US Domestic Debate thread

For discussion of religion and politics

Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus

User avatar
Fireball
Posts: 4762
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:43 pm

Post by Fireball »

The only legitimate goal of the "war on terror" (stupid phrase, terrorism is an abstract military tactic not a coherent group or groups of people) is the destruction of the terror network(s) which have attacked us or are planning to do so (so long as that planning can be credibly proven).

Iraq was not a threat to the United States. It was not supporting terrorism which targeted the United States. It was not developing, did not have, and did not have the capacity to acquire the means to produce weapons of mass destruction. Iraq has as much to do with the war on terror as Peru or Omaha, Nebraska.
Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:17 am
Zarathud: The sad thing is that Barak Obama is a very intelligent and articulate person, even when you disagree with his views it's clear that he's very thoughtful. I would have loved to see Obama in a real debate.
Me: Wait 12 years, when he runs for president. :-)
User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 21045
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

Post by Defiant »

.
Last edited by Defiant on Mon Nov 26, 2012 6:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Eco-Logic
Posts: 990
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 11:43 am

Post by Eco-Logic »

I have no desire to debate, again, fireball, on why the war with Iraq is a just war. It think we're clear on where we all stand on that issue. That is the fundamental difference between our opinions on this issue.

I do think you're quiet naive if you think we "had Bin Laden".
User avatar
Fireball
Posts: 4762
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:43 pm

Post by Fireball »

Tora Bora was surrounded by American troops. We had confirmed radio signals from bin Laden emanating from the mountain. Operation Anaconda had worked perfectly, putting all of our enemies into one tight little area that was perfect for capturing them...

And then Bush decided to call a cease fire and let the Afghan warlords take over the taking of the mountain, which broke up our lines, made access to the pourous border open and let Osama get away.

There is no doubt in my mind that had Bush let Anaconda do its job, bin Laden would have been captured. He blinked at Tora Bora, for whatever reason I do not know, but if al Qaeda ever strikes us hard again, the fault for that will lie directly at the feet of the man who let our enemy sneak away in the middle of the night.
Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:17 am
Zarathud: The sad thing is that Barak Obama is a very intelligent and articulate person, even when you disagree with his views it's clear that he's very thoughtful. I would have loved to see Obama in a real debate.
Me: Wait 12 years, when he runs for president. :-)
Poleaxe
Posts: 7140
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:54 pm

Post by Poleaxe »

Fireball1244 wrote:Tora Bora was surrounded by American troops. We had confirmed radio signals from bin Laden emanating from the mountain. Operation Anaconda had worked perfectly, putting all of our enemies into one tight little area that was perfect for capturing them...

And then Bush decided to call a cease fire and let the Afghan warlords take over the taking of the mountain, which broke up our lines, made access to the pourous border open and let Osama get away.

There is no doubt in my mind that had Bush let Anaconda do its job, bin Laden would have been captured. He blinked at Tora Bora, for whatever reason I do not know, but if al Qaeda ever strikes us hard again, the fault for that will lie directly at the feet of the man who let our enemy sneak away in the middle of the night.
Tora Bora has been answered over and over again.
User avatar
Eco-Logic
Posts: 990
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 11:43 am

Post by Eco-Logic »

Fireball1244 wrote: There is no doubt in my mind that had Bush let Anaconda do its job, bin Laden would have been captured. He blinked at Tora Bora, for whatever reason I do not know, but if al Qaeda ever strikes us hard again, the fault for that will lie directly at the feet of the man who let our enemy sneak away in the middle of the night.
Single most ignorant statement I have heard/read all week.
User avatar
Exodor
Posts: 17196
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:10 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Post by Exodor »

Poleaxe wrote: Tora Bora has been answered over and over again.

Couldja at least indulge us with a link?
User avatar
SuperHiro
Posts: 6877
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:00 pm
Location: Seattle, WA
Contact:

Post by SuperHiro »

Poleaxe wrote:
Fireball1244 wrote:Tora Bora was surrounded by American troops. We had confirmed radio signals from bin Laden emanating from the mountain. Operation Anaconda had worked perfectly, putting all of our enemies into one tight little area that was perfect for capturing them...

And then Bush decided to call a cease fire and let the Afghan warlords take over the taking of the mountain, which broke up our lines, made access to the pourous border open and let Osama get away.

There is no doubt in my mind that had Bush let Anaconda do its job, bin Laden would have been captured. He blinked at Tora Bora, for whatever reason I do not know, but if al Qaeda ever strikes us hard again, the fault for that will lie directly at the feet of the man who let our enemy sneak away in the middle of the night.
Tora Bora has been answered over and over again.
Can you give me a quick run-down about why we did it the way we did it? From my eyes, if there was ever a time to use the sacrifice our soldiers offer for this country, that was it. I really didn't like the fact that we used Afgan warlords.
User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 21045
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

Post by Defiant »

.
Last edited by Defiant on Mon Nov 26, 2012 6:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
geezer
Posts: 7551
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 1:52 pm
Location: Yeeha!

Post by geezer »

Eco-Logic wrote:I don't think you understand at all the War on Terror and how deep the terrorists are rooted around the entire world.
And THIS is precisely why guns, bombs and alienating our allies is NOT the correct way to win the "war on terror"
User avatar
gellar
Posts: 2302
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:24 pm
Location: I say Hella.
Contact:

Post by gellar »

geezer wrote:
Eco-Logic wrote:I don't think you understand at all the War on Terror and how deep the terrorists are rooted around the entire world.
And THIS is precisely why guns, bombs and alienating our allies is NOT the correct way to win the "war on terror"
Image
OMGHI2U
"I guess we're all retarded except you Gellar." - Kobra
"I'm already doomed to the seventh level of hell. If you think I wouldn't kill a person of my choosing for $50 mil, you obviously have no clue just how expensive my taste in shoes really is." - setaside
#gonegold brutesquad
User avatar
gbasden
Posts: 7664
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 1:57 am
Location: Sacramento, CA

Post by gbasden »

Nade wrote:
Kerry said U.S. forces allowed Osama bin Laden to escape in 2001 during the battle at Tora Bora in Afghanistan because the administration "outsourced" fighting to Afghan "warlords." Actually, it's never been clear whether bin Laden actually was at Tora Bora.

It is true that military leaders strongly suspected bin Laden was there, and it is also true that the Pentagon relied heavily on Afghan forces to take on much of the fighting at Tora Bora in an effort to reduce US casualties. But Kerry overstates the case by stating flatly that "we had him surrounded."
http://www.factcheck.org/article271.html

Seems inconclusive, to me, although, IMO, Tora Bora was a blunder.
Yeah - the things I've seen written about Tora Bora at the non-partisan fact check sites seem to agree that it's inconclusive as to whether Bin Laden was there, but seems to agree that Bush did indeed pull back and let the warlords try to root them out. Is there anything that isn't out in tinfoil land that doesn't imply that Bush could have dropped the ball here?
Dirt
Posts: 11025
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 11:17 am

Post by Dirt »

gbasden wrote:
Nade wrote:
Kerry said U.S. forces allowed Osama bin Laden to escape in 2001 during the battle at Tora Bora in Afghanistan because the administration "outsourced" fighting to Afghan "warlords." Actually, it's never been clear whether bin Laden actually was at Tora Bora.

It is true that military leaders strongly suspected bin Laden was there, and it is also true that the Pentagon relied heavily on Afghan forces to take on much of the fighting at Tora Bora in an effort to reduce US casualties. But Kerry overstates the case by stating flatly that "we had him surrounded."
http://www.factcheck.org/article271.html

Seems inconclusive, to me, although, IMO, Tora Bora was a blunder.
Nothing that isn't CLASSIFIED, I'll bet.

Yeah - the things I've seen written about Tora Bora at the non-partisan fact check sites seem to agree that it's inconclusive as to whether Bin Laden was there, but seems to agree that Bush did indeed pull back and let the warlords try to root them out. Is there anything that isn't out in tinfoil land that doesn't imply that Bush could have dropped the ball here?
User avatar
Freezer-TPF-
Posts: 12698
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:41 pm
Location: VA

Post by Freezer-TPF- »

Fireball1244 wrote:Tora Bora was surrounded by American troops. We had confirmed radio signals from bin Laden emanating from the mountain. Operation Anaconda had worked perfectly, putting all of our enemies into one tight little area that was perfect for capturing them...

And then Bush decided to call a cease fire and let the Afghan warlords take over the taking of the mountain, which broke up our lines, made access to the pourous border open and let Osama get away.

There is no doubt in my mind that had Bush let Anaconda do its job, bin Laden would have been captured. He blinked at Tora Bora, for whatever reason I do not know, but if al Qaeda ever strikes us hard again, the fault for that will lie directly at the feet of the man who let our enemy sneak away in the middle of the night.
I'm guessing you don't think much of National Review but:
Kerry said in the first debate, "We had Osama bin Laden cornered in the mountains of Tora Bora." Kerry doesn't know that. Some intelligence indeed suggests that bin Laden was there. But the U.S. commander on the ground, Gen. Tommy Franks, also had reports that bin Laden was in Kashmir, in southern Baluchistan and northwest of Khandahar near a lake.

Kerry also said, "We didn't use American forces." That is false. The United States expended massive amounts of ordnance at Tora Bora, both laser-guided bombs and the devastating fire of AC-130 gunships. Video feeds from Predator drone planes provided real-time intelligence. American special-forces troops were present on the ground, if in small numbers.

They weren't there in force on the basis of a strategic choice that Kerry supported. The United States wanted to avoid the Soviet experience in Afghanistan. We could have flooded Afghanistan with roughly 150,000 troops like the Soviets, but at the risk of causing a nationalist reaction. So, the United States instead used special-forces troops, precision-guided bombs and indigenous forces.

At the time, Kerry was all for it. He told an interviewer in late 2001 that the United States could avoid making Afghanistan into another Vietnam, "as long as we make smart decisions, and we don't go in and repeat what the British or the Russians tried to do. And I don't think we will; I think we're on a different footing." In mid-December 2001, right in the middle of the battle of Tora Bora, he supported the administration's strategy: "I think we have been smart. I think the administration leadership has done it well, and we are right on track." Kerry only cautioned against using too much force: "I am not for a prolonged bombing campaign," he said.
http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/low ... 080840.asp
Coskesh
Posts: 598
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:14 pm
Location: San Diego, CA

Post by Coskesh »

As much as I'm for cheaper drugs, I think the president of Pfizer made a great point. How many drugs that cures or helps the human condition have been developed in Canada in the last hundred years? Zero. Developing a drug takes alot of R&D and that equals a lot of time and even more cashish! If there isn't a fat pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, then there is a serious lack of motivation.

Currently, doesn't the law allow a company 2 or 5 years of exclusivity before allowing generic drugs to be made? I understand there are loop holes dealing with new treatments using the same drugs that let Pharmaceutical companies 'refresh' their exclusivity, and those obviously need to be addressed.

Like all political issues, this is more complex than one would initially think.
Yankeeman84
Posts: 8657
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:47 pm

Post by Yankeeman84 »

The thing I want to know from Kerry is how is he going to pay for everyone to get health care like the Senators do? If it costs $7700 per person (like it does for a Senator) and lets say there are 280 million people.... that would cost $2.1 trillion. How John are you going to come up with $2.1 trillion without raising taxes through the roof? I thought that you were sooo in favor of cutting taxes but it looks like you do know what you are gonna do! Can anyone explain this one to me?????

Honestly, I dont think anybody has a "plan" on health care. The government should have never started it anyway and now we are paying for their mistake. The Democrats will never know how Social Programs are eventually going to bankrupt this country and they keep wanting more (Health Care, Social Security, Welfare, etc.). Look at TennCare in Tennessee. TennCare has them literally straped for cash. They got people that dont deserve to be on it and the courts wont let them kick them out of the program. Again, our government acting before they think!

I cannot see how Kerry will lower taxes when he proposes things that will cost assloads of $$$'s.

Bush did a good job at the debate and made "some" great points.
User avatar
Enough
Posts: 14688
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:05 pm
Location: Serendipity
Contact:

Post by Enough »

Freezer-TPF- wrote:
I'm guessing you don't think much of National Review but:
http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/low ... 080840.asp
I trust you will be joining your brethren and be a "conscientious objector" that will be voting for Kerry? :)
At the Republican National Convention, George W. Bush mocked John Kerry's claim of having "conservative values." But what are conservative values? Two of the core principles at the heart of modern conservatism are a belief in the virtue of smaller government and a conviction that government must be accountable to the public. Those principles were enunciated ten years ago in the Contract with America, which helped Republicans take full control of Congress for the first time in four decades. That document sought "the end of government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public's money." In this context, Bush's first term has represented a betrayal of conservative values.

It's not simply a matter of outrageous spending or enlarged government programs--both offenses of which this administration is guilty, as manifested in a 25 percent domestic discretionary spending hike, a half-trillion-dollar Medicare expansion, and the ripping away of free-market agricultural reforms enacted over the past decade. The president continues to pursue tax cuts, as any conservative president would. But a government that cuts taxes and continues to spend ultimately becomes as amoral as one that raises taxes and spends.

Yet the Bush administration's free-spending fiscal record only hints at its larger rejection of conservative principles. The more fundamental betrayal arises from the administration's central focus: an ill-defined "war on terror" that has no determinable endpoint and that is used to justify an unprecedented expansion of executive power. To make matters worse, this administration shows little inclination to demand accountability from those who serve within it. In turn, the Republican Congress--ignoring its 1994 vow to "restore the bonds of trust between the people and their elected representatives"--appears disinclined to check the powers of the executive. Together, these factors endanger the long-term health of the republic.

It is a good thing Bush has an idealistic streak that informs his vision of the world. That idealism leads him to a belief that "freedom is not America's gift to the world; freedom is the Almighty God's gift to each man and woman in this world." But, without demanding accountability from his administration, that messianic zeal is being corrupted, and his policies are lurching out of control. Without a defined, limited overall vision of the war on terrorism and a corresponding commitment to government accountability, Bush can hardly claim to be the champion of "conservative values."
Link

Seriously it was a pretty thought provoking article for me even if I don't come from exactly the same school of thought as the author. Remember bugmenot is your friend! ;)
My blog (mostly photos): Fort Ephemera - My Flickr Photostream

“You only get one sunrise and one sunset a day, and you only get so many days on the planet. A good photographer does the math and doesn’t waste either.” ―Galen Rowell
User avatar
WPD
Posts: 3492
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 1:15 am
Location: The Banana Stand

Post by WPD »

Last night was the only debate I had a chance to fully watch, and because I got my absentee ballot I know now that I will be voting.so I went for it.

For the most part it made me feel more comfortable in my mind that I won;t be voting for Bush, although I still don't like the idea of voting for Kerry.

Bush seemed like he felt the need to make a joke as his intial response to most questions, unless he needed to go back and finish his response to a previous question and I didn't find the jokes made him seem more personable to me.

One example of a joke that I felt went over badly was when he made a crack like "Well, I sure hope its not the administration" in response to the question about rising health care. "I sure hope its not the administration"? I sure hope George has a better grasp on what his administration is doing then to say something like that.

But on the other hand, as someone has mentioned, I found the joke about his wife speaking better english than himself as a more approriate time for a joke.

Looking at Kerry's perfomance, I felt that he was just rehashing what he has already said, although I suppose that is what a presidential candidate was supposed to do. For example, from the pieces I saw of the first debate I seem to remember Kerry talking about the "outsourcing" of the Tora Bora job in almost the exact words he used in the 3rd debate.

One thing I liked about Kerry was he seemed to be trying to talk to us rather then the moderator as Bush seemed to be. Kerry seemed to be trying to win people over while Bush was trying to win over the moderator if that makes any sense. Something else I liked was when Kerry said that he didn't want to force his religious beliefs on anyone else.

When I look at the candidates I can't help but draw comparisons to the people I went to high school with. Bush seems like the guy who wanted to be everyone's friend and ran for student government using the position that he wasn't one of "them" and he was going to be a breath of fresh air in the stagnant student government, then got elected and promptly became one of "them". Kerry on the other hand is the bitchy girl who wanted to be student body president because it would look good on the resume, promised a lot during her "campaign" and did nothing after elected because it wasn't very feasible and she knew it.


Anyways, I've rambled on quite enough so I'll just wrap it up by saying I don't believe half the stuff that either candidate says and/or promises and the other half is probably never going to happen and/or they are lying about it.

So to conclude, I'll vote for the guy whose office is in MD and I drove by a lot while working over the summer. Or not. I haven't decided.


The end. :?:
Dirt
Posts: 11025
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 11:17 am

Post by Dirt »

Considering how the perception is that Iraq is a 'mess', I think the undecided voters want a President that seems competent. GW Bush didn't help himself during these 3 debates.
User avatar
Eco-Logic
Posts: 990
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 11:43 am

Post by Eco-Logic »

Dirt wrote:Considering how the perception is that Iraq is a 'mess', I think the undecided voters want a President that seems competent. GW Bush didn't help himself during these 3 debates.
In the first debate, I would agree, Bush didn't help himself.

Bush won the second debate hands down though. And I seriously think neither had a real upper hand in the third.

WASH.
User avatar
Captain Caveman
Posts: 11687
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:57 am

Post by Captain Caveman »

Eco-Logic wrote: Bush won the second debate hands down though.

WASH.
Well at least he had the decency to wash afterwards.
User avatar
geezer
Posts: 7551
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 1:52 pm
Location: Yeeha!

Post by geezer »

Yankeeman84 wrote:The thing I want to know from Kerry is how is he going to pay for everyone to get health care like the Senators do? If it costs $7700 per person (like it does for a Senator) and lets say there are 280 million people.... that would cost $2.1 trillion. How John are you going to come up with $2.1 trillion without raising taxes through the roof? I thought that you were sooo in favor of cutting taxes but it looks like you do know what you are gonna do! Can anyone explain this one to me?????

Honestly, I dont think anybody has a "plan" on health care. The government should have never started it anyway and now we are paying for their mistake. The Democrats will never know how Social Programs are eventually going to bankrupt this country and they keep wanting more (Health Care, Social Security, Welfare, etc.). Look at TennCare in Tennessee. TennCare has them literally straped for cash. They got people that dont deserve to be on it and the courts wont let them kick
I think much of this contains some very good points -- well, except the part about how the democrats and their social programs are going to BK the country...

But to the other point, a universal health care plan will be expensive -- no doubt about it. A couple of points though -- 1) I think $7700 per person is a bit high. In my company, $792 a month covers a family of four, and individuals are in the $350 range. That adds up to $9504 for a family of four, or $4200 for an individual. Further, if you assume thatthe system will truly be a universal health care system, you can eliminate the current expendatures on medicare/medicaid and various state programs, so you have a vast cost savings there as well.

This is not to say that the cost will be small, but simply to say that a universal system would offset some other, current costs as opposed to simply adding another layer of programs... Maybe it would eliminate the drug benefit W got as well? Who knows?
Dirt
Posts: 11025
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 11:17 am

Post by Dirt »

Eco-Logic wrote:
Dirt wrote:Considering how the perception is that Iraq is a 'mess', I think the undecided voters want a President that seems competent. GW Bush didn't help himself during these 3 debates.
In the first debate, I would agree, Bush didn't help himself.

Bush won the second debate hands down though. And I seriously think neither had a real upper hand in the third.

WASH.
Considering Bush was ahead and everyone thought it was his to lose and Kerry won at least 1, Kerry is ahead.
User avatar
SuperHiro
Posts: 6877
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:00 pm
Location: Seattle, WA
Contact:

Post by SuperHiro »

Yankeeman84 wrote:The thing I want to know from Kerry is how is he going to pay for everyone to get health care like the Senators do? If it costs $7700 per person (like it does for a Senator) and lets say there are 280 million people.... that would cost $2.1 trillion. How John are you going to come up with $2.1 trillion without raising taxes through the roof? I thought that you were sooo in favor of cutting taxes but it looks like you do know what you are gonna do! Can anyone explain this one to me?????

Honestly, I dont think anybody has a "plan" on health care. The government should have never started it anyway and now we are paying for their mistake. The Democrats will never know how Social Programs are eventually going to bankrupt this country and they keep wanting more (Health Care, Social Security, Welfare, etc.). Look at TennCare in Tennessee. TennCare has them literally straped for cash. They got people that dont deserve to be on it and the courts wont let them kick them out of the program. Again, our government acting before they think!

I cannot see how Kerry will lower taxes when he proposes things that will cost assloads of $$$'s.

Bush did a good job at the debate and made "some" great points.
YES! He found us.

Now I can warm up my "HUNH?!" picture.
azek01
Posts: 154
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:20 pm

Post by azek01 »

Bush won the second debate hands down?

I think it was pretty close, but a hands down win?

Are there polls or opinions that back that up?

The major one I have seen was this one.

USAToday Poll Compilation!
User avatar
Fireball
Posts: 4762
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:43 pm

Post by Fireball »

Eco-Logic wrote:Bush won the second debate hands down though. And I seriously think neither had a real upper hand in the third.
I have not seen a single poll that indicates any sort of win in the second debate for Bush. Everyone whose opinion I respect agrees the second and third debates were ties. Only hard core Bush partisans seem to think that the president won either of those two debates.

The only poll of independent/undecided voters that I saw of the second debate indicated a Kerry win. So where's your evidence of this "hands down" Bush win?
Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:17 am
Zarathud: The sad thing is that Barak Obama is a very intelligent and articulate person, even when you disagree with his views it's clear that he's very thoughtful. I would have loved to see Obama in a real debate.
Me: Wait 12 years, when he runs for president. :-)
User avatar
Fireball
Posts: 4762
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:43 pm

Post by Fireball »

Yankeeman84 wrote:The thing I want to know from Kerry is how is he going to pay for everyone to get health care like the Senators do?
Well, for one thing, people will pay premiums and deductibles, based on a sliding scale determined based upon ability to pay. As for other funding resources, go look at his plan. www.johnkerry.com.
Honestly, I dont think anybody has a "plan" on health care.
www.johnkerry.com

It's right there, in PDF form, for you to look at.
Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:17 am
Zarathud: The sad thing is that Barak Obama is a very intelligent and articulate person, even when you disagree with his views it's clear that he's very thoughtful. I would have loved to see Obama in a real debate.
Me: Wait 12 years, when he runs for president. :-)
User avatar
Eco-Logic
Posts: 990
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 11:43 am

Post by Eco-Logic »

Image

The following analysis by Dr. John Goodman and Dr. Devon Herrick of the National Center For Policy Analysis ( www.ncpa.org), a well-known nonprofit, independent public policy research organization, takes a critical look at Kerry's health plan, as well as the "real purpose of this plan":

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st269/

The Case against John Kerry’s Health Plan
NCPA Study
No. 269
Friday, September 10, 2004

I. Executive Summary

Senator John Kerry has proposed a plan to radically reform the U.S. health care system. If he is successful, millions of middle-income families will be enrolled in Medicaid, the federal-state health program for the poor. Millions more will get their insurance through a system of managed competition modeled after the federal employee’s health system and similar to what Hillary Clinton proposed more than a decade ago. Most people would be forced from the private health plans they have today.

The ostensible purpose of Kerry’s proposal is to insure the uninsured. By some estimates as many as 44 million people lack health insurance at any one time. Sen. Kerry’s goal is to insure about two-thirds of them. The effort will be expensive, even by Kerry’s own estimate. We put the price of these reforms in excess of $1 trillion over ten years — an amount equal to almost $1,000 per year for every household in America.

Unlike the Clinton plan, Kerry’s program would not mandate employer-provided health insurance coverage. Instead, it would use economic incentives to induce people to voluntarily insure. But very little of those incentives will actually go to individuals. About 90 percent of the funds will go to state governments, employers and insurance companies. In a nutshell, the Kerry plan would use taxpayer dollars to encourage public and private institutions to persuade individuals to obtain insurance. Among the inducements:

The federal government would pick up the additional cost of insuring Medicaid children if the states expand eligibility and increase enrollment.
The federal government would pay the bulk of catastrophic health expenses if employers offer insurance to all employees and pay at least one-half of the cost.
Additional subsidies would be offered to low-income people who insure through the managed competition system: small business employees, the unemployed, and people aged 55 to 64 years.
And insurance costs would be limited to a percent of family income for everyone else who individually enrolls in the managed competition system.

President Bush has proposed tax relief for people who buy insurance on their own. In stark contrast, Kerry’s tax subsidies are trickle-down — people are supposed to get derivative benefits from checks written to others. Will this approach work?

Moreover, most of the private sector subsidies will go to people who are already insured; and employers will receive subsidies even if they fail to insure a single additional employee. Bottom line: It is entirely possible to spend $1 trillion and achieve no reduction in the uninsured.

Quality of care will suffer under the Kerry proposal. People who go from employer plans to Medicaid will have fewer choices of doctors, longer waits for care and some health care rationing. Those who join the system of managed competition will experience a different problem: Health plans will face perverse incentives to over-provide to the healthy and under-provide to the sick.

The plan will almost certainly lead to a new round of health care inflation. Federal spending alone will increase by more than $100 billion a year. But since there will be no increase in supply, the bulk of this new spending will buy higher prices rather than more health care. To make things worse, individuals will face perverse incentives to over-insure and over-consume.
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st269/

A little more reliable than Mr. Kerry's spinsite.
User avatar
Fireball
Posts: 4762
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:43 pm

Post by Fireball »

Anti-Kerry sites are NOT more reliable than Kerry's own site. What, he's going to lie about his own plan? That's utter bullshit.

One good way to tell when you're dealing with an intellectually vacuous partisan tool? When he expects you to go to someone's ENEMIES to learn about what someone believes instead of going to the person in question.
Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:17 am
Zarathud: The sad thing is that Barak Obama is a very intelligent and articulate person, even when you disagree with his views it's clear that he's very thoughtful. I would have loved to see Obama in a real debate.
Me: Wait 12 years, when he runs for president. :-)
User avatar
Eco-Logic
Posts: 990
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 11:43 am

Post by Eco-Logic »

Fireball1244 wrote:Oh Jesus Fucking Christ. Anti-Kerry sites are NOT more reliable than Kerry's own site. What, he's going to lie about his own plan? That's utter bullshit.

One good way to tell when you're dealing with an intellectually vacuous partisan tool? When he expects you to go to someone's ENEMIES to learn about what someone believes instead of going to the person in question.
You're a class act I tell you, a class act.
User avatar
Eco-Logic
Posts: 990
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 11:43 am

Post by Eco-Logic »

You probably believe Kerry will keep his promise and not raise taxes on anyone who makes under $200,000 too.

Whatever Kirk. I understand we simply don't agree and regret stopping to your level in the other thread.

Carry on as you please.
User avatar
Eco-Logic
Posts: 990
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 11:43 am

Post by Eco-Logic »

And I'd love to hear some examples of how the NCPA is Kerry's enemy.
User avatar
Eco-Logic
Posts: 990
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 11:43 am

Post by Eco-Logic »

azek01 wrote:Bush won the second debate hands down?

I think it was pretty close, but a hands down win?

Are there polls or opinions that back that up?

The major one I have seen was this one.

USAToday Poll Compilation!
Just my opinion, and the opinion of many pundits.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041 ... -1890r.htm
User avatar
CSL
Posts: 6209
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm
Location: Brandon, Manitoba

Post by CSL »

Wait I thought EVERYONE in politics was a lying bastard?

Am I not true Eco-Logic?????

:?:
User avatar
Eco-Logic
Posts: 990
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 11:43 am

Post by Eco-Logic »

CSL wrote:Wait I thought EVERYONE in politics was a lying bastard?

Am I not true Eco-Logic?????

:?:
Classless, classless bastard is what I called Kirk. An opinion I should have kept to myself.

I said nothing about "everyone in politics".
User avatar
Enough
Posts: 14688
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:05 pm
Location: Serendipity
Contact:

Post by Enough »

Eco-Logic wrote:
azek01 wrote:Bush won the second debate hands down?

I think it was pretty close, but a hands down win?

Are there polls or opinions that back that up?

The major one I have seen was this one.

USAToday Poll Compilation!
Just my opinion, and the opinion of many pundits.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041 ... -1890r.htm
The pundits in a Moony owned newspaper sure. But how about some actual data points?

Debate 2

ABC: Kerry wins 44-41

CNN/USA Today Gallup: Kerry wins 47-45

Democracy Corps: Kerry wins 45-37

Or if you wants punditry we gots punditry! Note he actually scores the debate in a pretty cool way and thanks to Bush's lie about not owning a timber company (want wood?) he tips the debate to Kerry.
My blog (mostly photos): Fort Ephemera - My Flickr Photostream

“You only get one sunrise and one sunset a day, and you only get so many days on the planet. A good photographer does the math and doesn’t waste either.” ―Galen Rowell
User avatar
jblank
Posts: 4811
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:55 pm
Location: Bristol, Tennessee
Contact:

Post by jblank »

Eco, you're my friend, and I appreciate your passionate beliefs, but do we really need to start off the new forum calling other members "classless bastards"?
User avatar
Eco-Logic
Posts: 990
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 11:43 am

Post by Eco-Logic »

I'm aware of those polls.

As I said, my opinion and the opinion of many pundits. Some polls show differently I'm sure.

jblank, It was a reaction to his decision to start calling people names that I regret and have since edited.
User avatar
jblank
Posts: 4811
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:55 pm
Location: Bristol, Tennessee
Contact:

Post by jblank »

Eco-Logic wrote:I'm aware of those polls.

As I said, my opinion and the opinion of many pundits. Some polls show differently I'm sure.

jblank, It was a reaction to his decision to start calling people names that I regret and have since edited.
Dont sweat it. We all get emotional once in a while. God knows I am no angel, but I try. :D
Dirt
Posts: 11025
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 11:17 am

Post by Dirt »

Sometimes, people see what they want to see or whatever fits their reality.
Post Reply