S-

I guess I see the GOP glass as half full and the Dems half empty, and vice versa for you.

CS

————– Original message ————–

By the way, while we're on the subject, what do you think of McCain's response that healthcare is a responsibility?

First, on the right to healthcare: I fundamentally agree with you (and I think this is Polimom's position too) but there's a very important distinction between Constitutional rights and moral rights. I think most people have forgotten that or younger people have never been taught the difference, and I think that's very dangerous because a lack of understanding makes fiscal responsibility (and keeping the federal govt to a manageable size) impossible.

Do you get my point? And Obama most certainly knows the difference, so I think it's irresponsible of him to not address it.

I do not believe that healthcare should ba a constitutionally guaranteed right. But I think a prosperous America can afford to offer healthcare to all. After all it is easier to pay for preventative care then for people to show up at the emergency rooms once their illness has blossomed into some horrific disease…

Bottom line is that in this country if you don't have healthcare you are still treated when you go to the emergency room and taxpayers end up paying for your treatment anyway. The cruel and inhuman alternative is that if we don't believe in paying to treat people who are ill then we should start turning away everyone who shows up at an emergency room (including car crash victims who are about to die) without proof of insurance. Obviously I'm not advocating that position…. I'm just stating the alternative (and how cruel it would be) if we don't want to pay to treat uninsured people.

I firmly and wholeheartedly believe in what Republicans once stood for… the fiscal responsibility…. but the GOP seems more interested in remaining in power and saying whatever it takes to do that, even giving up on their principles. I grew up a Republican (family from the North) in the Democratic South. What's interesting is that as the South turned Republican my family (except my brother) has turned Democratic (though willing to vote for the man, not the party). But the last couple of election cycles the GOP has absolutely thrown away everything that I believe in- fiscal responsibility, smart leadership, and the GOP now caters to the religious right who wants to shove their beliefs on everyone else (I may be in agreement with most of those beliefs but I do not believe in forcing my religious views on others).

The McCain mortgage bill is another example of the GOP giving up their principles of fiscal soundness (and just plain common sense) to try to gain votes. I would have been horrified if Obama had suggested it, but Obama understands the process, has run a great campaign and his decisions on the economy, etc. have been really intelligent (for the most part). McCain is willing to put himself in political peril if he believes he will gain votes. But McCain also gives up his principles. I've commented before that McCain would be doing a lot better if he were the McCain of 2000. I know several people who would have voted for McCain in 2000, and supported McCain going into the GOP primary. But no one knows what McCain stands for (except that he's “not Obama”, which sounds like Bush….. anything but what Clinton supported).

Superdestroyer's schtick is that the GOP is dead (or almost dead). I wouldn't go that far, and I do hope both parties become responsible (the Dems are far from perfect). But the existing GOP is headed for the dust bin. And even though I can't stand the GOP at this point, I do think they are absolutely essential to this country. At least the GOP that once was.

One last comment from on McCain and his $300 bn rescue… McCain was more of a liberal Democrat last night than Obama!

As distasteful as it is to admit it, I now see what Rush Limbaugh meant about his opposition to McCain as the GOP nominee. Instead of providing a clear and rational alternative to doomed liberal economic policies, McCain's trying the “I care too!” approach.

And I was wrong to think that McCain would be the best strategic choice for the GOP because instead of getting credit where it's due for his bipartisanship and pragmatism over ideology, he doesn't get any of the benefit of that but gets all the blame when it goes wrong. Mind you, I still think he would be a good choice for the country as president at this time in our history- but strategically I now think that my former thinking was flawed. On the other hand though, maybe it's just that no one could possibly win from the GOP this cycle.

In talking about the failing economy, McCain wants to spend another $300bn on top of the $700bn we just spent bailing out Wall St. companies (McCain clearly said the $300bn was his own plan and no one else's so it's not part of the bailout package). When Tom Brokaw asked about priorities among healthcare, energy and entitlements, McCain said we could do everything at once). Later in the debate McCain wants to decreases taxes even lower. I mean where does McCain honestly think he will get this money? We're already $10 trillion in debt, McCain wants to put us in debt with another $300bn to buy bad mortgages (which would also expand government) and McCain tonight did not offer any way to pay for any of it. And with a declining economy, the tax receipts will just be lower which means less money for the government.

Obama at least wants to roll back Bush's tax cuts to help pay for some of his programs. Obama claimed that he would be able to pay for his programs, which I don't see how he can do, but at least Obama has told us how he would prioritize the three issues presented by Brokaw, Obama has said we will need to roll back the Bush tax cuts to pay for it. Whereas all McCain did was propose hundreds of billions of new spending, the lowering of taxes yet further and freezing government spending across the board, except on some programs like defense….

We're already running about $500 bn in debt each year. With McCain's lowering of taxes and $300bn buyout of mortgages, at the end of the first year we would have added an additional trillion or so to the debt. We would eventually recover PART of the $300 bn in bad mortgages that the US government bought, but not anytime soon.

If he wants to renegotiate each mortgage (say the average mortgage is $150k that we buy) then $300bn would go torwards two million homes. McCain would have to open up a new department, hire and train people and then start negotiating those mortgages… If McCain follows through on his plan, “I will immediately ORDER the Secretary of the Treasury to buy $300 bn in bad mortgages…” How does he plan on tracking those mortgages he just bought until the new department is up and running? Besides, I don't think McCain can actually just “order” the Treasury secretary to Buy $300 bn in mortgages. I think that McCain (just like Bush just did for his $700bn bailout plan) would have to go before Congress to get a bill passed (and the debt ceiling raised).

What's even more hilarious (or shocking, I don't know at this point) is that in this same debate McCain said, “I have fought against excessive spending.” This plan of McCain's is characteristic of McCain jumping first and then looking later. McCain desperately needed some plan that he came up with on his own to try to win back the argument on the economy. McCain really was against the government before he was for it…. at least only to win votes. McCain is all across the board on the role of government.

This plan would take years to implement… If one person can re-negotiate three mortgages a day and works 250 days a year, then it would require the hiring and training of over 2,600 people if you wanted to get those mortgages renegotiated in a year (this would be after the hiring and training is done and the department is fully up and running).

McCain doesn't have a philosophy on the proper role of government, he has a government spending plan to get votes. Perhaps that what he thinks “public financing of campaigns” means….

I would be willing to guess that the majority of readers of this blog have reasonably sound, well financed, health care plans. But, their own payments have been rising faster than the basic rate of inflation.

We continue to reward the medical establishment in this country for illness, not well-being. Oh, there are some incentives to promote preventive measures. But, instead of rewarding cancer surgeons to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars, we should issue hundred thousand dollar bonuses to every doctor who gets1 patient to quit smoking for 2 years, or lose at least 30% of their excess body weight.

And the right to decent health care does not have to be written into the constitution. It is a right that the people will eventually grant themselves through a balanced examination of what is the most expensive and least efficient or effective health care system in the industrialized world. The numbers speak for themselves. Look them up. See T.R. Reid's PBS Frontline documentary – “Sick Around the World”

The continuing problem that underlies the health care system in this country is the profit motive. I believe very strongly in the capitalist system. I have an MBA from a reasonably prestigious institution. But, when it comes to health care, does anyone want the bargain basement? Who wants to skimp on caring for a sick child, or sick parent? People continue to bankrupt themselves to get the best care for themselves and their families. Rationing? We ration in this country on a purely economic basis. And, that rationing is starting to hit middle income people as hard as it has the poor.

A number of correspondents have stated that we do take care of sick or injured people. The fundamental truth is that there does not exist a person in this country who does not assume he or she has the right decent health care. It has become a de facto, if not a de jure right. And for the poor and uninsured, it is exercised in the ER. And we all pay for it. We do it willingly because we too assume that those people deserve to live.

This is already too long a comment, so I'll try to end it here. If you're interested I have a consideration of McCain's plan below my signature.

And, by the way, yes the Supreme Court since Marbury v. Madison has been a generally good force in the American sociopolitical system. And a solidly conservative one – in the best sense of that word. But today's court contains as radical a group of justices as any who have served in over many years. Bush v. Gore speaks for itself. There are times when I believe that Scalia and Thomas are defending the Articles of Confederation and not the Constitution.

Rick York

McCain's “health plan”

In 2005, the average household income was $47,000/year. The average family size was 3.19. So, how is the average family going to be able to put away $5,000 per year after the normal costs of everyday living? And how much would they really get back on their taxes? How much do they pay?

The way the term “right” has been thrown around in here, I'm either coming from an odd, old-school interpretation of the word, or America has fully integrated a new meaning while I wasn't looking. Maybe y'all are correct, and Obama's sentence structure here was just a sloppy way of saying, “we're gonna spend some money to make it more affordable”. I've had my mind wrapped around that just fine for quite awhile.

But I feel — and felt for some time — that the country is at one of those pivotal forks in the road. We've taken turns in the past that led us to some unintended places; I'd rather not take any corners blind.