2008 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: Obama (D-IL) vs. McCain (R-AZ)

[lockmat]

Saddam was in power for 24 years. Bush has been killing people in Iraq for only 5. Compare the number of civilians Saddam killed in Iraq in the last 5 years of his reign with the number Bush killed (also in Iraq) in the first 5 years of our involvement there.

100,000 (bush) x 5 (25 years) = 500,000

Saddaam - 1,000,000

Guess we'll know for sure in 20 years.

[memebag]

100,000 (bush) x 5 (25 years) = 500,000

Saddaam - 1,000,000

Guess we'll know for sure in 20 years.

That figure for Saddam includes military deaths.

[sarahiki]

You are agreeing "100%" with webdude and it is his view that we are only over in Iraq for "warprofiteering". Your previous post made it out to say that our military are the ones causing innocent little Iraqi girls to lose their families. When in reality, our troops do everything possible not to shoot any Iraqis, as the terms of engagement are clear, You do not fire unless fired upon, or if are in fear of immediate threat to your fireteam. Out of 1000s of skirmishes in the past 5 years in Iraq, there have apparently only been 1 or 2 instances where a fireteam went "rogue" and killed innocents without provacation. Sara, keep in mind that this is WAR, bad things happen in times of war.

Thanks for the newsflash, I am actually aware that this is a war. I agreed 100% with the following statement:

" (webdude @ Tuesday, September 2nd, 2008 @ 12:33am)

Jeebus and also Ummm, mr not getting it,

First, don't try and lie again saying that their job is for protecting me from my enemies, that's what they sign up to do, but definitely not deployed to do.

And sure, they are creating a product, but for an artificial demand, made possible by wars, created courtesy of the government so they can have jobs. Still, welfare, just special blend.

And how sick is this. To continue the war so folks have jobs. Especially the bolded words of Jeebus."

I didn't say anything about why we are there in the first place, though I certainly have opinions about that. I don't know where you are getting your stats, but I've heard far more than 1 or 2 stories in the news about accidental deaths to civilians, and those are only the ones I've heard about. 1 or 2 accidental deaths in 5 years? Are you kidding me? Approximately 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died. Were they all pointing a gun at a soldier? I know our military aren't there to purposely kill civilians. I know this. I never suggested anything like this. But like you said, it's a war, and there are casualties. I'm just not okay with those casualties, as you seem to be.

I have been opposed to this war since before it began. I actively protested both Gulf Wars. You will never convince me that the deaths have been worth it, or are "acceptable casualties." Every Iraqi, and every American, killed is one too many.

(edited to try to correct formatting)

[lockmat]

That figure for Saddam includes military deaths.

It's a very difficult subject. I wish we could really get a good understanding straight from the mouth of many different Iraqis on what their thinking was before we entered. I wonder if they were just willing to take their chances or if they're happy someone took down Sadaam? If they would have known now what they didn't know then, would they want to do it all over again? And I wonder if they would have been more receptive to an invastion to take over Sadaam had it been by a country they liked better than us?

It's not black and white for sure. What we do know is that Sadaam was bad. It was good he was taken down. It was bad he was killing his own people. It's bad that innocent people have died in our invasion.

I'm glad I'm not president. (And you don't have to say it. I'll say it for you. And you're glad I'm not either, lol)

[memebag]

It's a very difficult subject. I wish we could really get a good understanding straight from the mouth of many different Iraqis on what their thinking was before we entered. I wonder if they were just willing to take their chances or if they're happy someone took down Sadaam? If they would have known now what they didn't know then, would they want to do it all over again? And I wonder if they would have been more receptive to an invastion to take over Sadaam had it been by a country they liked better than us?

If enough of the Iraqi people wanted Saddam gone, he would have been gone without our involvement.

It's not black and white for sure. What we do know is that Sadaam was bad. It was good he was taken down. It was bad he was killing his own people. It's bad that innocent people have died in our invasion.

And it's bad that our nation has been bogged down in a war it didn't need to fight, that we've harmed our international reputation, and that we've given more people more real reasons to hate us.

I'm glad I'm not president. (And you don't have to say it. I'll say it for you. And you're glad I'm not either, lol)

I'm going to guess that if you had been president, you would have had the good sense to focus on Afghanistan and not fabricate intelligence to justify an invasion of Iraq. If that's true, I'd rather have you as president than Bush.

[TJones]

Thanks for the newsflash, I am actually aware that this is a war. I agreed 100% with the following statement:

" (webdude @ Tuesday, September 2nd, 2008 @ 12:33am)

Jeebus and also Ummm, mr not getting it,

First, don't try and lie again saying that their job is for protecting me from my enemies, that's what they sign up to do, but definitely not deployed to do.

And sure, they are creating a product, but for an artificial demand, made possible by wars, created courtesy of the government so they can have jobs. Still, welfare, just special blend.

And how sick is this. To continue the war so folks have jobs. Especially the bolded words of Jeebus."

I didn't say anything about why we are there in the first place, though I certainly have opinions about that. I don't know where you are getting your stats, but I've heard far more than 1 or 2 stories in the news about accidental deaths to civilians, and those are only the ones I've heard about. 1 or 2 accidental deaths in 5 years? Are you kidding me? Approximately 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died. Were they all pointing a gun at a soldier? I know our military aren't there to purposely kill civilians. I know this. I never suggested anything like this. But like you said, it's a war, and there are casualties. I'm just not okay with those casualties, as you seem to be.

I have been opposed to this war since before it began. I actively protested both Gulf Wars. You will never convince me that the deaths have been worth it, or are "acceptable casualties." Every Iraqi, and every American, killed is one too many.

(edited to try to correct formatting)

Then what does "I agree 100%" mean ?

So, just to refresh our memories, HOW are most of these innocent lives being taken Sarah ? Are you suggesting that our troops are running around just shooting innocent Iraqis for sport, 100,000 accidents? Could it be by explosive devices made by our enemy terrorists, or is it our own soldiers that were making I.E.D.s this whole time and putting them in cars and strapping themselves with them and walking into restaurants?

Believe me, I knew about 40 posts ago that there is no convincing someone like yourself, that we are doing the right thing just somehow escapes you and webdude. I became even more convinced when, in this post I just quoted, that you even protested the first Gulf War ? On what grounds ? I am sure you are a big backer of Idi Amin also. BTW, they just came out with "The Last King of Scotland" on Blu Ray, you should go get it.

[lockmat]

If enough of the Iraqi people wanted Saddam gone, he would have been gone without our involvement.

I'd like to think that's true. I'm not a history buff by any means, but have we seen this in recent history? Would the idea of mass amounts of people attempting to overthrow a regime with WMDs(he used them before, right?) even be possible with advance weaponry that the govt would have? Maybe yes, I don't know.

[Jeebus]

If enough of the Iraqi people wanted Saddam gone, he would have been gone without our involvement

Yeah, kinda like back in 1991?

[memebag]

I'd like to think that's true. I'm not a history buff by any means, but have we seen this in recent history? Would the idea of mass amounts of people attempting to overthrow a regime with WMDs(he used them before, right?) even be possible with advance weaponry that the govt would have? Maybe yes, I don't know.

It's all about who among the citizens want the dictator gone. If the people the dictator relies on to use the weapons turn against him, he's toast.

But Saddam didn't have WMDs when we invaded.

[lockmat]

The announcements of both Joe Biden and Sarah Palin spawned massive amounts of news coverage. A simple Google News search shows that there were 26,572 stories the Saturday that Obama told the country that Biden was his vice presidential pick. McCain's pick of Palin generated 11,293 stories.

...

For Biden, the top ten terms found were: experience (excluding "executive experience") (69 percent), abortion (21 percent), liberal (11 percent), safe (7 percent), long-winded (5 percent), moderate (5 percent), plagiarism (3 percent), gun-control (2 percent), executive experience (2 percent), and exaggerate or exaggerated (dealing with exaggerated claims he made about his college grades and accomplishments that helped end his 1988 race) (1 percent).

For Palin, the top ten were: conservative (49 percent), abortion (44 percent), brother-in-law (picking up claims that she improperly tried to get her ex-brother-in-law fired) (17 percent), corruption and oil (17 percent), risky or risks or risk (16 percent), glass ceiling (13 percent), Quayle (10 percent), exciting (9 percent), inexperience or "lack experience" OR "limited experience" (8 percent), and bold (8 percent).

This is not an exhaustive list, but it does point to some significant differences in coverage. While 49 percent of the articles mention that Palin is a conservative, only 11 percent of the pieces on Biden use liberal, just twice as many of the articles that label him moderate. There is no doubt that Palin is a conservative, but Biden's legislative record should likewise put him squarely in the liberal category and it would seem to be just as important in describing who Biden is to voters.

The National Journal, a respected bipartisan publication, regularly examines the voting records of all members of congress, and it found that Biden was the third most liberal member of the Senate in 2007, even more liberal than self-described "socialist" Bernie Sanders from Vermont. Indeed, with Obama's No. 1 ranking, the Democratic ticket appears to be the most liberal presidential ticket ever.

link

[moni]

I think that about sums it up. If we didn't go in there it would be just the same as it was, except now there are new hospitals, schools, the oil is putting money back in to the Iraqi economy, and best of all - there is no more dictatorship. Civil war is a long hard road. They are in the early stages of reconstruction. Granted, we shouldn't have had to fight their civil war for them, but it needed to be fought.

There's nothing wrong with giving to those in need. I have no issue with ensuring that every child gets the best health care and education. I think every senior should be given the best personal healthcare from retirement until death. I think every handicapped person should be given top medical care for life. And I think all of this should be funded by the capable, we, the working class.

I'm just sick of all the people in the middle soaking up the unemployment, food stamps, and medicaid. Those people who have decided they don't have to work to contribute to help all those in need, but would rather act in need themselves.

Our nation has become so financially irresponsible and it always seems like the Democratic party wants to help fix it by pouring more money into it, where as the Republican party wants to fix it by demanding those that are irresponsible get off their butt and fix it themselves.

I guess I just prefer the latter "pull YOURself up by the boot-straps and get going" attitude. Most would be surprised how fast I'd vote Democrat on damn near EVERY other issue if they would just become more hard-lined on all this needless charity. I'm sick of hearing about the holy-roller crap. Typical politics.

I can't wait for Christmas.

I agree with you to a certain extent. You might remind yourself that even those who appear able to work and provide for themselves are often unable to because of mental illness and learning disabilities. Oftentimes, these things are not obvious. If people are just lazy, then what can anyone do about it? They will turn to crime to get what they need if the government doesn't help them. Also, statistically speaking, there are not enough jobs for everyone who is unemployed, so how do they live? England recognizes this fact, and of course, their taxes are high to compensate for those without jobs. There is no simple solution.

[KinkaidAlum]

What's scary as that we're walking down the line of judging who does and does not deserve to live.

You have nothing to worry about, I will not be making those decisions.

Hmmmmm..... you must be really anti-death penalty too, right?

[lockmat]

Hmmmmm..... you must be really anti-death penalty too, right?

Actually, I've been rethinking that and I'm not for it.

It will always blow my mind how people can be against the death penalty for grown people who make decisions while for the ability to kill an innocent child who cannot make decisions and did nothing wrong. Of course, it's always twisted some way to justify it.

[KinkaidAlum]

What is wrong with giving needy people financial or medical help? England has always had a certain portion of their population on the "dole", the Netherlands, too. It is uncivilized to have a country as wealthy as ours to not help the poor among us. I give to charity as much as possible, but I do believe that as a nation, we can and should do better. Don't be so greedy folks, you never know what your future holds.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!

I've had a relationship with a single mother and her children for the past 10 years. This woman works FULL-TIME. Her oldest son calls me almost monthly to ask for help because his mother is too proud to ask for herself. The reason? She makes too much to qualify for food stamps now that she's received a slight raise ($9 an hour). By the end of the month, there is no money left for food.

For all of those posters who think welfare moms sit around watching daytime soaps on their flat screen tv while the AC is turned down to 68, BUY A CLUE. It wasn't true before welfare reform and it certainly isn't true after.

The reality is mind-numbing work with little pay and no benefits. Having to make decisions like feeding the kids or getting them shoes that fit for the new school year. Trying to figure out what to do when you can't miss work but a child is sick and you know a visit to the doctor without insurance means a FULL DAY of waiting at a free clinic.

It disgusts me that people still point to welfare mothers as a source of tax-waste when we have Blackwater, Lockheed-Martin, and KBR making off with BILLIONS.

[TJones]

How old is the oldest son ? Is he of working age ? How come you haven't married her after 10 years, or is it not that kind of relationship.

[TheNiche]

I've had a relationship with a single mother and her children for the past 10 years. This woman works FULL-TIME. Her oldest son calls me almost monthly to ask for help because his mother is too proud to ask for herself. The reason? She makes too much to qualify for food stamps now that she's received a slight raise ($9 an hour). By the end of the month, there is no money left for food.

There's little doubt that the programs we have in place need to be reformed. It certainly doesn't make sense that a person's total income (inclusive of both employment and social programs) should decline because the income from employment went up. That really is just a crazy situation that needs to be rectified. Having said that, I don't think that either candidate has really spoken to this situation, nor do I think that this specific instance is really going to be disputed by anybody as being anything but a failed policy. ...so I don't really see how it is relevent to the thread. It seems like generalized whining.

For all of those posters who think welfare moms sit around watching daytime soaps on their flat screen tv while the AC is turned down to 68, BUY A CLUE. It wasn't true before welfare reform and it certainly isn't true after.

The reality is mind-numbing work with little pay and no benefits. Having to make decisions like feeding the kids or getting them shoes that fit for the new school year. Trying to figure out what to do when you can't miss work but a child is sick and you know a visit to the doctor without insurance means a FULL DAY of waiting at a free clinic.

How about making good decisions about when to have kids in the first place? And for those whose personal morality dictates that they either can't get an abortion or that it is somehow wrong not to procreate, even when poor, how about taking responsibility for the consequences of that personal morality?

It disgusts me that people still point to welfare mothers as a source of tax-waste when we have Blackwater, Lockheed-Martin, and KBR making off with BILLIONS.

To the extent that firms are either getting illegal contracts or are not living up to the terms of their contracts, they need to be prosecuted.

[crunchtastic]

It disgusts me that people still point to welfare mothers as a source of tax-waste when we have Blackwater, Lockheed-Martin, and KBR making off with BILLIONS.

The people who complain the loudest about 'self reliance' did probably not watch a friend file bankruptcy after defaulting on a loan to pay for chemotherapy, because they could only get the treatment by paying up front (over $30,000) because they were uninsured.

The people who rail against 'socialist' health insurance reform probably did not watch their best friend die of AIDS complications because they couldn't afford to buy the latest and most effective drug therapies, because despite the fact that they were educated and employed, their employer did not provide health benefits, and they were unable to buy private health insurance for $600 a month, because they were caring for an eldery parent at the same time as being sick themselves.

To those who are being 'robbed' by welfare mothers, I would challenge you to strike up a conversation with the next person you see at the store using a lone star card. Maybe ask the homeless man on the corner how many buddies he saw die in Vietnam. Instead of relying on lazy-welfare-mother sound bites, why not come face to face with the blood sucking entitlement demons?Tell them how you feel! Perhaps you can convince them to be more responsible! If they only understood how the free market works, they could better themselves. Talk about incentive!

Meanwhile, of the billions spent in Iraq, how much goes to KBR, who usese tax payer-funded, no-bid contract money to hire near-slave labor from India and Pakistan to 'support the troops, ' and is moving HQ to Dubai, thereby further avoiding things like taxes and accountability.

What disturbs me most is how so many young people are so venomous. They must be feeling mighty bulletproof (or have a couple of hundred grand socked away in the name of 'responsibility') because fortunes change quickly, and payback is a delicate flower. Once life teaches a lessen or two in the real economics of need, sickness, and death, one gains perspective pretty damn fast.

[sarahiki]

The people who complain the loudest about 'self reliance' did probably not watch a friend file bankruptcy after defaulting on a loan to pay for chemotherapy, because they could only get the treatment by paying up front (over $30,000) because they were uninsured.

The people who rail against 'socialist' health insurance reform probably did not watch their best friend die of AIDS complications because they couldn't afford to buy the latest and most effective drug therapies, because despite the fact that they were educated and employed, their employer did not provide health benefits, and they were unable to buy private health insurance for $600 a month, because they were caring for an eldery parent at the same time as being sick themselves.

To those who are being 'robbed' by welfare mothers, I would challenge you to strike up a conversation with the next person you see at the store using a lone star card. Maybe ask the homeless man on the corner how many buddies he saw die in Vietnam. Instead of relying on lazy-welfare-mother sound bites, why not come face to face with the blood sucking entitlement demons?Tell them how you feel! Perhaps you can convince them to be more responsible! If they only understood how the free market works, they could better themselves. Talk about incentive!

Meanwhile, of the billions spent in Iraq, how much goes to KBR, who usese tax payer-funded, no-bid contract money to hire near-slave labor from India and Pakistan to 'support the troops, ' and is moving HQ to Dubai, thereby further avoiding things like taxes and accountability.

What disturbs me most is how so many young people are so venomous. They must be feeling mighty bulletproof (or have a couple of hundred grand socked away in the name of 'responsibility') because fortunes change quickly, and payback is a delicate flower. Once life teaches a lessen or two in the real economics of need, sickness, and death, one gains perspective pretty damn fast.

Love your post. Love your avatar picture even more.

TJones, please don't start with me again. Your last post to me was trashy and insulting.

[BryanS]

What disturbs me most is how so many young people are so venomous. They must be feeling mighty bulletproof (or have a couple of hundred grand socked away in the name of 'responsibility') because fortunes change quickly, and payback is a delicate flower. Once life teaches a lessen or two in the real economics of need, sickness, and death, one gains perspective pretty damn fast.

Amen. No textbook required. No hyper, theoretical, long winded economic analysis required. Just real life experience is all that is needed.

[lockmat]

Amen. No textbook required. No hyper, theoretical, long winded economic analysis required. Just real life experience is all that is needed.

So let me get this straight. Everyone who supports universal health care, or some variation of it, does not mind having their taxes raised in order to support it?

I'm just curious.

[TJones]

Love your post. Love your avatar picture even more.

TJones, please don't start with me again. Your last post to me was trashy and insulting.

I refuse to sit idly by and let you and others spew your side as you see it and for us to take it as gospel, and not let the lurkers of this forum see another side. They deserve that much. So, if you can't stand the heat, stay the out of the kitchen.

[sarahiki]

I refuse to sit idly by and let you and others spew your side as you see it and for us to take it as gospel, and not let the lurkers of this forum see another side. They deserve that much. So, if you can't stand the heat, stay the out of the kitchen.

I don't think you're doing lurkers or anyone else a service by accusing me of being a Idi Amin supporter because I don't support the gulf wars. I can take the heat just fine, but this is no longer a productive dialogue, so what's the point.

[KinkaidAlum]

If my taxes were raised and we received a national health plan then I'd be elated!

If my taxes were raised and we had a decent system of welfare for the working poor then I'd be elated.

If my taxes were raised and pell grants were expanded and affordable education was offered to all then I'd be elated.

If my taxes were raised and we spent that money on our own roads, bridges, schools, dams, etc... then I'd be elated.

If my taxes were raised and we saw that public parks wouldn't have to worry about selling off mineral rights to make it then I'd be elated.

If my taxes were raised and invested in funding for alternative energy research then I'd be elated.

I am not so thrilled to see billions going to Iraq and private contractors while our levees fail, interstate bridges collapse, college becomes unaffordable, people are losing their homes, and the sick go untreated. That is MADNESS. It is also what has been going on seemingly unchallenged for EIGHT years.

[Jeebus]

It disgusts me that people still point to welfare mothers as a source of tax-waste when we have Blackwater, Lockheed-Martin, and KBR making off with BILLIONS.

Who's going after moms? I've been inferring towards men this entire conversation. The only people going after moms are the liberals on this board who think a woman can't be a mother and a politician. How ironic.

I agree with you to a certain extent. You might remind yourself that even those who appear able to work and provide for themselves are often unable to because of mental illness and learning disabilities. Oftentimes, these things are not obvious. If people are just lazy, then what can anyone do about it? They will turn to crime to get what they need if the government doesn't help them. Also, statistically speaking, there are not enough jobs for everyone who is unemployed, so how do they live? England recognizes this fact, and of course, their taxes are high to compensate for those without jobs. There is no simple solution.

I hate that there are those in a society who would rather try to buy-off criminals, rather than prosecute them. And statistically speaking, since you failed to provide any statistic, there would be more than enough jobs for the unemployed if there were no illegals here to work them. Granted, they are not the most desirable jobs - but they are there, and they are available.

The people who complain the loudest about 'self reliance' did probably not watch a friend file bankruptcy after defaulting on a loan to pay for chemotherapy, because they could only get the treatment by paying up front (over $30,000) because they were uninsured.

The people who rail against 'socialist' health insurance reform probably did not watch their best friend die of AIDS complications because they couldn't afford to buy the latest and most effective drug therapies, because despite the fact that they were educated and employed, their employer did not provide health benefits, and they were unable to buy private health insurance for $600 a month, because they were caring for an eldery parent at the same time as being sick themselves.

To those who are being 'robbed' by welfare mothers, I would challenge you to strike up a conversation with the next person you see at the store using a lone star card. Maybe ask the homeless man on the corner how many buddies he saw die in Vietnam. Instead of relying on lazy-welfare-mother sound bites, why not come face to face with the blood sucking entitlement demons?Tell them how you feel! Perhaps you can convince them to be more responsible! If they only understood how the free market works, they could better themselves. Talk about incentive!

Meanwhile, of the billions spent in Iraq, how much goes to KBR, who usese tax payer-funded, no-bid contract money to hire near-slave labor from India and Pakistan to 'support the troops, ' and is moving HQ to Dubai, thereby further avoiding things like taxes and accountability.

What disturbs me most is how so many young people are so venomous. They must be feeling mighty bulletproof (or have a couple of hundred grand socked away in the name of 'responsibility') because fortunes change quickly, and payback is a delicate flower. Once life teaches a lessen or two in the real economics of need, sickness, and death, one gains perspective pretty damn fast.

Amen. No textbook required. No hyper, theoretical, long winded economic analysis required. Just real life experience is all that is needed.

So is the pre-requisite for being self reliant and independent in this society that you have to watch someone else suffer because the system failed them? What a crock. How about instead of crying for those on welfare all day because their company doesn't pay them enough, you instead encourage them either financially or emotionally to find a better job, or to join a union?

[westguy]

It disgusts me that people still point to welfare mothers as a source of tax-waste when we have Blackwater, Lockheed-Martin, and KBR making off with BILLIONS.

Are we buying the $500 toilet seats from them?

[TJones]

I don't think you're doing lurkers or anyone else a service by accusing me of being a Idi Amin supporter because I don't support the gulf wars. I can take the heat just fine, but this is no longer a productive dialogue, so what's the point.

I also asked you to extrapolate on WHO is making the bombs and I.E.D.s that are taking innocent lives in Iraq. I asked if you thought it was our own soldiers who are responsible for 100,000 innocent lives lost ? You have failed to answer EITHER question and decided to focus on a passing Idi Amin statement, because you obviuosly believe Saddam was a saint compared to Idi, and you got offended ? Ok, I'll apologize for the Idi comment, now can you please answer my questions posed to you ?

[sarahiki]

I also asked you to extrapolate on WHO is making the bombs and I.E.D.s that are taking innocent lives in Iraq. I asked if you thought it was our own soldiers who are responsible for 100,000 innocent lives lost ? You have failed to answer EITHER question and decided to focus on a passing Idi Amin statement, because you obviuosly believe Saddam was a saint compared to Idi, and you got offended ? Ok, I'll apologize for the Idi comment, now can you please answer my questions posed to you ?

How on earth would I know that? I'm not sure how much it matters to me. I don't blame US soldiers. I blame the conflict at large, which we started. I'm not trying to evade the question, I simply don't have the specific information about how the 100,000 Iraqis died. I would assume they died in a variety of ways: shooting, bombs.... I am lucky enough never to have been in a war zone.

Why does this matter so much to you? Is it because of the "partisan violence," i.e, civil war? If that's what you're driving at, then yes, I'm sure they are to blame for a good part of the civilian death toll. But that violence has all begun since the war started, so it's still an effect of the war.

I can't believe I'm getting into this with you again.

[memebag]

So let me get this straight. Everyone who supports universal health care, or some variation of it, does not mind having their taxes raised in order to support it?

I can't speak for everyone, but I support universal health care. The other industrialized nations have it, and they spend less per capita on health care than we do. The trick is to provide universal preventative care, not universal emergency care. It's cheaper to let everyone visit the doctor when they get a cough than it is to send them to emergency rooms when they start coughing up blood.

[lockmat]

I can't speak for everyone, but I support universal health care. The other industrialized nations have it, and they spend less per capita on health care than we do. The trick is to provide universal preventative care, not universal emergency care. It's cheaper to let everyone visit the doctor when they get a cough than it is to send them to emergency rooms when they start coughing up blood.

So that's a yes?

I definitely support the idea.

[memebag]

So that's a yes?

I definitely support the idea.

That's a "mu". Other countries have universal health care without spending more on health care than we do now, so the question is based on a false dichotomy. We can have universal health care without raising taxes.

The other trick is to let people die when medical science can't really help them. We're very bad at that trick.