<p>sewbusy, what policy differences make you dislike Clinton more than Obama? E.g., I prefer Obama overall, but I think Clinton’s heath care policy makes more sense than Obama’s. Note that neither one will decide this; congress will (or maybe won’t!).</p>
<p>I don’t think Clintons policy makes more sense than Obamas- because I do not think participation in insurance should be forced- it should be affordable to participate, but not forced.</p>
<p>We need to increase wellness in this country- not just decrease costs of health care-
by providing incentives for organic food supply, increasing public transportation and walking/bikes, decreasing dependence on autos, better health care information & a healthier food supply- we can reduce the costs Americans spend on health care.</p>
<p>We also have to consider- what are we paying for?
Medicare for example allows my mother weekly visits to a chiropractor- </p>
<p>My family has OK coverage though husbands employer- but the dental & optical coverage is pretty crappy- Id like to see public money go towards care that has a better cost/benefit ratio - & haven’t seen anything that indicates most chiropractors are providing that service.</p>
<p>it should be affordable to participate, but not forced</p>
<p>I think it’s the same thing. It can’t be affordable unless younger healthy people are paying in while they don’t need a lot of care. If the only people who participate are those who need care, it can’t be affordable. We need to pay in when young and healthy so that the money will be there when we’re old and decrepit!</p>
<p>I think of it as medicare with the young participating and paying premiums while they’re working. Huge details to be worked out, for sure.</p>
<p>Right now- we are paying out of pocket for health care- many of our providers don’t take insurance or wont bill the insurance-</p>
<p>how is that going to be addressed?
I would rather pay $50 to a naturopath who isn’t covered by ins, to paying $50 towards the $100 fee to a provider I don’t want to go to.
I think I should have that choice.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This issue has been debated ad infinitum on this forum. However, I have to ask a question in response to this point - at what point do the rights of the unborn child supercede the “rights” of someone else to kill it?? If the mom has the “autonomy” to kill it anytime before birth, what difference does the actual “birth” make? Does a parent have the right to kill its child at any point of its “life”? (We’ve already agreed that a fetus is alive!).</p>
<p>Further, the mother is preganant because of her own stupidity (i.e. “choices”) - why on earth should another living human have to die because of her selfishness??</p>
<p>Ok - so that’s my view - y’all can disagree all you want. But I still think a PRESIDENT should stand up for the rights of all humans - even the not-yet-born ones. Maybe even MORE SO for them because they can’t stand up for themselves, especially if their own mothers are trying to kill them!</p>
<p>A president has to represent what is best & most honorable in a society - they aren’t perfect of course, but they should try to try to come down on the side of LIFE, LIBERTY, HONOR & COURAGE, to name a few!</p>
<p>P.S. About Iraq - sure am glad we’re fighting al qaida there rather than just about any other place I can think of. Remember, THEY had already declared war/jihad on us. Iraq is the preferred battlefield & by that estimation, it WAS right to go in.</p>
<p>ek4 - who’s telling kids “don’t have sex”? Seems like just about everything they see, hear & read is telling them otherwise! Besides, what’s the big deal, “they can always get an abortion” if they get pregnant! </p>
<p>If W gives McCain an endorsement, I am out. W owes McCain bigtime. But if the Idiot offers anything other than monetary support and a big Heartfelt apology, I will vote anything, anybody but McCain.</p>
<p>Re health insurance: It’s part of the many details that need to be worked out before a comprehensive plan can be enacted.</p>
<p>I like the German system. We would join a provider (e.g., Blue Shield) when we enter the work force, and we are never forced out. The only thing our employer does is send in its half and our payroll-deducted half of the premium. We keep the same insurance wherever we work. Our premium is a percentage of our wages; if we’re unemployed or retired, we pay nothing. This is a simplified version; clearly there are many details.</p>
<p>why on earth should another living human have to die because of her selfishness??</p>
<p>This is the crux of the debate: Is a one-second-old fetus a human being or not? One minute? One hour? Nine months?</p>
<p>thisoldman- just saw the entire Bush family on the stage with Mccain in Virginia…FYI</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do you want to tell the women in the Sudan or the Balkans that they were raped because of their “own stupidity?” That they had a choice? Since the Sabines, mass rape has been a weapon of war (and unlike Saddam’s inexistent WMDs, it is real and ongoing even as I type).</p>
<p>I’ve never understood why some anti-abortionists make exceptions for rape or incest. From their standpoint, was it the baby’s fault?</p>
<p>vossron - while I think that ALL life should be cherished & allowed to live if possible (even as the result of rape or incest), some anti-abortionists do make exceptions in the rape/incest situation because it did not involve any CHOICE by the mother. Typically the mother is choosing to have sex, AND choosing to have unprotected sex - THAT’s when abortion is particulary heinous, because on top of that, she CHOOSES to kill the baby (“fetus”, if you prefer).</p>
<p>Now, we’ve agreed that a “fetus” is alive, right? Is it human? Yes. Therefore, it is “Human Life”. It is wrong to kill it.</p>
<p>And no, I don’t support the death penalty - but I do support more strict punishments than most criminals get…</p>
<p>BTW, I thinnk most of these “moral issues” should be decided by the states - not for the fed to endorse - it should always stand for sactity of life, etc. (see above).</p>
<p>while I think that ALL life should be cherished & allowed to live if possible (even as the result of rape or incest)</p>
<p>then wouldn’t your interest in the US military be a little * ironic?*</p>
<p>The embryo does not reach the fetal stage of development, until the 9th or 10th week of GA- abortions are generally performed before then.</p>
<p>I still don’t get it. If it is wrong to kill a fetus, why does rape or incest make it right? We don’t get to say it’s neither right nor wrong. What is it about rape or incest that makes it right to kill the fetus? It’s right to kill the innocent fetus if the pregnancy was forced on the mother? What if she was raped by her husband? We’re down a slippery slope here…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>you dont know that.</p>
<p>The traditional meaning of recession is two consecutive quarters of negative growth; I think we haven’t seen that yet.</p>
<p>
Well, sure, but comparing that likelihood to the disaster for the country of the current presidency makes Clinton/McCain/Obama look wonderful.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wait… what? So you would withold a vote from the person you support because someone you don’t support has given him an endorsement? Where’s the logic there?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, it makes McCain look wonderful. Not so much on the Clinton/Obama side…</p>
<p>If logic played in W’s elections, would W be your President? </p>
<p>If McCain gets an endorsement from W, it is because McCain wants something from W. What is it that McCain desperately needs from W and why would W give it to McCain, to Huckabee, or Paul?</p>