Author Topic: Clinton & Obama share the spoils  (Read 4071 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline kickserve

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 12961
  • Gender: Male
Clinton & Obama share the spoils
« on: February 06, 2008, 12:00:19 PM »
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama shared the Super Tuesday spoils this morning as one of the biggest voting days in American political history turned into one of the closest-ever electoral struggles.

In an extraordinary and dramatic night, Mrs Clinton won at least eight states, including the big prize of California, and the overall vote by a single percentage point. But Mr Obama swept 13 states.

The former First Lady appeared to have a slight edge in the number of delegates secured.

But the two candidates are now neck and neck in a battle that will continue well into the spring and possibly even to the Democratic national convention in August when the delegates meet.

Both candidates went into Super Tuesday, when millions voted in 22 states, with two states apiece.

Since winning convincingly in South Carolina, Mr Obama has wiped out Mrs Clinton's long-held national poll lead.

Super Tuesday, effectively a national primary, did little to clarify one of the most fascinating American electoral contests in living memory.

To win the nomination, a candidate needs 2,025 delegates. Neither senator has even a third of this number even though well over half the states have voted.

Mrs Clinton won her home state of New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Arkansas, Arizona and California.

Mr Obama took his home state of Illinois, Georgia, Alabama, Delaware, Connecticut, Minnesota, North Dakota, Idaho, Utah, Kansas, Missouri, Colorado and Alaska.

Votes were still being counted in a tight contest in New Mexico. With delegates being shared out proportionately, winning states was less important than scoring big margins.

There was also a furious battle to shape media coverage and therefore public perceptions of who had won.

The Clinton campaign trumpeted the California result by announcing: "After showing that she can win in red states and blue states, in rural areas and big cities and from East to West and everywhere in between, Hillary Clinton ended a truly super Tuesday with a big California win."

He added: ""If this ends up being a draw…we think that this is a remarkable night for us. February 5th was always seen as a tough night and as recently as two weeks ago they were saying they hoped to wrap it up tonight".
 
An ebullient Mrs Clinton appeared before cheering supporters in New York and said: "I look forward to continuing our campaign and our debate about how to leave this country better off for the next generation because that is the work of my life."

She added: "Because you know that politics isn't a game. It is not about who is up or down. It is about your lives, your families, your futures."

Soon afterwards, Mr Obama took to the stage in Chicago to tell a huge crowd: "There is one thing on this February night that we do not need the final results to know. Our time has come. Our movement is real and change is coming to America. What began as a whisper has now swelled to a chorus that cannot be deterred."

David Axelrod, Mr Obama's chief strategist, said that "we have the momentum moving forward" and although "we're still the underdogs…we leave here with new confidence and a new resolve".
 
Before the polls closed, both the Obama and the Clinton campaigns predicted a long night with an inconclusive verdict that would take their contest on until the spring.

Mr Plouffe had said: "My guess is we'll have a good night and we'll probably end up with a split decision."

He added: "Maybe this goes to August."

After Super Tuesday, the candidates had no time to rest. Mr Obama was due to fly to Washington for Senate business on Wednesday before heading to Louisiana the same day and then on to Washington state and Nebraska.

All three states have primary contests on Saturday.

Mr Obama, who hauled in a million dollars a day in January - twice as much as Mrs Clinton - holds an advantage in the money stakes.

He is also in a strong position for "Potomac Tuesday" next week when Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia vote. Opinion polls out him ahead there.

Offline Victor

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 2288
Re: Clinton & Obama share the spoils
« Reply #1 on: February 06, 2008, 12:13:37 PM »
Interesting, thank you! I would like to see the first black or female president!
I dont understand why they dont vote more democratic, I dont understand the state-system, just let everyone vote and simply take all votes in...
Dont fight about tennis, support tennis.

I just didn't think I would be seeing a clay court tournament where Roddick is still in it and Nadal is out.   -   Dallas -  31 May, RG 2009

Offline kickserve

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 12961
  • Gender: Male
Re: Clinton & Obama share the spoils
« Reply #2 on: February 06, 2008, 04:36:43 PM »
Interesting, thank you! I would like to see the first black or female president!
I dont understand why they dont vote more democratic, I dont understand the state-system, just let everyone vote and simply take all votes in...

I'm not sure the American reason for that, but the British reason for using first-past-the-post is because we have a lot of parties getting votes, so the winning party seldom has a majority. If they don't have a majority, they can seldom force through their ideas, so there's no point in government, while by having winners in states/constituencies, we usually get a majority government.

Online Babblelot

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 32686
  • Gender: Male
  • Chicago, IL
Re: Clinton & Obama share the spoils
« Reply #3 on: February 09, 2008, 12:44:33 PM »
Interesting, thank you! I would like to see the first black or female president!
I dont understand why they dont vote more democratic, I dont understand the state-system, just let everyone vote and simply take all votes in...

The reason why the "democracy" was set up as republic is the same reason we have state-by-state primaries and caucuses, and why Iowa and New Hampshire have so much say (for better or worse) in determining which candidates will emerge. The founding fathers didn't want the bigger states to have an unfair advantage over the smaller states, so their compromise was a way to give the smaller states "equal" importance when the country consisted of thirteen states of relative equal population by today's standards.

But whether this system continues to serve our country today is a matter of great debate. As a native Californian, our largest state, I know this has long been a sore subject. In fact, opposition from the public has been so great that the California primary was moved well up in the calendar this year so as to give California a say in who will be the presidential candidate. Historically, that decision had been made before the California primary. Michigan and Florida did the same, at their own peril for the Dems. Change never comes easy, but state revolts such as those we've seen in 2008 by these influencial states, might be a catalyst to change as this whole primary season might further degenerate into absurdity.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2008, 11:25:42 AM by Babblelot »
1995 USO, 1997 USO, 2004 USO, 2005 RG, 2005 USO, 2006 RG, 2006 USO, 2007 USO, 2008 RG, 2008 USO, 2009 USO, 2010 USO, 2011 USO, 2012 USOhttp://www.gifsoup.com/view4/1856936/2005safin-o.gif
http://www.gifsoup.com/view1/1857331/2004gaudio-o.gif

Offline OSU Buckeye

  • The Great One!
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 15107
  • LETS GO BUCKS!!!
Re: Clinton & Obama share the spoils
« Reply #4 on: February 10, 2008, 08:55:47 PM »
Babble, seriously, 1st how many times are you going to edit this post?  And B.), do you expect us to re-read it every time to see what you have edited?   ..-) 

Online Babblelot

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 32686
  • Gender: Male
  • Chicago, IL
Re: Clinton & Obama share the spoils
« Reply #5 on: February 11, 2008, 02:01:04 PM »
Babble, seriously, 1st how many times are you going to edit this post?  And B.), do you expect us to re-read it every time to see what you have edited?   ..-) 

lol  I didn't think anyone was reading it. Thanks Buckeye.  :)

Since you've been following along, you likely figured out that I didn't realize that Victor was from the Netherlands. So I removed a whole crapload of junk and covered my tracks with a new ending to give my little civics lesson some closure.
1995 USO, 1997 USO, 2004 USO, 2005 RG, 2005 USO, 2006 RG, 2006 USO, 2007 USO, 2008 RG, 2008 USO, 2009 USO, 2010 USO, 2011 USO, 2012 USOhttp://www.gifsoup.com/view4/1856936/2005safin-o.gif
http://www.gifsoup.com/view1/1857331/2004gaudio-o.gif

Offline Pacer

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 3537
Re: Clinton & Obama share the spoils
« Reply #6 on: February 12, 2008, 03:27:20 PM »
I'm glad to be an independent right about now. I think the smart move for the dems would probably be to nominate Obama. Polls show if the election were today Obama beats McCain, however Hillary loses to McCain. Also Obama gets the youth vote, he's supported by independents and "Obamacans"(republicans for Obama). While Hillary gets self-described democrats who would vote democratic in the general anyway.

 Whoever wins is going to need the independents and Obama shows that he can get them. Hillary is capable in my eyes but she is also the epitome of bipartisan politics, which means she'd get little to nothing accomplished during her term. Obama is willing to cross party lines in order to get things accomplished. I also think her healthcare policy is unrealistic, I'm not voting for someone trying to pass a federal healthcare mandate sorry.The idea that any president can somehow implement federally mandated health insurance is a bit disingenuous,it's called political pandering. It's just like the right saying they will overturn Roe vs Wade, it's not going to happen. You have to remember that her plan is not free, health insurance will be like car insurance, those without will be penalized.

So IMO, Barrack is the best shot for the dems. The right hates Hillary and will come out in full force against her, Obama doesn't draw that kind of ire and many on the right are willing to vote for him. Also I do beleive that Obama can get Hillary's supporters but I don't think Hillary can get Obama's supporters. I think the Obama supporters would be disillusioned and just as soon stay home or vote McCain the "liberal republican" out of protest.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2008, 03:36:35 PM by Pacer92110 »
Ralphie: I want an official Red Ryder, carbine action, two-hundred shot range model air rifle! <br /><br />Mrs. Parker: No, you\'ll shoot your eye out.

Offline kickserve

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 12961
  • Gender: Male
Re: Clinton & Obama share the spoils
« Reply #7 on: February 12, 2008, 03:47:13 PM »
I'm glad to be an independent right about now. I think the smart move for the dems would probably be to nominate Obama. Polls show if the election were today Obama beats McCain, however Hillary loses to McCain. Also Obama gets the youth vote, he's supported by independents and "Obamacans"(republicans for Obama). While Hillary gets self-described democrats who would vote democratic in the general anyway.

 Whoever wins is going to need the independents and Obama shows that he can get them. Hillary is capable in my eyes but she is also the epitome of bipartisan politics, which means she'd get little to nothing accomplished during her term. Obama is willing to cross party lines in order to get things accomplished. I also think her healthcare policy is unrealistic, I'm not voting for someone trying to pass a federal healthcare mandate sorry.The idea that any president can somehow implement federally mandated health insurance is a bit disingenuous,it's called political pandering. It's just like the right saying they will overturn Roe vs Wade, it's not going to happen. You have to remember that her plan is not free, health insurance will be like car insurance, those without will be penalized.

So IMO, Barrack is the best shot for the dems. The right hates Hillary and will come out in full force against her, Obama doesn't draw that kind of ire and many on the right are willing to vote for him. Also I do beleive that Obama can get Hillary's supporters but I don't think Hillary can get Obama's supporters. I think the Obama supporters would be disillusioned and just as soon stay home or vote McCain the "liberal republican" out of protest.

What is Obama's healthcare policy, and how does it differ from Hilary's?

Offline Pacer

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 3537
Re: Clinton & Obama share the spoils
« Reply #8 on: February 12, 2008, 04:17:40 PM »
I'm glad to be an independent right about now. I think the smart move for the dems would probably be to nominate Obama. Polls show if the election were today Obama beats McCain, however Hillary loses to McCain. Also Obama gets the youth vote, he's supported by independents and "Obamacans"(republicans for Obama). While Hillary gets self-described democrats who would vote democratic in the general anyway.

 Whoever wins is going to need the independents and Obama shows that he can get them. Hillary is capable in my eyes but she is also the epitome of bipartisan politics, which means she'd get little to nothing accomplished during her term. Obama is willing to cross party lines in order to get things accomplished. I also think her healthcare policy is unrealistic, I'm not voting for someone trying to pass a federal healthcare mandate sorry.The idea that any president can somehow implement federally mandated health insurance is a bit disingenuous,it's called political pandering. It's just like the right saying they will overturn Roe vs Wade, it's not going to happen. You have to remember that her plan is not free, health insurance will be like car insurance, those without will be penalized.

So IMO, Barrack is the best shot for the dems. The right hates Hillary and will come out in full force against her, Obama doesn't draw that kind of ire and many on the right are willing to vote for him. Also I do beleive that Obama can get Hillary's supporters but I don't think Hillary can get Obama's supporters. I think the Obama supporters would be disillusioned and just as soon stay home or vote McCain the "liberal republican" out of protest.

What is Obama's healthcare policy, and how does it differ from Hilary's?


Obama plans to lower the cost of health insurance by tackling the reasons for the high cost to begin with,  the lawyers, drug companies, special interest etc... Obama feels the reason why many are uninsured is because they can't afford it not because they don't want it. Making it more affordable and giving the public a choice, rather than mandating health insurance, garnishing wages and penalizing the poor.Imposing fines on people who can't afford healthcare to begin with is silly, unfair and unrealistic.
Ralphie: I want an official Red Ryder, carbine action, two-hundred shot range model air rifle! <br /><br />Mrs. Parker: No, you\'ll shoot your eye out.

Offline Pacer

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 3537
Re: Clinton & Obama share the spoils
« Reply #9 on: February 12, 2008, 07:24:07 PM »
Also, not to be harsh but if you can't properly manage your own campaign I don't think you can properly manage a country.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2008, 07:27:20 PM by Pacer92110 »
Ralphie: I want an official Red Ryder, carbine action, two-hundred shot range model air rifle! <br /><br />Mrs. Parker: No, you\'ll shoot your eye out.

Offline Swish

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 10177
  • Gender: Male
  • How Many Times?
Re: Clinton & Obama share the spoils
« Reply #10 on: February 12, 2008, 07:58:19 PM »
I'm glad to be an independent right about now. I think the smart move for the dems would probably be to nominate Obama. Polls show if the election were today Obama beats McCain, however Hillary loses to McCain. Also Obama gets the youth vote, he's supported by independents and "Obamacans"(republicans for Obama). While Hillary gets self-described democrats who would vote democratic in the general anyway.

 Whoever wins is going to need the independents and Obama shows that he can get them. Hillary is capable in my eyes but she is also the epitome of bipartisan politics, which means she'd get little to nothing accomplished during her term. Obama is willing to cross party lines in order to get things accomplished. I also think her healthcare policy is unrealistic, I'm not voting for someone trying to pass a federal healthcare mandate sorry.The idea that any president can somehow implement federally mandated health insurance is a bit disingenuous,it's called political pandering. It's just like the right saying they will overturn Roe vs Wade, it's not going to happen. You have to remember that her plan is not free, health insurance will be like car insurance, those without will be penalized.

So IMO, Barrack is the best shot for the dems. The right hates Hillary and will come out in full force against her, Obama doesn't draw that kind of ire and many on the right are willing to vote for him. Also I do beleive that Obama can get Hillary's supporters but I don't think Hillary can get Obama's supporters. I think the Obama supporters would be disillusioned and just as soon stay home or vote McCain the "liberal republican" out of protest.

What is Obama's healthcare policy, and how does it differ from Hilary's?


Obama plans to lower the cost of health insurance by tackling the reasons for the high cost to begin with,  the lawyers, drug companies, special interest etc... Obama feels the reason why many are uninsured is because they can't afford it not because they don't want it. Making it more affordable and giving the public a choice, rather than mandating health insurance, garnishing wages and penalizing the poor.Imposing fines on people who can't afford healthcare to begin with is silly, unfair and unrealistic.

They all have a lot of plans, lets see how far it goes.  ..-)

Online Babblelot

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 32686
  • Gender: Male
  • Chicago, IL
Re: Clinton & Obama share the spoils
« Reply #11 on: February 13, 2008, 07:49:31 AM »
Pacer, Barack said that his plan will not mandate coverage. But here's the rub: In lieu of a mandate, he will force those who've "gambled" and not purchased insurance to pay past premiums should they incur significant medical costs. So, for a SWM today, health insurance runs +$400/mo. After Barack's plan goes into effect, that premium will drop to +$400 - x. Assume your risk averse consumer goes without health insurance for 5 years before he, say, lands in the hospital. After 60 mos, then, he owes +$24,000 - 60x in past premiums. Now, tell me how Barack intends to collect those past premiums?

I'm going to leave this discussion here, because I can answer other questions myself. It's this one that I need help with.

upshot: Buried beneath the rhetoric on both sides are grand assumptions. As swish said, "let's see how far it goes."   ..-)    )
1995 USO, 1997 USO, 2004 USO, 2005 RG, 2005 USO, 2006 RG, 2006 USO, 2007 USO, 2008 RG, 2008 USO, 2009 USO, 2010 USO, 2011 USO, 2012 USOhttp://www.gifsoup.com/view4/1856936/2005safin-o.gif
http://www.gifsoup.com/view1/1857331/2004gaudio-o.gif

Offline pawan89

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 8501
  • Gender: Male
    • Onset of Chaos
Re: Clinton & Obama share the spoils
« Reply #12 on: February 13, 2008, 07:36:31 PM »
Also, not to be harsh but if you can't properly manage your own campaign I don't think you can properly manage a country.

and who's this that can't handle thier campaign? I really don't care about politics except I don't like Bush and I like this year's election in that its actually interesting, unlike the Edwards Bush one (did I ever tell you about the incident where Ibelieved for months on end that John Kerry Edwards was one person?).

I am interested and somewhat excited to see the first lady or non anglo saxon male run the country, both have a lively character as far as I can tell.. some character at least, its not a lackluster event like could have been. Its time for some change. Just like the change when everything was once controlled by WASPs (white anglo saxon protestant) centuries ago.

From what little I can tell, I'd go with Obama over Hillary. Although I have nothing against Clinton either. but as you were saying Obama would be a more likely to win votes candidate for the democrats. The last thing I want to see is McCain win it.


Offline Dallas

  • Global Moderator
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 30575
  • Gender: Female
  • Federer-Wawrinka-Serena-Venus-Victoria
    • http://tennisworld.typepad.com/tennisworld/2007/01/monday_net_post.html#comment-27147061
Re: Clinton & Obama share the spoils
« Reply #13 on: February 13, 2008, 09:15:19 PM »
Also, not to be harsh but if you can't properly manage your own campaign I don't think you can properly manage a country.

and who's this that can't handle thier campaign? I really don't care about politics except I don't like Bush and I like this year's election in that its actually interesting, unlike the Edwards Bush one (did I ever tell you about the incident where Ibelieved for months on end that John Kerry Edwards was one person?).

I am interested and somewhat excited to see the first lady or non anglo saxon male run the country, both have a lively character as far as I can tell.. some character at least, its not a lackluster event like could have been. Its time for some change. Just like the change when everything was once controlled by WASPs (white anglo saxon protestant) centuries ago.

From what little I can tell, I'd go with Obama over Hillary. Although I have nothing against Clinton either. but as you were saying Obama would be a more likely to win votes candidate for the democrats. The last thing I want to see is McCain win it.


 :// :// :// :// :// :// ://

Offline Pacer

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 3537
Re: Clinton & Obama share the spoils
« Reply #14 on: February 14, 2008, 01:11:22 AM »
Pacer, Barack said that his plan will not mandate coverage. But here's the rub: In lieu of a mandate, he will force those who've "gambled" and not purchased insurance to pay past premiums should they incur significant medical costs. So, for a SWM today, health insurance runs +$400/mo. After Barack's plan goes into effect, that premium will drop to +$400 - x. Assume your risk averse consumer goes without health insurance for 5 years before he, say, lands in the hospital. After 60 mos, then, he owes +$24,000 - 60x in past premiums. Now, tell me how Barack intends to collect those past premiums?

I'm going to leave this discussion here, because I can answer other questions myself. It's this one that I need help with.

upshot: Buried beneath the rhetoric on both sides are grand assumptions. As swish said, "let's see how far it goes."   ..-)    )


I didn't know this. I thought he'd let the Bush tax cuts for those who make over 250,000.00 expire and pay for it that way. I need to research this a bit more. Healthcare is huge for me, so it's annoying when these politicians come up with unrealistic plans that have no chance of passing. ..-)

I'm sick of political pandering!!!
« Last Edit: February 14, 2008, 01:12:35 AM by Pacer92110 »
Ralphie: I want an official Red Ryder, carbine action, two-hundred shot range model air rifle! <br /><br />Mrs. Parker: No, you\'ll shoot your eye out.

Offline Pacer

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 3537
Re: Clinton & Obama share the spoils
« Reply #15 on: February 14, 2008, 01:24:46 AM »
Also, not to be harsh but if you can't properly manage your own campaign I don't think you can properly manage a country.

and who's this that can't handle thier campaign? I really don't care about politics except I don't like Bush and I like this year's election in that its actually interesting, unlike the Edwards Bush one (did I ever tell you about the incident where Ibelieved for months on end that John Kerry Edwards was one person?).

I am interested and somewhat excited to see the first lady or non anglo saxon male run the country, both have a lively character as far as I can tell.. some character at least, its not a lackluster event like could have been. Its time for some change. Just like the change when everything was once controlled by WASPs (white anglo saxon protestant) centuries ago.

From what little I can tell, I'd go with Obama over Hillary. Although I have nothing against Clinton either. but as you were saying Obama would be a more likely to win votes candidate for the democrats. The last thing I want to see is McCain win it.


Hillary has mismanaged her campaign. So much so that she had to loan her campaign 5 mil. How dare she call it a loan! A loan means she's expecting to get that dough back, so she's expecting her donors to pay her back! This is someone who is worth between 60-100 mil. How is it that someone who supposedly dedicated their entire life to public service is a major millionaire.  ..-)
Ralphie: I want an official Red Ryder, carbine action, two-hundred shot range model air rifle! <br /><br />Mrs. Parker: No, you\'ll shoot your eye out.

Online Babblelot

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 32686
  • Gender: Male
  • Chicago, IL
Re: Clinton & Obama share the spoils
« Reply #16 on: February 14, 2008, 03:22:11 AM »
Pacer, Barack said that his plan will not mandate coverage. But here's the rub: In lieu of a mandate, he will force those who've "gambled" and not purchased insurance to pay past premiums should they incur significant medical costs. So, for a SWM today, health insurance runs +$400/mo. After Barack's plan goes into effect, that premium will drop to +$400 - x. Assume your risk averse consumer goes without health insurance for 5 years before he, say, lands in the hospital. After 60 mos, then, he owes +$24,000 - 60x in past premiums. Now, tell me how Barack intends to collect those past premiums?

I'm going to leave this discussion here, because I can answer other questions myself. It's this one that I need help with.

upshot: Buried beneath the rhetoric on both sides are grand assumptions. As swish said, "let's see how far it goes."   ..-)    )



I didn't know this. I thought he'd let the Bush tax cuts for those who make over 250,000.00 expire and pay for it that way. I need to research this a bit more. Healthcare is huge for me, so it's annoying when these politicians come up with unrealistic plans that have no chance of passing. ..-)

I'm sick of political pandering!!!


I'd be absolutely floored  :yikes: :swoon:  if your search turns up anything. As far as I can determine, I'm the only one to raise this question. Hillary's camp has dropped the ball by not pressing him on this... that's assuming it even registered with them, which at this point, I seriously doubt.

FYI: If Health Care were tennis, I'd be on the Challenger circuit.   :)

Quote
Democratic Debate Transcript, Los Angeles, California
Published January 31, 2008
Speakers:  Hillary Rodham Clinton
Barack Obama


SEN. OBAMA: If people are gaming the system, there are ways that we can address that, by for example making them pay some of the back premiums for not having gotten it in the first place.



http://www.cfr.org/publication/15397/
1995 USO, 1997 USO, 2004 USO, 2005 RG, 2005 USO, 2006 RG, 2006 USO, 2007 USO, 2008 RG, 2008 USO, 2009 USO, 2010 USO, 2011 USO, 2012 USOhttp://www.gifsoup.com/view4/1856936/2005safin-o.gif
http://www.gifsoup.com/view1/1857331/2004gaudio-o.gif

Offline Pacer

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 3537
Re: Clinton & Obama share the spoils
« Reply #17 on: February 14, 2008, 01:25:51 PM »
Pacer, Barack said that his plan will not mandate coverage. But here's the rub: In lieu of a mandate, he will force those who've "gambled" and not purchased insurance to pay past premiums should they incur significant medical costs. So, for a SWM today, health insurance runs +$400/mo. After Barack's plan goes into effect, that premium will drop to +$400 - x. Assume your risk averse consumer goes without health insurance for 5 years before he, say, lands in the hospital. After 60 mos, then, he owes +$24,000 - 60x in past premiums. Now, tell me how Barack intends to collect those past premiums?

I'm going to leave this discussion here, because I can answer other questions myself. It's this one that I need help with.

upshot: Buried beneath the rhetoric on both sides are grand assumptions. As swish said, "let's see how far it goes."   ..-)    )



I didn't know this. I thought he'd let the Bush tax cuts for those who make over 250,000.00 expire and pay for it that way. I need to research this a bit more. Healthcare is huge for me, so it's annoying when these politicians come up with unrealistic plans that have no chance of passing. ..-)

I'm sick of political pandering!!!


I'd be absolutely floored  :yikes: :swoon:  if your search turns up anything. As far as I can determine, I'm the only one to raise this question. Hillary's camp has dropped the ball by not pressing him on this... that's assuming it even registered with them, which at this point, I seriously doubt.

FYI: If Health Care were tennis, I'd be on the Challenger circuit.   :)

Quote
Democratic Debate Transcript, Los Angeles, California
Published January 31, 2008
Speakers:  Hillary Rodham Clinton
Barack Obama


SEN. OBAMA: If people are gaming the system, there are ways that we can address that, by for example making them pay some of the back premiums for not having gotten it in the first place.



http://www.cfr.org/publication/15397/



What does he mean by "gaming the system"? Does he mean people who use emergency room services and have no intention of paying? Is he talking about people who are here illegally? I really don't understand this gaming the system thing. Sometimes I get so disillusioned by politics, my hopes are so high but they soon come crashing down.I wish that someone would step up and take healthcare and education seriously. Maybe I should move and become a citizen of another country. :Confused:
Ralphie: I want an official Red Ryder, carbine action, two-hundred shot range model air rifle! <br /><br />Mrs. Parker: No, you\'ll shoot your eye out.

Online Babblelot

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 32686
  • Gender: Male
  • Chicago, IL
Re: Clinton & Obama share the spoils
« Reply #18 on: February 14, 2008, 01:42:27 PM »
Pacer, Barack said that his plan will not mandate coverage. But here's the rub: In lieu of a mandate, he will force those who've "gambled" and not purchased insurance to pay past premiums should they incur significant medical costs. So, for a SWM today, health insurance runs +$400/mo. After Barack's plan goes into effect, that premium will drop to +$400 - x. Assume your risk averse consumer goes without health insurance for 5 years before he, say, lands in the hospital. After 60 mos, then, he owes +$24,000 - 60x in past premiums. Now, tell me how Barack intends to collect those past premiums?

I'm going to leave this discussion here, because I can answer other questions myself. It's this one that I need help with.

upshot: Buried beneath the rhetoric on both sides are grand assumptions. As swish said, "let's see how far it goes."   ..-)    )



I didn't know this. I thought he'd let the Bush tax cuts for those who make over 250,000.00 expire and pay for it that way. I need to research this a bit more. Healthcare is huge for me, so it's annoying when these politicians come up with unrealistic plans that have no chance of passing. ..-)

I'm sick of political pandering!!!


I'd be absolutely floored  :yikes: :swoon:  if your search turns up anything. As far as I can determine, I'm the only one to raise this question. Hillary's camp has dropped the ball by not pressing him on this... that's assuming it even registered with them, which at this point, I seriously doubt.

FYI: If Health Care were tennis, I'd be on the Challenger circuit.   :)

Quote
Democratic Debate Transcript, Los Angeles, California
Published January 31, 2008
Speakers:  Hillary Rodham Clinton
Barack Obama


SEN. OBAMA: If people are gaming the system, there are ways that we can address that, by for example making them pay some of the back premiums for not having gotten it in the first place.



http://www.cfr.org/publication/15397/



What does he mean by "gaming the system"? Does he mean people who use emergency room services and have no intention of paying? Is he talking about people who are here illegally? I really don't understand this gaming the system thing. Sometimes I get so disillusioned by politics, my hopes are so high but they soon come crashing down.I wish that someone would step up and take healthcare and education seriously. Maybe I should move and become a citizen of another country. :Confused:


The "gaming" consumer is interchangeable with the risk averse consumer below.

In lieu of a mandate, he will force those who've "gambled" and not purchased insurance to pay past premiums should they incur significant medical costs. Assume your risk averse consumer goes without health insurance for 5 years before he, say, lands in the hospital.


Maybe someday we'll be neighbors, Pacer.   :)
1995 USO, 1997 USO, 2004 USO, 2005 RG, 2005 USO, 2006 RG, 2006 USO, 2007 USO, 2008 RG, 2008 USO, 2009 USO, 2010 USO, 2011 USO, 2012 USOhttp://www.gifsoup.com/view4/1856936/2005safin-o.gif
http://www.gifsoup.com/view1/1857331/2004gaudio-o.gif

Offline Pacer

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 3537
Re: Clinton & Obama share the spoils
« Reply #19 on: February 15, 2008, 04:10:30 PM »
Pacer, Barack said that his plan will not mandate coverage. But here's the rub: In lieu of a mandate, he will force those who've "gambled" and not purchased insurance to pay past premiums should they incur significant medical costs. So, for a SWM today, health insurance runs +$400/mo. After Barack's plan goes into effect, that premium will drop to +$400 - x. Assume your risk averse consumer goes without health insurance for 5 years before he, say, lands in the hospital. After 60 mos, then, he owes +$24,000 - 60x in past premiums. Now, tell me how Barack intends to collect those past premiums?

I'm going to leave this discussion here, because I can answer other questions myself. It's this one that I need help with.

upshot: Buried beneath the rhetoric on both sides are grand assumptions. As swish said, "let's see how far it goes."   ..-)    )



I didn't know this. I thought he'd let the Bush tax cuts for those who make over 250,000.00 expire and pay for it that way. I need to research this a bit more. Healthcare is huge for me, so it's annoying when these politicians come up with unrealistic plans that have no chance of passing. ..-)

I'm sick of political pandering!!!


I'd be absolutely floored  :yikes: :swoon:  if your search turns up anything. As far as I can determine, I'm the only one to raise this question. Hillary's camp has dropped the ball by not pressing him on this... that's assuming it even registered with them, which at this point, I seriously doubt.

FYI: If Health Care were tennis, I'd be on the Challenger circuit.   :)

Quote
Democratic Debate Transcript, Los Angeles, California
Published January 31, 2008
Speakers:  Hillary Rodham Clinton
Barack Obama


SEN. OBAMA: If people are gaming the system, there are ways that we can address that, by for example making them pay some of the back premiums for not having gotten it in the first place.



http://www.cfr.org/publication/15397/



What does he mean by "gaming the system"? Does he mean people who use emergency room services and have no intention of paying? Is he talking about people who are here illegally? I really don't understand this gaming the system thing. Sometimes I get so disillusioned by politics, my hopes are so high but they soon come crashing down.I wish that someone would step up and take healthcare and education seriously. Maybe I should move and become a citizen of another country. :Confused:


The "gaming" consumer is interchangeable with the risk averse consumer below.

In lieu of a mandate, he will force those who've "gambled" and not purchased insurance to pay past premiums should they incur significant medical costs. Assume your risk averse consumer goes without health insurance for 5 years before he, say, lands in the hospital.


Maybe someday we'll be neighbors, Pacer.   :)


Ok, see you in Australia. ;-()

Ralphie: I want an official Red Ryder, carbine action, two-hundred shot range model air rifle! <br /><br />Mrs. Parker: No, you\'ll shoot your eye out.