Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Mandate This!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread		 This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
peoli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 12:48 AM
Original message
Mandate This!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Unsane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 12:49 AM
Response to Original message
1. Agreed. Obama has the most common sense healthcare plan.
People dont want government telling them what to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peoli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 12:55 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. I certainly dont want to forced by the government to buy anything. I dont believe anyone does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
water Donating Member (504 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 01:33 AM
Response to Reply #2
13. Isn't that what taxes are?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
avaistheone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 12:56 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. In reality, Edwards has the best health care plan. Why?
because Edward's plan will transition us to Single-Payer universal coverage and will eventually get
the health insurance companies out of the picture while making health care more affordable for all of us.


This plan beats all the other candidates health care plans.


BTW one of largest lobbyist groups giving big bucks to Obama are the health insurance companies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lautremont Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 12:57 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Why the transition?
Why not just go directly to single-payer, universal health care?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 01:08 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. A DUer from Canada said it took several years to transition to the plan they
have now -- working out all the bumps and problems.

I think we need to work with what we HAVE now in order to get everybody insured -- that's our immediate concern. I fear if we tried to implement it immediately, it would be pretty chaotic. Although I think Gravel and Kucinich have plans that could be started right away.

What concerns me about our three candidates, none of them seems to be saying theirs is a TRANSITIONAL plan. Just THE NEW plan.

Hillary said there are three options, one being Single Payer, and then she just focused on her plan -- never returned to single payer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
avaistheone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 01:44 AM
Response to Reply #7
17. One infrastructure needs to be built.
Another will be dismantled, as people see the better value is the Single Payer universal care plan is the better plan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 01:12 AM
Response to Reply #3
8. Obama's has a public plan as well
Edited on Tue Jan-22-08 01:12 AM by sandnsea
His also requires every single insurance company to offer a basic set of benefits at a fair rate, he actually regulates insurance companies.

And Obama does not take money from lobbyists. The money in question is broken down by occupation and there is no way to not have money from recorded from various industries, Edwards does too. If he were winning, he'd have millions from various industries just like he did in 2003.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
avaistheone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 01:20 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. Obama takes money from Lobbyists, Edwards does not.
Both Obama and Edwards may be recepients of inadvertant advertising from 527 groups. But by law candidates can not and do not control these groups, nor can the 527 groups advocate for a particular candidate.

Under federal election law, coordination between an election campaign and a 527 group is not allowed.

So when Obama says Edwards takes lobbyist money it is not true. And Obama knows that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 01:30 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. You're just plain wrong
Obama does not take money from lobbyists or PACs. Donations are broken into industry so if a local fundraiser is a nurse and she raises $10,000 from her friends and sends it all in, it's counted as health industry donations. Not every penny of the donations came through lobbying fundraisers and Edwards well knows it.

527's have nothing to do with nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
avaistheone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 01:32 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. Then why does Obama keep raising 527s when it is a non-starter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 01:52 AM
Response to Reply #12
19. Because they have no limits on their funding
And can be used to launch attacks and if voters don't know the connection, then they won't question the credibility of the attack.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
avaistheone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 01:42 AM
Response to Reply #11
16. Here's Obama's record. He is taking money from Big Pharma
and the insurance industry too.


Obama $261,784

Edwards$ 15,000

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=H04


So who is really beholden to the drug companies Obama or Edwards? BTW This does not include the money Obama has taken from the Insurance industry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 01:50 AM
Response to Reply #16
18. Maybe Edwards can be bought for $15,000
Maybe he's cheap.

If Edwards were winning, that $260,000 number would be in his column because it's money from individuals, not lobbyists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
avaistheone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 01:53 AM
Response to Reply #18
20. I doubt it. These numbers looked pretty much this way at the beginning of the campaign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 02:02 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. because Edwards isn't winning n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
avaistheone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 02:07 AM
Response to Reply #21
24. WTF? These numbers looked the same at the starting gate.
You have special interests who invested in Obama before the primaries launched.

At this time these numbers have nothing to do with your perception of Obama winning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 02:46 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. People don't give money to a loser
Yes he got money because he was perceived as someone who could win and has continued to prove that to be true. Edwards hasn't. If Edwards were winning, all that big money would be in his campaign now like it was then. $450,000 health, $24,000 from labor. How things change.

http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/sector.asp?id=N00002283&cycle=2004
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CelloPaddy Donating Member (38 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 02:03 AM
Response to Reply #16
22. Wow, Edwards has balls nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Egnever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 01:38 AM
Response to Reply #10
15. Under federal election law, coordination between an election campaign and a 527 group is not allowed
which is why the guy quit the campaign before starting the 527 are you really that naive?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Egnever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 01:36 AM
Response to Reply #3
14. stop with the lobying groups BS
Obama is not taking lobyist money. Just because people working for the healthcare industry donate to him does not equate to lobyists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nailzberg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 01:00 AM
Response to Original message
5. If you're not gonna offer a true defense, this is the way to do it.
:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Some people make stuff up to shoot down the opposition. Some people distort or mislead.
Thank you for cutting straight to the chase.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VarnettaTuckpocket Donating Member (559 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 01:20 AM
Response to Reply #5
9. Faux-News: We've got your news, right here!
Edited on Tue Jan-22-08 01:20 AM by VarnettaTuckpocket
I remember channel surfing and catching the beginning of their morning show, and hearing the announcer saying that as the camera pulled in on the hosts. The way he said it "we've got your news, right here!", you knew that's way you're supposed to take it, like the OP's pic. The depths of their low-brow shamelessness is just unfathomable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 01:04 AM
Response to Original message
6. Hillary is just racking up the points in the Midwest...
First, in the last debate, she mentions "illegal guns" code-word for "abolish the second amendment" among sportsmen and gun-nuts. Now she's says she's going to make everybody buy health insurance, or she will punish them (how? we don't know, she dodged that question).

Not good, Hillary, not good.

(Note: gun advocates get pissy when you say "illegal guns". They insist that guns are not illegal. They can be purchased and/or carried illegally, but the guns themselves are legal. Apparently it is a very important distinction for them)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 02:05 AM
Response to Original message
23. I actually disagree; I think Edwards and Clinton both have stronger health-care plans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Thu May 16th 2024, 06:53 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC