Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 56 comments Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
Just how super will Tuesday be for the Miss-Lou?
Published Saturday, February 2, 2008
NATCHEZ — As Super Tuesday approaches, the line between the red and the blue will become more and more well defined, and as early as Tuesday night America could have clear contenders for the race for the presidency.
Every vote counts?
University of Mississippi’s Director of the John C. Stennis Institute of Government, Marty Wiseman, said depending on Tuesday’s outcome, Mississippi may or may not play an important role in the primary election.
“It all depends on if we get a clear winner on Tuesday,” he said.
If Tuesday does yield a specific candidate, primary votes from Mississippi on March 11 will have no weight.
“Now if there’s no clear outcome on Tuesday, things in Mississippi get a whole lot more interesting.”
Wiseman said if no clear winner emerges from Tuesday’s election, then the primary in Mississippi will carry more weight.
Wiseman specifically mentioned Barack Obama.
Wiseman said since Mississippi has the highest population of black people in the nation they could provide an excellent boost for Obama.
And while Wiseman could not offer a guess as to that would be the next president, he seems to be in line with much of the undecided voting populous.
Choices, choices, choices.
Braxton Fondren, 18, said he falls into the undecided voter category.
“No one person has everything I’m looking for,” he said.
This election will be Fondren’s first opportunity to vote for president.
While Fondren said he will likely vote for a Republican, none of the candidates have stood out to him as a clear choice.
“I’ll be putting some serious thought into it,” he said.
Local Carrol Huff said while he, too, normally votes Republican, he has not seen any standout candidates.
“I’m not too particular about anyone of them yet,” he said.
Two people who said they were registered Democrats would actually consider voting for John McCain.
Raymond Baker was one of those people.
“I think he (McCain) has the experience that this country needs right now,” he said.
The political machine.
When the primary polls close on March 11 in Mississippi, the winner will take all of the state’s delegates.
But in Louisiana, two different processes will be used, neither of them winner-take-all.
The Louisiana Democratic Party has been allotted 67 delegates and nine alternates at the national convention, Louisiana Democratic Party Executive Director Danny Ford said.
After the Feb. 9 presidential preference primary, the state party will plug the results into a formula to determine how many delegates a candidate will receive.
However, a candidate must garner at least 15 percent of the vote to receive any delegates, Ford said.
And even though they may have officially dropped out of the race, some candidates will remain on the ballot.
“It is possible that John Edwards will receive some votes,” Ford said. “His name is on the ballot because he already qualified (in Louisiana).”
The Louisiana Democratic Party will have elections for voting delegates by congressional districts March 1.
For the Louisiana Republican Party, however, the election process is much less direct.
At the national convention, 47 delegates and 44 alternates will represent the state. The state convention — which will be Feb. 16 — will choose the delegates.
All of those delegates will be technically uncommitted — which means they will be allowed to vote for whomever they choose.
If a presidential candidate does garner more than 50 percent of the vote, however, 20 of the state’s at-large delegates are required to vote for that candidate at the national convention.
Vidalia resident Susan Rabb campaigned to be a delegate at the state convention to unofficially support the John McCain campaign.
“Technically everybody is an uncommitted delegate, but you can take a stand and say who you are committed to,” Rabb said.
Because all of the delegates are uncommitted, those who supported a certain candidate voted for people who supported that same candidate. At the state convention, those delegates would vote for delegates to the national convention who support the same candidate.
The Republican National Convention is Sept. 1-4 in Minneapolis.
The general Presidential election is Nov. 4.
Comments
Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on February 2, 2008 at 11:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
God help America if Obama or Hillary is elected! And on the Republican side, no one really stands out to me! Romney is more of a conservative than McCain, but yet Mccain is a veteran and very military which is very important today! Good article Vershal
Posted by buttercup26 (anonymous) on February 3, 2008 at 12:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
((rushinghjr)) AMEN TOWARDS THE FIRST PART OF YOUR VOTE!!!
ain't Ron Paul still in it?? hahaha! maybe that's where my vote will be going...
oh I'M FIXING TO BE BLASTED FOR THIS ONE!! HERE IT GOES... "Mississippi has the highest population of black people in the natioN" I NEVER KNEW THIS!!!! i kind of figured it but never KNEW THAT!!
Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on February 3, 2008 at 12:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You are very right about the population/Mississippi is one of the highest as is several other states. Louisiana was another one, but after Hurricane Katrina , the nest was "broken up"! Ron Paul is still in right now, but I expect him to pull out after Super Tuesday with "Huck"! At present, it appears that Huckebee is hurting Romney by steering votes McCain!
Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on February 3, 2008 at 12:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Last entry-the word to should have been added to the 3rd sentence after the word votes! It's getting late!
Posted by loneconservative (anonymous) on February 3, 2008 at 12:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If McCain takes the nomination, it is a definite loosing situation for Republicans in the general election. His stance on immigration and stem cell research assures us a third party run which will give Clinton the victory. (Sound familiar?)
Posted by NtzMom55 (anonymous) on February 3, 2008 at 1:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I really do wish that there would never be issues brought up about a candidates' gender or race. With this being America, voters should not vote for a black candidate just because the voter is black nor should a female vote fo for a female candidate just because she is female. It is my belief that everyone should vote for what the candidate stands for rather than the color of their skin or their gender. This only polarized the candidates into one general lump. If everyone would go to the polls and vote on the issues and not on the skin color or gender, I believe we would all benefit by electing a truly qualified candidate to represent all Americans. And if super tuesday puts Mississippi in an insignificant position, that should not matter. It is everyone's obligation to vote. It is our duty and privilage to do so. So I hope everyone comes out to vote on March 11th, irregardless of what the other state's out come is after super tuesday.
Posted by elvisss (anonymous) on February 3, 2008 at 9:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If you are uncertain about who will get your vote, there are tons of websites out there that will match your preferences with the candidates who share your opinions.
One of the sites is http://www.wqad.com/Global/link.asp?L=25.... I'm sure there are other sites, too.
Posted by LdyBreez (anonymous) on February 3, 2008 at 9:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I would vote for a female if I felt she was right for the job. Sorry but Clinton has already had her time in the white house. I am not looking at Obama's color, I just do not agree with some of his stands on the Issues. This is one more year that I just dont see any one candidate standing out as the best person for the job. In the last few presidential races, I felt like I had to vote for the lesser of the evils
Posted by SayItRight (anonymous) on February 3, 2008 at 9:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
McCain and Romney are both smug and acted like babies in the last debate. Huckabee is a copy cat with his "abolish the IRS" line - he stole it from Ron Paul months ago when he saw the favorable response from the crowd at a previous debate.
Ron Paul is the true conservative and not a typical politician.
Posted by buttercup26 (anonymous) on February 3, 2008 at 9:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
the new lady on that show "THE VIEW" is soo out of it it's crazy!! she was complaining about the absent voting.. and she said some of the dumbest things! "I'm the new host on THE VIEW and if I don't vote then I won't be able to complain about who the president is for the next year"
ha, WHOOPI had to correct her and tell her it's every four years! she looked like a deer caught in head lights
Posted by Username (anonymous) on February 3, 2008 at 11:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ron Paul is a true Statesman ALL the other candidates are war-whore-flip-flopping politicians
Ron Paul has said that he is in for the long haul,as long as the $$$$ keeps rolling in and the support is there he has no reason to drop out of this race.He does not need the nomination of the party to continue running I think he said months ago that he would not take federal matching funds to run anyway,so the nomination would just give him more publicity like TV(which he does not get anyway)
RESTORE THE CONSTITUTION---- www.ronpaul2008.com
Posted by LeadPaint (anonymous) on February 3, 2008 at 12:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
www.KnowBeforeYouVote.com
Posted by destiny (anonymous) on February 3, 2008 at 12:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Loved all the comments about Ron Paul. Even tho' he does not get the coverage he deserves from the media, I trully feel he is the best choice for the job. Everyone else is stealing his platform, so he must have some pretty solid powerful ideas of how to run the country. I hope it won't be a wasted vote, but that's where I'm headed right now.
Posted by loneconservative (anonymous) on February 3, 2008 at 2:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ron Paul won't drop out. He isn't in this thing to win it. He is there to push his veiws on Iraq. He has a lot of great ideas reguarding economics and society, but he is known for being a "loose cannon." He fought till the end in 1988, so I doubt he will be any different this time around.
Posted by Username (anonymous) on February 3, 2008 at 2:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – According to newly released FEC reports, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has received more military donations than the other three remaining Republican candidates combined.
“The latest numbers make it clear: the troops support Ron Paul,” said Ron Paul campaign chairman Kent Snyder. “Dr. Paul has worked his entire career working for veterans, and has many awards and endorsements due to his dedication to their cause.”
A search of the FEC database by employer reveals that Dr. Paul has received 1160 donations from military donors, nearly triple that of John McCain, and more than McCain, Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee combined.
Dr. Paul’s total military donations of $249 thousand are almost as much as the $260 thousand of combined donations received by the other five remaining candidates.
Congressman Paul is no stranger to military support. Former president Ronald Reagan once said, “Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country!”
According to the FEC reports, these are the total number and amount of military donations for each of the presidential candidates*:
Ron Paul: 1160 $249k
John McCain: 438 $83k
Mike Huckabee: 126 $37k
Mitt Romney: 126 $24k
Barack Obama: 443 $76k
Hillary Clinton: 154 $41k
*Methodology: Searched FEC reports for occupation/employer contains: "Army" "Navy" "USN" "USAF" "Air Force" "Marine" "USMC" "Coast Guard" "USCG" then removed duplicates and non-military occupations (i.e. "marine repair")
www.ronpaul2008.com
Posted by Incognito (anonymous) on February 3, 2008 at 2:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Obama '08
Posted by EnKiKur (Marty Ellerbe) on February 3, 2008 at 2:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I support Ron Paul for his desire to return the country to an economy based on gold and silver instead of IOU's. I would prefer a Treasury holding a cache of gold and silver to one holding 6-9 trillion dollars worth of debt. Most all Americans support this as well; people are commonly seen wearing gold and silver jewelry but almost never seen wearing necklaces and rings made out of green colored paper with fancy federal looking symbols on them, FRN's.
I also support him for his desire to bring our troops home. We currently have 738 military bases spread around the world. The current administration has during it's time in office spent 1.4 trillion dollars, all previous administrations combined spent only 1.2 trillion dollars. A large part of this has been military expenditures.
McCain, as part of his platform is promising to fix the Veterans Administration. Hillary is promising Universal Healthcare; the present debilitated state of the veteran's hospitals is what we can look forward to for all our health care if she is successful in her aims.
How can the government purchase healthcare for less than the insurance companies? How many stories have we seen about the excessive prices the Pentagon pays for common items?
Universal Healthcare would simply be a government run insurance company. We all know how well the Social Security insurance System is faring. Likely what Universal Healthcare will end up being is a government overlay on existing insurance companies acting as reinsurers, protected by sovereign immunity from malpractice and other failure based lawsuits. I wonder how much health insurance companies have contributed to her campaign? Defense contractors have given her tons of support.
Posted by LeadPaint (anonymous) on February 3, 2008 at 3:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ron Paul will get my vote and the war(s) is only the tip of the iceburg.for many more reasons he has my vote.I like what that comment by user name about Ron Paul being a 'true statesman' i agree he is a unique man
Posted by Teach4Peace (anonymous) on February 3, 2008 at 6:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Barack Obama, 2008!!
Posted by mike8427 (anonymous) on February 3, 2008 at 7:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm with Ron, he is a Veteran also, and he is one of the only true conservatives running.
Posted by notfromnatchez (anonymous) on February 3, 2008 at 9:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
oldmoney--I have said the exact same thing....many times.
are you using all your "old" money to spy on me?
Posted by Peace007 (anonymous) on February 3, 2008 at 10:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Exxon made a profit of $46 Billion last year. I think we should stop driving our cars and walk or ride bicycles.
Remember when we had local health clinics for minor illness, and Charity hospitals for those whom didn't have health insurance? Those programs weren't thought of as socialist or communist programs. Maybe we need a free medical clinic in Natchez for minor illness. They have them in other towns.
According to Michael Moore's movie "Sicko", in France, doctors still make house calls, and the government sends and pays someone to do laundry and other chores when a female citizen has a new baby. When it comes to healthcare, America is sadly lagging way behind other countries in caring for her own. Yet, we give generously to other countries in need.
I read about the Natchez Indians and thought...what a shame those indians are extinct that once lived here...but, then it came to me...why wouldn't they be extinct, when the whole family had to be buried with the man of the family when he died. Sometimes I get the impression that maybe some people in America would like for that old tribal custom to still be in practice today when I read some of the comments on news articles and message boards of commenters voicing their complaints against people whom are down on their luck. And so my point of this message is...if we don't start caring about and helping one another...we will end up extinct just like the Natchez Indians who walked this land before us.
Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on February 3, 2008 at 11:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hide and watch/ Mitt is on a roll!
Posted by EnKiKur (Marty Ellerbe) on February 3, 2008 at 11:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Peace, you have to realize that there is no such thing as a free medical clinic. Somebody pays, either voluntarily or involuntarily. The people who work in those "free clinics" cannot work for free, because they must have food, shelter, clothing, and medical care too. Who will pay for theirs?
I am all for voluntary charity.
However, as a caring liberal, you are probably opposed to the idea of one group of people violating the rights of others. Consider this though, any involuntary contribution to others is extracted by force.
Are you for sending a group of armed men to my house to take my money from me? Because when you advocate programs like universal health care you are saying you support groups of armed thugs taking my property from me.
Suppose we get this universal health care, and since the majority left me no choice to opt out and I decided to opt out on my own by not paying taxes anymore. What would happen? IRS agents, armed with guns and papers, would seize my stuff and if I resisted enough would shoot me dead on the spot without due process.
I will join in supporting this health care scheme if the rest of you will promise me the choice to opt out, of both the service and tax payments. Everyone who wants universal health care should have it, and they are the ones who should pay for it.
Look here, most of us cannot afford the type of health care services we provide for our elected officials at the state and national levels. Most of us cannot afford Cadillacs either, but does that mean our neighbors should somehow provide them for us?
Lastly, I am not one of "America's own". I have no Mother America, and don't want one. And, those Natchez Indians aren't extinct because of their burial practices, they are extinct because groups of armed thugs came and took their property and killed most of them and drove the rest off the land. Please don't advocate programs that will do this to me.
Posted by Peace007 (anonymous) on February 4, 2008 at 12:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Speaking of Mitt...Massachusettes does have a healthcare plan for poor down on their luck folks. Romney was one of the ones that got that going. That's a plus for him, saying that he not only talks the talk, he walks the walk.
Some folks have a problem with him being Mormon, because they don't really know what being Mormon means. I don't know either, but Donnie and Marie were Mormon and people seemed to like them. Every now and then a couple of Mormon missionaries come by and try to convert me, so once I told them I had a problem with them having that other book, because I had always heard you weren't supposed to take from or add to the bible. So one of those guys informed me that it was the book of Revelations that wasn't to be taken from or added to, and that they do go by the bible as well as the Book of Mormons.
Interesting enough, tonight on the History channel, they were talking about a whole bunch of books that had been removed from the bible. So...so many questions...too little time.
Posted by EnKiKur (Marty Ellerbe) on February 4, 2008 at 12:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
destiny
Even if Ron Paul doesn't win, your vote won't be wasted. All of us who care for the ideas of unalienable rights and the free pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness should view Ron Paul's campaign, win or lose, as the beginning and not the end. It will be a long and difficult path back to constitutional principles, and the once regained the struggle to maintain them will be never ending. Feel no dismay though, vote for what you believe in and welcome the coming struggle. We have seen what the alternative is.
Posted by Peace007 (anonymous) on February 4, 2008 at 12:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Enkikur how much healthcare would 3 billion per year provide?
Posted by EnKiKur (Marty Ellerbe) on February 4, 2008 at 12:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm not sure Peace, but I am guessing it would not be very much. I don't have three billion anyway, and neither does the government, they are in debt to the tune of somewhere between 6 and 9 trillion dollars. Why do you ask?
Posted by Peace007 (anonymous) on February 4, 2008 at 12:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
(((Suppose we get this universal health care, and since the majority left me no choice to opt out and I decided to opt out on my own by not paying taxes anymore. What would happen? IRS agents, armed with guns and papers, would seize my stuff and if I resisted enough would shoot me dead on the spot without due process.)))
Enkikur, if the majority chose to have a free medical clinic in Natchez, or universal healthcare in the US, you would not have the option to opt out and not pay taxes...those of us whom didn't want war didn't get that option, either. Well, I suppose we could have stopped paying taxes...and, I do believe there was one man in the news who did just that...I haven't heard of his death, but maybe he did get arrested. He more than likely just got a slap on the wrist and had to pay his back taxes tho. But if/when you decide to go against the law of the land, you are whom would be responsible for whatever action is taken against you...not I.
Posted by EnKiKur (Marty Ellerbe) on February 4, 2008 at 12:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Plea for help!
I need a gall bladder operation, and don't currently have any health insurance, and don't want to pay for it with my own money.
All Universal Healthcare advocates please help! If I don't get the operation I might die! If I hadn't paid 42,000.00 in federal income tax, medicare, and social security last year I would probably be more willing to pay for the operation myself. But, I have a house I am trying to finish, and I like to eat out a lot, and have other financial priorities, so I really do need your help!
Posted by Peace007 (anonymous) on February 4, 2008 at 12:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Because Enkiku, three billion is the amount we give in aid to Israel. Israel has universal healthcare, and doesn't look all that needy. We also give billions in aid to other countries. Mexico has universal healthcare. Illegal aliens get more free healthcare than US citizens.
Why are you against American citizens getting the healthcare they need when you have obviously not minded paying taxes and giving aid to all these other countries? And you didn't stop paying taxes when your tax dollars were being wasted on war.
Posted by Peace007 (anonymous) on February 4, 2008 at 12:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Enkikur, you are being silly. If you paid 42,000 in federal taxes, you have no clue as to what it is like to live under poverty level and with no hope of getting even an antibiotic for a cold, or a medication to get rid of pinworms.
Btw Enkikur, I do have healthcare. It isn't for me that I am concerned.
Posted by EnKiKur (Marty Ellerbe) on February 4, 2008 at 12:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Exactly Peace, I feel like you should not have to pay for that war either. I support you one hundred percent in that. No one has any right to take your money to fight an undeclared war that is pre-emptive and not defensive in nature, or for any other reason. Your money belongs to you.
By the way, the phrase "law of the land" refers to English Common Law, as opposed to the Law of the Sea, or Admiralty Law.
Under common law a person cannot be compelled to do something for failure to perform some other action. Only under Admiralty Law can a person be compelled to action for failure to perform some other action....one of the reasons for the Revolutionary War, the Colonists were upset that the King was enforcing Admiralty Law on land.
Posted by Peace007 (anonymous) on February 4, 2008 at 12:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
btw, Enkikur, you can go to Mexico and get that surgery.
Posted by EnKiKur (Marty Ellerbe) on February 4, 2008 at 12:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Peace, I do object to paying all that money out to other countries you refer too. If 3 billion would provide healthcare for the country, why isn't the money we pay into medicare being used for universal healthcare? I guarantee you that more than three billion dollars was taken in by medicare last year.
And I do have an idea what it is like to live below the poverty level, for I have done that for quite a few years of my life. I have even been homeless before, but not for long because i didn't like it. I didn't get any government help to become un-homeless either.
As a matter of fact, government has actually obstructed me from having a completed home at this time.
You are right, I am being silly about the gall bladder, though all the things I said are true. The whole health care debate is silly and mis-directing, an attempt by government to use ill considered emotional arguments to get ahold of even more of our money.
You may have good intentions, but I guarantee you government does not. Government at the highest level is run by coldly calculating individuals who view you not as a person, but as human capital. If you don't belive me, google "department of human capital".
Posted by Peace007 (anonymous) on February 4, 2008 at 1:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Enkikur, I just googled you...I thought you sounded familiar. I've googled you before. You should hire me and next year you can take my salary out of the taxes you pay in, lol. And that's all I'll say. You're way to intelligent for me to argue with. I thought you had gotten the permission you needed to complete the house. Anyway, good luck on your home. I'll google department of human capital.
Posted by EnKiKur (Marty Ellerbe) on February 4, 2008 at 1:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Peace, I did get permission to finish the house, but that problem caused a cascade of problems I am just beginning to work out from under two years later. I'm hoping this year to finally have the money to finish the house and quit being a neighborhood eyesore.
And I am not too intelligent for you to argue with me...I don't really want to argue with anyone. What I would rather is that we all talk together and work toward understanding fundamental principles so we all can make better choices.
Posted by buttercup26 (anonymous) on February 4, 2008 at 2:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
WHAT?? HOW COME EVERYONE ELSE CAN ***GOOGLE*** AND GET WHAT THEY ARE LOOKING FOR!! I GOOGLE AND GET ALL KINDS OF ALL THE WALL MESS!! GRR!!
Posted by iluvnatchez (anonymous) on February 4, 2008 at 6:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
is it true Obama does NOT pledge allegdance to the American flag?
Posted by freedom42 (anonymous) on February 4, 2008 at 8:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
peace007, Mormons do not believe that Jesus was the son of God, they believe that God himself was a good person on another planet and was given this planet to rule, and that anyone who is VERY good on earth will be given a place to rule when they die. They get their beliefs from the book of mormon which was given to Joseph Smith on golden tablets. 1John 4:1: "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world." Most Mormons are decent kind people, my daughter used to date one so I have done quite a bit of research on them. I don't know if Rommey would make a good president, but please don't base your vote on how "nice" they are.
Posted by notfromnatchez (anonymous) on February 4, 2008 at 9:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
iluvnatchez...it isn't true. He does pledge allegiance.
and I say this as someone who isn't a fan of his.
Posted by Peace007 (anonymous) on February 4, 2008 at 10:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
iluvnatchez that's just a wicked political email smear campaign, sort of a terrorism fear tactic type of taking the vote away from him...Obama does pledge allegiance. In this country where the majority of folks are supposed to be Christians, he should be given credit for choosing Christianity after being exposed to Islam and atheism, instead of being lied about by saying that he is muslim and doesn't pledge allegiance.
Freedom42, I don't recall saying that I planned to vote for Romney. I was only expressing what I've heard about him. I am impressed with MassHealth, which he was part of getting started there in Massachusettes.
I did say that I predict Clinton/Obama to run together and win, with her being in office 2 terms. This event would be a very historical event and would make 3 firsts...a first woman president, a first black vice president, and the spouse of a former president becoming president. Obama will run and win in 2020 making him the first black president. After having proved himself as vice president for 8 years, he will gain the support of many Americans of different races who will by then have forgotten about the smear campaign and lies waged against him.
Posted by ozzette (anonymous) on February 4, 2008 at 2:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Be "RONsponsible"..vote Ron Paul!
Posted by djarum_black (anonymous) on February 4, 2008 at 4:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Just to throw my hat in..
My dad is voting for McCain. My dad's advice to me was "don't vote for anyone who wants to spend your money". My dad's voting record includes two major presidential elections, and in order, he voted for both Nixon and the 2nd term of President Bush. I could make a comment there, but I think that record speaks volumes.
My dad's comment about political candidates who spend taxpayer's money was in reference to my announcement that I was voting for either Clinton or Obama in the hopes that a universal health care system might come about as a result of a democratic president.
It's easy for people who are on veteran's benefits to denounce the idea of universal health care. My dad has diabetes and pays for nothing. He had to have a major surgery and paid for nothing other than a small co-pay on antibiotics. So essentially, my dad is benefitting from a system that is like universal health care already, hence, the only thing that would change for him is that he might have to pay more in taxes.
Pay a little more in taxes for someone like me to be able to get healthcare.
The only way a single person who is not military, a prisoner, or certifiably disabled can get health care is to pay for it entirely out of their pocket (not usually an option), pay large co-pays on company insurance (which companies have lots of ways of avoiding having to provide it), be a minor (under very specific poverty conditions) or get pregnant - in which case, you only get health care through the pregnancy and the three months following. What about the people who don't make enough to cover their health care, but make JUST too much to qualify for any help? Why do you get laughed out of government offices trying to get low-cost health care JUST because you aren't on three other kinds of assistance? As in, you work and pay for your home and food, but you had a medical problem you couldn't financially solve on your own?
Since when is a doctor's care seen as a luxury?
Meanwhile, Canada's increased its conditions and requirements for obtaining citizenship because people in this country are running for the border. Why? No one can afford to get sick over here.
I know a woman who was a NURSE PRACTICIONER and gave up her job to work as a waitress - why? Because her child developed a major internal organ malfunction and after insurance balked and she sold everything she owned (house, car) she still couldn't pay for his care entirely on her own. So.. options are, watch your child die or take a major financial dive so you can bilk the system and hopefully get him well. What would you choose, and why should she have had to choose that?
Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on February 4, 2008 at 5:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
(djarum_black)Listen to your Dad! I think he has good tastes in politics! Also, Mitt looks as good as McCain!
Posted by notabigot (anonymous) on February 4, 2008 at 5:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
That is a real shame. It brings up the point I have been wondering about. Hillary's plan is to mandate that every individual buy "affordable" health insurance. Well, is that mandated, affordable health insurance going to pay for my medical bills, or are we going to be stuck with what we have now. I have a costly pre-existing condition and no health insurance. Is that going to be covered or am I going to have to continue to pay for that out of pocket and buy mandated health insurance. Also, is there going to be insurance reform, because I go home a couple of times a month to find my pregnant daughter, who pays for her own health insurance, crying because insurance won't cover a multitude of things the doctor deems necessary.
Posted by Whisper (anonymous) on February 4, 2008 at 6:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't favor any party, or any organized religion. I think you limit your own choices. And end up having to agree to things that you don't believe in. Just so you are part of something or have a label.
I think it should all be thrown out. And stop coralling us like cattle. It's just as much my right to vote as not to vote. And I still have the same right to complain. What if my candidate didn't win. Does that mean I don't reap the benefits, if any, from the one that did win?
It's too bad that we can't take our country back and kick all the candidates out. And let someone run for any office. That has worked hard, done without. And worried if they could pay their doctor bills.
And it makes me sick when I hear. All of the politicians talk about how many countries they have visited, blah blah blah. All done on tax payers money. When was the last time you got to take a free vacation, or one at all. How much of our money is being spent on security so these candidates can run all over the states. Does the President really need a personal Chef. Did they forget how to cook for themselves.
Ok, I think I am off of my soap box now. I just think of stupid stuff like that. When I read on the blogs of peoples sufferings and fears. It's just wrong that the politicians get the best of everything. And ask us for donations too. Get paid a ridiculous salary, then don't show up for work.
Posted by freedom42 (anonymous) on February 4, 2008 at 7:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Universal Healthcare is just another form of the government taking away more of our individual rights. If I thought the government was really out to "help" people, it would be different.
Posted by djarum_black (anonymous) on February 4, 2008 at 7:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
To rushinghjr:
Sorry, man. I really can't back up anyone's political viewpoint when they voted for MORE of President Bush, not even my Dad. I wasn't a huge fan of Bill Clinton, but he looks pretty darn good in retrospect next to King George.
Posted by djarum_black (anonymous) on February 4, 2008 at 7:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
freedom42:
I'm sorry, but at this point I'd be happy to have an opportunity to pick from a small list of doctors, or even get assigned to one, as opposed to sitting here with my "right" to no health care at all. An awful lot of jobs anymore will set you to work somewhere around 45 minutes short of the hours per week that would entitle you to their company health care plan, if there's a plan at all. It's not like all the people who can't get health care are doing nothing for themselves. It's more that until SOME kind of reform is implemented, people with problems that start small and undiagnosed are ending up with serious health problems that no one can reasonably afford to take care of. If basic vists and examinations were available, we probably wouldn't be seeing some of the absolutely tragic health care crises that are so common these days.
Posted by freedom42 (anonymous) on February 4, 2008 at 7:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
djarum_black, I do understand what you are saying. We went without healthcare for 6 years after my husband lost his job. He had to have emergency surgery for diverticulities 2 years ago, and then follow-up surgery last year. My son had cancer at 10 yrs old, and so cannot get any health insurance now. But I do not want the government taking over anything else in my life. I would love to just disappear as far as government is concerned.
Posted by Username (anonymous) on February 4, 2008 at 8:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
lol...watch this McCain video from 1993.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=o8TFKXHiefs
www.ronpaul2008.com
Posted by EnKiKur (Marty Ellerbe) on February 4, 2008 at 11:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am glad the Democrat set up this comment section so we can see how others feel about various issues.
The health care issue, or "crisis", comes up because the cost of medical care has been rising at a rate disproportional to the ability of many people to pay for it. Why is this?
Republicans would likely say it is because of the rascally Democrats and their tort prone lawyer constituents, Democrats would likely say it is because of the rascally Republicans and their skinflint pharmaceutical and insurance company constituents. A little of both these things is probably true.
Before any health service of any sort is provided there is already a certain cost in the form of government regulation. Both insurance and health care are heavily regulated, and regulation has a definite monetary cost. So before the doctor even looks at your sore foot you already owe some money. Add to that the shockingly high cost of medical education, more regulation in the form of permits, fees, licences, etc. young doctors must fork over to begin practice and you are almost ready to begin paying to actually have your foot looked at.
Lawyers, insurance companies, drug companies and others lobby heavily and help "advise" supposed "lawmakers" in creating regulations. In this way regulation protects monopolistic practices by pricing potential competitors out of the market.
Posted by EnKiKur (Marty Ellerbe) on February 5, 2008 at 12:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It is evident that some sort of relief is needed. Is more of what has caused these problems likely to bring relief? It doesn't seem logical or likely.
Having looked at the specifics of these plans what I see is that we are going to keep all the parts of the system we have now, whether your flavor of choice is Mitt, Hillary, or Obama-Care. We can choose a,b, or c and they are essentially the same.
The only difference will be that the claimed 45 million who don't currently have health insurance will have it under the new plans. Anyone that can afford to pay for it themselves will be forced to buy it, and those that cannot afford it will have it paid for by those who can. Look at the plans.
The insurance companies will gain 45 million new customers, mandated by government. Since these will be contracts the people are forcibly entered into, accountability will fall on the forcing body, the government. We can probably forget about suing for mistakes at that point. Suing the government is very hard to do.
Posted by EnKiKur (Marty Ellerbe) on February 5, 2008 at 12:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What we will see in the coming months will be a lot of debate and emotional appeals, tragic cases trotted before congress where innocent children and seniors will testify in regard to their tragic circumstances.
Insurance companies will publish articles against this scheme that will destroy their profits and in the end, after enough public support has been drummed up in the media for new public policy, the insurance companies will begrudgingly accept the 45 million new customers paying the 45 million new premiums.
How gullible are we? What does the historical record say in regard to our gullibility?
Posted by Incognito (anonymous) on February 5, 2008 at 7:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
On this day, let us remember Fannie Lou Hamer. One who was "sick and tired of being sick and tired".
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)