Jump to content

Super Tuesday


olyclimber

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 49
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Still a horse race for both parties.

 

I think if the Rs put up McCain, he will beat H. Clinton but Obama could beat him.

 

I think if the Rs put up Romney or Huckabee it's all going to come down to how many Evangelicals show up to vote.

 

It's such a crap job at the moment I wonder why so may people ran, and I think it won't be the end of the world if we get another R president as the next four years at least are going to be about cleaning up the mess the previous administration is leaving behind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like Obama but I dont think he can win the presidency, so I am backing the bitch.

 

I was thinking the exact opposite.

clinton vs mcain = mcain would win + the likelihood of the mn gov. becoming the vice prez nom. nooooooo!

obama vs mcain = close call, depending on the issues and voting population.

 

Sorry Porter, but I think its too soon and too close to call clinton.

 

I liked Bill Clinton as prez. Yet I think enough is enough with the dynasty of the bush's and clintons. Time for some fresh blood and someone owing less paybacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2/9

 

Louisiana Primary 67 delegates

Nebraska Caucus 31 delegates

Washington Caucus 97 delegates

Virgin Islands Other 9 delegates

 

2/10

 

Maine Caucus 34 delegates

 

2/12

District of Columbia Primary 37 delegates

Maryland Primary 99 delegates

Virginia Primary 101 delegates

 

2/19

 

Hawaii Caucus 29 delegates

Wisconsin Primary 92 delegates

 

3/4

 

Ohio Primary 161 delegates

Rhode Island Primary 32 delegates

Texas Primary 228 delegates

Vermont Primary 23 delegates

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like Hillary might head out of Super Tuesday with the lead. I've heard the conservative pundits salivating over the prospect of her proposed mandatory paycheck deduction for healthcare. Nobody likes to be forced, you've got to couch it as a choice somehow.

 

 

You and the WSJ editorial page are on the same page today...sort of... :ooo:

 

"Most experts calculate that a national mandate with subsidies like Mrs. Clinton's would enroll about half to two-thirds of the uninsured, less for a voluntary plan and subsidies alone. But such guesswork is pointless without the basic enforcement assumptions, which Mrs. Clinton refuses to provide. She's more interested in wielding what she calls "a core Democratic principle" against Mr. Obama. "My opponent will not commit to universal health care," she said Saturday.

 

The logic of Mr. Obama's approach is that policy makers should target those who are priced out of coverage. The Census Bureau says 38% of the uninsured earned more than $50,000 in 2006, 19% above $75,000. They aren't a major public policy problem -- except that a big reason they lack coverage is because it is more expensive than it needs to be thanks to government market interference. And 29% earn under $25,000, which means they probably qualify for existing subsidy programs like Medicaid or Schip but haven't enrolled.

 

The news here is that all of this is being exposed now, and by a fellow Democrat. Many Americans are uncomfortable with the coercion of the mandate -- and not all of them are Republicans. The California health-care overhaul was recently done in by liberals concerned about its consequences for the working poor.

 

The political lesson that Mrs. Clinton learned in 1994 wasn't about compromise or market forces. It was that a government health-care takeover can only be achieved gradually and by stealth. Her individual mandate is an attempt to force everyone to buy into a highly regulated and price-controlled system where government redistributes income and dictates coverage. We assume the McCain campaign is paying attention."

 

If you add a mandate to the existing model you're essentially just forcing people to subsidize the existing players. Seems like the worst of many options, short of transferring control of the entire sector to the government.

 

My personal fantasy...

 

Transfer tax incentives to individuals rather than employers, allow any citizen of any state to buy insurance from any provider in any state, add in HSA's that can accumulate assets from one year to the next, and give people on medicare/medicaid incentive structured food-stamp style funding so that they can go to whatever provider they want and pay up-front, instead of being at the mercy of the dwindling number of providers who are willing to lose money on every medicare/medicaid patient that they see.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...