the media or other candidates, if they were ever proposed and seriously considered.

[Kain Mare]

In the beginning, I wanted to vote for Obama. I thought of a lot of the points he was for and ventured into them some what. Over time, I started to lean over to McCain because I found out what Obama wanted to do and well… as being a young tax payer of tomorrow, it will hurt me TONS later, as well as for my future children. Also, I’ve been watching: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dmPchuXIXQ lately and it expands on how secretive the US government is. They are gangsters who hide behind the “law.”

What caught my eye, especially, was the whole part that the Government will do something to get involved with war, even at the cost of their own people. Taking this into mind, the McCain commercial of Biden mentioning an “attack” on the US to test Obama’s ability to lead in a harsh time and it really scares me to think that if he were to get into office, it will happen. Another 9/11 will take place and the US will have to fight another war and further cut our ties with the other counties (if it isn’t in the ####ter now…)


Obama’s whole view on “universal health care” boggles me. US currently has some sort of “universal health care” and all that needs to be done is to actually look for it instead of waiting around for something “free” to come around, which most are actually doing. Someone brought up a great point that people are confusing “universal” with “free” and that really isn’t the case because nothing in this world is “free.” Americans are lazy! As a whole, we are (personal view ^^;;;;; ).

As of this moment, I am focused on my country and what needs to be done here. I’d rather have 4 years and the same ####, than 4 years of something worse. I feel Obama will bring this country down and I really don’t want that to happen. As someone said on NJ 101.5, “I would rather be poor and homeless than dead.”

Tl;dr; I'm voting for McCain.

I'll come back later and respond. My head is killing me at the moment.

(What the hell... I log on and it logs me out? Atlus, you hate me so. D: )

[Sei]

Again, it has little to do with not caring. I will throw this out there - I had to go through some counseling a few years back for some alcohol related problems. Had I continued with what I was doing, and had I hurt myself or people during this period, I would never expect someone else to foot the bill. I look at people who stuff their face with crap and don't take care of themselves in the same manner.

So your rationale for supporting a system that costs a lot more, and delivers way less, where people live less on average as well, and if they are sick, have a worse quality of life, is that you somehow get to punish those whose lifestyles you disagree with?.

Sure, there is abuse, but if we look at the facts, everyone is still better off. I don't think it worth it to punish all of society to somehow get the abusers out. Every human enterprise can be abused, and from that philosophy, then nothing should be done ever. And privatized healthcare is abused too. But most of the abuse seems to come from the insurers. I assume I don't have to paste horror stories of people being denied coverage for treatments of conditions they were supposedly insured from.

Somehow giving the keys to healthcare to people in whos best interest is to charge the most, and to treat the least seems sub optimal to me.

[Sanctine]

Sanctine, I like you, but until you pay 800-1000 US dollars just to have an ambulance come to your house, I'm not giving any weight to your opinions on healthcare.

I agree with Kaki's views, and they make sense, but unfortunately, I think all of those programs would be painted as "pork" by the media or other candidates, if they were ever proposed and seriously considered.

I was more referring to the point that private healthcare is a much better system than public heathcare.

If I had a choice, I would be on the same page. I keep myself in great shape and never get sick - I really have no use at all for healthcare. Sure, karma will bite me one day, but I don't mind that much.

And on that note:
Sanctine, I like you

I knew you had the hots for me.

[Kakizaki]

So your rationale for supporting a system that costs a lot more, and delivers way less, where people live less on average as well, and if they are sick, have a worse quality of life, is that you somehow get to punish those whose lifestyles you disagree with?.

No, my rational lies with addressing the other root problems that I mentioned and you chose not to recognize. Guess what, the smoking bans we impose already "punish" the lifestyles of those we don't agree with. Why? Because we have deemed it unfit (this is isn't a knock on smokers).

Sure, there is abuse, but if we look at the facts

What "facts" Sei? Do you want to base it off of what other countries do? Then you need to address the root causes. Yes, every human enterprise can be abused, but we live in a society of excess. We live in one of the most obese and unhealthy societies in the history of mankind. There has to come a point in which we address it. I'm sure you know first hand that diets differ radically from what we have in the U.S.

But most of the abuse seems to come from the insurers. I assume I don't have to paste horror stories of people being denied coverage for treatments of conditions they were supposedly insured from.

There are also horror stories for government provided veterans care as well. Not to mention that the blame you are placing on the insurers isn't accurate. I can tell you that from meetings I have sat in one and reports that I have seen. There is a balance.

On a side note - I would be totally pissed if I was a Canadian and I had to pay for this idiotic war, but how do you even know that the money you are referring to would utilized in health care? Did these problems suddenly crop up over the course the past 5 years?

[Ike.]

People do complain about insurance a lot, and there is a lot to complain about, but it's approached from the wrong end. Health care would ultimately be in much better shape if the concept of insurance had never come into being.

Insurance removes the lovely, driving forces that we capitalists know as the Free Market and Risk from the equation. Or, rather, it doesn't remove them entirely, but moves it up a peg on the Plunko board.*

I'll try and keep it short as I can.

In most systems, businesses who charge high and deliver less get shut down, because people talk with their wallets. It doesn't work that way in health care because the costs are covered by a third party (the insurance company) and not the person who is actually responsible for the money.

John Stossel on 20/20 did an excellent show on insurance and universal healthcare following the release of Michael Moore's movie, Sicko. Here's part 1. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEXFUbSbg1I) I highly recommend watching the whole thing, in particular the part about Whole Foods Market (I think it was) and their unique health care benefits for employees.

*I KNOW PLUNKO DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY, SHUT UP**

**is that what the game is even called, Plunko? You know, that thing from The Price is Right. You know what I'm talking about.

[Sanctine]

*I KNOW PLUNKO DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY, SHUT UP**

**is that what the game is even called, Plunko? You know, that thing from The Price is Right. You know what I'm talking about.

It's plinko, but I like plunko better.

Write in Plunko for 2008!

[slayn]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dmPchuXIXQ

You have got to be joking. That has to be a fakepost.

man i saw this documentary called loose change and man it totally changed my life, it explains EVERYTHING

[Ike.]

Movies like Zeitgeist and Loose Change are for people who think they're living in one of the Bourne movies.

[slayn]

Movies like Zeitgeist and Loose Change are for people who think they're living in one of the Bourne movies.

YOU KNOW TOO MUCH, YOU'RE ONE OF THEM, MAN!

HELP! HELP! I'M BEING REPRESSED!

[Kakizaki]

is that you somehow get to punish those whose lifestyles you disagree with?

You know, this also kind of puzzles me based on your view of the bailout a few weeks ago. You were all about sacrificing some people that made decent and honest mistakes (or some that made decisions that you did not agree with) to punish corporate officers. I don't get how you can be cool with that and try and turn around and question me.

[Kain Mare]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dmPchuXIXQ

You have got to be joking. That has to be a fakepost.

man i saw this documentary called loose change and man it totally changed my life, it explains EVERYTHING
Love your sarcasm. Made me giggle. But on a serious note, there is a whole site dedicated to this. I haven't visited it, but my co-workers have. As I said, I started watching it as of late. I don't 100% agree with the views from that video and haven't said any of them (other than the summary of Zeitgeist) in my post.

Ike; Only if you're in there. ;)

[Sei]

Actually, I thought smoking bans were about protecting 3rd parties from second hand smoke, and not for the express purpose of punishing smokers, who really, are engaging on a lawfull, heavily taxed activity. This is like saying that DUI laws are punishment on drinkers.

The facts are right there in the charts I posted, Kaki. Sure, diet and excercise has some to do with it, but really, Canada's diet is not that dissimilar from the states and yet, we rank higher in every category but cost.

And at any rate, what is your solution, to legislate a singular lifestyle you agree with for everyone? this seems like a much more intrusive option. Again, the idea of punishing everyone you disagree with doesn't really (for me) weight as much as the fact that everyone is better off (from a societal perspective). Except for health insurance execs, I suppose.

[slayn]

You know, this also kind of puzzles me based on your view of the bailout a few weeks ago. You were all about sacrificing some people that made decent and honest mistakes (or some that made decisions that you did not agree with) to punish corporate officers. I don't get how you can be cool with that and try and turn around and question me.

I wasn't paying attention to that thread, but I will say this:

It's possible, though not necessarily easy, to fully recover from bankruptcy and even a felony conviction. It's not possible to recover even a tiny bit from being dead because you didn't have insurance and couldn't afford to see a doctor.

[slayn]

Love your sarcasm. Made me giggle. But on a serious note, there is a whole site dedicated to this. I haven't visited it, but my co-workers have. As I said, I started watching it as of late. I don't 100% agree with the views from that video and haven't said any of them (other than the summary of Zeitgeist) in my post.

There are whole sites dedicated to folks that think they are reincarnations of video game and anime characters. They have exactly the same credibility as the folks behind Zeitgeist.

[Kakizaki]

And at any rate, what is your solution, to legislate a singular lifestyle you agree with for everyone?[quote]

How on earth did you get that from anything I said. I hardly think a national health initiative is restrictive. You can try and demonize what I am saying, but you are off base by a large margin.

[quote]The facts are right there in the charts I posted, Kaki. Sure, diet and excercise has some to do with it, but really, Canada's diet is not that dissimilar from the states and yet, we rank higher in every category but cost.

And so we are going to base this solely on Canada's example? I'm not sure what you are playing at Sei, but I know you are much smarter than that. And what does that chart really tell us outside of statistics Sei? Does it go into overall national health. Not health system rankings, but factors such as obesity and adult onset diabetes, etc?

Actually, I thought smoking bans were about protecting 3rd parties from second hand smoke, and not for the express purpose of punishing smokers, who really, are engaging on a lawfull, heavily taxed activity. This is like saying that DUI laws are punishment on drinkers.

Those two are completely dissimilar from the point I was making. Yes, I would agree the smoking ban has more to do with 3rd party smoke, but it could be viewed as a responsibility factor. There have also been huge initiatives to get people to quit smoking, yet do you view that as a way to restrict people's lifestyles in a manner that conforms to an individual's constrictive views? Of course not because you recognize it is unhealthy.

Just like the smoking bans would created for due to the effect of 3rd party smoke, a health initiative has a 3rd party effect in how patterns are passed on from generation to generation.

I'm not sure why you see this as me trying to impose my will on people.

[slayn]

I'm not sure why you see this as me trying to impose my will on people.

Kakizaki
Super Moderator

:)

[Kakizaki]

You know, this also kind of puzzles me based on your view of the bailout a few weeks ago. You were all about sacrificing some people that made decent and honest mistakes (or some that made decisions that you did not agree with) to punish corporate officers. I don't get how you can be cool with that and try and turn around and question me.

I wasn't paying attention to that thread, but I will say this:

It's possible, though not necessarily easy, to fully recover from bankruptcy and even a felony conviction. It's not possible to recover even a tiny bit from being dead because you didn't have insurance and couldn't afford to see a doctor.


Yes. I'm sure the older and elderly that are financially ruined will take solace in that. Yay for extremes.

[slayn]

Yes. I'm sure the older and elderly that are financially ruined will take solace in that. Yay for extremes.

I submit that relying solely on a 401(k) plan or similar for your retirement is the financial equivalent of eating yourself into diabetes.

[Kakizaki]

^Okay, true enough, but just as Sei said, should we punish those whose decisions we don't agree with. that is more alone the lines of what I am getting at. Why is it okay in one instance all of the sudden.

[Kain Mare]

There are whole sites dedicated to folks that think they are reincarnations of video game and anime characters. They have exactly the same credibility as the folks behind Zeitgeist.
I suppose there are, but Zeitgeist is the first real "conspiracy" that I've watched. Then again, that was the exact part I was shown. But, meh.


But, I will agree with you there. I don't take Zeitgeist too seriously, as I really don't watch those sort of clips and it felt together, being the novice that I am. But that's what conspiracy theories are, right?

[Kakizaki]

I would also like to point out that the life expectancy chart Sei posted is beyond ancient and not accurate, but I understand her message.

If you look at recent ones, it has actually gone up for the U.S. since the one she posted. That being said, I really don't think it can be looked at some type of indicator of the health insurance industry.

[Sei]

is that you somehow get to punish those whose lifestyles you disagree with?

You know, this also kind of puzzles me based on your view of the bailout a few weeks ago. You were all about sacrificing some people that made decent and honest mistakes (or some that made decisions that you did not agree with) to punish corporate officers. I don't get how you can be cool with that and try and turn around and question me.


Apples and Oranges? How does supporting healthcare for everyone, where everyone is better off, relate to supporting a rushed through, barely debated bailout of the companies that made everything go bankrupt in the first place? I would also love to nose that the bailout failed. Unless you haven't kept an eye on the news, it did quite little to fix the system.

I see a large difference between a system that has been proven with results, from a bailout with no oversight for the people that broke the system in the first place, and where no alternatives were (or really, have been, considered).

And that life expectancy chart is the latest available. If you have a better one, do show.

[slayn]

^Okay, true enough, but just as Sei said, should we punish those whose decisions we don't agree with. that is more alone the lines of what I am getting at. Why is it okay in one instance all of the sudden.

I can't speak for Sei, but I don't think it's ok. I think we should help all people equally, at least initially. To use the diabetes example again, if you eat yourself into diabetes and can't afford your meds, fine, we'll help, but as part of our help you need to take a workshop or something on proper diet and exercise. Furthermore, if you ignore the advice of that workshop and keep chowing down on donuts, we stop offering help.

Of course, that's a nice theory I have, but it would be nearly impossible to implement. C'est la vie.

[Kakizaki]

To use the diabetes example again, if you eat yourself into diabetes and can't afford your meds, fine, we'll help, but as part of our help you need to take a workshop or something on proper diet and exercise. Furthermore, if you ignore the advice of that workshop and keep chowing down on donuts, we stop offering help.

I am totally cool with this, but I don't think it would be as crazy to implement as a total restructuring of health care.

[Sei]

Those two are completely dissimilar from the point I was making. Yes, I would agree the smoking ban has more to do with 3rd party smoke, but it could be viewed as a responsibility factor. There have also been huge initiatives to get people to quit smoking, yet do you view that as a way to restrict people's lifestyles in a manner that conforms to an individual's constrictive views? Of course not because you recognize it is unhealthy.



It could be viewed as anything that fits what you want to say? The truth is that that is not it's primary purpose. DUI and smoking bans are the same (to me) in the sense that their primary motivation is protecting third parties. They hardly have anything significant to do with punishing the smoker, or the drinker.

[Sei]

To use the diabetes example again, if you eat yourself into diabetes and can't afford your meds, fine, we'll help, but as part of our help you need to take a workshop or something on proper diet and exercise. Furthermore, if you ignore the advice of that workshop and keep chowing down on donuts, we stop offering help.

I am totally cool with this, but I don't think it would be as crazy to implement as a total restructuring of health care.

So are you for privatized healthcare, or for socialized healthcare that takes into account preventive care? What would you restructure the system into?

[Kakizaki]

is that you somehow get to punish those whose lifestyles you disagree with?

You know, this also kind of puzzles me based on your view of the bailout a few weeks ago. You were all about sacrificing some people that made decent and honest mistakes (or some that made decisions that you did not agree with) to punish corporate officers. I don't get how you can be cool with that and try and turn around and question me.


Apples and Oranges? How does supporting healthcare for everyone, where everyone is better off, relate to supporting a rushed through, barely debated bailout of the companies that made everything go bankrupt in the first place? I would also love to nose that the bailout failed. Unless you haven't kept an eye on the news, it did quite little to fix the system.

I see a large difference between a system that has been proven with results, from a bailout with no oversight for the people that broke the system in the first place, and where no alternatives were (or really, have been, considered).

And that life expectancy chart is the latest available. If you have a better one, do show.


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

2007 CIA factbook

A system with proven results where Sei? In the U.S.?

[Sei]

Thanks for the chart! Us ranks 38, Canada ranks 11. I would think the innumerable charts showing better results for single payer systems as proof of which system works better, especially compared to cost, but that's just me Kaki.

Oh, by system I meant the healthcare system thing that we are currently discussing, not an economic one. Sorry if that wording was confusing to you.

[Kakizaki]

To use the diabetes example again, if you eat yourself into diabetes and can't afford your meds, fine, we'll help, but as part of our help you need to take a workshop or something on proper diet and exercise. Furthermore, if you ignore the advice of that workshop and keep chowing down on donuts, we stop offering help.

I am totally cool with this, but I don't think it would be as crazy to implement as a total restructuring of health care.

So are you for privatized healthcare, or for socialized healthcare that takes into account preventive care? What would you restructure the system into?

I've already stated what my first measure would be Sei. A couple of times I believe, but instead of thinking about it you are twisting it into my attempt to make people conform to some lifestyle that I deem agreeable. Not for there own personal health and the health of their families and children, but some backwards view I have.

For the time being I would leave it privatized, establish some sort of government sponsored health credits for financially the disadvantaged (although I can think of a few examples of how this already exists at least in my state), and work on a health initiative.

[slayn]

I suppose there are, but Zeitgeist is the first real "conspiracy" that I've watched. Then again, that was the exact part I was shown. But, meh.


But, I will agree with you there. I don't take Zeitgeist too seriously, as I really don't watch those sort of clips and it felt together, being the novice that I am. But that's what conspiracy theories are, right?

The larger problem is that none of your reasoning holds together. Beyond the fact you quoted Zeitgeist as something that helped sway your decision, you cited Biden's statement that Obama would be tested. The problem here is that top-ranking military officials have concluded that regardless of which man is elected, he will be challenged on the international stage in short order. Now if you think McCain would respond better and more decisively, that's fine. Looking at how he's floundered around with his Presidential campaign, and how completely wrong he was with Iraq, I can't agree with you, but at least you've given it some thought and have not let one of McCain's impotent attack ads sway you.

Next, you cite universal healthcare. I assume you're talking about medicare when you say something like that exists. The problem, though, is that you have to be dirt poor to actually qualify for medicare. Obama simply wants to expand that so that everyone qualifies, guaranteeing a basic level of coverage for everyone, though people with other coverage are obviously going to opt for that instead. McCain, on the other hand, wants a totally free market healthcare system. Well, we saw how wonderfully that worked with the banking and credit industries...

[Kakizaki]

And the life expectancy has only gone up in the U.S. since the one you posted Sei. What exactly does that Sei about the state of health care? In fact, when I was insurance, there was much talk about upping when a life insurance policy cashes out in the U.S. because life expectancy was expected to increase and so many people were living to one hundred. Life expectancy is meaningless in this conversation.

[slayn]

Life expectancy ties in pretty well to your points about lifestyle choices, though. I'd probably rather be dead at 65 than be overweight, diabetic, and wheelchair-bound at 80.

This all boils down to a simpler point. Americans need some damn education. We, as a country, need a basic understanding of nutrition, diet, and exercise so that we have a higher quality of life. We need a basic understanding of personal finance and the economy so that we can, again, have a higher quality of life. We need a basic understanding of the laws of physics SO PEOPLE WILL STOP MERGING INTO MY LANE WHEN I'M GOING 20+ MPH FASTER THAN THEM (sorry, pet peeve).

Sorry to toss another loaded subject into this discussion, but there are so many things that we need a basic understanding of, yet so few people actually have that understanding.

[Sei]

^ Uhm, Kaki, if you don't consider Health Expectancy, Money expenditure, and satisfaction with care as measures to rank and compare healthcare systems, then what exactly do you consider as proper points of comparison?

I'd also point that in the first health expectancy chart, from 1999 the states ranked 24. in yours, it ranked 38.

[Kakizaki]

Sei

^I can agree with both of those previous points.

I'm not going to go through the damn charts and do comparisons to each respective nations life expectancy and how much it has risen.

I didn't say those weren't factors didn't play major roles Sei, but they do nothing to indicate that government sponsored health care would be a sure fired success in the U.S. like you seem to think it would be. Numbers are great, but at the end of the day they are just numbers.

Again, I'm not sure how many times I have to repeat this, but you can't simple say "hey, it works for Canada, it would surely work for the U.S." Give me a reason besides the numbers Sei. You have to look at a lot more models for comparison taking in other factors as well.

[Sei]

I'd also love to throw this article out there: http://www.webmd.com/healthy-aging/news/20041029/us-health-care-satisfaction-trails-others I wonder why I keep having trouble finding more current reports.

Anyway, while I agree that people in general should change their lifestyles to healthier ones, I also think that opens a slippery slope of determining exactly what is healthy, and when to stop. For instance, salt has been linked to all sorts of health issues, I wouldnt support banning or restricting it.

I think that the question is: "How important are the people of your country" If the answer is that they are very, then the system should be one that keeps costs low and provides good quality care, and high life expectancies. I don't think it's realistic to police people to determine just who ate too many cheeseburgers and just asked for that Diabetes, and who didn't.

But in the end, everyone pays less, and everyone is better. Cept for the very rich, I guess. But really, most of those can afford treatments out of pocket and probably don't worry about healthcare much, which is, I think, mostly a middle class and lower issue. I think socialized healthcare with proper funding is much superior than the insurance model, and again, the facts agree.

[Freikugel]

what is it anyway? is this about game? this is game forum bro..:)

edit - Serious discussion is allowed here and if you haven't noticed, this is the off topic area. Anything reasonable is allowed. -Kakizaki

[dragonlife29]

what is it anyway? is this about game? this is game forum bro..:)How old are you?

Anyway, this thread is fascinating--very interesting posts (I'll have to read from the beginning, though).

[Kakizaki]

I think that the question is: "How important are the people of your country" If the answer is that they are very, then the system should be one that keeps costs low and provides good quality care, and high life expectancies. I don't think it's realistic to police people to determine just who ate too many cheeseburgers and just asked for that Diabetes, and who didn't.

Again, can you please direct me to where I said anything remotely like this?

For instance, salt has been linked to all sorts of health issues, I wouldnt support banning or restricting it.

This is getting old, but why are you insinuating I am attempting to be so radical or extreme? Did I ever say the people were not important. That is exactly why I would like to see something that moves beyond just fixing a problem once it occurs Sei. Preventative measures could not only save in the long run but establish some pretty decent habits.

Let me ask you this Sei...How would you do this? You want to fund it? How? Going to increase taxes on people who are already feeling pinched? Going to cut military expenditures and cause unemployment to rise for not only defense contractors, but for communities that are dependent on bases? You seem to think it is a given this would work. How?

[slayn]

Anyway, while I agree that people in general should change their lifestyles to healthier ones, I also think that opens a slippery slope of determining exactly what is healthy, and when to stop. For instance, salt has been linked to all sorts of health issues, I wouldnt support banning or restricting it.


Salt is a really bad example to use since iodine deficiency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iodine_deficiency) is a big problem in some parts of the world. As with so many things in life, salt is just fine when used in moderation.

And there is no slippery slope. It should be apparent that you can't be overly specific, but any sane doctor, or committee of doctors, would invariably decide on a set of guidelines to account for differences in genetics, location, and the like. You can't listen to a bunch of ham beasts shouting that even though they're 300+ lbs., they're perfectly healthy, because they're idiots that just don't want to diet and exercise. And I say this as a man that is pretty overweight, but at least I can recognize my faults and acknowledge they are, in fact, my fault, and am actively working to remedy the situation.

[Sei]

^ Good point Slayn, salt was just the first thing that came to mind. As a general rule I don't support things being banned. I'd mention sugar, but I'm sure that does something good for someone somewhere.

I don't see the funding problem, that highest health expenditure comes from people's pockets. A system that costed less would actually leave people MORE money to do whatever they wanted with. I don't see why you'd need more money, or how you would equate it with cuts in other areas.

[Kakizaki]

^What are you basing that off of Sei? Are you trying to tell me that instead of people paying their insurance provider that exact same amount of money could just go to the Feds? I'm not sure it would be that cheap.....

[quote]I'd also love to throw this article out there: http://www.webmd.com/healthy-aging/n...-trails-others I[\quote]

Well, wait a second...I'm I misunderstanding something here, or are Canadians upset about how long they have to wait for same day appointment? More so than Americans according to that article?

Not to mention the report that is frequently referenced in that article is regarding 5 countries. Not very comprehensive imo. Actually I suggest some of you read the actual report. Canada doesn't seem too happy either. There are a lot of categories in which there is little separation between the U.S. and Canada.

[Sei]

Studies like the following Kaki: http://www.pnhp.org/news/2003/august/administrative_costs.php Google up some more, but the figure of administrative costs is always around 30%. So you wouldn't give that same amount to the feds, but less. For instance, Healthcare in Alberta (Alberta charges health premiums) is 44 dollars per person or 88 dollars per family per month. So for the two of us, healthcare expenditure is 1056 dollars per year, CAD.

Wikipedia puts per capita expenditure in the US of 7026, so I think there are savings to be had, even if the system doesn't completely correlate.

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

I dunno why you think it would be more expensive.

[Kakizaki]

^Sei did you read the report that article references?

edit - I don't believe that the administrative costs would be automatically reduced Sei. Not when we have a government that will spend $800 a bracket bolt for seats on a military transport.

Based on the previous article you posted, why would we want to model a system on Canada? The differences in that satisfaction report are marginal. Canadians were actually spending more than Americans for out of pocket expenses.....

[Sei]

^ Yeah, I found it most interesting. They post problems with direct comparisons at the end.

[Kakizaki]

^Then why reference it when you are trying to convince me if it works for Canada it should work for us?


edit - The more I look over that report, the more I find that article lacking and misleading.

[Sei]

^ Because It points the difference in administrative costs Kaki, furthering the case that it would be cheaper than what you currently pay in the US.

Here is another interesting one http://www.pnhp.org/news/IJHS_State_Paper.pdf

[Kakizaki]

I'm not talking about that article Sei. I'm referring to the one regarding dissatisfaction between the 5 countries. That is what I meant by "previous" article to the administrative one.......

[Olethros]

I truly regret having been unavailable for the majority of this thread now.

I don't have the time, nor the inclination, to read through all of it.
I also won't get into huge details about my health care views since I'm sure many of you are very much aware of them by this point.

I will say this, however: The view on the issue is quite different from the outside looking in than from the inside looking out.

I'm going to try, barring professional obligations, to keep an eye on this one now for the remainder of the day.

[Camanche]

Wow, I can't believe I read this thread in one sitting.



The roots of the problem run much deeper. As Ike pointed out we shouldn't have to be responsible for those that can't respect themselves. Yes, sometimes financial considerations can play into diet and health and I am perfectly willing to help those individuals. A more logical approach would be some sort of national health initiative, stress preventative measures, and a restructuring of channels of food distribution to the impoverished.

I'm completely agree that the States' availability of health care could definitely stand for some changes. At least, from how I have heard things. I couldn't imagine paying $800- $1000 for an ambulance. It costs $40 here. The removal of all four of my wisdom teeth was about the same. When a country's people have access to a basic level of health care and a fair chance at education it affords a certain amount of dignity. Speaking from a 'poor person' perspective, I think it works quite well, when it, of course, is not being abused.

Here our health care system makes an active approach to steer lifestyles in healthier directions, starting education at a young age. I've worked in a elementary schools and entire schools are involved in fitness and lifestyle on the classroom level. There are always free workshops, etc. Sometimes some of you sound a little harsh, but then I also have to consider where I'm coming from.

I think the biggest problem would be establishing a basic health care system into what already exists.

[Olethros]

I'd like to see some statistics on just how many medical break throughs are coming out of the Canadian health care system. How much of the cutting edge tech is being used?

Also, my institution has more CT machines than the entire country of Canada. It's a fact; I've seen the numbers. So nobody can tell me that the quality of care is equal when wait times would be that long.

[Superkenon]

Well. Atlus forums seem a bit one-sided, eh? Heh.

[slayn]

Well. Atlus forums seem a bit one-sided, eh? Heh.

I would wager that the majority of members here are under 30, a demographic that is strongly pro-Obama.

[Pixel]

Well. Atlus forums seem a bit one-sided, eh? Heh.

I would wager that the majority of members here are under 30, a demographic that is strongly pro-Obama.
86% <30 yrs old. (http://atlus.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2224) Also, non-US citizens usually lean left of American politics, and this thread is not a sample limited to US voters.

[Ike.]

I just wonder of all the people who voted in the poll, how many are old enough/eligible to even vote?

[Olethros]

^ That is an excellent point.

[Tenbatsu]

http://photos-g.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-snc1/v374/179/71/1103467/n1103467_32537534_5793.jpg

[Kakizaki]

I'd like to see some statistics on just how many medical break throughs are coming out of the Canadian health care system. How much of the cutting edge tech is being used?

Also, my institution has more CT machines than the entire country of Canada. It's a fact; I've seen the numbers. So nobody can tell me that the quality of care is equal when wait times would be that long.

I've been waiting for you to comment on this whole affair for some of the very reasons you mentioned here. I also wish you had the time to go over some of the articles (more so their source material) that Sei posted.

[Olethros]

^ I'll see what I can do. It's not been a terribly busy day in cancer land. :)

EDIT: As is usual, as soon as I say it's not been busy, I ended up with several cases. I'll try to skim through some of the article tomorrow morning.

[Sei]

Let's see if this works: http://www.gmodules.com/ig/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgeneral-election-2008.googlecode.com%2Fsvn%2Ftrunk%2Fimages%2Fspinn er.gif&log=1 /></div></div><script>_IG_TriggerEvent(

If not, a constantly updated map with results can be seen at: http://www.politico.com/ So far, McCain has won Kentucky, Obama, Vermont, EC votes 8 3 Mccain. Won't be around till later tonight.

[BaizDaza]

http://www.gmodules.com/ig/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgeneral-election-2008.googlecode.com%2Fsvn%2Ftrunk%2Fimages%2Fspinn er.gif&log=1%20/%3E%3C/div%3E%3C/div%3E%3Cscript%3E_IG_TriggerEvent%28

OMG that pic is so fail.

Oh and about the election, I'm Canadian ai.

Last edit: Never mind. Scratch that. I am the one that fails.

[StrikeRaider]

Obama Wins And Its A Party In Harlem. Wooo ####ing Party #### Yeah Woooo.

[Azriel Crusnik]

OBAMA WINS!!!! WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! Party at my hose!! (sort of)

[Futomimi]

Party in my pants!

[QBasic]

And by the way, write in Joe Biden. Barack Obama is not fit to lead.

Making your vote count for absolutely nothing is AWESOME!

And Ron Paul is just as bad as either of the candidates. He claims to be the "closest thing possible to a Libertarian," but wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Dictating the lives of 50% of the population is not libertarianism.

edit: lol Sei.


I really don't think there is a such a thing as a wasted vote if the person voting is truly making a decision they are happy with.
Exactly. There is no "wrong" vote when it comes to majority rulings.

...Or, that's what I'd like to say. But a thorn keeps pricking my dick. Or a "BUSH" of thorns... Hyuk hyuk hyuk...

Seriously though. Both candidates were powerful and ran a strong campaign. When it comes to stuff like that, there are no "no-brainers." Whichever candidate was chosen would've made a positive change or two.

In Obama's case, a few dozen positive changes... :-D

[SickleCellAnemia]

Party in my pants!

WOOOHOO!!

[SlaughterX]

Party in my pants!


I'm coming... ;)

Seriously though, I shouldn't have to say who I voted for weeks ago, not that it would have mattered as Obamam would have taken IL regardless since it's his home state. Anyway I am thinking about going down town but boy do I hate doing all that driving, especially drunk...

[Azriel Crusnik]

Party in my pants!

More reason to party!! ^_^

[Sei]

Party in my pants!

I'm coming! literally!

Barack Obama is the next president of the USA. Both speeches were pretty awesome, hats ff to Mccain for losing with dignity, and to Obama for giving a speech that made everyone cry.

Results as of now:

Obama 349 Mccain 144

I guess Atlus got the winner right, if not the proportion!.

[Tenbatsu]

I'm not surprised with the result. The general public is intelligent to a degree, they wanted change and they got it; but it's not going to be the change they're expecting. Obama will not fix any of the problems facing our country. He will compound them and lead the American people further down the road to serfdom.

Did I vote? No. I refuse to participate in a rigged game.

[Kain Mare]

It was a good race and watching it made me proud to be an American. I'm not 100% happy, but I will support Obama.

I have to agree with Sei with both of their speeches and McCain taking the defeat with dignity.

[Olethros]

I'm not surprised with the result. The general public is intelligent to a degree, they wanted change and they got it; but it's not going to be the change they're expecting. Obama will not fix any of the problems facing our country. He will compound them and lead the American people further down the road to serfdom.

:agree:

[Sei]

I'm happy Obama won. It validates the American Dream, and after 8 years of utter incompetence, he might finally fix the US and the world. After all, it only took one US president and a subordinate congress to finally break it. Maybe one can fix it.

So we'll see, he might end up being a dissapointment, but hopefully he won't. And I shudder to think of the possibility of a world with Sarah Palin as president. For all it's said about the US intelligence, at least they golly gee darn rejected that.

[shimo]

Obama won whooo as I expected. :)

[StrikeRaider]

I'm not surprised with the result. The general public is intelligent to a degree, they wanted change and they got it; but it's not going to be the change they're expecting. Obama will not fix any of the problems facing our country. He will compound them and lead the American people further down the road to serfdom.

Did I vote? No. I refuse to participate in a rigged game.

Who knows? Maybe that's what it will finally take for us to revolt. But I'll say it again, he'll probably be as bad for us as Bill Clinton.

[Evila]

I was surprised at the margin Obama ended up winning with. With all the heated debates I'd been reading beforehand, all the mudslinging on both sides, I expected it to be much closer.

But yeah, I and like everyone else in my family that could vote, voted Obama. :V There was much screaming to be heard in the household.

[QBasic]

I'm not surprised with the result. The general public is intelligent to a degree, they wanted change and they got it; but it's not going to be the change they're expecting. Obama will not fix any of the problems facing our country. He will compound them and lead the American people further down the road to serfdom.

Did I vote? No. I refuse to participate in a rigged game.

Who knows? Maybe that's what it will finally take for us to revolt. But I'll say it again, he'll probably be as bad for us as Bill Clinton.
Bill was bad for us? Are you retarded or something?

[Hayato]

I was surprised at the margin Obama ended up winning with. With all the heated debates I'd been reading beforehand, all the mudslinging on both sides, I expected it to be much closer.

It was pretty close, wasn't it? I think I heard something like 51% Obama and 49% McCain for the popular vote. So Obama just managed to snatch a lot (a lot) of electoral votes by a small margin.

[Evila]

I was surprised at the margin Obama ended up winning with. With all the heated debates I'd been reading beforehand, all the mudslinging on both sides, I expected it to be much closer.

It was pretty close, wasn't it? I think I heard something like 51% Obama and 49% McCain for the popular vote. So Obama just managed to snatch a lot (a lot) of electoral votes by a small margin.

Ohhh, yeah! I was only looking at the popular vote totals state by state, I never did see the overall value.

[QBasic]

I was surprised at the margin Obama ended up winning with. With all the heated debates I'd been reading beforehand, all the mudslinging on both sides, I expected it to be much closer.

It was pretty close, wasn't it? I think I heard something like 51% Obama and 49% McCain for the popular vote. So Obama just managed to snatch a lot (a lot) of electoral votes by a small margin.
338 and 156 isn't a small margin.

It was a margin wide enough for me to invent a new term: "Dude, you just got McCain'd!"

[jeffx]

I was surprised at the margin Obama ended up winning with. With all the heated debates I'd been reading beforehand, all the mudslinging on both sides, I expected it to be much closer.

It was pretty close, wasn't it? I think I heard something like 51% Obama and 49% McCain for the popular vote. So Obama just managed to snatch a lot (a lot) of electoral votes by a small margin.
338 and 156 isn't a small margin.

I'm not even American and I understand very clearly what he's talking about... anyway the final numbers are still 53% to 46% but that's still 55 million bitter people.

[sora4126]

Obama may have won, but I'm still majorly pissed that prop 8 (gay marriage ban) is being passed. ####ing ####ers who voted yes on it should die a lonely and miserable death.

[shimo]

^
That's kinda harsh but okay.

[sora4126]

^ It's more harsh that people that truly love each other don't have the right to get married.

[shimo]

^
I argee with you but in reality people will hate you for supporting such and that's not cool.

[slayn]

I'm not surprised with the result. The general public is intelligent to a degree, they wanted change and they got it; but it's not going to be the change they're expecting. Obama will not fix any of the problems facing our country. He will compound them and lead the American people further down the road to serfdom.

Did I vote? No. I refuse to participate in a rigged game.

Who knows? Maybe that's what it will finally take for us to revolt. But I'll say it again, he'll probably be as bad for us as Bill Clinton.

Yes, I, too, was infuriated by unprecedented economic growth, a balanced federal budget, actual progress towards paying off the national debt, and goodwill all across the world. Preach on brother!

Goddamn some people are stubborn.

edit - Kaki - I get why you are irritated, but I just softened it a little.

[sora4126]

^
I argee with you but in reality people will hate you for supporting such and that's not cool.

I could care less if people hated me for having morals.

[shimo]

^
Does that include your parents and your friends?

[Kakizaki]

I was surprised at the margin Obama ended up winning with. With all the heated debates I'd been reading beforehand, all the mudslinging on both sides, I expected it to be much closer.

It was pretty close, wasn't it? I think I heard something like 51% Obama and 49% McCain for the popular vote. So Obama just managed to snatch a lot (a lot) of electoral votes by a small margin.
338 and 156 isn't a small margin.

I'm not even American and I understand very clearly what he's talking about... anyway the final numbers are still 53% to 46% but that's still 55 million bitter people.

55 million what? What does that mean.

[sora4126]

^
Does that include your parents and your friends?

Touché... I guess that's something else about me I need to change.

[Olethros]

I'm not surprised with the result. The general public is intelligent to a degree, they wanted change and they got it; but it's not going to be the change they're expecting. Obama will not fix any of the problems facing our country. He will compound them and lead the American people further down the road to serfdom.

Did I vote? No. I refuse to participate in a rigged game.

Who knows? Maybe that's what it will finally take for us to revolt. But I'll say it again, he'll probably be as bad for us as Bill Clinton.

Yes, I, too, was infuriated by unprecedented economic growth, a balanced federal budget, actual progress towards paying off the national debt, and goodwill all across the world. Preach on brother!

Goddamn some people are stupid.

Well put Slayn.

[Pixel]

55 million what? What does that mean.
I believe he's referring to 55 million (actually 56.0 now) people who voted for McCain being bitter about the result.

[shimo]

^
Does that include your parents and your friends?

Touché... I guess that's something else about me I need to change.
Not really, you have your beliefs you should stick with it if you want.

[Sei]

I'm not surprised with the result. The general public is intelligent to a degree, they wanted change and they got it; but it's not going to be the change they're expecting. Obama will not fix any of the problems facing our country. He will compound them and lead the American people further down the road to serfdom.

Did I vote? No. I refuse to participate in a rigged game.

Who knows? Maybe that's what it will finally take for us to revolt. But I'll say it again, he'll probably be as bad for us as Bill Clinton.

Yes, I, too, was infuriated by unprecedented economic growth, a balanced federal budget, actual progress towards paying off the national debt, and goodwill all across the world. Preach on brother!

Goddamn some people are stupid.

I'm thinking he might have been sarcastic with the "as bad for us as Bill Clinton" bit. Nice post regardless!.

If serious, then I shudder to think who would be a good president.

[slayn]

I'm thinking he might have been sarcastic with the "as bad for us as Bill Clinton" bit. Nice post regardless!.

If serious, then I shudder to think who would be a good president.

You know, I didin't even consider that possibility. If that's actually the case, then I apologize, StrikeRaider; I've had to listen to too much right-wing bile today :).

[Azriel Crusnik]

I'm not surprised with the result. The general public is intelligent to a degree, they wanted change and they got it; but it's not going to be the change they're expecting. Obama will not fix any of the problems facing our country. He will compound them and lead the American people further down the road to serfdom.

Did I vote? No. I refuse to participate in a rigged game.

Who knows? Maybe that's what it will finally take for us to revolt. But I'll say it again, he'll probably be as bad for us as Bill Clinton.

It's ok you probably can't remember how good it was during the Bill Clinton administration, It has been 8 long years of Bush after all.

[Tenbatsu]

Slayn, if a payment was made on the national debt it was in vain. Our current monetary policy makes it impossible for the national debt to be paid off as there would be literally no money left if it were paid off completely. This is the failure of a debt backed currency that has its value created via debt monetization.

Bill Clinton's Administration was better than Bush's but they were both advancing this country to the same inevitable conclusion. Clinton still policed the world to keep the military industrial complex satisfied, he did nothing to reduce the power of the Federal Reserve or the fractional reserve banking system. He also strengthened the community reinvestment act and signed into law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that repealed most of the glass steagall act. These together with the fraud known as fractional reserve banking (with zero reserves) led to the raping of our treasury by the banks. Obama and McCain both supported that package. And guess what the banks are doing with that money? They are buying up smaller healthier banks. It's not hard to see who is really running the show in Washington from these actions.

Obama will continue the failed policies of the Bush Administration. I have no doubt in my mind. Our Government will grow even bigger and more intrusive, the Patriot Act will remain, HR-1955 will be signed into law, we will still have soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, he will more than likely lash out at either Pakistan, Iran, and/or Syria during his term as President, and most of all he will continue with our failed and self destructive monetary policy.

Unfortunately there is nothing I can do about the current situation. I've had a hard enough time convincing my family and friends about the truth so I'm sure whatever I say here on this message board will be laughed at or ignored. I will say this though, I've made a lot of money with the knowledge I've had these past few months. As long as there are options to play I will be satisfied with the current direction of our economy and our country.

[Sei]

^ That's a really good, insightful post. I hope that you are wrong on a number of things. I won't laugh or ignore you, and recognize that you hold quite a bit of truth in your words.

We'll see. I'm hoping Obama will change these policies, and make the states a place that the world can look up to and respect again. I guess this is a good chance to see if change can come from within.

[StrikeRaider]

Yeah it was sarcasm but Ten does point out some things that always irked me about Clinton.

What's wrong with HR-1955? The only thing I would be worried about is stupid travel expenses.

[Kakizaki]

Unfortunately there is nothing I can do about the current situation. I've had a hard enough time convincing my family and friends about the truth so I'm sure whatever I say here on this message board will be laughed at or ignored. I will say this though, I've made a lot of money with the knowledge I've had these past few months. As long as there are options to play I will be satisfied with the current direction of our economy and our country.

I'm not getting into this here, but your concept of truth is flawed. What you seem to deem as a "truth" may not be a "truth" to someone else. I get kind of tired of people that feel their way of seeing something is the way it really is. Maybe that is why these people dismiss what you say. Not all of them mind you, but I'm guessing some of these people are educated on current events, the economy, and foreign affairs. Just because they disagree with you doesn't mean they aren't receptive to some enlightenment you are trying bestow upon them.

I'm currently burnt out on politico talk and debate, but I would love to pick apart how Clinton's "policing" was radically different and in many cases a failure in its differentiation.

[Sanctine]

Unfortunately there is nothing I can do about the current situation. I've had a hard enough time convincing my family and friends about the truth so I'm sure whatever I say here on this message board will be laughed at or ignored.

Gee, I wonder why?

Maybe you should stop using such definitive terms when they, well, aren't.

[Azriel Crusnik]

Slayn, if a payment was made on the national debt it was in vain. Our current monetary policy makes it impossible for the national debt to be paid off as there would be literally no money left if it were paid off completely. This is the failure of a debt backed currency that has its value created via debt monetization.

Bill Clinton's Administration was better than Bush's but they were both advancing this country to the same inevitable conclusion. Clinton still policed the world to keep the military industrial complex satisfied, he did nothing to reduce the power of the Federal Reserve or the fractional reserve banking system. He also strengthened the community reinvestment act and signed into law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that repealed most of the glass steagall act. These together with the fraud known as fractional reserve banking (with zero reserves) led to the raping of our treasury by the banks. Obama and McCain both supported that package. And guess what the banks are doing with that money? They are buying up smaller healthier banks. It's not hard to see who is really running the show in Washington from these actions.

Obama will continue the failed policies of the Bush Administration. I have no doubt in my mind. Our Government will grow even bigger and more intrusive, the Patriot Act will remain, HR-1955 will be signed into law, we will still have soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, he will more than likely lash out at either Pakistan, Iran, and/or Syria during his term as President, and most of all he will continue with our failed and self destructive monetary policy.

Unfortunately there is nothing I can do about the current situation. I've had a hard enough time convincing my family and friends about the truth so I'm sure whatever I say here on this message board will be laughed at or ignored. I will say this though, I've made a lot of money with the knowledge I've had these past few months. As long as there are options to play I will be satisfied with the current direction of our economy and our country.

That's a nice philosophy, now here mine, you didn't vote now you don't have the right to complain about what happens next four years. Why? because you had the opportunity to allow your vote, your choice to be heard and you let it slip, because of some stupid reason, so deal with it.

[Sanctine]

That's a nice philosophy, now here mine, you didn't vote now you don't have the right to complain about what happens next four years. Why? because you had the opportunity to allow your vote, your choice to be heard and you let it slip, because of some stupid reason, so deal with it.

He is a citizen of the United States, and he has every right to complain whether he voted or not.

Not voting is also exercising your rights as a citizen. Why do you think they poll voter turnouts? By not voting, you refuse a party your commission, which is a statement in itself.

Would it have made a difference if he wrote in Plunko? It's still his vote, and you don't have any right to tell him what he should or should not have done with it. Or, I should say he has every right not to care.

If you disagree with every current political party, should you just vote for the lesser of two evils? Or should you increase the number of non voters in order to send a message for the next election?

[Zachalmighty]

Libertarians!

[James Fiend]

That's a nice philosophy, now here mine, you didn't vote now you don't have the right to complain about what happens next four years. Why? because you had the opportunity to allow your vote, your choice to be heard and you let it slip, because of some stupid reason, so deal with it.

He is a citizen of the United States, and he has every right to complain whether he voted or not.

Not voting is also exercising your rights as a citizen. Why do you think they poll voter turnouts? By not voting, you refuse a party your commission, which is a statement in itself.

Would it have made a difference if he wrote in Plunko? It's still his vote, and you don't have any right to tell him what he should or should not have done with it. Or, I should say he has every right not to care.

If you disagree with every current political party, should you just vote for the lesser of two evils? Or should you increase the number of non voters in order to send a message for the next election?
The whole "sending a message through non-voting" thing doesn't work. Until this election, I think average voter turnouts were maybe floating around fifty percent. There is also no need to vote for the lesser of two evils. While I stated before that the third party system is flawed (thanks for clarifying my post back then, Futomimi), it is still a perfectly valid way to send a message if you absolutely don't agree with either of the big two.
It is kind of understood in America that if you don't vote at all, then you have willingly given up that right and you don't have any leverage to complain from. There is no "right to not vote." If that right exists then prisoners, the dead and even CANADIANS!!!! all exercise the right to not vote during every American election and I don't think America should be outsourcing our rights as citizens.

[Azriel Crusnik]

That's a nice philosophy, now here mine, you didn't vote now you don't have the right to complain about what happens next four years. Why? because you had the opportunity to allow your vote, your choice to be heard and you let it slip, because of some stupid reason, so deal with it.

He is a citizen of the United States, and he has every right to complain whether he voted or not.

Not voting is also exercising your rights as a citizen. Why do you think they poll voter turnouts? By not voting, you refuse a party your commission, which is a statement in itself.

Would it have made a difference if he wrote in Plunko? It's still his vote, and you don't have any right to tell him what he should or should not have done with it. Or, I should say he has every right not to care.

If you disagree with every current political party, should you just vote for the lesser of two evils? Or should you increase the number of non voters in order to send a message for the next election?

So are you stating that you would leave your vote aside, because you disagree? Let's put this hypothetically, if their is two candidate's and 100 residents and 99 of them chose "their right to not vote" then the 1 person votes. Look at what happened that 1 person chose for the rest of the others, and now the 99 have to follow the choice that 1 person made. That cause seems admirable but it's not smart.

[QBasic]

Oh dear, can't we all be happy? I mean, what happened to "party in my pants!"?

[StrikeRaider]

We all ended up in the hospital. Seriously tonight's episode of South Park really summed it up.

[SickleCellAnemia]

We all ended up in the hospital. Seriously tonight's episode of South Park really summed it up.

Change! CHAAAANGE!!!!!

[Sei]

Oh dear, can't we all be happy? I mean, what happened to "party in my pants!"?

It's still going, Mimi hosts the best pants parties!

[Sanctine]

So are you stating that you would leave your vote aside, because you disagree? Let's put this hypothetically, if their is two candidate's and 100 residents and 99 of them chose "their right to not vote" then the 1 person votes. Look at what happened that 1 person chose for the rest of the others, and now the 99 have to follow the choice that 1 person made. That cause seems admirable but it's not smart.

That's preventative thinking. It's not doing what you believe is right.

The great thing about voting is that everyone has their own choice on what they can do with their vote, and no one else can do a damn thing about it.

The whole "sending a message through non-voting" thing doesn't work. Until this election, I think average voter turnouts were maybe floating around fifty percent. There is also no need to vote for the lesser of two evils. While I stated before that the third party system is flawed (thanks for clarifying my post back then, Futomimi), it is still a perfectly valid way to send a message if you absolutely don't agree with either of the big two.

Okay, then the lesser of five evils? What difference does it make? What if you're a bona-fide Marxist? You're still a citizen of the United States, and you have the right to exercise that opinion (since it is a democratic nation).

Does that mean you should just vote randomly? I have more respect for those who send a message through voter turnouts (even if it doesn't work - does voting for anyone else work, either)? If you don't agree with anyone, then why would you vote for anyone?

[Tenbatsu]

Unfortunately there is nothing I can do about the current situation. I've had a hard enough time convincing my family and friends about the truth so I'm sure whatever I say here on this message board will be laughed at or ignored.

Gee, I wonder why?

Maybe you should stop using such definitive terms when they, well, aren't.

Sanctine everything I stated in my above post is the truth. If you want to attempt to prove me wrong I invite you to do so. The reason people are so abrasive to these ideas is a term called cognitive dissonance. The few people that I have persuaded over the years have taken months to come to the realization of how the United States and the world really work.

Azriel, the election process is a charade to make it appear as if you have a choice when in fact you do not. There is but once choice every election cycle and that is to continue to live in servitude to the state and its institutions.

Zachalmighty, I do not consider myself a Libertarian, although I side with their ideology (not their party) more often than not. If I had to put a label on my political beliefs it would be anarcho-capitalism.

HR-1955 suppresses and squelches opposition to the government as those who will eventually rise up will be deemed terrorists by the state.

[Sei]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

But what about your right to throw out a bad government!

[QBasic]

I have an idea. Who wants to partake in a refreshing game of...HOCKEY!? :-D

[Olethros]

http://img131.imageshack.us/img131/5452/obamaborgfd3.jpg (http://img131.imageshack.us/my.php?image=obamaborgfd3.jpg)

[QBasic]

http://img131.imageshack.us/img131/5452/obamaborgfd3.jpg (http://img131.imageshack.us/my.php?image=obamaborgfd3.jpg)
What's with you and Star Trek? First Naked Picard, now Borgama.

[Olethros]

I'm the Captain.

[QBasic]

I'm the Captain.
http://i35.tinypic.com/2cpqn3k.jpg
:3 Which one? You failed to specify.

[Kakizaki]

^No he didn't. It is evident via his self portrait / avatar.

[Sei]

Jane Haneway from Voyager of course!

[Kakizaki]

lol. :P

[Olethros]

Jane Haneway from Voyager of course!

Nice Sei. ;)

[QBasic]

Jane Haneway from Voyager of course!
It is evident via his self portrait / avatar.
Not anymore it's not. :P

[Sanctine]

Sanctine everything I stated in my above post is the truth. If you want to attempt to prove me wrong I invite you to do so. The reason people are so abrasive to these ideas is a term called cognitive dissonance. The few people that I have persuaded over the years have taken months to come to the realization of how the United States and the world really work.

My point was that you aren't going to convince anyone with words like truth. I really don't care if you know the truth or not, nor do I want to prove you wrong.

My point was that makes you sound presumptuous, and if you're going to try to convince anyone, it's simply not going to work.

[Flußkönig]

^ It also would be nice if Tenbatsu had some actual proof to back up his claims before he starts calling people out to prove him wrong. Considering what he is claiming, the burden of proving those claims should fall squarely on his shoulders. Any smuck can type a few paragraphs and then claim it is the truth. But that doesn't make it so.

[QBasic]

^ It also would be nice if Tenbatsu had some actual proof to back up his claims before he starts calling people out to prove him wrong. Considering what he is claiming, the burden of proving those claims should fall squarely on his shoulders. Any smuck can type a few paragraphs and then claim it is the truth. But that doesn't make it so.
Not really. Allow me to prove you wrong: "Kevin Smith is a manchild."

As you can see, I just typed up something random...yet, it also happens to be true. :3 It all depends on, as McCain says, eloquence.

[Sei]

^ I don't think you quite got what flub meant. Saying Kevin Smith is a manchild is both easily verifiable and intuitive. Flub means that strong, counterintuitive statements should be backed by actual proof before being deemed "true".

Eloquence doesn't have anything to do with the veracity of claims, either, I don't think. Eloquence allows you to convince people of things, but that doesn't render them true or untrue any more than the church claiming the world to be flat in the middle ages made it so.

[QBasic]

^ I don't think you quite got what flub meant. Saying Kevin Smith is a manchild is both easily verifiable and intuitive. Flub means that strong, counterintuitive statements should be backed by actual proof before being deemed "true".

Eloquence doesn't have anything to do with the veracity of claims, either, I don't think. Eloquence allows you to convince people of things, but that doesn't render them true or untrue any more than the church claiming the world to be flat in the middle ages made it so.
Touche. But in the end, it's always up to the dude with all the money to believe what he wants to believe.

...:( I hate rich people...

[jeffx]

I have an idea. Who wants to partake in a refreshing game of...HOCKEY!? :-D

YES. RIGHT NOW.

[QBasic]

I have an idea. Who wants to partake in a refreshing game of...HOCKEY!? :-D

YES. RIGHT NOW.
http://blogs.reuters.com/photo/files/2008/01/hockey-fight.jpg

Haha, I win.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/10/22/article-1079792-029A17A900000578-138_468x315.jpg

[Azriel Crusnik]

Sanctine everything I stated in my above post is the truth. If you want to attempt to prove me wrong I invite you to do so. The reason people are so abrasive to these ideas is a term called cognitive dissonance. The few people that I have persuaded over the years have taken months to come to the realization of how the United States and the world really work.

My point was that you aren't going to convince anyone with words like truth. I really don't care if you know the truth or not, nor do I want to prove you wrong.

My point was that makes you sound presumptuous, and if you're going to try to convince anyone, it's simply not going to work.

@Tenbatsu- It's called evidence. If you want to prove something is true then show proof. If not don't call it the "truth" instead call it your opinion.

@Sanctine- weather or not the fact that non- voting is right or wrong, I do have to agree about one's right's and so I agree with you, but complaining instead of doing something is meaningless if it's really a protest.

[slayn]

Not really. Allow me to prove you wrong: "Kevin Smith is a manchild."

As you can see, I just typed up something random...yet, it also happens to be true. :3 It all depends on, as McCain says, eloquence.

The burden of proof falls on the person making a positive claim. Tenbatsu is making the claim that his views are truth, therefore it is his job to prove such to us. You can't prove a negative.

[James Fiend]

Okay, then the lesser of five evils? What difference does it make? What if you're a bona-fide Marxist? You're still a citizen of the United States, and you have the right to exercise that opinion (since it is a democratic nation).

Does that mean you should just vote randomly? I have more respect for those who send a message through voter turnouts (even if it doesn't work - does voting for anyone else work, either)? If you don't agree with anyone, then why would you vote for anyone?
Voting isn't about getting what you want immediately. That is impossible, as it is a system of majority rule. If you are a bona-fide Marxist, you can't say that "since there is no way to convert the country to Marxism in four years, I give up." You vote to push the country as close to Marxism as you can every election on the state and federal levels.

We did have a socialist candidate for president who any Marxist should have voted for. While the communist party did not nominate a candidate this year, they still have an organization and views on how you can vote to push the country in that direction.

Nobody is ever going to say "How do I get these undecided voters? I know! Marxism!" You express nothing when you do not vote.