Why You Should Still Vote for Barack Obama

[TerraPrime]

I do agree that this health bill does no real good to anyone at all, and may wind up costing us more.

Hmm... what?

It may wind up costing us more in the long run, depending on how the mandate lawsuits play out, but doing no real good to anyone? That's... so Fox.

[The Progressive]

Again Howdyphillip, how do you propose getting a single payor system when more than half the country is against it?

It's cheap stunt and intellectual cowardice to trash the compromise without offering any realistic replacement. We already got the Repubs for that, lol.

[The Progressive]

Hmm... what?

It may wind up costing us more in the long run, depending on how the mandate lawsuits play out, but doing no real good to anyone? That's... so Fox.

Seriously, that's such ignorant bullshit; but I'm hoping that howdyphillip made a simply exxaggeration due to being misinformed instead of outright lying.

Here's an example of benefits young adults are getting under the ACA, and I'm sure trackerneil has already linked to some really resource site earlier:

http://www.raisingwomensvoices.net/raisingwomensvoices-blog/2011/6/1/what-does-the-affordable-care-act-aca-mean-for-young-adults.html

[Howdyphillip]

Hmm... what?

It may wind up costing us more in the long run, depending on how the mandate lawsuits play out, but doing no real good to anyone? That's... so Fox.

I am a little harsh with the statement that this bill will not help anyone. What I am trying to say is tht the bill didn't begin to address the very real health care crisis that we have in this country. All it really did was pour money into the insurance system that is failing miserably. It is in the best interest of an insurace company to not provide health care. That is also why i am a strong proponent of a single payer system.

The statement in and of itself may be Fox, but the idealogy and solutions provided are anything but.

Again Howdyphillip, how do you propose getting a single payor system when more than half the country is against it?

It's cheap stunt and intellectual cowardice to trash the compromise without offering any realistic replacement. We already got the Repubs for that, lol.

A good start would be to not allow lobbyist buy and sell candidates to run in our elections. I don't think that 50% of the US population is truly opposed to their best interest. I think that they are being sold a bill of goods.

and... there I go derailing the thread.... I will shut up now and discuss this elsewhere...

[Shryke]

Yes, I care about equal pay. It's important. My reading of that act is that it simply extended the statute of limitations.. it did not require fair pay in any way and it seems disengenous to infer that it does. (But I am not a lawyer and I may be reading it wrong.)

The statute of limitations is a huge deal. Before this, discrimination was perfectly easy to get away with as long as you kept it hidden long enough because the "timer" started with the first act of discrimination.

But two wars trumps it. Not even close. To be honest, nothing matters in the face of two wars and hundreds of thousands of civilians dead. Not health care. Not the economy. Not anything.

1 war now. And I'd say the economy and health care are far more important to more people.

[TerraPrime]

I am a little harsh with the statement that this bill will not help anyone. What I am trying to say is tht the bill didn't begin to address the very real health care crisis that we have in this country. All it really did was pour money into the insurance system that is failing miserably. It is in the best interest of an insurace company to not provide health care. That is also why i am a strong proponent of a single payer system.

The statement in and of itself may be Fox, but the idealogy and solutions provided are anything but.

Most, if not almost all, of the left-leaning elements of the Democratic Party has been saying this during the formative stages of the ACA, that the half-way measure is not going to address the fundamental problem of healthcare in this country. However, Lev's point to you remains: the country as a whole has not the stomach for a single-payer system, no matter how much the leftists want it.

It seems peculiarly perverse to blame Obama for not going far enough in reform when your (and mine, too) preference will pretty much demand that he goes against the wish of the majority of this country. I think there's room to criticize Obama for letting the GOP frame the debate and derail it with ridiculous strawmen like "death panel" and such, but nothing I've read so far says to me that Obama himself is opposed to a single-payer system. I think he's working with the political reality of our time and he cobbled together a band-aid for a severe problem. It is not a long-term solution, nor is it a very effective solution, but that's what you get when the effective long-term solution is something that the majority of the voters reject outright.

So, really, pinning the failure of a single-payer system materializing in the U.S. on Obama is a bit missing the target, far as I can tell.

[Guest Raidne]

If the Mandate fails as unconstitutional what is to counter that increased price pressure?

IMO, if the mandate is unconstitutional we will have to go back to the drawing board. I do not think they will find the mandate to be constitutional. I think they will hold that Congress does not have to explicitly state the authority for a bill for it to be constitutional and they'll uphold under the tax and spend clause, with the enforcement mechanism of the mandate found to substantively be a tax.

Yes, I care about equal pay. It's important. My reading of that act is that it simply extended the statute of limitations.. it did not require fair pay in any way and it seems disengenous to infer that it does. (But I am not a lawyer and I may be reading it wrong.)

I remember when the Ledbetter decision came out - I think I even had a thread on it - because it was catastrophic. It set a 180 day SoL time limit for the discriminatory act, which just isn't the reality of how these cases happen. So in what I said earlier, where someone hires in at $60K and someone else hires in at $75K (woman/man black/white), you have to sue when that discrepency first happened, or when you first "should have known." Prior to that, every paycheck was a discriminatory act and kept the statute of limitations open. As it should be, because this stuff is hard to find out.

So even if there was a memo from your boss saying "let's lowball Sue since she's probably a second income worker as a woman anyway and will take it," you'd be screwed unless you found that memo within 180 days, even though your company was still, every two weeks, paying you less for that reason.

Because of the realities of pay discrimination lawsuits, it basically back-door ended equal pay protection, in the way that only a slimeball Court can. The Ledbetter Act fixed that. It was the single most important campaign promise on legislation that Obama made for me during the election.

But two wars trumps it. Not even close. To be honest, nothing matters in the face of two wars and hundreds of thousands of civilians dead. Not health care. Not the economy. Not anything.

Q.E.D. People have to be alive as a prerequisite to even care about this stuff. We did pull out of Iraq in a fashion utterly consistent with the campaign promises, OTOH. Don't know about Afghanistan. And Obama didn't get us into either situation, although I'm sure there are people who might have handled it better, perhaps someone with more foreign policy experience. I will give Obama enough credit, however, to say that I doubt he was tempted to keep us there longer in order to provide continuing funding for military contractors, which is more than I can say for Bush.

[lynxx]

Obama came into office with two big leadership problems.

First, he had a broad base of very young and naive voters who had no notion of how the government works. He campaigned on a platform of "Change!". Several weeks after taking office, those supporters did not see any great change and became disillusioned.

Second, he was a freshman Senator and did not have time to forge those working relationships on the Hill that oil the wheels of government. That's what politics, "the Art of the Deal", is all about.

I think he did very well in Egypt and Libya in keeping the U.S. officially uninvolved but supporting behind the scenes and collaborating with the U.N. forces. For the first time in ages nobody sneered that "the U.S. thinks it's the world's policeman". Others complain that he did too little; too bad they don't understand subtle.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Lynxx,

U.S. planes were bombing Libya. That's not "offically uninvolved". That's "involved".

[TerraPrime]

I will give Obama enough credit, however, to say that I doubt he was tempted to keep us there longer in order to provide continuing funding for military contractors, which is more than I can say for Bush.

More importantly, given McCain's responses on this issue, I'd say with some level of certainty that an alternate reality where McCain won would have given us a worse outcome on this issue.

I would further argue that it is neither ethical nor responsible for the U.S. to completely withdraw troops in a way that many seem to advocate. The invasion of Iraq was built on filmsy and terribly bad excuses, but we did invade the country, tore apart the political and physical infrastructure, re-ignited sectarian strife, and inflamed tension in the region. To simply say "oops, we shouldn't have been here in the first place" and then pack everything and go is simply irresponsible, and a compounding of the error to invade in the first place.

[Howdyphillip]

Most, if not almost all, of the left-leaning elements of the Democratic Party has been saying this during the formative stages of the ACA, that the half-way measure is not going to address the fundamental problem of healthcare in this country. However, Lev's point to you remains: the country as a whole has not the stomach for a single-payer system, no matter how much the leftists want it.

It seems peculiarly perverse to blame Obama for not going far enough in reform when your (and mine, too) preference will pretty much demand that he goes against the wish of the majority of this country. I think there's room to criticize Obama for letting the GOP frame the debate and derail it with ridiculous strawmen like "death panel" and such, but nothing I've read so far says to me that Obama himself is opposed to a single-payer system. I think he's working with the political reality of our time and he cobbled together a band-aid for a severe problem. It is not a long-term solution, nor is it a very effective solution, but that's what you get when the effective long-term solution is something that the majority of the voters reject outright.

So, really, pinning the failure of a single-payer system materializing in the U.S. on Obama is a bit missing the target, far as I can tell.

And here is the discussion comes back again full circle. If we are in agreement that the ACA doesn't begin to address the real need of health care in our country, then how can we hold it up as a success for the Obama Presidency. I find that mandatory purchase of insurance is a horrible failure.

It is this and the signing of the NDAA that have me considering not voting for Obama

[Verboten]

It puzzles me as well. Public health looks such an obvious necessity, yet many Americans seem to believe that it is some sort of waste of public money.

I don't believe many other countries can make sense of that mentality.

Agreed.

HP,

In my humble opinion we have two options deregulate or go with single payor. The hybrid system under the ACA will cause costs to spike, particularly if the mandate fails such that there aren't enough healthy people to properly pool the cost of those with pre-existing conditions.

Singapore and Sweden think otherwise. They both have hybrid systrms, i believe.

[The Progressive]

A good start would be to not allow lobbyist buy and sell candidates to run in our elections

That's just dumb. Why should I gave up my ability to advocate to political offices holders about issues that I care about?

Really now, that's not even a half-assed answer to the question you keep dodging: how would you accomplish single-payer system when more than half the country is against it?

Lol, anyhow clearly you don't want to face the difficult quesion and opted for stupid soundbites so I'll give up.

It's like tilting against windmill. Some people just can't understand the concept of expanding risk-pooling to reduce cost, successful compromise against overwhelming opposition, and incremental victories.

Clearly what we need is a king who just wave his/her hand, declare single-payer to be the law of the land, and do away with things like democracy and check-and-balance.

[Tears of Lys]

But, but...this is what I would like the conversation to be about!

What did you think of the article? I just thought it was mind-blowing to get such an unvarnished account of life on the campaign trail, particularly McCain2000, which has always been a total enigma to me. What did you think about Wallace's thoughts on McCain after seeing what happened in 2008? Do you think the thing with Chris was staged? (I actually do.) Do you think Obama's campaign is the same way? That if we saw his campaign in that way it would look just as bad? Would it have in 2008?

Plus Wallace was such an amazing writer.

I enjoyed it! Sometimes, though, it seemed like it could have benefited from an edit here and there. You know, like when someone's in love with their own writing? :cough:Bakker:cough: :) On the whole, it was a fascinating glimpse into the modern political campaign. Frankly, I was leaning toward voting for McCain in the early days. Of course, there were things I didn't like that kept on popping up, but what really put the nail in his coffin, figuratively speaking, was when THAT WOMAN was chosen as his running mate. I figured anyone who could make such an earth-shatteringly terrible decision could never make a good president.

As to some of the points addressed in Wallace's article, I think being a "straight-talker" and "chillingly manipulative," strangely enough, aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. Whether it makes for a good president is the $64K question. Maybe that's what it takes. :dunno:

To attain a goal, one must be able to subdue their nature - otherwise, we'd all be lying around shooting the breeze and drinking, right?

ETA: Raids, I think you mis-named this thread. It should have been "The Psychology of Power" or some other jazz.

[Expecto Patronum]

Are people actually discussing this on this site? *sighs* I thought this was for fun.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Are people actually discussing this on this site? *sighs* I thought this was for fun.

Wow, do you normally come into someone's house and start criticizing the decor?

If you don't like the discussion feel free to let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

[Tears of Lys]

But, but...this is what I would like the conversation to be about!

What did you think of the article? I just thought it was mind-blowing to get such an unvarnished account of life on the campaign trail, particularly McCain2000, which has always been a total enigma to me. What did you think about Wallace's thoughts on McCain after seeing what happened in 2008? Do you think the thing with Chris was staged? (I actually do.) Do you think Obama's campaign is the same way? That if we saw his campaign in that way it would look just as bad? Would it have in 2008?

Re: Possible staging of "Chris" - yeah, I do too. The circumstances of it are hard to ignore.

Do I think Obama's campaign is the same way? Let's just say I wouldn't be surprised. If you'd have asked me that when I was younger, I'd have been shocked and appalled. But the scales have fallen from my eyes, let's just say.

[TerraPrime]

And here is the discussion comes back again full circle. If we are in agreement that the ACA doesn't begin to address the real need of health care in our country, then how can we hold it up as a success for the Obama Presidency. I find that mandatory purchase of insurance is a horrible failure.

It is this and the signing of the NDAA that have me considering not voting for Obama

But it is solving some of our current healthcare problems, even if it's not solving all of it. This is the part that people on your side cannot seem to acknowledge. We have a ban on recission of services, a ban on denying coverage based on prior conditions, and an extension of healthcare to adult-age children. These are symptoms of a failing system, so ameliorating these does not in itself solve the real issues, but it is a form of treatment so that fewer people have to go without being able to afford regular healthcare. This issue is not just an ideological one, but one that has pragmatic implications. I'd rather see us gradually crawl towards a single-payer system, with minor victories (like these) along the way, than to see the entire effort stymied because we can't get enough support to enact a single-payer system, all the while having people excluded from receiving healthcare.

The failure of Obama in this case is not that the ACA was passed, or that the ACA didn't do enough. Rather, it is that he seemed to have lost control of the issue for a period of time (circa summer 2009) when he attempted to incorporate bipartisan input into the reform. It seemed like an act of someone lacking in political adroitness as well as an act of someone being taken for a chum, politically.

And the NDAA - didn't that turn out to be a manufactured soundbite using his words out of context? Or am I getting two different issues mixed up?

[Howdyphillip]

A good start would be to not allow lobbyist buy and sell candidates to run in our elections

That's just dumb. Why should I gave up my ability to advocate to political offices holders about issues that I care about?

Really now, that's not even a half-assed answer to the question you keep dodging: how would you accomplish single-payer system when more than half the country is against it?

Lol, anyhow clearly you don't want to face the difficult quesion and opted for stupid soundbites so I'll give up.

It's like tilting against windmill. Some people just can't understand the concept of expanding risk-pooling to reduce cost, successful compromise against overwhelming opposition, and incremental victories.

Clearly what we need is a king who just wave his/her hand, declare single-payer to be the law of the land, and do away with things like democracy and check-and-balance.

Sorry you feel like that election reform is a dumb topic. I happen to be on fire for the idea... There is also Constitutional amendments out there touting the same thing.

http://www.scribd.co...ampaign-Finance

I personally am not in favor of this amendment as it reads. I would like to see elections last no more than two months, and all finances come from public funds.

Look,

I had very similar conversations in 2008 with other friends on the left, and my side of the argument was what yours seems to be. Obama wasn't pefect for what I wanted to happen with this country, but he appeared to be closer to my ideals then any other candidate that was ever placed before us. I encouraged people to vote for him rather than voting independent.

Now, four years later, almost all of the issues that we wanted addressed have either been completely brushed off, handled inadequtely, or in some cases like the NDAA the exact opposite of what we wanted. I see very little difference in the way our governement funtions under Obama, and how it ran under Bush.

I will in all likelyhood grind my teeth and pull the lever for Barak Obama again, but having my concerns addressed as just tilting against a windmill by a fellow liberal just seems to be disheartening.

But it is solving some of our current healthcare problems, even if it's not solving all of it. This is the part that people on your side cannot seem to acknowledge. We have a ban on recission of services, a ban on denying coverage based on prior conditions, and an extension of healthcare to adult-age children. These are symptoms of a failing system, so ameliorating these does not in itself solve the real issues, but it is a form of treatment so that fewer people have to go without being able to afford regular healthcare. This issue is not just an ideological one, but one that has pragmatic implications. I'd rather see us gradually crawl towards a single-payer system, with minor victories (like these) along the way, than to see the entire effort stymied because we can't get enough support to enact a single-payer system, all the while having people excluded from receiving healthcare.

The failure of Obama in this case is not that the ACA was passed, or that the ACA didn't do enough. Rather, it is that he seemed to have lost control of the issue for a period of time (circa summer 2009) when he attempted to incorporate bipartisan input into the reform. It seemed like an act of someone lacking in political adroitness as well as an act of someone being taken for a chum, politically.

And the NDAA - didn't that turn out to be a manufactured soundbite using his words out of context? Or am I getting two different issues mixed up?

Very well put... If I do wind up voting Democrat rather than independent, this will be my primary reasons.

and no... The NDAA is a very real bill that was signed by Obama...

[TerraPrime]

Now, four years later, almost all of the issues that we wanted addressed have either been completely brushed off, handled inadequtely, or in some cases like the NDAA the exact opposite of what we wanted. I see very little difference in the way our governement funtions under Obama, and how it ran under Bush.

This is not about just you, but other lefties who have said similar things.

I can accept that Obama has not been left enough on several issues, including the civil liberties (surveillance) and economic plan (such a wasted opportunity to reform corporate/finance laws). I can even accept that in a few cases he should have spent his political capital for a more liberal outcome (closing Gitmo, e.g.). I will also agree that despite the few successes, the first term for Obama has been a bit of a disappointment.

But to say that there's no difference between the Obama administration and W. Bush's? That's just crazy talk. W. Bush gave us things like "Faith-based initiatives" and a federal income tax rebate and a conditional clause for US Foreign Aids linked to abortion. His own EPA head resigned over the disgust at what the agency has become, along the way. The Niger-uranium non-intelligence? The Palme outing? Holy shit just thinking about all of that makes me angry all over again.

Yeah, so go ahead and be dissatisfied with Obama. I'll even join you. But for the love of dogs, don't try to make it sound like he's the same as W. Bush.

ETA: Oh, and Sotomayor and Kagen vs Roberts and Alito. Ali-fucking-to!!!