Last one out of Massachusetts, please turn off the lights. Maybe that's why there is so much resistance to broadband in the state. To many people would choose to live in one state and work in another.
 

Greg.....I am not a believer in any governmental body telling me, at the behest of of a concerned corporation, what is or isn't good for me, under the guise of "It's for my own good". That flies directly in the face of freedom of choice and the American way.
This new Massachusetts Health Insurance Law is nothing more than a cop out by our elected representatives, rather than to face up to what the people really want and need....UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE! It is reprehensible that those we send to Boston from here are more concerned with staying friendly with the drug companies, the American Medical Association, and the insurance companies, than having the balls to stand along side the people and institute universal health care.
At what point do you people wake up and stop sending people to Boston who don't give a shit what you think or want?
 

I am not a believer in any governmental body telling me, at the behest of of a concerned corporation, what is or isn't good for me, under the guise of "It's for my own good". That flies directly in the face of freedom of choice and the American way. Southview wouldn't universal health care fall under this umbrella?

Clearly the Mass plan will not last, but it is a stop gap measure to get more people to have health insurance, which in the long run is supposed to reduce health care cost for all of us. Unfortunately, this Mittcare will be used as the poster child reason why Universal Health Care should not be pursued.

Don't you worry, Obama will take care of this.
 

Da snoop.....After much thought on your comment, (you do have a knack for finding talking points) I would have to say no, and here's why...Universal Health Care would be a servace rendered unto the general public, not a forced purchase from a private insurance enity mandated by politions, and in passing, you still would have the option of buying your own private policy if you so desired.
 

Universal Health Care would be a servace rendered unto the general public - financed by???? Or do you have choice of whether or not to pay taxes?
 

da snoop it would be paid like a tax same way we pay for fire dept. police dept.but the greatest thing of all it would get rid of greedy insurance companies and you be insured regardless if you had a job or not.
 

Can you opt out? Not pay the extra taxes? Choose to self-insure? Sounds like a governmental body telling me, at the behest of of a concerned corporation, what is or isn't good for me, under the guise of "It's for my own good". to me. Southview's corporation would now be the government instead of a privately held company, but the concept is still the same.

Don't get me wrong, I'm for Universal Health Care, I'm just pointing out that there still won't be freedom of choice when it comes to insuring health care. You may have more choices on what care to get and where, but if you don't like the plan or the cost (tax) - you're SOL.

I believe there are certain aspects of life that it is the government's responsibility to provide the governed.
 

Snoop.....You are right and you are wrong. Of course in order to garnish enough funds to run the system everyone has to pitch in...for the good of the one. Laws mandating fees and prices for services rendered, cost of drugs, etc. all of which have to be enacted to bring costs down to their true value. If, and that is a big IF, the program is set-up properly, than I can't conceive of any reason why you would want to op-out and buy more expensive private insurance in the first place? It won't give you any more benefits than the public plan, just cost you more!
 

Catch the wave, Baby!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghSJsEVf0pU
 

While I plan on voting for the Democratic nominee, who I venture will likely be Obama, that video actually creeps me out. The crowd chanting "O-ba-ma!" over and over is just a wee bit too cult of personality for me.

Mobs, whether I agree with them or not, have a tendency to run roughshod over anybody or anything that gets in their way.
 

Reminds me of the U-S-A chant from the 1980 Olympics.

Regardless whether you like Obama or not, you can't deny he has renewed people's interest in politics again. Even my 4th grade daughter knows the candidates from both sides and discusses politics in her class. Haven't seen that before.
 

da snoop - you are right about the renewed interest, and it's not just in terms of the #s of folks who wear Obama T-shirts.

From the Times Caucus blog: "Only 10 percent of Clinton contributors did not donate the legal maximum $2,300 for her primary campaign. In contrast, only three percent of Obama donors gave the maximum. The rest of the cash came from small sums from many more people."

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/20/the-democratic-take-from-top-to-bottom/

Plus, for this campaign at least, he hasn't taken PAC $ or lobbyist $.

That's why I think it's too simplistic to dismiss his popularity as a cult of personality. Should he win the nomination and the general election, there will be a real difference between him and other candidates regarding who is "owed." The pie charts are just totally different.

I do think he'll disappoint many, however, because people like the idea of compromise, but don't generally want it. (Me included). But that's a different story.
 

While Obama's popularity is undeniable, I don't think that it is simplistic to think that much of his support is based upon style over substance. The ability to inspire is great, but only if the inspire-er is on your side.

Don't get me wrong, I honestly believe that he is the real deal, but when the electorate is swayed in elections by the likes of Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jesse Ventura, I take the "popularity" of any candidate who is treated like a "rock star" with a dose of salt.

I like Obama. I like his message. If he wins the nomination, I'll almost definitely vote for him. But that doesn't mean that I do not believe that the masses can be swayed by personality over substance.

How soon we forget 2000.
 

I find the "experience" argument an odd one. One the hand people have been saying they do not want more of the same political power structure. I think for a change in the political landscape it is going to take someone without the dozens of political years.

Having said that, I think one can look at what experience is there and see how decisions made, match their view for future of the government and country.

2000 and 2004 were choices involving the lesser of two evils. I think/hope this election is different. At this point I would rather have an inexperienced (though in my opinion has made sound judgments when called upon to do so) person in the White House, than experience that I don't agree with.
 

Oh, I absolutely agree: people can be swayed by style over substance. Oh, yes. Oh, yes yes yes. Oh, I would never ever disagree with that. Hello, George Bush, man we might love to have a beer with but who has taken the nation down a rapid and very frightening downward spiral!

My point is just that I don't think that Obama is ONLY style and NO substance. I actually think there's far more substance there than he gets credit for.

As for experience... Hillary's experience has not helped her run a decent campaign (she's been all over the place, whereas Obama has run a very skilled, very grounded, extremely organized campaign).

And the experience argument bothers me on another level, as it just doesn't gel with what I think the founding fathers intended, which is representation by citizens.

Lincoln, by the way, had only one term in national politics before becoming president - he'd been a state representative, and then served just a single 2-year in the house of representatives. Eisenhower had never held elected office (he was kind of a Wesley Clark type). Bill Clinton had never held national office, and had zero foreign policy experience.

I dunno. What is "enough" experience to be president? I just can't quite swallow the argument that he doesn't have it. And as of this morning, my vote is cast.
 

the experience argument doesn't hold much water in my view. As Snoop wrote - I'd much rather have someone with good judgment.

As of this moment, I'd vote for either candidate on that basis.