Clinton campaign demonstrates repeated incompetence

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by zippyt

from here , http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dl...plate=printart

Article published Feb 20, 2008
My turn

Legally, a woman can't be elected president

The most generous interpretation of this article would seem to say that it would be legal for the Federal Government to make a law that only men could be President. But there is no such law, so the point is sort of moot.

[deadbeater]

You really think that someone will raise a legal basis that Clinton can't be president based on that???????????

I suggest that he reads Article 2: "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

And read the 14th Amendment Section 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

A woman can run for president, even without the right to vote. In fact someone did take advantage of the loophole.

Clinton won't win because Barack is too hot, and she wouldn't give up the word 'mandate' in her health care bill.

[HungLikeJesus]

In Colorado, "House Bill 1341 would ask voters to approve a 2 percent sales tax increase on all alcohol purchases with the money going to the Colorado's Children's Basic Health Plan (CHiP)."

I think this is a great idea. It gives us one more reason to feel good about drinking.

[Clodfobble]

If you were an unemployed full-time student, under the US system your income would have been low enough to qualify for Medicaid, especially with two children in your household. The people who can really get screwed by our system are not the poor, they are the middle-class, especially those who are self-employed (like lookout was when his second son was born.)

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Chemotherapy is covered for anyone under medicare. It's totally free.

Is Medicare also the name of your national program, or did you mean something else?

The real question here is not coverage, it is total cost. Your chemotherapy is not free, it's just freely available since it has already been paid for by your taxes. Right now our health coverage is paid for by a mixture of individuals through taxes, individuals through private plans, and employers. Switching the system to being paid for entirely by individuals through taxes does not change how much money procedures will cost. In fact, it very well may amount to nothing more than forcing people who currently "can't afford" to buy private insurance (but aren't covered by other plans for whatever reason) to pay the same amount they would have paid for private insurance into the government plan instead.

[Aliantha]

medicare is the name of our national public health coverage.

I understand your point Clod. The thing that always makes me think is that there seems to be a resistance to allowing health care to be covered at least in part by taxes.

If it's so bad to allow these things to happen, then why is it that Australians live in equal if not better living standards than Americans in general? Why is it so bad to have life saving treatments like chemotherapy freely available? Considering 1/3 of the population at least is likely to be affected by cancer, I'd say it's a socially responsible situation. And cancer isn't the only treatment that's 'freely available'. How bout a heart bypass? Need one of those? Yep? Ok, just take a seat, we'll be with you shortly. Oh you don't have private health cover? No problem, we'll be with you shortly anyway.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

The thing that always makes me think is that there seems to be a resistance to allowing health care to be covered at least in part by taxes.

Yes, it's because to be honest, the middle-class people currently paying taxes know they're almost certainly going to end up paying more than they are now. Being selfish and being socially responsible are usually at odds with each other. Americans are generally governed by a desire not to be tapped for the other guy's costs, not a fear of what will happen if they end up with unexpected costs.

[Aliantha]

Well, considering that over 70% of the population will be affected by cancer, i.e. if not themself personally then a loved one, there's a pretty good chance it's going to end up being their cost anyway...one way or the other.

The sort of thinking you describe just doesn't make any sense to me when you consider the facts.

Anyway, I'm still glad we have the health care systems we do in Oz. I think it's one of the best in the world although as I mentioned previously, we need more doctors and a lot of our hospitals need much better administration.

[Aliantha]

nowhere near 66%. Income tax is paid on a sliding scale where lower income earners pay less tax. Higher earners pay more. Some people pay none.

ETA: also, that particular issue of 'free' was addressed in response to Clod. Freely available as suggested by Clod is a better definition. Meaning that if you happen to be poor when you get cancer, you are still entitled to the same treatment.

[Happy Monkey]

Income tax in Australia

As income goes up, tax approaches 46.5%, including medicare at 1.5%, and not counting deductions.

[jinx]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Income tax in Australia

As income goes up, tax approaches 46.5%, including medicare at 1.5%, and not counting deductions.

Huh. Was talking to a woman the other day who had recently moved back from Aus. They had moved there for her husbands job. She mentioned 66% taxes, and that often her husbands employer paid him with stuff (furniture. electronics, etc.) to get around that.

[Aliantha]

The figures HM has posted are about right for the higher income earners here. With regard to the income tax amount people actually pay though, it can end up being much less than that depending on how many deductions they have for items they may be able to claim as business expenses, such as cars, phones, office space in the home etc.

Maybe your friend was getting ripped off. Perhaps they should see a lawyer.

[deadbeater]

While Hillary demonstrates questionable judgment to follow the Giuliani strategy, Obama once again demonstrates good judgement. Finegold was sponsoring a bill that calls for a untimed withdrawl of troops from Iraq. Obama didn't sponsor the bill this time, and in fact was against it, saying without timetables, the bill was useless. The Republican Senators quickly agree to fast track the bill to a debate, where they use the debate time to tout successes in Iraq. The Democrat senators present decided to kill the bill.

[glatt]

A Cellar cookie I just read:

"Call my dad. My mom's too busy."
--Chelsea Clinton to her school nurse, when asked for parental approval for medication.

[TheMercenary]

Holy crap! And I thought that we were bad.

Over $150,000 $47,100 plus 45c for each $1 over $150,000 31.4% – 45%

I am sure ours will be that for 2008.

[Shawnee123]

Nah, I specifically heard McCain say "no new taxes." I tried not to read his lips.