OBAMA's huge victory

[bekalc]

Your information is not complete. Therefore it is not correct. I don't blame you because this was the tone of McCain/Palin's campaign. Obama has explained it at least once. He opposed that bill because there were some amendments needed which have been fixed after Obama moved to US senate and left the lllinois state senate. That bill has passed after he left, so he didn't have chance to vote again. He is pro-choice, of course, but not as horrable as you think.

My information is very correct. Obama was head of a committee that helped curtail even a version that specifically said it was not meant to make abortion illegal

Here's some from Fact Check
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html

All I care about is the fact that's how extreme Obama is on abortion.... Can't vote for him sorry.

 

[jennylovskt]

... So they don't care what other countries say, or pretend not to care - or get really defensive, even if they are actually quite moderate in their political and cultural beliefs.

That is exactly the reason which has made themselves isolated and stand on the opposit side of the world. That is why the other countries, not only in Europe, but also in Asia, in Africa, in South America, even within North America - in Canada, people think that Americans in general are arrogant. Obama is not. He seems to understand because of his background, I guess. And he does have a lot of common sense on many things. That is why the world loves him.

how about 8 years already in the White House? you can't tell me she was just hosting tea parties and vaccuuming!

Who knows? I think that the first lady's role is a very loose role. She doesn't need to do anything. If she wants, she could do some good for the country. Besides, Hillary didn't achieve anything as she said she wanted.

 

[jennylovskt]

^ Well, Hilary Clinton's big project as first lady was to work on a comprehensive national health care system. This proved impossible to achieve at the time -- in part because of political opposition by people in government who just didn't like the Clintons.

Are the prospects any better now? I don't think so. Both Senator Obama and Senator McCain gave lip service during the campaign to some sort of government program to help people who cannot afford health care insurance. In my opinion, neither of the two plans has any basis in reality.

The fact of the matter is that the U.S. govenment is broke. Joe Biden was 100% ciorrect when he said that the new President would face monumental problems, the first being to get a handle on the federal budget and national debt.

I don't like the national health care system. Here is my conservative side. But I think if you are in the low income bracket, and don't have health care insurance, this system is very good for you, just like in Canada. With democats majority in Senate and in House, this might be able to achieve in Obama time.

 

[Mathman]

^ Well, we already have Medicare (for old people) and Medicaid (for poor people). The problem is, both programs are drastically underfunded, as is social security (retirement income for old people). All of these programs are heavily mortgaged far into the future.

Barring confiscatory taxes, these programs will simply run out of money. Healthy young working people will not be willing to give, say, half their paycheck to keep these programs afloat. So in my opinion the first order of business is to get our financial house in order, before embarking on more new programs that we have no money to pay for.

Just my opinion. I wouldn't be in Mr. Obama's shoes for all the tea in China.

 

[Bennett]

The US is the only developed country without a universal healthcare. Having 20% of the ppl without insurance is simply incredible. This is not a matter of a personal choice, but a forced choice by the system in the larger society. The thing is that healthcare is so expensive and the income criteria are so strict that there are a large # of ppl who are not poor enough to be eligible to receive Medicaid but are too poor to get insured from other sources. I hope that the new goverment has some better ideas to deal with it.

 

[jennylovskt]

^ Well, we already have Medicare (for old people) and Medicaid (for poor people). The problem is, both programs are drastically underfunded, as is social security (retirement income for old people). All of these programs are heavily mortgaged far into the future.

Barring confiscatory taxes, these programs will simply run out of money. Healthy young working people will not be willing to give, say, half their paycheck to keep these programs afloat. So in my opinion the first order of business is to get our financial house in order, before embarking on more new programs that we have no money to pay for.

Just my opinion. I wouldn't be in Mr. Obama's shoes for all the tea in China.

True. US has to get out of this financial crisis before doing anything. So at least the next two years, the health care system won't change.

Obama wants to raise taxes on corperations is a way to reduce the deficit. How about to raise higher taxes on tobacco companies. The money has to come from somewhere. The tax cut during the Bush administration actually did nothing good, in my opinion. That little money that each individual received was so insignificant. If the government kept that money, it could be used in many good programs, such as education.

 

[Bennett]

^ Well, we already have Medicare (for old people) and Medicaid (for poor people). The problem is, both programs are drastically underfunded, as is social security (retirement income for old people). All of these programs are heavily mortgaged far into the future.

Barring confiscatory taxes, these programs will simply run out of money. Healthy young working people will not be willing to give, say, half their paycheck to keep these programs afloat. So in my opinion the first order of business is to get our financial house in order, before embarking on more new programs that we have no money to pay for.

Just my opinion. I wouldn't be in Mr. Obama's shoes for all the tea in China.

I do not think that young working ppl have to give half their paycheck to keep these programs afloat. I do not think that the US is too poor to help them when all the other developed countries in the world with tighter budges have a universal healthcare. Tax money is always there and the way they use it can be changeable without collecting more. The money that was spent on the war could have been allocated to help uninsured ppl to receive health care, for example. And this is just a matter of priority and active choice.

 

[antmanb]

^ Well, we already have Medicare (for old people) and Medicaid (for poor people). The problem is, both programs are drastically underfunded, as is social security (retirement income for old people). All of these programs are heavily mortgaged far into the future.

Barring confiscatory taxes, these programs will simply run out of money. Healthy young working people will not be willing to give, say, half their paycheck to keep these programs afloat. So in my opinion the first order of business is to get our financial house in order, before embarking on more new programs that we have no money to pay for.

Just my opinion. I wouldn't be in Mr. Obama's shoes for all the tea in China.

Just out of interest what are the income tax rates and brackets in the US?

If anyone is interested the rates in the UK are (roughly) as follows:

Personal allowance (no tax charged) on the first £6,035 (around US$9,540)
After this from £0 to £34,800 (around US$55,000) the rate is 20% (dropped for this tax year from 22%)
Over £34,800 (around US$55,000) the rate is 40%

Ant

 

[antmanb]

I do not think that young working ppl have to give half their paycheck to keep these programs afloat. I do not think that the US is too poor to help them when all the other developed countries in the world with tighter budges have a universal healthcare. Tax money is always there and the way they use it can be changeable without collecting more. The money that was spent on the war could have been allocated to help uninsured ppl to receive health care, for example. And this is just a matter of priority and active choice.

While i do agree with the point you're making, speaking from my perspective, my recieved wisdom (which could therefore be wrong!) is that the countries with most advanced public healthcare are the scandinavian countries - ones where the highest income tax bracket is approaching 70%.

In addition to this - certainly here in the UK taxes on the sale of tabacco products are supposedly (and i say that because i seriously doubt that our under-funded National Health Service recieves even a quarter of the tax charged on cigarettes) funnelled back into the National Health Service. Considering that a packet of cigarettes in this country costs over £6 (roughly US$9.50), compare that with the prices in the rest of Europe and the US.

Ant

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Abortion and Same Sex Marriage are much more important issues than lying about Weapons of Mass Destruction and the killings it brought to thousands of innocent people. Yeah? I'm not concerned about abortion or two people who want to get married. .

IMO, Barack will learn quickly what he doesn't already know.

 

[ManyCairns]

But some American friends really told me that I just should keep my mouth shut, when talking on the Internet, when talking to American students at my university... That's why I stopped arguing mid-September on these boards. People are just proud of their countries, and lots of people in the US, and not just the evangelical ones, are proud of being religious, of being conservative... So they don't care what other countries say, or pretend not to care - or get really defensive, even if they are actually quite moderate in their political and cultural beliefs.

Please don't keep your mouth shut, Medusa. Not all Americans have an extreme "America first, world be damned" attitude, although many do. And not all Americans agreed with Bush's justification for invading Iraq, that we can preemptively attack another country just because we believe (or our leaders try to say so) that another country might some day in the future be a threat to us.
(Along with other blatantly false justifications such as the supposed WMD.)

That arrogance made America and the world LESS safe, not more. You just don't go around attacking other countries and killing innocent civilians because you want to ... oh, right, unless you are Bush and need a war to divert the attention of the average citizen and make him or her afraid to vote for your opposition.

Bush also made sure he and his cronies are economically secure for their lifetimes and their children's lifetimes (defense contracts, tax breaks for his oil cronies, support for pharmaceuticals and other big businesses, etc.) but let the rest of us go to hell. Plenty of "punishment" for all of us to keep the fiercemaos of the world happy. [sarcasm on that last statement]

Ok, rant over, I just have so much anger over the mess the Bush administration got us into, economically, internationally, etc. ...



Back to Obama ... it's clear he's very intelligent and skilled, as well as charismatic, and I find it hard to think that's a bad thing. I would argue he has more experience than Palin on the federal level, and Palin might well have been called upon to run things had McCain become ill or incapacitated. Also, Obama was savvy enough to pick Biden as a running mate, suggesting he will know how to choose advisors and a cabinet who will complement his strengths and have knowledge and experience in areas where he may be relatively inexperienced.

I don't think Obama is a messiah who is going to save the world singlehandedly. But if, like McCain himself urged, we all try to stand behind him and find workable solutions and compromises, we may just be able to turn this country around. The last years haven't been great for any but the uber-rich. I hope we can get back on the road to prosperity and international respect, as well as the SELF-respect that comes from being a part of the solution as much as we can.

I'm not going to ruin the first real optimism I've felt in years with unrealistic expectations for the future, but I do think it is undeniable that there was a peaceful "revolution" in American politics Tuesday. Similar to but I think even bigger than Reagan's "dawning of a new day" back in 1980, which I remember quite well.

 

[decker]

But Hillary Clinton's proposal is not even remotely what Barack Obama or John McCain proposed. Clinton actually proposed a single-payer (government-owned and operated) system. I'm sure we all remember how well that went over!

Obama proposed that those of us who have insurance can go merrily on our way. Those who don't would be granted access to a group/pool (and thus dramatically more affordable premiums) for a plan like that enjoyed by federal employees. The least of these would continue to have their premium paid by the government.

I dunno. On the one hand, the insurance and the care would still be in the private market. The government would not provide treatment or make treatment decisions. But I like simple. This doesn't sound simple to me.

John McCain's plan definitely was a joke. He would give me a $5K tax credit to purchase a plan that is going to cost me $12K on the open market. And that's a credit, not a refund. Or if I want to keep my (perfectly good, for an HMO anyway) work-based plan, I'd have to pay tax on it.

My brother who is a doctor swears he has seen data showing the government could provide a $1 million health care account to every man, woman and child in the nation for less $$$ than we now spend on government-administered plans. A $1 million limit is pretty much standard in the private market (unless you're a federal employee). You'd have to back up claims with receipts. But no other government meddling.

On the one hand, it sounds crazy. On the other hand, I know first hand from working in public health how bloated the bureaucracy is for existing government administered plans.

Susan

 

[Tonichelle]

I don't have insurance, I pay out of pocket. I don't mind. *shrugs* and I'm far from one of those "rich Alaskans" that supposedly all live up here (most of the "rich Alaskans" don't live here)

I don't know about other states, but the state of Alaska will pay for any child up to age 21 for their healthcare. All the parents need to do is apply for the coverage. It doesn't send a social worker banging down the door or anything like that. IIRC, pregnant women can also be on the plan, and stay on it for so many months after the birth.

Sometimes I think instead of "big government" controlling every little detail, the STATES should be the ones to take care of most of these "programs." Our Senators and Representative(s) could then fight for money to be sent to that state to be used in that way, but the state themselves can better know what their people need.

Welfare and other government run programs are easily abused, which is what we've seen for decades. The program was a good idea, but it's been exploited. Again I'm sure it's different in other areas, but here in Alaska we have tons of people on welfare who shouldn't be. I personally think that if the family can afford to buy big screen tvs, booze, and ciggarettes because the gov't pays for the food then it's time they get off welfare. It's supposed to help people get on their feet, not create a lifestyle.

 

[bekalc]

Abortion and Same Sex Marriage are much more important issues than lying about Weapons of Mass Destruction and the killings it brought to thousands of innocent people. Yeah? I'm not concerned about abortion or two people who want to get married. .

IMO, Barack will learn quickly what he doesn't already know.

I never supported the Iraq war because I'm pro life and that extends to more than just a baby in the womb. But no offense, if you believe that baby is a living being, it's a HUGE issue for you. I guess in my mind I'd say millions of deaths (which kind of trumps thousands)..

This being said once again I was heavily against the Iraq war because it was morally wrong. Let me ask you is it right for Mr. Obama to say that we invaded and caused pain to the Iraqi's, and then to go on to say that the Iraqi's should pay for their own reconstruction. As bad as our economy is, I think we should pay up the dollars quite frankly. We should call it reperations.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Can anyone tell me what is so wrong with socialized medicine?

I just can not say universal health care is socialized medicine and if it is, so what?

Is it correct to watch people die because they can not afford a doctor and medicine?

 

[Tonichelle]

I'd be fine with it if I knew it wouldn't be abused. But like with every other social program in the US the wrong people get the most help. I can't afford healthcare because I don't have a steady job while going to school. I rely on my parents or whatever. Because I'm not working - and it's not because I'm disabled - I don't scream about the unfairness because I'm not doing anything to change my current situation (I do better when I'm not working and going to school. too much personal stress).

There are others that just don't work and scream the world owes them something, they're not unable to work, they just don't want to. Sorry, don't think I should have to pay for them to live that life. Our right is the PURSUIT of happiness, not the actual deal. If your goal is to be fat and happy and unemployeed, more power to you, but I'm not paying for it. (but I am in the case of welfare and my taxes)

 

[sillylionlove]

Socialized medicine will never work in the US...the reason...money. Doctors don't want to work for what the government is willing to pay them or reimburse them. Try and find a doctor that takes straight Medicaid (the welfare kind and not the welfare kind that is linked to an HMO). You won't find too many...they don't get paid enough. That's why it won't work.



While I agree with Toni when she posted that states should take care of these things.....the problem is that many states (New Jersey, California, New York just to name a few) are deeply in debt and can't afford to do much of anything.

In fact, Philadelphia is trying to prevent from going bankrupt that yesterday they announced that they will not plow secondary streets in the winter unless it snows more then 12 inches!! They are closing 63 out of 72 pools in the summer and they are closing 12 libaries. Can't wait to see the crime rate go up. The city of New York announced that they are raising prices on everything and that they are cancelling a police academy class of 1100 hundred recruits becuase they just don't have the money.

Now......if the federal government stops going to war, stops trying to bail out and send aid to other countries...I bet we would have a huge surplus in the budget every year to help every American. It really bothers me that we help poor, starving and sick people in what seems like every third world country but yet there are people in the US that don't have health care, or food or housing or anything. I don't get it?????!!!!????

Ok enough of my soap box.......

 

[Tonichelle]

Like I said - I think the fed. government shouldn't be in charge of the healthcare or social plan for every citizen. We're supposed to be 50 seperate but equal states. Those states that are in debt should petition for fed. help to get out of debt (once, I guess, the feds get out of debt lol) and then figure out a way to get their economy back up to par...

if it takes people voting in someone who will go up against both of the main parties and reworking things (ala Sarah Palin in Alaska) then that's what it takes... change doesn't just need to happen in the white house for things to suddenly turn around for the better. it's probably the smallest step we could have taken.

 

[Ptichka]

I don't have insurance, I pay out of pocket. I don't mind. *shrugs* and I'm far from one of those "rich Alaskans" that supposedly all live up here (most of the "rich Alaskans" don't live here)

I have insurance. Earlier this year I had a baby. Had to have a cesarean, meaning I stayed in the hospital for 4 days, but, thank G-d, no other complications either for me or for my son. Still, our out of pocket expenses added up to FIVE! THOUSAND! DOLLARS! Yes, you heard me right - that's what we paid IN ADDITION to what our insurance did. Sigh...

In any case, I truly believe that we can only have universal healthcare once we get those costs under control. They are ridiculous! A friend of mine, who also had a cesarean, saw a charge of $500 for pharmaceuticals. Well, she only took something like $20 worth of drugs! Each morning the pediatrician examined my newborn son, it racked up something like $100. I mean, we're talking here of a 5 minute visit to the hospital room! McCain's plan for tying reimbursement to results would have been a step in the right direction. I am not sure how exactly it would have worked, and it certainly wouldn't solve all problems, but its would've been a good start IMHO.

 

[Mathman]

Just out of interest what are the income tax rates and brackets in the US?

If anyone is interested the rates in the UK are (roughly) as follows:

Personal allowance (no tax charged) on the first £6,035 (around US$9,540)
After this from £0 to £34,800 (around US$55,000) the rate is 20% (dropped for this tax year from 22%)
Over £34,800 (around US$55,000) the rate is 40%

Here is the U.S. federal income tax schedule.

Tax Rate ----- Single -------------- Married Filing Jointly

10% -- up to $8,025 ------------------- up to $16,050

15% -- $8,025 - $32,550 ----------- $16,050 - $65,100

25% -- $32,550 - $78,850 ---------- $65,100 - $131,450

28% -- $78,850 - $164,550 --------- $131,450 - $200,300

33% -- $164,550 - $357,700 -------- $200,300 - $357,700

35% -- Over $357,700 ------------- Over $357,700

There are a slew of exemptions, adjustments, etc.

This does not include paying into the social security and medicare funds. (These are not "taxes." Just money taken out of your paycheck and given to the government to run federal programs. The government, acting on our behalf, "invests" these funds by "loaning" them to the United States treasury. The treasury pays back the loan from taxes it hopes to collect in the future. )

The total tax burden including state and local taxes varies from state to state but is about 33% for the average taxpayer.