Decision '08.

[El Sitherino]

Okay, I'm going to give it a shot in defending myself and McCain.

 

How about you address my post since I actually talked about the issues and not some bull**** pundit crap. Who cares who knows these people, it's about who will be a good and effective leader.

 

2. The claim that McCain can't send an email in an attempt to make it look like he doesn't know about modern technology. I found this ad extraordinarily insensitive to the physically impaired community. That's like blaming a blind person for not seeing the street signals. McCain has trouble using his arms and hands, so he dictates and his staff does the typing for him.

I have a feeling this has more to do with his age than his physical impairment. After all, he can lift them high enough to shake a hand and give thumbs up, they make desks capable for people with limited reach like McCain has.

While it's a pointless critique, I don't think it's meant to be that disrespectful.

[El Sitherino]

I have never seen it in my lifetime.

Others have. Ever hear of John F. Kennedy?

 

How about someone that isn't even a political leader, Martin Luther King Jr.

 

Ghandi?

[Yar-El]

Others have. Ever hear of John F. Kennedy?

How about someone that isn't even a political leader, Martin Luther King Jr.

Ghandi?

You got me with Ghandi, but the others were not from my lifetime.

 

I'm going to go over your posts, so I can answer your questions more intellectually.

[Astor]

Others have. Ever hear of John F. Kennedy?

 

How about someone that isn't even a political leader, Martin Luther King Jr.

 

Ghandi?

 

Not on the same scale, I know, but Reagan spoke to almost 50,000 Germans when he asked Gorbachev to 'tear down this wall'.

 

And, as you say, there was JFK's 'Ich bin ein Berliner' speech before that.

 

Germans seem to like American Politicians.

[El Sitherino]

Germans seem to like American Politicians.

 

Possibly because for a while they had a lot of ****ty ones.

 

So here come ones talking about hope and change, lots of progress talk.

[El Sitherino]

I know Obama is supportive of choice for American citizens to live their lives by their moral guidelines be it from religion or simple basics of right and wrong. He believe everyone should have the choice of getting an abortion if needed or not, should they decide to bring the child to birth.

Obama is supportive of finally standardizing coverage for birth control on insurance companies at the same rate they offer coverage for viagra at minimum.

 

Obama has a tax plan that in short term will cost, but will have much payback after earnings can be brought back and placed into the system, resulting it re-averaged taxes and paying off debt. While I do not know the specifics myself this is his intention and Biden supports this. Infact I'm willing to bet they're using Biden's model, and for someone that has the finances he has I'm sure willing to bet he knows how to balance a budget.

Granted that's based mostly on character analysis, but I still believe in this idea on the issue, making any character influence moot.

 

Obama plans to listen to military personell and commanders on the ground about a systematic removal of troops and establishing higher security protocol in Iraq. I, like many, support this. It won't be quick and easy, but it's a step toward getting things settled. Things will be messy in Iraq for a while, but between us occassionally and UN patrol forces, it shouldn't be too much of a problem after the Iraq police force is built up and establishes order again.

 

I believe Obama may not follow through entirely on all things, but I understand that as not everyone wants such changes. But I feel he'll be our best step toward progress in what he will succeed in. And to me, that is what is most important, establishing this country back to glory. To be the respected world entity that we rightfully are.

[El Sitherino]

This thread is about issues. Not pointless pundit arguments. If you don't agree with them or think they're worth listening to, stop talking about them.

 

It sounds hypocritical, and this goes for both sides of the debate.

 

-

 

Split off posts about political ads and analysis of how the campaigns are doing in the election. --Jae

[Yar-El]

I'm dumbfounded about some stuff.

 

Why is experience not an issue? Two of the most important things we face are the economy and war. People in the media compare Obama to Palin. Television says, "Palin doesn't have the experience to be president." - and - Radio says, "Obama doesn't have the experience to be president." Television complains when Obama's experience is questioned, but then they react to a Vice President who doesn't have experience. It is a double edged sword. Why compare Obama to Palin in experience? One is running for the seat of Presidency, and the other is running for the Vice Presidency. Two different jobs right? Wouldn't people want someone who has experience in policy making? How about someone who knows about foreign policies and afairs?

 

Why is war experience not an important requirement? McCain has extensive experience fighting for us and the soldiers who fight in wars. Why should we ignore McCain's war experiences? He fought on and off the field. McCain paid the price for his country. Why ignore that? Obama says war experience is not important in a time of war.

 

Why is a canadate's ability to impress, cater, and rally a foreign country important? Why is it so important for us to please foreign countries? This is an issue right? Why is it an important requirement for a president to please other nations? Obama says that Americans are decent people, but we just get confussed. He was talking to another country right?

 

Why is not talking down to your own nation not an issue? John Kennedy didn't look down on his fellow Americans. He challanged our way of life, for Kennedy knew Americans can pull through in harsh times. Why not question Obama's downtalking? Why it is not an issue? The American Spirit = Push hard and roll up your sleves.

 

Why is questioning one's company not an issue? We want a president who is creditble. Why do we not question the company that a canadate surounds him or herself with? Doesn't a person's chracter get defined by those he keeps in bed? Change is an issue right? Sorounding yourself with people who are not currupt would be important. This would be an issue right?

 

I don't get it.

 

--- Response to other posts here. ---

Obama is supportive of finally standardizing coverage for birth control on insurance companies at the same rate they offer coverage for viagra at minimum.

I thought a package of condoms were cheaper than Viagera?

 

Obama has a tax plan that in short term will cost, but will have much payback after earnings can be brought back and placed into the system, resulting it re-averaged taxes and paying off debt. While I do not know the specifics myself this is his intention and Biden supports this. Infact I'm willing to bet they're using Biden's model, and for someone that has the finances he has I'm sure willing to bet he knows how to balance a budget.

Granted that's based mostly on character analysis, but I still believe in this idea on the issue, making any character influence moot.

Why not cut government spending? That won't cost us anything. Cut earmarks? Or, cut other socialistic spending? Let me guess. Universal healthcare that everyone has to pay for through taxes. That's great Obama. Socialism here we come. Not only is this a socialistic issue, but it is also more spending during a deficit. Just what we need.

 

Obama plans to listen to military personell and commanders on the ground about a systematic removal of troops and establishing higher security protocol in Iraq. I, like many, support this. It won't be quick and easy, but it's a step toward getting things settled. Things will be messy in Iraq for a while, but between us occassionally and UN patrol forces, it shouldn't be too much of a problem after the Iraq police force is built up and establishes order again.

Obama originally said he would start taking people out right away. McCain said he would keep troops in for fifty to a hundred years. I think they are both wrong. I support someone who says, "We messed this one up, and we are going to fix it." Obama is too busy saying, "We messed up, and we have to leave. Now!" We made the problem. Why not fix it? McCain has been and will allways listen to our men and women in the military. McCain has a plan for a casual drawback of troops, so that terrorism doesn't suddenly explode in Iraq. McCain also supports more military troops in Afghanistan.

[Achilles]

Why is experience not an issue?

Two things:

1) What do you mean by "experience"? Please be specific.

2) Please show me where the "experience" requirement is in the Constitution.

 

I'll address the rest of your comments once we've clarified those two things. Thanks in advance for your response.

[El Sitherino]

I thought a package of condoms were cheaper than Viagera?

[/QUoTe]

Condoms are not birth control medication. Which also does more than simply prevent contraception, it can also make that time of the month a lot more pleasant for women whom suffer much more painful cramping, etc.

 

Why not cut government spending? That won't cost us anything. Cut earmarks?

Yeah, that's part of the plan.

 

Or, cut other socialistic spending?

Bias politics is pointless politics. How about going with something because it works, not because of it's label?

 

Universal healthcare that everyone has to pay for through taxes.

You clearly don't understand what Universal healthcare is about. It's more than a national program (Which we already have) it's about equal standards and reasonable standards for all insurance companies, including private. So say you have premium on your plan, but it only offers the same coverage as a bottom line bs plan on another company, but they cost the same. You should probably only pay the same as what you get, infact that's exactly what you should pay. Paying for what you get is from my understanding an American sort of tradition.

There's much more to it, but I doubt you're overly concerned with proper healthcare that creates jobs, eases the ailing healthcare system especially nursing and doctor staff.

 

That's great Obama. Socialism here we come. Not only is this a socialistic issue, but it is also more spending during a deficit. Just what we need.

Go to an economics class. Also if you support Palin for VP because of what she did in Alaska, you shouldn't be talking. What she did is pretty much exactly what Obama has been discussing.

 

Obama originally said he would start taking people out right away.

Wrong.

 

I support someone who says, "We messed this one up, and we are going to fix it."

Oh snap, Obama said that. Even said it to troops who gave him a warm round of applause.

 

McCain also supports more military troops in Afghanistan.

 

Both support going back to Afghanistan. However only one will actually provide it, I can assure you it's not McCain, seeing as the people financing his campaign would lose money leaving Iraq just now and going to Iraq.

[Jae Onasi]

Nationalized healthcare=more taxes. Period. If anyone thinks that we can pay for universal healthcare without increasing taxes, they are mistaken. The question people have to ask themselves is if universal healthcare is worth the tax hit--I think it'll solve more problems in the long run than it could theoretically create.

[Achilles]

The question people have to ask themselves is if universal healthcare is worth the tax hit--I think it'll solve more problems in the long run than it could theoretically create.

Spot on.

 

This reminds me of a lunch I had with some associates a few months back. After our business was concluded the discussion turned to politics and one of the guys pointed out, "yeah, these programs cost money", and another shot back "And the war in Iraq doesn't?".

 

We won't pay more taxes for schools or health care, but we say nothing when our money is being used to bomb the bejesus out of some brown people that we don't like or give it away willingly it if means our favorite sports team gets a new stadium, etc. I think it's safe to say our culture's priorities are complete out of whack (but that's just my crazy "liberal" opinion).

[Yar-El]

First, I want to thank everyone for their response. I will edit this post to reply.

 

Two things:

1) What do you mean by "experience"? Please be specific.

2) Please show me where the "experience" requirement is in the Constitution.

 

I'll address the rest of your comments once we've clarified those two things. Thanks in advance for your response.

Experience is not in the Consitution; however, our first president was an experienced war general. Experience I was refering to covers anything from military, economics, to passing laws. The questions I brought up were focused on any experience in either politics, war, policy making, or global relations.

 

--On another note.--

 

Socialism Definition I

Socialism Definition II

 

Anything that is regulated by the government is a form of socialism. Universal healthcare (nationalized healthcare) is a form of socialism. Forcing people to have healthcare, having them pay for another person's healthcare, and penalizing them for not having it is a form of socialism. Extreme left and right are both guilty of such acts. The more things are regulated -- the more you loose your freedoms.

 

Nationalized healthcare=more taxes. Period. If anyone thinks that we can pay for universal healthcare without increasing taxes, they are mistaken. The question people have to ask themselves is if universal healthcare is worth the tax hit--I think it'll solve more problems in the long run than it could theoretically create.

 

I would ask, "Do I loose the freedom to choose between paying or not paying for someone else's healthcare?" I'm not saying that your wrong. I'm just stating the type of question I would ask. How far will healthcare regulation go? Will we be penalized for not taking health insurance? Will we be thrown in jail for refusing to pay for someone else's healthcare? How much taxes will be taken out? We allready pay 40% to 50% of our gross income to the state and federal government. How much more? We also live in a time of economic importance. Will the tax burden be too heavy, and will it prevent me from putting food on my family's plate? Will it cut into my car payments?

 

Actually I think I just agreed with you, but I also asked about the consequences of loosing some important freedoms. Lol...

[El Sitherino]

You're mistaken thinking Universal healthcare and a national healthcare plan are synonymous.

You also may wish to read over the proposed plan. As far as I'm aware of our personal taxes pay for our personal national healthcare plan coverage. Almost like Social Security.

 

Basically, if you can't get accepted on a private insurance model, the national one has the same standards and whatever you decide to pay, you get.

[Inyri]

We allready pay 40% to 50% of our gross income to the state and federal government. How much more?

Where are you working that you pay 50% of your gross income in taxes? I have never paid nearly that much. I think you're grossly exaggerating.

[Achilles]

Experience is not in the Consitution

Ok, so there is no "experience requirement" in the Constitution. Therefore, Obama fully meets the requirements for office set forth by the Constitution.

 

Experience I was refering to covers anything from military, economics, to passing laws.

That's still pretty vague.

 

None of this tells me why we shouldn't consider Obama's experience as President of the Harvard Law Review, his years managing staff as a community organizer in Chicago, his years in the Illinois State Senate, or his time in Congress.

 

Your implication seems to be that Obama's experience = 0, however this isn't true. Yes McCain's "experience" = 26 years (I think that's about right), however 1) that's not a whole lot more than Obama's and 2) what does McCain have to show for his 26 years?

 

The questions I brought up were focused on any experience in either politics, war, policy making, or global relations.

Ok. So what's your point then?

 

Anything that is regulated by the government is a form of socialism. Universal healthcare (nationalized healthcare) is a form of socialism. Forcing people to have healthcare, having them pay for another person's healthcare, and penalizing them for not having it is a form of socialism. Extreme left and right are both guilty of such acts. The more things are regulated -- the more you loose your freedoms.

So what are your thoughts regarding police, fire, other emergency services, the postal service, libraries, etc?

[Yar-El]

You're mistaken thinking Universal healthcare and a national healthcare plan are synonymous.

You also may wish to read over the proposed plan. As far as I'm aware of our personal taxes pay for our personal national healthcare plan coverage. Almost like Social Security.

 

Basically, if you can't get accepted on a private insurance model, the national one has the same standards and whatever you decide to pay, you get.

This is what I looked at: Obama's Plan

This is also what I found: Opinion Writter on Obama's Plan

 

Obama's plan is the same one that some of the states are attempting. Government involvement is a necessary element to make it work. Socialism in its purest form. Obama also wants to open a new department, The Exchange, which would also depend upon more tax payer's dollars. At a time where we need to cut back, Obama wants to keep spending more money. The Exchange will regulate the healthcare system, and make sure some private buisnesses pay for the healthcare of others. He even contridicts himself when talking about small buisnesses. Obama's plan is a socialist plan. He doesn't even go into detail about the types of numbers he is looking at. What premiums are he referencing?

[Astor]

Why is war experience not an important requirement? McCain has extensive experience fighting for us and the soldiers who fight in wars. Why should we ignore McCain's war experiences? He fought on and off the field. McCain paid the price for his country. Why ignore that? Obama says war experience is not important in a time of war.

 

As i've said before, fighting in a war, and then commanding a war are two very different things.

 

Just because McCain fought to uphold his country's honour doesn't mean he automatically knows how to run a war.

 

For instance, would Sergeant John Doe, of his Majesty's Royal Fusiliers know how to lead an invasion if he was so asked?

 

Flying a fighter plane and sending men to war are two very different things.

[Achilles]

This is also what I found: Opinion Writter on Obama's Plan

Are you posting this because it reflects your views (fallacies and all)? Yar-El at some point it would be really helpful if you stopped pointing us to what other people's opinions are and start arguing your own. Just because someone says something contrary to one opinion doesn't mean that their position is better. Sometime people take opposing positions for bad reasons (like getting more hits on their "controversial" website).

 

Obama's plan is the same one that some of the states are attempting.

Which states? Is it working? Why or why not?

You're not telling me anything useful here.

 

Government involvement is a necessary element to make it work. Socialism in its purest form.

Please see my earlier comments regarding other government-run (or "socialist") programs that we have here in the U.S.

 

Obama also wants to open a new department, The Exchange, which would also depend upon more tax payer's dollars.

Too much SW:KotOR for you

 

National Health Insurance Exchange: The Obama-Biden plan will create a National Health Insurance Exchange to help individuals who wish to purchase a private insurance plan. The Exchange will act as a watchdog group and help reform the private insurance market by creating rules and standards for participating insurance plans to ensure fairness and to make individual coverage more affordable and accessible. Insurers would have to issue every applicant a policy, and charge fair and stable premiums that will not depend upon health status. The Exchange will require that all the plans offered are at least as generous as the new public plan and have the same standards for quality and efficiency. The Exchange would evaluate plans and make the differences among the plans, including cost of services, public.

 

At a time where we need to cut back, Obama wants to keep spending more money.

Gross oversimplification. Spending less money on some things (like a war in Iraq) means that you can spend money on other things. And if you spend less money on the new thing than you were on the old thing, then that difference would be a savings.

 

The Exchange will regulate the healthcare system, and make sure some private buisnesses pay for the healthcare of others.

Please see Obama quote above.

 

He even contridicts himself when talking about small buisnesses. Obama's plan is a socialist plan. He doesn't even go into detail about the types of numbers he is looking at. What premiums are he referencing?

Better yet, what are you referencing?

[Yar-El]

Achilles I just saw through your posts. Your a pretty good debater. Lol... I allmost got caught. I'm presenting fact based upon what I have read on Obama's site and the media coverage. You are a damn good debater. I presented to you facts and arguements. I even gave you a newspaper analysis, and you didn't bother to look at the evidence. Lol... Some of those articles were connected to facts. I like you.

 

New York Post: Obama Tried to Stall GIS Iraq Withdrawal.

 

New York Post: Arguement and Evidence

 

After deniying it, he then admits it: Obama camp confirms troop pullout delay plan.

 

He is also claiming victory before any vote has been casted. Read the articles.

 

This is too rich to pass up on Sex Ed for Kindergarteners 'Right Thing to Do,' Says Obama. That is just weird. That is just insane. What is wrong with him? People do know that the human brain is not fully developed until the late teens. Right? I think some people around here talked about this yesterday. He is unethical or insane.

 

I have to be fair now. McCain Changes his mind on AIG bailout. I think McCain's problem is that he changes sides too quickly. I do understand his reasons, and they are based upon morals. I would have let the company sink, but allowed the honest people a chance to save their investments.

 

"I didn't want to do that. And I don't think anybody I know wanted to do that. But there are literally millions of people whose retirement, whose investment, whose insurance were at risk here," the Republican presidential nominee told ABC News' Robin Roberts, sounding somewhat accepting of the Fed's action on AIG.

 

I have nothing against you people. I'm glad that we can have a casual debate here. I may not be writting line after line, but I do enjoy the topic at hand.

[El Sitherino]

We've already been over this and it's been disproven, Yar-El, please post something with merit on the topic and not more rhetoric.

 

Also, this thread is about discussion of the issues and what matters in the election. You want to post pundit garbage and political rhetoric, take it to the campaign ads thread.

 

Also you have yet to post why McCain is qualified and why his policy issues are an improvement for America. Or why you feel he is best qualified in a post without pundit garbage and rhetoric slandering (via libel) Obama. I show the courtesy of not calling McCain a sicko, you and others can do the same by not labeling Obama.

 

Anyway, as Achilles pointed out, spending less somewhere else means more is able to be spent where it needs to be. As well, Universal health care is not just a national healthcare program, it means equal standards on all insurance plans. This is something the healthcare system drastically needs. Again at my age I should not be completely covered for viagra, yet my fiancee can't even get 4% coverage on her birth control medication. I should not have to make sure my insurance plan will cover a necessary treatment before making plans to get the operation. Establishing a healthcare system without bias will prevent a lot of needless death and illness in this nation. If you want to argue rhetoric, I'll propose that a number of robberies and such occur due to neccesity to gain money for something medical.

 

But regardless of that, people should not be denied coverage simply because they're already sick. That should be even more reason for them to be covered, terminally ill cancer victims should not be told "Better luck elsewhere" and then get hung up on or shown the door at an insurance office, but it does. This is why universal healthcare is needed.

 

You claim socialist programs are anti-american, yet many of them have existed in our nation for a long time and have been established and supported by our greatest leaders.

I'll point out public education systems, public healthcare facilities, the police, firefighters, etc.

 

I'll await your reply to both Achillies and myself as well as your explaination as to why you want to vote McCain.

[Jae Onasi]

I would ask, "Do I loose the freedom to choose between paying or not paying for someone else's healthcare?"

We lose that freedom anyway when a mother who can't afford prenatal care develops massive health problems during pregnancy that put her on disability, or put her child damaged by those problems on disability permanently. We lose that freedom when someone loses a job and can't afford the asthma medications for his child, and the child ends up in the ER. We lose that freedom when someone needs massive treatment for advanced stage breast cancer because she couldn't afford a mammogram that could have found the tumor in a much smaller stage that would have required much less treatment. My uninsured best friend who had AIDS could have gotten treatment for it if he had had access to healthcare, and it might have saved the states of PA and OH the massive hospital bills they ended up paying when he developed fungal meningitis from his untreated AIDS--Medicaid ended up paying $100,000 for that hospital stay alone, not including the follow up care for months after.

 

We all pay for those kinds of situations, when people's health becomes so bad from lack of treatment that they end up on disability and Medicaid/Medicare--we pay for disability, Medicaid, and Medicare through our taxes. Universal health care would allow preventative care that would cost us all less in the long run.

[Achilles]

Lol... I allmost got caught.

No, you did get "caught". We know this because rather than answer my questions and address my points, you offer up an insinuation that I'm somehow being sneaky or underhanded as a distraction. If you had an argument, we'd be discussing that right now.

 

I even gave you a newspaper analysis, and you didn't bother to look at the evidence.

I did look at them. Sithy looked at them too and was also able to tell that they are bunk.

 

Here's a protip for you: If someone goes out of their way to post sources that only support the position that they are arguing for, that's called cherry-picking. A couple of things you can determine pretty quickly when you see someone cherry-picking:

 

1) They're smart enough to know that sources matter.

2) That means that "Gee, don't look at me, I'm not that smart" defensive strategies won't work.

3) That they went out of their way to ignore sources that disagreed with their position, which means that they are at least aware of the counter argument.

4) Which means they aren't interested in having an honest exchange of ideas in good faith.

5) Which means that if they try to tell you that they want to have an honest exchange of ideas in good faith, they aren't being truthful.

 

These are just some of the things you can determine automatically from cherry-picked sources. I hope that helps.

[El Sitherino]

I know my posts are based on fact, otherwise I wouldn't waste my time posting.

After all I didn't make it to being a moderator by making a fool of myself on the forums.

 

Again, show us what makes the proposed plan of universal healthcare irresponsible and bad in general. So far Yar-El, or Totenkopf for that matter, you have yet to show why it will be a bad decision.

 

I'm not ever sure what happened to Nihil, however he also never disputed what I have said. And by dispute I don't simply mean argue with "I disagree", my meaning is that of "Show me why I'm wrong."

[Yar-El]

I know my posts are based on fact, otherwise I wouldn't waste my time posting.

After all I didn't make it to being a moderator by making a fool of myself on the forums.

 

Again, show us what makes the proposed plan of universal healthcare irresponsible and bad in general. So far Yar-El, or Totenkopf for that matter, you have yet to show why it will be a bad decision.

 

I'm not ever sure what happened to Nihil, however he also never disputed what I have said. And by dispute I don't simply mean argue with "I disagree", my meaning is that of "Show me why I'm wrong."

 

National Health Insurance Exchange: The Obama-Biden plan will create a National Health Insurance Exchange to help individuals who wish to purchase a private insurance plan. The Exchange will act as a watchdog group and help reform the private insurance market by creating rules and standards for participating insurance plans to ensure fairness and to make individual coverage more affordable and accessible. Insurers would have to issue every applicant a policy, and charge fair and stable premiums that will not depend upon health status. The Exchange will require that all the plans offered are at least as generous as the new public plan and have the same standards for quality and efficiency. The Exchange would evaluate plans and make the differences among the plans, including cost of services, public.

Regulating universal health care is socialistic in nature, and it will cost American tax payers deeply in the long run. One of the consequences of living in New England is high taxes. We are also in an unstable economic atmosphere that requires careful spending. Adding a newly regulated group to the mix will put more stress on the taxpayer. People such as myself also don't want to pay for anyone else's healthcare. Taxpayers are now responsible for the reckless buisness practices of mortage lenders and banks. Eventually the system will crush both the wealthy and middle class. I also don't like the idea of being told, "You now have to pay for someone else's medical bills." Being responsible for a person's medical bills while they are job capable is foolish. I can understand a loan for those people, but the tax payers need to be paid back. Afordable health insurance is a great idea, but it must come from making more options available. We must not force people or buisnesses into paying for other people's expenses.

 

Employer Contribution: Employers that do not offer or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees will be required to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of the national plan. Small businesses will be exempt from this requirement, and will receive a new Small Business Health Tax Credit that helps reduce health care costs for small businesses.

What will eventually happen is that employers will pass the cost of healthcare onto the workers. Wages will also be cut to accomidate the loss. Our country's price of life is allready at extreme standards. People who should be making $16 to $18 dollars an hour are being paid $11 to $12 an hour. We allready have a serious problem with getting employers to pay for skilled labor. (Immigration maybe an issue here as well.)

 

Mandatory Coverage of Children: Obama and Biden will require that all children have health care coverage. Obama and Biden will expand the number of options for young adults to get coverage, including allowing young people up to age 25 to continue coverage through their parents' plans.

Between the ages of 22 and 23, young adults are finished with college. Why should parents cover the cost for young adults? They should have a job of their own by 23. I can see an off-shoot plan that will allow a young adult to pay for their own healthcare, but not one that would put them into in a dependancy crisis.

 

Guaranteed eligibility. No American will be turned away from any insurance plan because of illness or pre-existing conditions.

Yeah. I can buy into that idea. People with AIDS, HIV, and Dimensia have problems obtaining health insurance.

 

Affordable premiums, co-pays and deductibles.

I would like to know the numbers. What does he consider affordable?

 

Some of the stuff he wants to do is ambitious. Several of the things he talks about have been expressed by many potential presidents. Bush, McCain, Clintons, and others have attempted such changes. While working in the senate, has Obama tried to build on anything like this before?

 

(Time to look at McCain's healthcare plans. I will be back with an edit or post.)

 

-- Edit --

 

John McCain time!

 

John McCain Believes The Key To Health Care Reform Is To Restore Control To The Patients Themselves. We want a system of health care in which everyone can afford and acquire the treatment and preventative care they need. Health care should be available to all and not limited by where you work or how much you make. Families should be in charge of their health care dollars and have more control over care.

I agree with this 100%. More control in the family's hands is important. Allowing families to control where they want their money to be spent is important. Telling people where to spend the money is dictatorship.

 

John McCain Will Reform Health Care Making It Easier For Individuals And Families To Obtain Insurance. An important part of his plan is to use competition to improve the quality of health insurance with greater variety to match people's needs, lower prices, and portability. Families should be able to purchase health insurance nationwide, across state lines.

Both John McCain and Obama see eye to eye. Don't let them know that.

 

John McCain Will Reform The Tax Code To Offer More Choices Beyond Employer-Based Health Insurance Coverage. While still having the option of employer-based coverage, every family will receive a direct refundable tax credit - effectively cash - of $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families to offset the cost of insurance. Families will be able to choose the insurance provider that suits them best and the money would be sent directly to the insurance provider. Those obtaining innovative insurance that costs less than the credit can deposit the remainder in expanded Health Savings Accounts.

McCain and Obama agree again; however, I dissagree with this idea. We seem to be on a tax-credit answer for all of our problems. Democrats have just attempted to pass another tax-credit. If anyone has been following the news, you would have learned that part of our problem was the tax-credits. How can you give some of their taxes back and not cut spending. Example -- Congress has a $100 bill to pay, they give a tax-credit that only leaves $50 behind. You now have a $50 deficit. The math doesn't work. We need to cut spending somewhere, so the tax-credit cost doesn't hurt the economy. I do like the idea of families getting a choice. More control into the family unit breeds freedom to choose.

 

Most of the ideologies McCain makes available are similar to Obama's. They agree almost most of the time. Repeating what I said about Obama's plan but for McCain would be horrible.