I do enjoy how foriengers seem to say "Oh man, Obama or Hillary. I think Hillary will win".

No one seems to even mention the Republican candidates, even though McCain currently is doing very, very well in the polls.

Anyway, I can't stand Hillary, but I almost want her to win the Democratic nomination since I know Obama has a good chance to win the general election. Obama isn't a bad guy, my only gipe is that both the Democrats want to socialize medicine. Complain all you want about our current system, but if medicine is socialized say bye bye to our medical R&D programs.

McCain > Obama >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hillary

Dark_Lord_2008 said: "Women belong in the kitchen not in the White House". I believe this statement 100%. I am a chauvinist.

 Please keep the chauvinistic comments to a minimum.  You may think woman are supposed to be barefoot and in the kitchen making babies, but either keep your opinions to yourself or find a nicer way to say them.

Even though I prefer Obama, I kinda have a feeling that CLinton will win.

hillary's last stand is pretty much texas and ohio... i guess.

eab said: I do enjoy how foriengers seem to say "Oh man, Obama or Hillary. I think Hillary will win". No one seems to even mention the Republican candidates, even though McCain currently is doing very, very well in the polls. Anyway, I can't stand Hillary, but I almost want her to win the Democratic nomination since I know Obama has a good chance to win the general election. Obama isn't a bad guy, my only gipe is that both the Democrats want to socialize medicine. Complain all you want about our current system, but if medicine is socialized say bye bye to our medical R&D programs. McCain > Obama >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hillary

That's an assumption. There's no rule that governments can't spend money on research. In fact, the US government funds over a quarter of US medical research already.

Only 6% of US health expenditures go to research ¹, whereas over 30% of expenditures go to administrative costs.² If the US could bring down administrative costs to Canadian levels by adopting socialized medicine, the 14% reduction in health care costs could be used to triple research expenditures with money left over.

¹  http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/30983.php

²  http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/349/8/768

@eab:

If by "foreigners" you mean Europeans, you really shouldn't be surprised that we don't want a Republican to win. They're way too conservative for most Europeans' taste (and Bush didn't exactly help either).

Personally I'm rooting for Obama, but give me Clinton over any Republican any day.

NJ5 said: @eab: If by "foreigners" you mean Europeans, you really shouldn't be surprised that we don't want a Republican to win. They're way too conservative for most Europeans' taste (and Bush didn't exactly help either). Personally I'm rooting for Obama, but give me Clinton over any Republican any day.

 yep... here's a quote from the Economist (UK based) on Huckabee:

  "Likeable though he is, Mr Huckabee is tainted by an anti-business strain of
populism and a literalist faith that sometimes blinds him to basic
science. The possibility of a Huckabee presidency would give many
independent voters (and this newspaper) pause."

 

mccain is actually perceived much more positively, from the same magazine:

 "It takes an exceptional individual to court the hatred of his own party
rather than compromise on issues he believes in, such as the need for
immigration reform, the wrongness of torture under any circumstances or
the need to tackle global warming. Should Mr McCain become president, the
world will see an American with different views from those it has sadly
learned to expect from Republicans recently."

 

 

famousringo said: eab said: I do enjoy how foriengers seem to say "Oh man, Obama or Hillary. I think Hillary will win". No one seems to even mention the Republican candidates, even though McCain currently is doing very, very well in the polls. Anyway, I can't stand Hillary, but I almost want her to win the Democratic nomination since I know Obama has a good chance to win the general election. Obama isn't a bad guy, my only gipe is that both the Democrats want to socialize medicine. Complain all you want about our current system, but if medicine is socialized say bye bye to our medical R&D programs. McCain > Obama >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hillary That's an assumption. There's no rule that governments can't spend money on research. In fact, the US government funds over a quarter of US medical research already. Only 6% of US health expenditures go to research 1, whereas over 30% of expenditures go to administrative costs.2 If the US could bring down administrative costs to Canadian levels by adopting socialized medicine, the 14% reduction in health care costs could be used to triple research expenditures with money left over. 1 http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/30983.php 2 http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/349/8/768

Well I know grants will still be there, heck the NIH even funds some European labs. The problem is with the insurance companies.

Research into building a better MRI for example goes like this right now:

- Private company wants to make it in the world, gathers young minds and works on a new project

- Prototype is made, sells it to a hospital for a huge sum of money since the R&D cost them billions.

- To make a profit off the new system, hospital charges a lot for this new, fantastic treatment. Obviously the insurance companies won't pay the price but millionaires and politicians will, which is a good thing since they will drive down prices..

- Soon the hospital will turns a profit on the new machine, other hospitals will buy more of these machines, machine prices will fall, and soon the cost to use one falls to levels that insurance companies will cover.

 

 And with socialized medicine? A government grant to an unmotivated agency such as the FDA. Maybe in several years they develop the system but it is so expensive that no hospital will use it. Everyone is treated equally in socialized medicine. So in the end everyone is treated with a level of care about equal to medicare right now. You will walk into a hospital and the doctor would say "An advanced MRI would help you a bit more, but its a $10,000 process and we can't spend that much on everyone, especially since a $1,000 older MRI is about 70% as good."

And it doesn't matter if you're Bill Gates, you can't pay for a single better option. Everyone from Tom Hanks to a street hobo will be given the same quality of treatment. Anyone who earns more than $40,000 a year will see substantial decline in healthcare, and people going into the Biotechnology field (such as myself) will find themselves developing new treatments only to find out that it's too expensive to be put into practice.

eab said: famousringo said: eab said: I do enjoy how foriengers seem to say "Oh man, Obama or Hillary. I think Hillary will win". No one seems to even mention the Republican candidates, even though McCain currently is doing very, very well in the polls. Anyway, I can't stand Hillary, but I almost want her to win the Democratic nomination since I know Obama has a good chance to win the general election. Obama isn't a bad guy, my only gipe is that both the Democrats want to socialize medicine. Complain all you want about our current system, but if medicine is socialized say bye bye to our medical R&D programs. McCain > Obama >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hillary That's an assumption. There's no rule that governments can't spend money on research. In fact, the US government funds over a quarter of US medical research already. Only 6% of US health expenditures go to research 1, whereas over 30% of expenditures go to administrative costs.2 If the US could bring down administrative costs to Canadian levels by adopting socialized medicine, the 14% reduction in health care costs could be used to triple research expenditures with money left over. 1 http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/30983.php 2 http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/349/8/768 Well I know grants will still be there, heck the NIH even funds some European labs. The problem is with the insurance companies. Research into building a better MRI for example goes like this right now: - Private company wants to make it in the world, gathers young minds and works on a new project - Prototype is made, sells it to a hospital for a huge sum of money since the R&D cost them billions. - To make a profit off the new system, hospital charges a lot for this new, fantastic treatment. Obviously the insurance companies won't pay the price but millionaires and politicians will, which is a good thing since they will drive down prices.. - Soon the hospital will turns a profit on the new machine, other hospitals will buy more of these machines, machine prices will fall, and soon the cost to use one falls to levels that insurance companies will cover. And with socialized medicine? A government grant to an unmotivated agency such as the FDA. Maybe in several years they develop the system but it is so expensive that no hospital will use it. Everyone is treated equally in socialized medicine. So in the end everyone is treated with a level of care about equal to medicare right now. You will walk into a hospital and the doctor would say "An advanced MRI would help you a bit more, but its a $10,000 process and we can't spend that much on everyone, especially since a $1,000 older MRI is about 70% as good." And it doesn't matter if you're Bill Gates, you can't pay for a single better option. Everyone from Tom Hanks to a street hobo will be given the same quality of treatment. Anyone who earns more than $40,000 a year will see substantial decline in healthcare, and people going into the Biotechnology field (such as myself) will find themselves developing new treatments only to find out that it's too expensive to be put into practice.

Why can't you? You can buy better service and treatments in Canada just like that.

Having a large socialized Healthcare plan means you have to get rid of private healthcare. You could privatize healtcare and yet allow people to pay for treatments that aren't covered by their insurance.

People are free to chip in for that $9,000 dollar MRI, or even get insurance that will pay for that $9,000 for the new MRI. (In most provinces, some i believe do have laws against it.)

The healtcare system would work exactly the same... except everyone would be insured.

As for researchers not being motivated... you're kidding right?  Researchers are ALWAYS motivated because they know if they don't get results they are out of a grant... and a job.  Even in the government. 

madskillz said: Legend11 said: The more I see and hear about Obama the more I like him but he would unfortunately make a very easy target for a smear campaign (just based on that poster someone made of him). It would take more than a Borat knockoff to sway voters.

I know this is going to sound bad but I think 80% (probably more) of the population in any country is somewhat stupid and easily manipulated.  From the time people are small children they are subjected to advertisers and others that manipulated them into buying their product (which includes everything from religion to toys).  These people have been so manipulated and conditioned all their lives that most are easily swayed one way or the other depending on who has the best "salespeople".  That's usually why in my opinion whoever has the most money to spend on campaigning usually has the best chance of winning.  It's also why I think Obama would be in for an uphill battle because it's far easier to make people feel angry and scared than it is to make them feel happy and safe (in my opinion anyways).