I'm not sure all of you know this, but thought I would point out that Senator McCain has been the principal proponent in Congress of legislation to ban college sports gambling in Las Vegas. He also supported the legislation last year to crack down on sports gambling and sports gamblers who may bet outside Las Vegas. (Most people don't understand this, but sports gambling itself is not illegal in many states. For example, it is a minor crime in Illinois, but not in Indiana or Wisconsin. Booking bets is illegal in every state except Nevada.)

It's especially humorous that McCain, who loves to go to Vegas himself and play the tables, makes distinctions between different kinds of gambling. I know his logic and justifications, but the inconsistency is still amusing. He loves to play blackjack in one room of the casino, but doesn't want people betting on sports in the other room of the casino. And he introduced legislation to stop it. I would respect him more if he had strong beliefs against gambling and wanted to ban all gambling. I wouldn't agree with his beliefs, but I would respect them. But that's not it. He just thinks sports gambling is wrong because it affects the games. He doesn't understand that it is Vegas that actually identifies questionable games immediately and thereby raises red flags to root out corrupt gamblers, refs, players and games. Does he really think that if we shut down sports betting on college sports in Vegas that people wouldn't do it illegally through the mob? And that there will be some college kids and referees who will still cheat..maybe even more so...because their chances of getting caught will be significantly lower because there won't be a regulated business and industry in Vegas watching for anything unusual?

I thought this was going to be an analysis on the odds of McCain winning the Presidency.

No candidate will be a perfect fit for your beliefs, but I'd rather have a president who is against sports gambling rather than a president who is for a healthcare system where I would be forced to deal with the issues of Medicare.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

When it comes to McCain, I'm going to have to work hard to stay objective about the odds. That's something I do pretty well with teams I like or coaches I dislike, but not sure I dislike any team or coach as much as I dislike McCain. So it will be a challenge to remain an objective analyst on his odds of winning. When I think I'm able to do that, I'll let you know.

Just make a donation to Kervorkian's campaign.

You don't want to deal with the issues of Medicare? There's only one way to avoid that, I guess. Die before you reach age 65. But you will hopefully reach the age of 65. And you will deal with Medicare then whether you want to or not. If you do live to 65 and still want to avoid "the issues of Medicare" then I guess you will be so financially secure you won't need private insurance. (You do understand that private insurance for people 65 and older only kicks in after Medicare pays the base charges). And you will apparently choose to leave the tough issues for future generations to address. Interesting choices you make. Good luck with them.

I guess I should have used the term "Medicaid" but the basic idea is still the same.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Huh? You don't want to deal with Medicaid? I would hope you never have to. Unless you become so poor you can't pay for health care, Medicaid should be irrelevant to you. It seems like maybe you need some help with an understanding of government health care systems. Medicare is for the elderly. Medicaid is for the indigent. I suspect what you really mean is that you are against Obama's or Clinton's health care ideas to provide methods to insure everyone. You don't like their programs, you don't want to be part of their programs or you don't want to pay for them. That I understand. Unless you really do mean you are against the old and the poor.

Where's Stink when you need him?

The government currently has two forms of health coverage that is comparable to universal health care. Medicare and Medicaid are examples of how a government operated health care system will run. I am afraid that I will be forced to get health insurance from a broken system or pay for it and still go with private insurance.

I understand about government health care systems, and if you understand them then you should not be excited about the prospect that you will have government issued health care.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

This is purely pretext, as you simply don't like his race.

Health care is not the most important issue for me, and really, not even a major one for me. In fact, it is mostly irrelevant to me and probably to most people who have private insurance. Obama's and Clinton's plans are focused on providing insurance to people who currently do not have it. It will have minimal effect on the rest of us. My insurance or health care likely won't be affected. The scare mongers are trying to misinterpret the plans and insert their views of socialized medicine or government-run health care into the argument, when those arguments are mostly irrelevant to what Obama and Clinton have actually proposed. I plan to stay employed and keep private insurance. My doctors won't be affected in terms of taking care of me. They might be affected if they choose to take care of people covered by government programs, but that won't affect how they treat me. I don't plan to be going to any government public health clinics and don't plan to be using any government program until I reach 65 and Medicare kicks in. If you are in that group who doesn't have insurance or the money to pay for it, then I understand your concerns. If you have insurance and plan to keep insurance, the effect on you of an Obama or Clinton health care plan as currently outlined, probably will be in terms of the taxes you pay but not in the care you receive.

Am I misunderstanding this?

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/070125-the_time_has_co/

It seems to me that "universal health care for every single American" is used a few times.



Now it seems as if he has tried to spin it a little but his intent is clear. That quote is not out of context. It goes far beyond providing insurance for those who don't have it.

I have insurance, and plan to keep insurance too, but the monetary impact will be both in higher taxes and with higher premiums for private insurance if the payout rate of this government sponsored insurance is as poor as it is for Medicaid.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Yes you are misunderstanding. The entire context of his speech and his entire plan is to cover the uninsured because some businesses today cannot afford to do it and some people cannot afford to buy it. "Universal" means everyone will have coverage. It does NOT mean everyone will have the same government-sponsored coverage.

I'm going to have to disagree on this one. He may have changed his stance recently, but this statement is clear.



Universal health care for every single American is a lot different than insurance for those people and businesses who can't afford it. He has since changed the idea a little bit and incorporated the ideas that you are talking about but that speech was clear. It wasn't the fear mongers. It's from his official site.

It is telling that this site no longer references the word "Universal" when it was used beforehand in the other speech.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

His original speech mentions this plan being for large companies like GM and Ford, and for small companies that can't afford health insurance. I don't really see who else that would leave.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Rick, may I suggest you need to read more and parse words less. You may choose to define universal health care in one way, but that is not what is meant here. It simply means the government will PROVIDE a plan and make AVAILALBLE a plan for anyone who wants or needs it. If you don't have insurance, you can buy into the "universal" plan. If you can't afford it, the government will subsidize it. It is "universal" in that anyone who isn't part of something else can join in. It is not "universal" as you define the word in that everyone will not be part of the same plan.

Instead of parsing one word and interpreting it the way you wish , read his plan. http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healt ... ower-costs What he says is that his new national health plan will be made AVAILABLE to all who want it or need it. He talks about the 45 million people who don't have coverage. This plan is primarily for them (and for others who want it). Nowhere does it talk about everyone in the country having the same coverage, using the same plan doctors, clinics, etc. Nowhere does he ever say that people who already have coverage have to give up what they have now or that their plans will be abolished or made part of government plan. His main focus is on the uninsured and underinsured. That is made clear over and over in the plan. Private insurance is not going away. Employer-provided and paid insurance is not going away. Doctors and hospitals are hardly affected at all in how they treat those of us with private insurance. These are simply your wrong interpretations.

This is made especially clear in a few areas of the plan:
Employer Contribution: Employers that do not offer or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees will be required to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of the national plan. Small employers that meet certain revenue thresholds will be exempt. If everyone were insured by the same plan as you believe, there would be no employer plans.

National Health Insurance Exchange: The Obama plan will create a National Health Insurance Exchange to help individuals who wish to purchase a private insurance plan. People will be free to purchase private insurance of their own kind. This exchange will provide info to help them do that. If it were as you suggested that everyone was in the same plan, there would be nobody buying private insurance.

You also apparently misundersood his comment about companies and their insurance plans. Companies can CHOOSE to buy into the national plan IF THEY WISH. They do not HAVE to do so and I suggest some will but many will not.

The 45 million figure is true, but highly misleading. Here's Gregory Mankiw, Harvard professor of econ, writing in the New York Times:

Ok, so the number isn't the right one. It's the concept that's important to me not the exact number. THis guy was doing fine until he showed his true colors at the end by using words like "nationalize an industry". What a misleading comparison to make. Obama is not "nationalizing" an industry. He is creating a national plan for people who need it. I think I'm starting to understand how people like Rick get so mis-informed. They read and hear so much nonsense from people like this who use the wrong words to characterize something, make comparisons that are inappropriate or listen to people in our media who don't know what the hell they are talking about. Some people will read this article and walk away remembering one thing that Obama is going to "nationalize" the health care industry. How ridiculous of the writer to use those words and of the editors to not catch such a ridiculous, false comparison.

You're getting bent out of shape. The Mankiw critique wasn't in response to Obama's plan. It was just in response to some common lines offered about health insurance. And, yes, some of the plans do call for nationalizing health insurance (remember Sicko?) based upon statistics offered such as those above. Are you saying that no one has argued in favor of nationalized health care?

Besides, looking at the text, he doesn't even make that claim. All he says is that we should be wary of making sweeping reforms based on faulty data.

Not all discussions about policy hover around what Obama thinks about something, just like my decision over what to have for breakfast doesn't depend upon what Obama thinks of ham and eggs. You can discuss a figure, used by Obama, without assuming that it's some sweeping indictment of the Obama candidacy.

The way I wish? So because I disagree with you on what he was saying in the first speech I am simply interpreting it with some agenda? I find that remark a little condescending. Just because I disagree with you, it doesn't mean that I am showing bias.

I guess we'll never agree, but I find it quite interesting that he makes a speech where he calls for "Universal Health Care for every single American" and his proposed health care plan doesn't even mention the term a year later. Something changed.

Now instead of simply trying to discredit my argument by saying that I am focusing on a few words, explain why someone would call for "Universal Health Care" and then not use the word at all in his current proposal. It's a little bit more than me just nitpicking a word.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Seriously Coast, that's getting out of hand. Just because I disagree with you I am not necessarily misinformed.

I read the speech by Barack Obama and made my own opinion. I didn't base it off some liberal or conservative literature. It was the own words of Mr. Obama.

I'm sorry that I ever even responded to one of your posts if you are going to take shots at me like that. I'll be sure to be more careful in the future.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

I'm not getting bent out of shape at all. You're right, the article is about health plans generally, not any one in specific. Thus, while the data is useful, his grand conclusion is meaningless. Nobody today is proposing "sweeping reforms of our health system" that would in any way be comparable to "nationalizing an industry". So his straw man comparison is meaningless and irrelevant to today. I'll take his advice though to watch out for it somebody should propose such a thing in the future.

Rick, you are misinformed. That's not a shot, it's a fact. You have made that very clear here. I have absolutely no problem with you having a different opinion or beliefs. That's fine. But that's not what happened here. You are opposing something you don't understand. You are opposing something that hasn't even been proposed. You have thrown up a false, straw man argument about a national health care system that everyone must participate in which is NOT what has been proposed. It is just terribly unproductive when people continually mis-state the facts. And yes, you have done that. That's not a shot. It's a fact. If I have my facts wrong about something, I have no problem being called on it. That's one of the things we do here.

Your opinion has nothing to do with it. If you don't want to pay for everyone to be insured? Fine. If you don't want the government to have a health plan for the uninsured, fine. You don't like the way this candidate or that addresses the problem? FIne. You want an entirely private sector solution to all health care problems? Fine. I have no argument with any of your opinions on any of that. But to continue to suggest that somehow your definition of "universal" is the correct one, or that your definition of universal is what he has always meant, or that Obama is somehow misleading people through his use or now non-use of the word is just ridiculous. Perhaps one of the reasons why Obama is no longer using the word "universal" is because people like you apparently don't understand it.

Completely separate from the ideas in this thread, following politics this election season leads me to believe that politics has the highest instances of people who would say they are well informed about a subject but are clearly not informed. That's not easy to say surrounded by questionable posts on a sports message board, but I guess it's kinda similar.

People assume just because they closely follow sports/politics they understand sports/politics. I know personally I watch basketball just as closely as other sports but it seems most of the times I draw conclusions from watching, I'm wrong. I follow baseball to the same extent mostly, but I tend to think I'm pretty correct when opining about baseball.

I can find multiple examples of other countries that consider themselves to have "universal health care" where every citizen is forced to have it. This means that at least one of the definitions of "universal health care" is the one that I am using.

Obama made a call for "universal health care for every American". I took that to mean that he would like for every American to be under one health care plan. I also don't think that his opinion has somehow changed from that in the past year even if his current plan is not as all-inclusive.

That is all opinion by me. You are telling me that my opinions are misinformed. The plan that he has laid out now does not call for every American to use it and also excludes the use of "universal health care".

It is my opinion that Barack Obama has made a decision to not campaign on a platform of total "universal health care" because it would not go over well. It is my opinion that his original call was for a type of system where every person would be covered under the same plan.

I understand his current plan and think that some of it makes sense. I just think that his original speech fits in with his true thoughts on the matter.

Once again, you are telling me that my take on what he meant by "universal health care" is a strawman argument. I can point to a number of other countries that consider themselves to have "universal health care" where they citizens of that country are all covered without choice. Why is it such a stretch to think that is what he meant when he said that?



I've never said that my definition of UHC was the only one, but mine most definitely is one of them. When I saw "UHC" and "every American" together I took it one way and you take it another way. I, however, am not telling you that your definition is wrong.

To try and make this argument a little bit more useful instead of an attack on how misinformed I am, I will say that Obama's newest plan is superior to what I would call "Universal Health Care" and that's why I think it is telling that he doesn't use the term in his plan.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!