U.S. Election Day

[TheRocket]

I'm not saying you should love Obama and go crazy over him, (although I don't agree with you on your points about healthcare, I won't go into that), but the glaring issue with Romeny just makes me wonder how anyone can vote for anyone BUT Obama.

[Matt]

The problem is at the heart of it, everyone in the country is forced to purchase health care from private for profit companies. To say that "if everyone has to buy insurance it will bring the price down" is a complete BS idea. I $56 a month more in Michigan for car insurance as opposed to in Alaska which has worse driving conditions and more per capita insurance claims. Why? because in Michigan you HAVE to buy car insurance.

If you require everyone to purchase a product there is no incentive to reduce the cost, they just increase profits.

I should probably just bite my tongue, but...

The Health care reform act contained substantial price controls when tabled.

Those measures were fucking torpedoed in favour of corporate interests.

I'll give you three guesses which party had the larger hand in that action.


-m

[TheRocket]

ABORT! ABORT! ABANDON LOCK SHIP!

[sasparilla]

Kind of off but on topic...I photographed a gay wedding at the most beautiful church in DC. It was the most amazing liberal cathedral. I was so honoured. The reception was at the couples vineyard they owned and ran in Maryland. Even though the church was amazing, it was a damn shame they couldn't get married at the place they built from the ground up and had spent their entire lives together making.

Off topic, their vineyard reception was the first place I had seen a firefly. I almost lost my shit.

(allow me to run further off-topic with your post)

OOH! Where? I probably know it!

I did a gay wedding too, a few years ago - they had it in one of the restaurants in Union Station, and it was seriously the most beautiful ceremony I'd ever seen. I tear up at gay weddings, I don't at most straight ones anymore.

[Matt]

I should probably just go over there------>


-m

[JustAName]

Somewhat off-topic I suppose: Whoever's doing the social media for the Obama campaign is doing a damn good job.

[JackSlack]

The problem is at the heart of it, everyone in the country is forced to purchase health care from private for profit companies. To say that "if everyone has to buy insurance it will bring the price down" is a complete BS idea.

That's not why the mandate is there.

The mandate is there to counter the new requirement for insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions. Without it, there would be no incentive not to simply purchase insurance the moment you get sick, since they're required to cover you then. This would make health insurance immediately unprofitable for obvious reasons.

Now, is this a good trade off? That's not for me to decide. There are flaws in every approach to this question. (Don't require them to cover pre-existing coverage? Get ready for insurance companies to look for every excuse imaginable to call something 'pre-existing'. Put in a delay on pre-existing symptoms? A solution, but in many cases it's kicking the can down the road. Require coverage but demand all pre-existing be covered? It forces everyone to buy insurance.) But that was the logic.

[TheRocket]

Kind of off but on topic...I photographed a gay wedding at the most beautiful church in DC. It was the most amazing liberal cathedral. I was so honoured. The reception was at the couples vineyard they owned and ran in Maryland. Even though the church was amazing, it was a damn shame they couldn't get married at the place they built from the ground up and had spent their entire lives together making.

Off topic, their vineyard reception was the first place I had seen a firefly. I almost lost my shit.

(allow me to run further off-topic with your post)

OOH! Where? I probably know it!

I did a gay wedding too, a few years ago - they had it in one of the restaurants in Union Station, and it was seriously the most beautiful ceremony I'd ever seen. I tear up at gay weddings, I don't at most straight ones anymore.

I'm contractually obligated not to release this information, because said couple were also high up military personnel and that opened up a whole other can of worms since this was before Don't Ask Don't Tell was repealed. So I'm contractually obligated not to discuss the names or release the photos. Sad, isn't it?

[Drdiggit42]

Somewhat off-topic I suppose: Whoever's doing the social media for the Obama campaign is doing a damn good job.

Except they send me like 3 emails a day asking for money. I ended up removing myself from the mailing list. What makes them think spamming us will make us donate? It only deters me from donating. Not that I have money I can spare and if I did there is a long list of causes I'd donate to first.

[Kapol]

Thanks for the link Hosk. I'll check out the props now that I'm out of class. I agree on the way these propsals are worded are absolute crap and make them pointless. The worst ones are, to me, the ones that intentionally misleading. Such as the ones that basically have no if you do want it and yes if you don't.

Rocket, I am just as perplexed.

That said, I don't know how you could vote for him on economics either...

-m

Wait, you don't understand how someone would vote for the man who's going to magic away all of the deficit, reduce taxes for everyone, and still bring America back into the golden age? I don't see what you mean. /end incredibly strong sarcasm

Honestly, I do really dislike Romley. He really seems to have no idea what he's doing. Paul Ryan isn't any better. When he basically said during the VP debate that he allows his religious beliefs to affect how he forms laws, that's when I knew instantly that I wouldn't be voting for him. I'm fine with religion. I don't agree with everything about it, but I'm fine with personal beliefs and people doing whatever they want. But once that is brought into affecting other peoples' lives who don't follow those same beliefs, it bothers me.

Also, here's something that I saw today and found interesting. It's something that I haven't seen brought up too much in this race as a major issue, and that's enviromental concerns. Obama does seem to talk about it while Romney seems to ignore it entirely.

And that video, to me, really shows what too many people supporting Romney (and in general in the US) think. Say something they don't like, like bringing up enviromental issues, and they just start chanting USA! That's not an answer. It doesn't even make F*ing sense! It's an issue that will and has affected us too. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away.

But that's getting off topic. I saw that video earlier and I just wanted to punch something. :/


Edit before posts: I know where Diggit is coming from. I got 10 calls today telling me to vote for Romney. That's absurd. It just makes me want to vote for him all the less. I've been seeing more Obama ads lately, but at least they aren't calling my freaking home and bothering me.

[sasparilla]

I'm contractually obligated not to release this information, because said couple were also high up military personnel and that opened up a whole other can of worms since this was before Don't Ask Don't Tell was repealed. So I'm contractually obligated not to discuss the names or release the photos. Sad, isn't it?

No worries, I completely understand! And yes, it is sad. I really wish people wouldn't get so hung up about same-sex marriage to the point that couples feel they have to hide their relationships like that. I like to think we're moving somewhat forward on that front. (see, bringing it back on-topic kinda!)

So wait, are you DC-based then? (aaaaand back off-topic)

[JayBlanc]

The problem is at the heart of it, everyone in the country is forced to purchase health care from private for profit companies. To say that "if everyone has to buy insurance it will bring the price down" is a complete BS idea.

Have to correct this... A big biiiig part of why this is still opposed is that it also created the Health Insurance Exchanges. Programs directly administrated by or contracted out by the State government, that provide affordable insurance where the private companies would not cover.

A lot of US states are dragging their feet on implementing these, and some even trying to avoid ever having to do so.

That you don't understand this is a big success of the GOP re-framing the health care debate to confuse and misinform you. Remember that what Obama actually wanted was for every state to have a government controlled not-for-profit health care provider, but he couldn't get the 60 votes that would be required to get past a GOP filibuster.

Now you have the situation were the sane states can make their own non-profit insurance exchange. And I'm sorry if you don't live in a sane state, but that's not Obama's fault.

[TheRocket]

I'm D.M.V based, usually. I'm kind of all over the map. I don't stay in one place for long if I can help it.

[Lord Hosk]

When I hear people the rationalisation of what the law could have or should have been but isnt and that it isnt the presidents fault that it isnt what it could have been is crap.

The bill doesnt work the way you wanted it to? Dont sign it, veto and make a speech in the rose garden "I want all Americans to have health insurance, my democratic allies in congress proposed a bill that would have done this, that bill got gutted and the bill they passed will hurt a lot more Citizens than it will help. I refuse to sign this crappy version of our dream, fix it."





I have an idealized view of what politics should be, you know why? Because the constitution is our ideal! The people who represent us should be our brightest and best and if they aren't, get someone in there who is better.

I dont agree with everything that Senator Murkowski has done and I dont support a number of things she will do.
But you know who is and likely always will be an ass clown lying piece of shit? Joe Miller
You know who was a terrible candidate? Scott McAdams

So I am proud to have written in a the third candidate.

[JayBlanc]

Except the bill that was passed *is* a whole lot better than the Status Quo. Should Obama have thrown all that away because not every state would have a public option?

[Matt]

It's like no one remembers the three years of republican "Fuck Obama and everything he tries to pass" obstructionism. Like, preventing any effective democrat legislation from being passed, even if doing so came at the expense of the American people was the explicit basis of the Republican Party platform from 2009 until campaigning started.

And yet Obama managed to enact some pretty historic pieces of legislation despite it all. Are they perfect? No. Are they a step along the way? Absolutely.

And people in this very theread have bemoaned the fact that Obama didn't bring about enough change.

So what the literal fuck.

Do you not see the impossible position you're demanding?

"We want only perfect legislation, and we want it produced over the kicking, screaming, petulence of the republican-controlled house, and if you can't make it perfect we're going to rake you over the coals for your ineffectuality, and no matter what you accomplish we're going to complain that you haven't accomplished enough, while demanding that you throw out anything that isn't shitting unicorns and giving every American a puppy."

It's the fucking kobyashi maru. There is no win condition.

-m

[Lord Hosk]

It's the fucking kobyashi maru. There is no win condition.

-m

So you change the program.

[Matt]

What does that even mean, in this context? Clarify that for me, would you?

-m

[AlexanderDitto]

It's the fucking kobyashi maru. There is no win condition.

-m

So you change the program.

Republicans have done exactly this, actually. They've become extremely good at meta-gaming politics. Instead of debating a bill and trying to defeat it on its merits and flaws, they'll filibuster it so it never comes to debate. They'll keep more bills stalled indefinitely so they die in committee. They'll introduce changes in the bill to make them different in each house of Congress, which makes reconciliation difficult. You remember how they refused to raise the debt limit, which no Congress had ever done, unless the President backed down and gave them the tax cuts they wanted? And in doing so they downgraded the US's credit rating? They're actually really good at "changing the program." I'm not going to ding them for it because they've essentially figured out how to optimize their performance over the system they're working in. It was only a matter of time until it happened.

The Democrats haven't figured out how to do this yet. As soon as they do, if my guess is correct, Congress will either shut down forever or tear itself apart, because politicians will no longer be following the rules set out for them by the Constitution. They'll have all figured out how to cheatcode the whole way through.

Except the bill that was passed *is* a whole lot better than the Status Quo. Should Obama have thrown all that away because not every state would have a public option?

In this case, for Obama, something was better than nothing. Pre-existing conditions are gone in exchange for the healthcare mandate. It's not single payer, but it's arguably better than things were before, if you want to move toward a single payer system.

Somewhat off-topic I suppose: Whoever's doing the social media for the Obama campaign is doing a damn good job.

I assume you're talking about his tumblr, which is kind of adorable, because it seems like they got people who are actually obsessed with tumblr to run it.

EDIT: This is partially my fault, because it's an election thread and everyone's antsy about tomorrow and I like talking politics too, but I don't want this to turn into a "argue about healthcare" thread. Let's try to be civil and focus this on tomorrow's voting.

[AlexanderDitto]

Also in case you don't know:

yourfuckingpollingplace.com

You just put in your fucking address and it gives you your fucking polling place! DELIGHTFUL.

[JustAName]

Yeah, I meant his tumblr.

[AdmiralMemo]

All I know about Obama-care is that before it, my friend's ALS medication cost about $7,000 per month. After Obama-care, it cost about $14,000 per month. These are the drugs that keep her alive, and she has to sacrifice either a car payment or a house payment each month to stay alive at this point. That's the absolute opposite of what the government claimed would happen.

----

One thing that annoys me is that so many people see marriage as a civil right. Marriage is not a right at all. It's a privilege. There's a difference.

Now, my view on marriage is simple. If the government wants to be all "separation of church and state" then they should be out of marriage entirely, since marriage is a religious term.

Therefore, abolish all current marriages. Then, set up a "civil union," "partnership" or whatever the PC term is these days. Then, grandfather clause all previous marriages back into it. Then, the people can decide by voting whether a man can marry a woman, a man, a dog, a cactus, a 12-year-old, 2 women, or whatever. It'll be up to the people and religious terminology won't factor into it.

Really, by statistics, in the US, those who are for gay marriage and those who are for gay civil unions added together is over 50%. If they would just work together, something could get done.

[TheRocket]

I think people in the USA need to stop arguing over the use of the word marriage, and just get down to the equal privileges that people who sign a fucking piece of paper get.

[Matt]

One thing that annoys me is that so many people see marriage as a civil right. Marriage is not a right at all. It's a privilege. There's a difference.

Sorry, the supreme court disagrees with you:

Virginia's statutory scheme to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications held to violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 388 U. S. 4-12.
206 Va. 924, 147 S.E.2d 78, reversed.
Page 388 U. S. 2

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court.

[snip]

II

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535, 316 U. S. 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.

These convictions must be reversed.

It is so ordered.

[snip]

You can read the full judgement here: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f ... oving.html


-m

[AdmiralMemo]

Well, then, I believe the Supreme Court is wrong. They've been wrong before. They'll be wrong again. They are just people, who are imperfect.

I think people in the USA need to stop arguing over the use of the word marriage, and just get down to the equal privileges that people who sign a fucking piece of paper get.

Yes. The word itself is like 3/4 of the issue. Change the word and you'll find so many more supporters, myself included.