I hope Hillary Wins. I am to the right, However I would find Hillary Acceptable. I liken Obama's campaign to Seinfield, A Show about Nothing.
So far the Obama campaign seems to be about how wonderful the Obama campaign is.
I hope Hillary Wins. I am to the right, However I would find Hillary Acceptable. I liken Obama's campaign to Seinfield, A Show about Nothing.
I'm supporting Obama right now. I feel we need some fresh air at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. That said, if Hillary is the nominee I will march, call, give and work to get her elected.
So far the Obama campaign seems to be about how wonderful the Obama campaign is.
OMG! Dawn, are you a closet Hillary supporter?So far the Obama campaign seems to be about how wonderful the Obama campaign is.
So is this a Hillary thread or a "bash Obama and his followers as cultists" thread?
I'm supporting BOTH because I believe either one or both of them would be great for this country and I'm really tired of the bashing from both sides.
I liked all three of our major candidates and would have supported any of them as the nominee. I still would. I think too much is being made of the Obama mystique and wonder if the people doing it are really liberals or democrats because it's destructive. I LOVE Hillary. She's smart, tough, capable and brings with her one of the smartest partners any president would have ever had. I'm supporting Obama right now. I feel we need some fresh air at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. That said, if Hillary is the nominee I will march, call, give and work to get her elected.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/4/10480/22224/54/449462
Response to a Kossack: Krugman is right.
by jim bow
Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 09:05:58 AM PST
I'm an actuary for a life insurance company. My father is a health economist, and has been working on universal health care for some time. So I have a little experience on this issue.
I honestly don't know for whom I'm going to vote tomorrow in the Massachusetts primary. As stephdray wrote, Barack Obama offers the potential for a politically transformative moment in history, and it would great to be there when it happens. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, possesses encyclopedic knowledge and extrodinary command of the issues. She also has experience taking those slings and arrows from Republicans, and sticking it to them when it comes time for policy debates. We know how mean and vindictive those Republicans can be, and Barack Obama does not have this critical experience of taking on those Republicans. Mario Cuomo is right: you campaign in poetry, and you govern in prose.
* jim bow's diary :: ::
*
On health care, I, however, strongly agree with Hillary Clinton. As Partially Impartial explains in his diary this past Saturday, without a mandate, many young, healthy people like myself (I'm 28.), by having to subsidize the premiums of older, sicker, higher-risk people, would not see purchasing insurance as a good return for their investment, and would choose to opt out of the system until they saw themselves as having the potential for getting a good return for their investment (in the form of premiums) -- when they are sicker. The mandate, by requiring young, healthy, low-risk people to join the system and subsidize older, sicker, higher risk Americans, is what lowers the cost for everyone.
As a better example, just think of Social Security or Medicare Part A (the Hospital Insurance). Both programs are mandatory; everyone must contribute in the form of payroll taxes. Not everyone, however, benefits. If you aren't lucky enough to live to 65, or are unfortunate enough either to become disabled, or have a parent or spouse whose income you depend upon die prematurely, you don't get Social Security and/or Medicare benefits. That's just the way insurance works. Insurance isn't an investment policy; it's a policy to guard you against catastrophic losses.
Now imagine if, as Barry Goldwater proposed in 1964, payroll taxes (Social Security contributions) were made voluntary. You could opt out of the Social Security system. If you were a young, healthy 25-year-old, why would you want to pay Social Security taxes through your nose if you see very little possibility of benefiting from your contributions? Wouldn't you rather spend your money feeding your children or saving for that new home? Doesn't seem like Social Security is a good investment, does it? So then who would be left paying into Social Security? The people closer to retirement. Because a much smaller pool of people would be there to contribute to Social Security and Medicare Part A, there would have be either a much greater contribution rate or significantly reduced benefits.
So contrary to a fellow Kossack's claim, mandates are not a Republican thing -- they are a Democratic thing. Every single-payer proposal -- both the Conyers (H.R. 676) and the McDermott (H.R. 1200) proposals -- provides mandatory insurance. You can opt out of receiving benefits, but you can't opt out of paying payroll taxes (or your employer's payroll tax contributions through reduced wages).
Now would Hillary Clinton's mandate force people into private insurance plans? Yes, everyone would be forced to purchase private insurance, and everyone would be allowed to buy into the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). In my previous life as an economist for the US Commerce Department, I had the Blue Cross/Blue Shield Standard Option of the Federal Employee (FEHBP) plan. Contrary to what many people say on this blog, the plan is actually quite nice. But here's the bigger thing: by allowing everyone to buy into FEHBP (as Obama's plan also does), people would be able to have their insurance independent of their work. That way, when people change jobs, they don't have to worry about what health insurance benefits they may have to lose.
I hope this diary clears up many of the misconceptions about the mandates debate.
I've been wondering if some of the ******* isn't being sown by outsiders as well. It certianly will benefit the Republicans if the Democrats shoot themselves in the foot fighting with one another.
I didn't think soNope!![]()
I've been wondering if some of the ******* isn't being sown by outsiders as well. It certianly will benefit the Republicans if the Democrats shoot themselves in the foot fighting with one another.
What do you mean by outsiders? Are you talking about the ******* in general or here on the DIS?
I was on that Liberal thread and I do not believe that those that are enjoying their Hillary bashing are outsiders. Unless you mean people like me - the ones that won't just sit there and listen to supposed fellow liberals bash my candidate like they are reading straight from the GOP talking points?
I think the bolded part is the issue. I think those who may be for one candidate may be listening too much to the conservative baloney that criticizes the other. The Republicans want to trash both Democrats and make their supporters fight each other.
What do you mean by outsiders? Are you talking about the ******* in general or here on the DIS?
I was on that Liberal thread and I do not believe that those that are enjoying their Hillary bashing are outsiders. Unless you mean people like me - the ones that won't just sit there and listen to supposed fellow liberals bash my candidate like they are reading straight from the GOP talking points?
So is this a Hillary thread or a "bash Obama and his followers as cultists" thread?
I'm supporting BOTH because I believe either one or both of them would be great for this country and I'm really tired of the bashing from both sides.
Well - all I have to say is that I did not see many Hillary supporters doing that. In fact, all along the way I saw Hillary people saying they will support the whoever the nom is. You cannot say that for the Obama people.