So, it looks like McCain's gonna get the nomination most likely... if so, who do you think his running mate might be? I would think Romney so he could try and win over some more of those conservative votes, but then again you never know.

So, it looks like McCain's gonna get the nomination most likely... if so, who do you think his running mate might be? I would think Romney so he could try and win over some more of those conservative votes, but then again you never know.

 

If I were McCain I'd rather go with Huckabee to try to solidify the southern states to go to the Republicans. If the Republicans want to win, they need all of the southern states.

So, it looks like McCain's gonna get the nomination most likely... if so, who do you think his running mate might be? I would think Romney so he could try and win over some more of those conservative votes, but then again you never know.

 

I'd be shocked if it's not Huckabee, every sign in the world is just pointing in that direction.

He should pick Condi as his veep. Then all the blacks and women who are voting for Obama and Hillary because of identity politics (as opposed to those who are voting for them because they agree with thier stance/ideals/etc.) will have a real choice on their hands, since it is a real possibility that Johnny may not live to finish his term.

He should pick Condi as his veep. Then all the blacks and women who are voting for Obama and Hillary because of identity politics (as opposed to those who are voting for them because they agree with thier stance/ideals/etc.) will have a real choice on their hands, since it is a real possibility that Johnny may not live to finish his term.

 

Does anyone really want to be associated with the Bush presidency, though? Condi isn't exactly well-liked nationally.

So, it looks like McCain's gonna get the nomination most likely... if so, who do you think his running mate might be? I would think Romney so he could try and win over some more of those conservative votes, but then again you never know.

McCain and Romney really dislike each other, and Romney doesn't play well in the south either. Its Huckabee or someone similar.

 

Unconfirmed report on FoxNews. Romney to throw in the towel today.

 

Source: Mark? Halperin in a Time politics blog, per FoxNews

Edited February 7, 200818 yr by YASNY

Well, the valuemaking plan everyone points to is health care. And Obama's plan is voluntary. Purely. So what's socialist about that again?

 

I'm not going to speak for Kap, but who pays for this voluntary system? The people who need it, can't afford it.

I'm not going to speak for Kap, but who pays for this voluntary system? The people who need it, can't afford it.

A big part of the problem though is that within a few years...no one will be able to afford it. I'll defer to the Congressional Budget office (non-partisan) on this graph:

 

If we don't reform the system...if we keep the private system we have now...who pays for that mess? 30-40% of GDP by the time I'm looking at retiring.

He should pick Condi as his veep. Then all the blacks and women who are voting for Obama and Hillary because of identity politics (as opposed to those who are voting for them because they agree with thier stance/ideals/etc.) will have a real choice on their hands, since it is a real possibility that Johnny may not live to finish his term.

 

That would be a horrid choice. Blacks won't vote republican EVER, even if a black is on the ticket, and McCain would be wise to stay as far away from the Bush Administration as possible.

A big part of the problem though is that within a few years...no one will be able to afford it. I'll defer to the Congressional Budget office (non-partisan) on this graph:

 

If we don't reform the system...if we keep the private system we have now...who pays for that mess? 30-40% of GDP by the time I'm looking at retiring.

 

Government intervention is not going to make things better in the health care field. I have said it before, and I will say it again, adding people to the system isn't going to improve the level of care. In fact if you take the profit motivation out of the field, you will get people who work in medicine leaving the field for more profitable areas. Think teacher burnout. The more the government requires of them, the more of a shortfall of teachers there are. Go figure. The government might be able to force medical providers to cut costs, but there are going to be serious problems with the system if they do. These are the same people that take months to get you a passport or a social security check, why does everyone assume that they can handle medicine better than the private sector?

Government intervention is not going to make things better in the health care field. I have said it before, and I will say it again, adding people to the system isn't going to improve the level of care. In fact if you take the profit motivation out of the field, you will get people who work in medicine leaving the field for more profitable areas. Think teacher burnout. The more the government requires of them, the more of a shortfall of teachers there are. Go figure. The government might be able to force medical providers to cut costs, but there are going to be serious problems with the system if they do. These are the same people that take months to get you a passport or a social security check, why does everyone assume that they can handle medicine better than the private sector?

 

Because the private sector makes decisions to deny treatment based on the bottom line and not medical opinion. That's just the nature of the beast.

 

And, clearly, something has to be done. Costs are going through the roof. Th government already pays almost half of all medical costs.

Because the private sector makes decisions to deny treatment based on the bottom line and not medical opinion. That's just the nature of the beast.

 

And, clearly, something has to be done. Costs are going through the roof. Th government already pays almost half of all medical costs.

 

The government already pays half the costs. That's the problem in a nutshell. The government can set rules to insure the private sector provides adequate health care for all, but the private sector needs to be the driving force. There is nothing more inefficient than a government run institution.

Because the private sector makes decisions to deny treatment based on the bottom line and not medical opinion. That's just the nature of the beast.

 

And, clearly, something has to be done. Costs are going through the roof. Th government already pays almost half of all medical costs.

 

I don't think it is any coincidence that the more government has gotten involved, the worse care has gotten, and the more expensive it has gotten.

The government already pays half the costs. That's the problem in a nutshell. The government can set rules to insure the private sector provides adequate health care for all, but the private sector needs to be the driving force. There is nothing more inefficient than a government run institution.

 

The current health insurance industry is a case study in inefficiency, bureucracy, and redundancy.\

 

Personally, I would lean more towards stiffer government regulation but still allowing the private sector to work it out. But something bothers me about them deciding to deny a liver transplant based on the bottom line and not medical opinion.

The current health insurance industry is a case study in inefficiency, bureucracy, and redundancy.\

 

Personally, I would lean more towards stiffer government regulation but still allowing the private sector to work it out. But something bothers me about them deciding to deny a liver transplant based on the bottom line and not medical opinion.

 

Let me put it this way. If someone decided your job was too important to the public, and that you now had to do twice as much work at half the pay, would you still be doing it?

Because the private sector makes decisions to deny treatment based on the bottom line and not medical opinion. That's just the nature of the beast.

 

And, clearly, something has to be done. Costs are going through the roof. Th government already pays almost half of all medical costs.

This will be a conundrum for a long time, long after the new President has left office. There are lots of complicating factors, but there are two main opposing forces at the heart of the issue:

 

--The lack of goal alignment for for-profit companies in health care. Providing the best care will often not be in their best interest.

 

and

 

--The lack of motivation of public health care systems to do anything other than get by, losing all motivation to cut unneeded costs

 

So, what is ideal here? To me, the IDEAL actors are not-for-profit corporations, centered around rewards for performance. And multiple of them, who are motivated to get more business, and grow themselves. But at this point, taking down the whole system as a business and rebuilding it would be a bad idea, so, maybe its best to just encourage those actors?

 

In any case, those two axioms up that I listed are the main problems, in my view.

 

Man, Huck helping himself out tonight showing up on Colbert and being hilarious(even though i know his supporters probably aren't watching). I could really see him taking Romney's delegates and doing well in Texas IF the media recognizes that he's still there. We'll see.

Man, Huck helping himself out tonight showing up on Colbert and being hilarious(even though i know his supporters probably aren't watching). I could really see him taking Romney's delegates and doing well in Texas IF the media recognizes that he's still there. We'll see.

Is this the first time you've seen him on there? He's been on repeatedly and has been pretty good each time. Heck, Stewart and Colbert had him on before his Iowa Straw Poll boost, so you could really say they helped make Huckabee.

Is this the first time you've seen him on there? He's been on repeatedly and has been pretty good each time. Heck, Stewart and Colbert had him on before his Iowa Straw Poll boost, so you could really say they helped make Huckabee.

 

no i know he's been on before - he just has good timing w/ this one. and i thought it was even more funny given the recent "feud"

Huckabee has absolutely no chance of securing the nomination.

There is nothing more inefficient than a government run institution.

 

I always thought Walmart should run the military

Let me put it this way. If someone decided your job was too important to the public, and that you now had to do twice as much work at half the pay, would you still be doing it?

 

Who would be working for half the pay?

Who would be working for half the pay?

The government pays us all SO well! I mean, we're getting $600, $1,200 or MORE! in a couple of months!

The government pays us all SO well! I mean, we're getting $600, $1,200 or MORE! in a couple of months!

yeppers, we need elections every other year