Will Obama be the President and why?

[Kathy]

There won't be many differences between Clinton and Obama because they are running for the same nomination.

Obama's healthcare plan is slightly different from Clinton's, but of the two, it has the better chance of actually being implemented. Clinton's plan did not pass Congress in 1992, and it likely would not now.

Obama has registered a lot of new voters, captured the left wing of the Democratic Party, and ran a better campaign than Clinton. That is why he will likely be the Democratic nominee.

[Max_the_Highlander]

But really nothing gives him the right to be the Che Obama.

Will he give the Americans multi-party system? No.

Free high education? No

May be completely free medicine? Also no.

But at least state pensions? And no again.

So where is the revolution here? I see only mystifications in vague mist of sense.

And again, if Clinton controls over a half of Democratic Party so bluntly Obama has another half. And so rough proportion is 3/4 of politicum against him and only 1/4 for.

Weak for real changes.

And he performed his campaign not so much better then Hillary.

From the news:

The former first lady spoke of her determination to stay in the race despite trailing Obama, who has 1,977 delegates, just 49 delegates short of the 2,026 needed to clinch the nomination. Clinton has 1,780.

But only a total of 86 delegates are at stake in the last three remaining primaries.

[Kathy]

"Change" signfies change from the old politics, not policy changes. A president can only do so much, as he is hogtied by Congress.

And he performed his campaign not so much better then Hillary.

Max, she was, in effect, the presumptive nominee 6 months ago. Clinton people generally still hold a log of power within the Democratic party. Her advisor, Terry McAullife, who was chairman of the Democratic National Committee, set the rules for the nomination process, and those rules were formulated in a way to favour Clinton. She had most of the power money tied up.

American campaigns need a lot of money. Obama outhustled her, and, despite the odds, raised far more money than she did. The differrence is most of her money is "big" money. Most of his comes from individuals donating $100 at a time (there is a spending limit on how much individuals can contribute to campaigns). Her campaign is now broke, and can't pay all the small business owners they leased space from, had print signs, etc. Obama has $200 million yet to spend.

[bm-21Lemko]

Originally Posted by Kathy

That is not accurate. In Canada, which does have what I assume you would consider "socialized medicine", physicians are paid by fee for service. There is a shortage of physicians, but that is not the result of the medical system, but rather, faculties of medicine cutting their enrolments in the 1990's.

Nobody here is denied treatment for terminal illness. The system works extremely well for those that are very ill. Where it falls down is in treating those who need treatment but are not severely ill - things like hip replacements, knee surgery, etc.

I am aware of this. Many countries use free healthcare. France uses it as well.

This is not a slam.


Canadians visiting the U.S. to receive health care

Some residents of Canada travel to the United States in frustration with the limitations of their own health care system, as illustrated by the following examples:

• According to a September 14, 2007, article from CTV News, Canadian Liberal MP Belinda Stronach went to the United States for breast cancer surgery in June 2007. Stronach's spokesperson Greg MacEachern was quoted in the article saying that the US was the best place to have this type of surgery done. Stronach paid for the surgery out of her own pocket. Prior to this incident, Stronach had stated in an interview that she was against two-tiered health care.
• When Robert Bourassa, the premier of Quebec, needed cancer treatment, he went to the US to get it. He died a few years later.
• In 2007, it was reported that Canada sent scores of pregnant women to the US to give birth. In 2007 a woman from Calgary who was pregnant with quadruplets was sent to Great Falls, Montana to give birth. An article on this incident states, "There was no room at any other Canadian neonatal intensive care unit."
• Champion figure skater Audrey Williams needed a hip replacement. Even though she waited two years and suffered in pain, she still did not get the surgery, because the waiting list was so long. So she went to the US and spent her own money to get the surgery.
• A January 19, 2008, article in The Globe And Mail states, "More than 150 critically ill Canadians – many with life-threatening cerebral hemorrhages – have been rushed to the United States since the spring of 2006 because they could not obtain intensive-care beds here. Before patients with bleeding in or outside the brain have been whisked through U.S. operating-room doors, some have languished for as long as eight hours in Canadian emergency wards while health-care workers scrambled to locate care."

Many of my collegues are doctors who have many patients and are overworked.

I also don't want to be taxed for healtcare.

In some cases it works and others it doesn't. In the military we use it and it works fine.

P.S. I love Canada!!

[Kathy]

The individuals named went to the US primarily for privacy, not because of a lack of access to healthcare.

My BIL is a world reknowned surgeon. He is Canadian, but worked in the US, was asked to join the Mayo Clinic, but wanted to return to Canada. He works in Toronto, and about a quarter of his patients are American.

The administrative costs in delivering healthcare are significantly higher in the US than in Canada.

Taxpayer funded healthcare is not perfect, but I think it works fairly well in terms of delivery and outcomes. Where it can improve is in the use of technology. That is a problem currently in most (not all) provinces.

[StormAU]

Originally Posted by is5512

Just curious: at what level in the Australian "educational system" do they teach about contractions (specifically "your vs you're"). Or is that, like "staying calm," an elective course?

Yet again you have sunk to a new low, your own spelling and grammar is far from perfect but I haven't highlighted it cause I am interested in an adult discussion not a tit-for-tat picking session.

Originally Posted by is5512

Oh drat. Now I have to visit Poland.com to get the results of the election.

Have fun there wont you.

Originally Posted by is5512

Yes, we all think the same way, dress the same way, and look the same. It wasn't that way before George Bush, but we got used to it. And perhaps if they'd consider fighting on the same side as the American military as opposed to *with* American military, they'd be better off.

How pathetic can you get? with=alongside=on the same side=against a common foe. Now if I had said fighting against then you could reasonably come to the conclusion you did, but I didn't and you have come to a conclusion that is showing that your just being picky.

Originally Posted by is5512

A-HA! A legitimate question. Start a thread on that (better yet: a thread comparing the Ukrainian health care system -- the Ukraine is why I and perhaps many others are here on this forum -- with other systems) and perhaps there might be lively participation. But hopefully no smart-alecs aloud in you're thread.

You start a thread on it, I asked you here cause its part of the American election campaign. Others have answered why can't you?

For everyone else, socialized health care does work. It's not perfect but it does work.

[Kathy]

Ok, gentlemen, calm it down, or take it to Bare Knuckles.