2012 U.S. Elections - President Obama Re-elected

[sees_all1]

Well you can't just not take into account fatal accidents, that's a part of triage / emergency room medicine which is certainly part of a nation's overall healthcare. The fact that the US has more fatal accidents should be balanced by the fact that we have a greater population, right?

Rate, not number. :wall:

It's like 12 per 100,000 versus 4 per 100,000.

 

E:

Also, what counts as health care? Does it include elective surgeries like breast implants or botox treatments? Do you include things like acne medicine or spa treatments? These are things people with disposable income will buy where other countries can't afford x-ray machines.

 

Luckily my mother is a retired NHS nurse, so I posed to her your questions: Acne treatments, yes, but only for chronic cases that can lead to complications. Spa treatments, no. Breast implants, only for the purpose of restructuring after a mastectomy (usually performed as a treatment for breast cancer). Botox, yes, but not for cosmetic purposes, there are some medical conditions that can be treated with the compound.

 

Basically, if you want bigger breasts, you'll still need to go private in the UK.

I'm figuring that all gets thrown into the "Americans spend more than 17% of their GDP on healthcare while X country only spends Y%, so X country is more efficient" well, what else were they going to spend it on? Trophy wives gotta stay pretty.

[Giordano]

Well you can't just not take into account fatal accidents, that's a part of triage / emergency room medicine which is certainly part of a nation's overall healthcare. The fact that the US has more fatal accidents should be balanced by the fact that we have a greater population, right?

Rate, not number. :wall:

It's like 12 per 100,000 versus 4 per 100,000.

 

E:

Also, what counts as health care? Does it include elective surgeries like breast implants or botox treatments? Do you include things like acne medicine or spa treatments? These are things people with disposable income will buy where other countries can't afford x-ray machines.

 

Luckily my mother is a retired NHS nurse, so I posed to her your questions: Acne treatments, yes, but only for chronic cases that can lead to complications. Spa treatments, no. Breast implants, only for the purpose of restructuring after a mastectomy (usually performed as a treatment for breast cancer). Botox, yes, but not for cosmetic purposes, there are some medical conditions that can be treated with the compound.

 

Basically, if you want bigger breasts, you'll still need to go private in the UK.

I'm figuring that all gets thrown into the "Americans spend more than 17% of their GDP on healthcare while X country only spends Y%, so X country is more efficient" well, what else were they going to spend it on? Trophy wives gotta stay pretty.

"You have cholestrol, take these pills, buy this heart reader, and some more pills for the hell of it. Paying with insurance? Your rate will go up. Don't worry though, you can pay me with a credit card instead."

[lordkafei]

After months of backroom deals, political payoffs, and strong-arm tactics, President Obama and the Democrats forced an unpopular health care takeover through the United States Congress. Americans lost this battle with their elected leaders in Washington but the war is not over! If we're willing to the fight to save freedom, we can settle the score in November by electing true conservatives who will repeal this unconstitutional and dangerous bill. The simple truth is the bill cannot be fixed. It must be repealed.

 

http://senateconservatives.com/repealobamacare

[champion]

After months of backroom deals, political payoffs, and strong-arm tactics, President Obama and the Democrats forced an unpopular health care takeover through the United States Congress. Americans lost this battle with their elected leaders in Washington but the war is not over! If we're willing to the fight to save freedom, we can settle the score in November by electing true conservatives who will repeal this unconstitutional and dangerous bill. The simple truth is the bill cannot be fixed. It must be repealed.

 

http://senateconserv...repealobamacare

Deciding your vote for a candidate based on one issue is a terrible way to vote.

[Will H]

What a terrible

After months of backroom deals, political payoffs, and strong-arm tactics, President Obama and the Democrats forced an unpopular health care takeover through the United States Congress. Americans lost this battle with their elected leaders in Washington but the war is not over! If we're willing to the fight to save freedom, we can settle the score in November by electing true conservatives who will repeal this unconstitutional and dangerous bill. The simple truth is the bill cannot be fixed. It must be repealed.

 

http://senateconserv...repealobamacare

Deciding your vote for a candidate based on one issue is a terrible way to vote.

 

That's true, but that's how a lot of people decide to vote, doing things like weighing pros and cons and taking into account this and that requires more thinking than most people are willing to do. This is true in pretty much all democratic elections and countries. Unfortunately, "I've always voted for party x, and nothing bad has happened to me as a direct result, so I'll vote for them again" is the most common one, followed by "This candidate has stance y on issue z that I care about, so I'll vote for them". Hell, I'm guilty of that sometimes, pretty much everyone is at some point.

[obfuscator]

I don't think it's terrible to vote for a candidate because of one issue. If you think it's important enough, all power to you...

[Quyneax]

I don't think it's terrible to vote for a candidate because of one issue. If you think it's important enough, all power to you...

I would agree in the Dutch system for instance, without a treshold and without districts/winner takes all crap. You only need about ~.7% of the votes to make 1/150 seats (due to rounding). A one-issue party or candidate would be perfectly acceptable since other parties can balance the focus on that one issue and take care of other issues. But in a system like the US has, there are effectively only two parties; one candidate has to represent a massive range of party members, which leads to few people being entirely in agreement with the candidate they vote for. It'd be very careless to vote for a candidate based on one issue without reviewing their other opinions.

 

Incidentally, yes, I think the US system of translating votes to elected individuals is a suboptimal way of representing the votes in parliament.

[jasignhagj]

After months of backroom deals, political payoffs, and strong-arm tactics, President Obama and the Democrats forced an unpopular health care takeover through the United States Congress. Americans lost this battle with their elected leaders in Washington but the war is not over! If we're willing to the fight to save freedom, we can settle the score in November by electing true conservatives who will repeal this unconstitutional and dangerous bill. The simple truth is the bill cannot be fixed. It must be repealed.

 

http://senateconserv...repealobamacare

 

I like how the Democrats and Obama passing healthcare, something they ran on and advertised as one of their main priorities, is considered "forcing an unpopular law on the people". When polled as what it is, and not Obamacare, the ACA is supported by the majority of people.

[sees_all1]

After months of backroom deals, political payoffs, and strong-arm tactics, President Obama and the Democrats forced an unpopular health care takeover through the United States Congress. Americans lost this battle with their elected leaders in Washington but the war is not over! If we're willing to the fight to save freedom, we can settle the score in November by electing true conservatives who will repeal this unconstitutional and dangerous bill. The simple truth is the bill cannot be fixed. It must be repealed.

 

http://senateconserv...repealobamacare

 

I like how the Democrats and Obama passing healthcare, something they ran on and advertised as one of their main priorities, is considered "forcing an unpopular law on the people". When polled as what it is, and not Obamacare, the ACA is supported by the majority of people.

 

I'll agree with you that they ran on that as their platform in 2008, but that's about as far as I'll go. Obama ran against Clinton in the primaries by opposing the individual mandate, but later "changed" his mind.

 

The circumstances of Obamacare passing Congress was shady as well. The original bill used as a vehicle by the Senate for Obamacare had absolutely nothing to do with healthcare. They used that bill passed by the house to replace it with Obamacare, (removing all the original text and circumventing article 1 section 7 of the Constitution), then they used reconciliation (as the two versions were different) to escape a filibuster and pass it strictly as a budget item, which allowed another simple majority vote in the house. Had Obamacare originated in the House, the Senate would have never been able to vote on it.

 

Also, remember the special election of Scott Brown, who campaigned solely to block Obamacare in Massachusetts? Or remember the 2010 elections? It was basically an ass-whooping.

 

Mitt Romney needs to do 3 things to win. Play clips of Obama's broken campaign promises from 2008, Remind people that Obamacare is still law, and talk about how bad the economy is.

[champion]

Obama changing his idea on the individual mandate is that bad huh?

 

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

 

When they show up at the hospital' date=' they get care, they get free care, paid for by you and me. If that's not a form of socialism, I don't know what is. So my plan did something quite different. [b']It said, you know what, if people can afford to buy insurance, if they can afford to buy insurance, or if they can pay their own way, then they either buy that insurance or pay their own way, but they no longer look to government to hand out free care. And that, in my opinion, is ultimate conservatism.[/b] That's why the Heritage Foundation worked with us and was at the celebration of the signing. The Heritage Foundation, as you know, a quintessentially conservative group, recognized that the principles of free enterprise and personal responsibility were at work.

 

The individual mandate is ultimate conservatism. You heard it right from Romney.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Mitt Romney needs to do 3 things to win. Play clips of Obama's broken campaign promises from 2008, Remind people that Obamacare is still law...

I'm not sure the same hypothetical person who's been left feeling disheartened by Obama's political failure to deliver on promises made in 2008 would be at all bothered about what you call "Obamacare". It was one of his promises, after all. There is also the issue that Republicans in the Senate have made much of the reform Obama wanted to bring in impossible to pass. Obama could quite easily deflect the blame onto the GOP.

 

Personally, from your previous replies to this thread, I think those are just the three things you want Mitt Romney to do, and projection seldom makes for a clear argument.

[sees_all1]

The individual mandate is ultimate conservatism. You heard it right from Romney.

Didn't watch the video clip, but the difference between true conservatism is true progressivism is this: A conservative realizes that x is good for them and y is bad for them. They then resolve to do more of x and less of y.

A progressive realizes the same thing, and then petitions to get a law passed that forces people to do x and penalizes people from doing y.

 

 

I'd rather have people making their own decisions than government making it for them.

[Quyneax]

That's another made-up thing, the difference between conservatives and progressives is that (extreme) conservatives don't want any personal freedom in the area of abortion, gay marriage etc. whereas progressives do. See what I did?

 

You keep acting as if 'the goverment' has a will of its own separate from 'the people'. That's not how it works. A goverment is a human construct and ultimately just there to enforce those things that we know we want/are good for us (marriage administration, for instance, or regulation of water supply) but that we couldn't manage as individuals. The goverment and the associated democratic institutes are tools for expressing your opinion and making your decision, and if you don't accept that it's/can be there for you you're just being defiant for no reason because you think it looks cool :rolleyes:.

[sees_all1]

That's another made-up thing, the difference between conservatives and progressives is that (extreme) conservatives don't want any personal freedom in the area of abortion, gay marriage etc. whereas progressives do. See what I did?

You gave an example that supported my argument. You think gay marriage is a good thing, so you want to legislate it.

As far as abortion goes, the fundamental conservative argument is protecting the rights of an entire class of human beings that are marginalized, not forcing women into some sort of reproductive slavery.

[champion]

The individual mandate is ultimate conservatism. You heard it right from Romney.

Didn't watch the video clip, but the difference between true conservatism is true progressivism is this: A conservative realizes that x is good for them and y is bad for them. They then resolve to do more of x and less of y.

A progressive realizes the same thing, and then petitions to get a law passed that forces people to do x and penalizes people from doing y.

 

 

I'd rather have people making their own decisions than government making it for them.

Well the real point of that post was that Mitt Romney had supported the idea of the individual mandate and thus (in your words) supported making your decisions for you. I don't see how it's fair to criticize Obama on changing his mind on the mandate when Romney changed his mind just as much.

[Randox]

That's another made-up thing, the difference between conservatives and progressives is that (extreme) conservatives don't want any personal freedom in the area of abortion, gay marriage etc. whereas progressives do. See what I did?

You gave an example that supported my argument. You think gay marriage is a good thing, so you want to legislate it.

As far as abortion goes, the fundamental conservative argument is protecting the rights of an entire class of human beings that are marginalized, not forcing women into some sort of reproductive slavery.

 

No, under your definition of progressive and conservative, legalizing is actually conservative by allowing people to choose between x and y, and legislating against either would be progressive since the government would be forcing a moral judgement on people. You can only do x, not y.

 

Both progressives and conservatives would limit freedoms in certain areas. A progressive would argue that it's not okay to dump your old oil from your car in the river behind your house. A conservative argues that two men (or women) getting married is wrong. The difference is not that one group is all for legislating everything and the other isn't, the difference is what they want to legislate.

[Zooey C. Deschanel]

I view Obama in a more modern way compared to Mitt.

Especially during issues of gay marriage and other reilgious issues.

Also trying to expand the Latino voters.

Big win for obama there but some of Mitts views of politics in general are outshining Obama in some states. (especialy the southeast)

[sees_all1]

The individual mandate is ultimate conservatism. You heard it right from Romney.

Didn't watch the video clip, but the difference between true conservatism is true progressivism is this: A conservative realizes that x is good for them and y is bad for them. They then resolve to do more of x and less of y.

A progressive realizes the same thing, and then petitions to get a law passed that forces people to do x and penalizes people from doing y.

 

 

I'd rather have people making their own decisions than government making it for them.

Well the real point of that post was that Mitt Romney had supported the idea of the individual mandate and thus (in your words) supported making your decisions for you. I don't see how it's fair to criticize Obama on changing his mind on the mandate when Romney changed his mind just as much.

Mitt Romney didn't get my vote in the primary for that very reason, so you have a very good argument.

[Lord Paul]

I frankly have no idea who to vote for in this election. Won't be Obama, for sure.

[obfuscator]

I wouldn't vote for Romney either. Nor Obama...neither of them particularly impresses me.

 

If I had to err in one direction it would be towards obama, but I can't manage to make myself vote for someone who isn't at least somewhat pro-life.

[sees_all1]

I wouldn't vote for Romney either. Nor Obama...neither of them particularly impresses me.

 

If I had to err in one direction it would be towards obama, but I can't manage to make myself vote for someone who isn't at least somewhat pro-life.

 

That's another thing about Romney that troubles me, but if I compare the two records the pick is easy.

[Randox]

There are a few issues I can think of off the top of my head that would be consideratiosn for my vote, we're I american.

 

The first would be who is less likely to start or join a war.

The second is who is least likely to approve the proposed pipeline for Bitumen from Alberta. Quite frankly that anyone would consider approving that with the proposed route is something I find quite terrifying (forgot the name of it though).

My third criteria would be progressive values and freedoms. I have no time for limiting the freedoms of other people for religious reasons. The legal system and religion should be kept as far away from each other as possible.

 

I'm sure I've forgotten some others, but those would be major points.

[Quyneax]

That's another made-up thing, the difference between conservatives and progressives is that (extreme) conservatives don't want any personal freedom in the area of abortion, gay marriage etc. whereas progressives do. See what I did?

You gave an example that supported my argument. You think gay marriage is a good thing, so you want to legislate it.

Lolno. I want to un-legislate it, remote the clause that says only a man and a woman can marry, make the law less restrictive. It's 100% the conservatives who are limiting the freedom of the people on this issue.

 

Anyway, nothing can support your argument because it's an unverifyable (made-up) statement only made to play on the feelings of the reader (specifically the conservative reader because nobody else would be convinced anyway. Compare: every theologist ever trying to prove the existence of God). It'd be nice if you came with actual content-based arguments why social security is bad.

[sees_all1]

That's another made-up thing, the difference between conservatives and progressives is that (extreme) conservatives don't want any personal freedom in the area of abortion, gay marriage etc. whereas progressives do. See what I did?

You gave an example that supported my argument. You think gay marriage is a good thing, so you want to legislate it.

Lolno. I want to un-legislate it, remote the clause that says only a man and a woman can marry, make the law less restrictive. It's 100% the conservatives who are limiting the freedom of the people on this issue.

"I think that it would be good for same sex couples to enjoy the legal and monetary benefits of marriage, so I'm going to push legislation that changes the definition of marriage to force others to recognize same sex marriage." It's progressive through and through. Furthermore, I might be arguing against you, but if nothing changes gays still can't be married.

 

Anyway, nothing can support your argument because it's an unverifyable (made-up) statement only made to play on the feelings of the reader (specifically the conservative reader because nobody else would be convinced anyway. Compare: every theologist ever trying to prove the existence of God). It'd be nice if you came with actual content-based arguments why social security is bad.

You'd do yourself a world of good if you read and understood other people's opposing viewpoints, not just what people believe but why they believe it.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Somewhat ironic. You still haven't recognised how it's your viewpoint that restricts homosexual couples the same freedom to celebrate their relationship in public as any heterosexual couple currently has the right to, but feel free to accuse Quyneax of the same crime.

 

Emotional blackmail, projection and now deflection. A substantiated argument would be great for your credibility right about now.