US Elections 2012 Part II: The Conventions, Debates and Election results

[Sumeragi]

Health Insurance: I see it as a social contract to pay for the possible use of emergency rooms and various treatments one might need in the course of life, including vaccines. It's a price that one needs to pay for living in modern society, unless that person wants to secede from the rest of the people.

[willx]

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

Health Insurance: I see it as a social contract to pay for the possible use of emergency rooms and various treatments one might need in the course of life, including vaccines. It's a price that one needs to pay for living in modern society, unless that person wants to secede from the rest of the people.

Well, as someone that lives in Canada with universal healthcare -- I must admit I'm accustomed to the idea that it is a good thing for the government to provide a basic level of care for everyone. That being said, I came back incredibly ill from Aruba (I may have had dengue fever), and it took me >2 months to get in to see a specialist. If I was so ill that I had to go to Emergency, I would've be seen at the hospital away (probably still a 6 hour wait though) .. but I was incredibly sick, but not in danger, so I was left to suffer..

The problem with the U.S. system though, is that certain specialists and insurance companies make so much money off of the system, that it's impossible for the government to "step up" without utterly gutting and revamping the system. Let's just say there's no shortage of GPs in Canada, but there is a shortage of specialists, because they'd make >5-10x more in the U.S.

[Ithekro]

Accept with car insurance, you can opt out of it by not having a car. How do you opt out of health insurance?

[GDB]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Accept with car insurance, you can opt out of it by not having a car. How do you opt out of health insurance?

Well, you can opt out of car insurance by not owning that which would be covered by car insurance: a car. Therefore, to opt out of health insurance, you would need to not have that which is covered by it: health, or in other words, life. So your only option to opt out while staying in the US would to not be alive.

In other words, you can opt to not own a car and not drive. You cannot opt out of the potential of getting sick or injured.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

Health Insurance: I see it as a social contract to pay for the possible use of emergency rooms and various treatments one might need in the course of life, including vaccines. It's a price that one needs to pay for living in modern society, unless that person wants to secede from the rest of the people.

I wouldn't have a problem with paying a health tax for universal health care. What I objected to in that old post was the idea that insurance companies were going to continue siphoning off profits that could be going to patient care. The Obamacare requirement that overhead be kept to under a certain percentage mitigates some of that - but I just fundamentally object to for-profit health insurance -> the customer is no longer the patient but the shareholder (or more accurately, the CEO/executives and their compensation/bonuses of excess).

[Ithekro]

Plus there are people that have already paid their share already. They do not want to have to pay again as it makes what they worked for invalid (as that was money they could have used instead of being taken away by either the government or their employer before they even got their paycheck.).

These include Veterans by the way.

[flying ^]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

You know what is disappointing? All the news media declaring "Romney Won the debate". That hurt, America. That really hurts me.

really?

It's only round 1 and you seriously feeling touchy???

tsk I guess it can't be helped if Samuel L Jackson's 4 inspirational words echoing in 0bama's head can't snap him back to shape...


Again, what's more damaging to 0bama 2 nights ago wasn’t Romney or even his own performance... it was that his own soldiers openly lambasted him, his performance, and gave credit to Romney. I forget if you’re in America or not but the Left in this country basically still act like it’s high school and 0bama’s the cool kid (or prom queen). They've sold their souls & put their reputations on the line with the intentional bias that 0bama is the Messiah! Now, in front of 68 million people on multiple networks he just basically SHUT DOWN. He just looked at the floor, didn’t argue, No Teleprompter, No Catchy Phrases & NO chorus. This is who 0bama is and really acts like when The Media CAN’T help him.

It’s not that Romney was that..... it’s that 0bama was THAT BAD! He phoned it in. People used to faint hearing his speeches. The Media used to get Hard On’s after one liners. The cheerleaders just watched their quarterback get tackled, make no mileage, or complete a pass for 90 whole minutes. They’re FURIOUS that he’s making ”Them” look bad. See where I’m going here?

95% of America (including The Media) doesn’t know SHIT about debating style (normally seen in pro/academic setting) or ANYTHING related to the analysis other than America saw Obama ’bleed’ like boxer who looked like he just didn’t want to be there. The Left Media & Hollywood’s extreme left didn’t see anything they could crow about... they care more about what 'other people think’ than what’s really true.

It was PURE frustration from the Left (msNBC, a few from CNN, and Hollywood) – all the people who were bandwagon 0bama fans were just told "0bama blew it" by the very same people who made him ”GOD” for 4 years.....it’s like the Apostles saying Jeesus has lost his ”swagger”. WTF???

No one on the Left cares what Fox News or entertainer Rush Limbaugh says (cause their in the tank for Romney) about 0bama, but when the Left screams at the American people and says ”Obama sucked”, that does 1,000 more times damage 1,000 O’Reilly & Hannity attacks.

Half of America (the Left leaning half) met Mitt Romney for the 1st time last night. The Media can’t put words on 0bama’s mouth. 0bama didn’t shine and now they have to cover their asses... they can’t let their Converts think that they were wrong all this time... they must save face and blame Obama. Sorry to ramble but seriously regular folks and The Media saw 0bama BEAT DOWN (didn’t even LOOK at Romney half the time). America saw the 0bama The Human – not The Media handjob they’ve been sold by The Media & Hollywood for 4 years... that and 0bama just didn’t look like he cared about ANYTHING but himself!

[monir]

Originally Posted by flying ^

really?

It's only round 1 and you seriously feeling touchy???

tsk I guess it can't be helped if Samuel L Jackson's 4 inspirational words echoing in 0bama's head can't snap him back to shape...


Again, what's more damaging to 0bama 2 nights ago wasn’t Romney or even his own performance... it was that his own soldiers openly lambasted him, his performance, and gave credit to Romney. I forget if you’re in America or not but the Left in this country basically still act like it’s high school and 0bama’s the cool kid (or prom queen). They've sold their souls & put their reputations on the line with the intentional bias that 0bama is the Messiah! Now, in front of 68 million people on multiple networks he just basically SHUT DOWN. He just looked at the floor, didn’t argue, No Teleprompter, No Catchy Phrases & NO chorus. This is who 0bama is and really acts like when The Media CAN’T help him.

It’s not that Romney was that..... it’s that 0bama was THAT BAD! He phoned it in. People used to faint hearing his speeches. The Media used to get Hard On’s after one liners. The cheerleaders just watched their quarterback get tackled, make no mileage, or complete a pass for 90 whole minutes. They’re FURIOUS that he’s making ”Them” look bad. See where I’m going here?

95% of America (including The Media) doesn’t know SHIT about debating style (normally seen in pro/academic setting) or ANYTHING related to the analysis other than America saw Obama ’bleed’ like boxer who looked like he just didn’t want to be there. The Left Media & Hollywood’s extreme left didn’t see anything they could crow about... they care more about what 'other people think’ than what’s really true.

It was PURE frustration from the Left (msNBC, a few from CNN, and Hollywood) – all the people who were bandwagon 0bama fans were just told "0bama blew it" by the very same people who made him ”GOD” for 4 years.....it’s like the Apostles saying Jeesus has lost his ”swagger”. WTF???

No one on the Left cares what Fox News or entertainer Rush Limbaugh says (cause their in the tank for Romney) about 0bama, but when the Left screams at the American people and says ”Obama sucked”, that does 1,000 more times damage 1,000 O’Reilly & Hannity attacks.

Half of America (the Left leaning half) met Mitt Romney for the 1st time last night. The Media can’t put words on 0bama’s mouth. 0bama didn’t shine and now they have to cover their asses... they can’t let their Converts think that they were wrong all this time... they must save face and blame Obama. Sorry to ramble but seriously regular folks and The Media saw 0bama BEAT DOWN (didn’t even LOOK at Romney half the time). America saw the 0bama The Human – not The Media handjob they’ve been sold by The Media & Hollywood for 4 years... that and 0bama just didn’t look like he cared about ANYTHING but himself!

I'm in complete agreement with everything you've said. Obama deserved every criticism that came on his way. Romney, on the other hand, to his credit came prepared and took the attack to Obama from the word "go." With all that said, my question to you would be what do you feel about Romney's apparent move to the center from the far right on those key issues he ran with most of his campaign? Heck, he even backed down from his 47% remark. While he clearly "won" the first debate, can he generate the same affect with 2nd and 3rd? Despite how bad it was for Obama in the first debate, things are looking very good for the upcoming debate considering he can play it as Romney-Post-Debate vs. Romney-Prior. The reduced unemployment rate also boost Obama's rehotoric.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by flying ^

Half of America (the Left leaning half) met Mitt Romney for the 1st time last night.

Actually, no. We met that Romney before; the Governor of Massachusetts. We are just surprised that he re-emerged after so many months of being missing.

But you know very well that he is going to disappear again, because you wouldn't be cheering for him otherwise; for all intent and purposes the Debate Romney was a Democrat.

[Vexx]

One wasn't wearing his debate clothes and dropped the ball. That would be Obama.

The other was lying through his teeth on almost every topic or changing his position 180 degrees from even the day before and backing far away from conservative positions. Fact checked by credible fact checkers, not opinion.

One has to wonder whether his supporters really heard what Romney said ... or if they listened at all and just caught the "football scores" since that's what some people seemed to think this is, a shallow "football game" where idiots wave a flag for one side or the other.

[Netto Azure]

Reading the post-debate commentary from some of my friends on the other side, I'm just thinking that they're just cheering that "Romney won" because they think he'll just flip back to "Conservative Mitt" if he wins the election. Seriously the only reason he "won" this debate was by outright asserting that he didn't say or even KNOW what he was saying just a few days prior. Complete 180 and renunciation of the Republican economic platform and acceptance of current Democratic orthodoxy isn't something I'd be cheering for substance wise.

What I took out from the debate was a cementing of my initial perception of Romney as the worst of possible politicians. Willing to abrogate his principles (47% tape) and outright lie just to gain political points and win office. And I thought John McCain was bad in 2008. u_u

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Vexx

I wouldn't have a problem with paying a health tax for universal health care. What I objected to in that old post was the idea that insurance companies were going to continue siphoning off profits that could be going to patient care. The Obamacare requirement that overhead be kept to under a certain percentage mitigates some of that - but I just fundamentally object to for-profit health insurance -> the customer is no longer the patient but the shareholder (or more accurately, the CEO/executives and their compensation/bonuses of excess).

To be fair, functional competition would drive down to profit margins and improve the service provided to the consumer.

Of course, I've never really thought that health care is a product where competition really works so...

Originally Posted by GDB

Well, you can opt out of car insurance by not owning that which would be covered by car insurance: a car. Therefore, to opt out of health insurance, you would need to not have that which is covered by it: health, or in other words, life. So your only option to opt out while staying in the US would to not be alive.

In other words, you can opt to not own a car and not drive. You cannot opt out of the potential of getting sick or injured.

Hang on, is it really possible to live in America without a car? (excluding certain cities with public transport like NYC). I've travelled around America, and I didn't see many places where you could have a functional lifestyle without one. Town plans are build around car use.

I don't think the vast majority of Americans have the choice to not own a car. In which case car insurance is like a mandatory tax.

[ganbaru]

Officials reject conspiracies on unemployment rate
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...10-06-03-01-36

WASHINGTON (AP) -- When conspiracists suggested Friday that the Obama administration had engineered a sharp drop in unemployment to aid President Barack Obama's re-election, the response was swift.
Career government officials, economists and even some Mitt Romney supporters issued a collective sigh.
The staffers who compute the U.S. unemployment rate work in an agency of the Labor Department. Officials who have overseen the work say it's prepared under tight security with no White House input or supervision.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Hang on, is it really possible to live in America without a car? (excluding certain cities with public transport like NYC). I've travelled around America, and I didn't see many places where you could have a functional lifestyle without one. Town plans are build around car use.

Yes, you just either carpool where you need to go, live in a city with all necessary stores/job nearby, or be lucky enough to live near some means of mass transportation.

I don't think the vast majority of Americans have the choice to not own a car. In which case car insurance is like a mandatory tax.

For 90% of people, it is. But it's been that way for as long as they can remember, so they're cool with it.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by GDB

Yes, you just either carpool where you need to go, live in a city with all necessary stores/job nearby, or be lucky enough to live near some means of mass transportation.

Most of those things are outside of people's control. Most people can't do anything about them.

[newmarduk]

. . .I just recently discovered that the unemployment rate for last month (September 2012) was 7.8%. Although it is good news that the American jobless rate is finally down under 8%, it may be too little, too late for Barack Obama. For many decades, it has been the general rule that any president to successfully win a 2nd term must have an unemployment rate under 7%. Ronald Reagan's 1984 reelection, with a 7.2 % unemployment rate, was the only exception to the above rule.

Moreover, no U.S. president has been elected to a 2nd term when the Consumer Confidence Index has been under 95. Last month, the CCI was 70.3.

By Election Day in early November, the unemployment rate is likely to still be well above 7% and the Consumer Confidence Index well under 95. Regardless of my personal feelings about current President Obama and challenger Zmitt Romney, history suggests Romney is going to become the 45th President of the United States.

[Sumeragi]

I'm pretty sure given the magnitude of the economic crisis, we would need to put in some modifiers into that equation.

[Netto Azure]

It depends, the economy is a wild card in terms of election predictability. Much of it's impact diminishes as we get closer to the election it seems.

Plus considering that after Romney's disastrous month and that it too a complete 180/"Smile to the center-right" for Mitt Romney to "win the debates and shake the etch-a-sketch." I think there's still a pretty good chance for an Obama re-election. Plus according to 538, there's still an 83.6% chance of an Obama win.

[Kokukirin]

Originally Posted by newmarduk

. . .I just recently discovered that the unemployment rate for last month (September 2012) was 7.8%. Although it is good news that the American jobless rate is finally down under 8%, it may be too little, too late for Barack Obama. For many decades, it has been the general rule that any president to successfully win a 2nd term must have an unemployment rate under 7%. Ronald Reagan's 1984 reelection, with a 7.2 % unemployment rate, was the only exception to the above rule.

Moreover, no U.S. president has been elected to a 2nd term when the Consumer Confidence Index has been under 95. Last month, the CCI was 70.3.

By Election Day in early November, the unemployment rate is likely to still be well above 7% and the Consumer Confidence Index well under 95. Regardless of my personal feelings about current President Obama and challenger Zmitt Romney, history suggests Romney is going to become the 45th President of the United States.

This is the sort of numbers you see all the time in sport commentaries. I am sure you have heard things like "Team A has a 100% winning record if player B scores more than C points." It may be interesting to some people, but ultimately it tells us nothing about the team. Most likely player B is not a good attacking player and only scored over C points once in 8 games. When he actually scored, his team was likely playing a weak team.

Those random statistics of "no one had been re-elected if index X is over Y" is meaningless at best. We just came through the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, and that alone makes many comparison with the past elections pointless.

And arguably, the derivative of unemployment rate is more important than the rate itself. It tells us the future expectations, that things may be heading the right way (finally). It is better to expect to find a job in the next 4 months than to expect to lose your job in the future. Consider the hypothetical scenario of a president seeking re-election in Oct 2008. The unemployment rate was still 6.5%. Would you believe the imaginary president have a chance to get re-elected because Reagan got re-elected with an even higher unemployment rate?

[Vexx]

One modifier is that for a change a majority of the DOES remember what party was at the wheel from 2000-2008 when the crisis occurred.