McCain vs. Obama (On the Issues)

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS II USM Lens

09/16/2008 12:20:58 PM · #27

Originally posted by karmat:

I think he would try to get someone that will get him votes (as Obama did with Biden).

Yes, Biden was a more moderate pick for Obama. It moves him toward the middle of spectrum, and with that presumably a larger percentage of the population. McCain started on one end and picked someone that pushed his appeal further toward that extreme. Great for short term buzz, not so good as a demonstration of sound judgement or representing the will of Americans in general.

We'll see how it plays out in a few weeks, but so far the only evidence of "change" I've seen is McCain changing himself... from a man who stood for integrity and honesty and railed against dirty politics now employing those very tactics and people he condemned in the last race. From someone who stressed the critical importance of experience to one who picks a running mate with very little. From a man who has spent his entire career championing deregulation and small government suddenly clamoring for more oversight of Wall Street. From a veteran politician in every sense of the word to someone who suddenly wants to shake up Washington. I've never really been into politics and don't associate myself with any particular group, but while I may not have agreed with McCain in the past, at least I had more respect for the guy before his change.

Elaine

Canon EOS R5

09/16/2008 12:26:21 PM · #28

It seems abortion is THE issue of this campaign. I personally think other issues are more important but I'm not reading much about them.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

09/16/2008 12:29:31 PM · #29

Originally posted by chaimelle:

It seems abortion is THE issue of this campaign. I personally think other issues are more important but I'm not reading much about them.

The economy is #1, so here ya go.

posthumous

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

09/16/2008 12:30:48 PM · #30

Originally posted by Flash:

As further proof of my claim, the Left loves Obama while the Right is not that happy with McCain.

The Left does not love Obama. Only Obama fans love Obama, just like only McCain fans love McCain. Obama is at least as far from true Left as McCain is from true Right. There will be no Universal State-sponsored Health Care under Obama. There will be no support of Gay Marriage from Obama. Make no mistake about it: the Left is voting against McCain.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

09/16/2008 12:31:01 PM · #31

Originally posted by chaimelle:

It seems abortion is THE issue of this campaign. I personally think other issues are more important but I'm not reading much about them.

Really? This thread is about the only place I've heard so much about abortion as a campaign topic.

The Quagmire in Iraq and the economy (what's left of it anyway) seem much more prominent.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS II USM Lens

09/16/2008 12:33:09 PM · #32

Originally posted by posthumous:

Well said.

Elaine

Canon EOS R5

09/16/2008 12:37:13 PM · #33

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by chaimelle:
It seems abortion is THE issue of this campaign. I personally think other issues are more important but I'm not reading much about them.

The economy is #1, so here ya go.

Thanks for the link! I have been without any TV since the first of August, so I have only seen what is in the local paper or on my Google homepage. It could be that the word "abortion" catches my eye and I have missed other topics. Still, there is a large vocal group hoping I will make my decision based on that one issue.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

09/16/2008 12:37:52 PM · #34

An interesting read about how economists view the election: From Dilbert (well, his creator anyway)
And please read it before you discount the source -- it's actually very interesting.

Flash

Nikon D700

09/16/2008 01:09:01 PM · #35

Originally posted by eqsite:

An interesting read about how economists view the election: From Dilbert (well, his creator anyway)
And please read it before you discount the source -- it's actually very interesting.

The link was worth reading.

From my link on healthcare that has thus far seemed to be ignored;

"Obama wants the government to subsidize the cost of health coverage for millions who otherwise would have trouble affording it on their own.

The Democrat would set up a kind of government-run shopping mall that would negotiate prices and benefits with private insurers. One choice would be a government-run plan. No participating company could turn someone away because of pre-existing cancer, heart disease or diabetes. Nor would someone have to pay a higher monthly premium based on those conditions.

The government would subsidize the cost for many who buy coverage through this exchange. But analysts say using third parties to subsidize the cost of a product exacerbates health inflation. Consumers and providers act as if any service that might yield some value should be covered. After all, it's largely somebody else who is picking up the tab.

"Any major expansion of coverage will be costly, and the Obama promise of affordability would require new, large, and rapidly growing federal subsidies that are unlikely to be sustainable, fiscally or politically," said the authors.

Obama would also require all but small businesses to make a "meaningful" payment for health coverage of their workers or contribute a percentage of payroll toward the cost of the public plan offered through the exchange. The authors said that either way, job losses or pay cuts would result."

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 IF EX DG HSM for Canon

09/16/2008 01:14:42 PM · #36

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by eqsite:
An interesting read about how economists view the election: From Dilbert (well, his creator anyway)
And please read it before you discount the source -- it's actually very interesting.

The link was worth reading.

From my link on healthcare that has thus far seemed to be ignored;

"Obama wants the government to subsidize the cost of health coverage for millions who otherwise would have trouble affording it on their own.

The Democrat would set up a kind of government-run shopping mall that would negotiate prices and benefits with private insurers. One choice would be a government-run plan. No participating company could turn someone away because of pre-existing cancer, heart disease or diabetes. Nor would someone have to pay a higher monthly premium based on those conditions.

The government would subsidize the cost for many who buy coverage through this exchange. But analysts say using third parties to subsidize the cost of a product exacerbates health inflation. Consumers and providers act as if any service that might yield some value should be covered. After all, it's largely somebody else who is picking up the tab.

"Any major expansion of coverage will be costly, and the Obama promise of affordability would require new, large, and rapidly growing federal subsidies that are unlikely to be sustainable, fiscally or politically," said the authors.

Obama would also require all but small businesses to make a "meaningful" payment for health coverage of their workers or contribute a percentage of payroll toward the cost of the public plan offered through the exchange. The authors said that either way, job losses or pay cuts would result."

Sorry, Flash -- I'd missed your post. That is an interesting article (although given their methodology, the results on each candidate may be a little suspect). They certainly didn't have anything flattering to say about McCain's approach:

Originally posted by article:

Analysts writing in the journal warned against that approach.

They said employers would be less likely to offer coverage if they knew their workers could get it elsewhere. In all, the authors projected that 20 million people would lose their employer-sponsored insurance under McCain's plan, while 21 million people would gain coverage through the individual market â�� little more than a wash.

And as monthly insurance premiums rise and the tax break stays the same, even that gain would erode.

Message edited by author 2008-09-16 13:14:55.

coronamv

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

09/16/2008 01:15:59 PM · #37

Hey Shannon, remember the discussion about Obama and Teleprompters? Here you go...

Flash

Nikon D700

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

09/16/2008 01:22:34 PM · #38

Originally posted by eqsite:

Agreed. One reason I thought it was worth posting. Neither seem to be a very good answer - maybe why it isn't getting much discussion. Although it does enforce the candidates views on how each looks at problem solving (one is goverment based the other private sector) - thus additional insight into other addresses.

09/16/2008 01:22:38 PM · #39

Originally posted by coronamv:

Hey Shannon, remember the discussion about Obama and Teleprompters? Here you go...

The one where someone said they ALL use speechwriters? Yeah, I remember. What does a teleprompter have to do with who writes the speech?

09/16/2008 01:25:38 PM · #40

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by eqsite:
Sorry, Flash -- I'd missed your post. That is an interesting article (although given their methodology, the results on each candidate may be a little suspect). They certainly didn't have anything flattering to say about McCain's approach:

Agreed. One reason I thought it was worth posting. Neither seem to be a very good answer - maybe why it isn't getting much discussion. Although it does enforce the candidates views on how each looks at problem solving (one is goverment based the other private sector) - thus additional insight into other addresses.

I think that there are many things that work best in a free market, but I don't think that healthcare is one of them. By definition, a free market will force some things to be too expensive for some segment of the population to afford. I don't think that's a good answer for healthcare. So, that why the government gets involved. The question then becomes one of degree.

posthumous

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

09/16/2008 01:26:39 PM · #41

Originally posted by Flash:

Both candidates have ridiculous solutions for health care. Health care should be run by the government. It's ridiculous to have health care be run on a profit motive. Government needs to provide basic services to its populace: national defense, health care, infrastructure, police and emergency services. The populace pays the government (in taxation) for these services. No competition. No haggling. No discrimination. You can cut everything else from government, but keep these.

09/16/2008 01:28:27 PM · #42

Originally posted by Flash:

Neither seem to be a very good answer - maybe why it isn't getting much discussion. Although it does enforce the candidates views on how each looks at problem solving (one is goverment based the other private sector) - thus additional insight into other addresses.

Could be a matter of perception.

For a better idea of what mechanisms actually work, see the World Health Organization's report on the matter. "The U.S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance." "private health expenses in industrial countries now average only some 25 percent because of universal health coverage (except in the United States, where it is 56%)"

Message edited by author 2008-09-16 13:40:18.

09/16/2008 01:30:27 PM · #43

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Flash:
Neither seem to be a very good answer - maybe why it isn't getting much discussion. Although it does enforce the candidates views on how each looks at problem solving (one is goverment based the other private sector) - thus additional insight into other addresses.

Could be a matter of perception.

Interesting. I wonder if you could substitute just about anything for the word healthcare in that study and get similar results. Because, clearly the US is the best in the world, and everything it has is better than anyone else.