Is McCain working hard enough at this campaigning thing?

[Anonymous]

Am I the only one that things he looks tuckered, maybe bit off too much to chew. He seems tired. Age not on his side?
BTW, I plan to vote McCain.

[Anonymous]

I have no intention of voting for McSame. I guess the $4 gas prices, and the housing & food crisis don't bother everyone. Must be nice not being affected.

[Anonymous]

Oh Please!

You obviously have no idea how gas prices are around the world, or how the price of oil is determined.

Personally I can't wait for universal healthcare and the monstrous tax increase that comes with it. Ever lived in Europe?

[Anonymous]

Oh Please!

You obviously have no idea how gas prices are around the world, or how the price of oil is determined.

Personally I can't wait for universal healthcare and the monstrous tax increase that comes with it. Ever lived in Europe?

I am not the PP, but in answer to your question, I have lived in Europe for significant periods of time. France is consistently rated the top healthcare system in the world. When I lived in Germany for several years, I received far better health coverage and services than I ever have in the US. I think we could learn a lot from Europe on this issue - I don't understand what your gripe is!

[Anonymous]

Focusing on increasing domestic supply will lower gas prices.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Focusing on increasing domestic supply will lower gas prices.

Not for several years and maybe not even then.

Increased supplies will not arrive overnight. If world demand for oil continues to rise, prices will continue to rise. Domestic supplies will not be priced lower than world prices. The price will only decrease to the extent that the new supplies satisfy increasing demand. Probably the best that can be achieved is a slowing of future increases. Focusing on conservation would be more effective in both the short and long run.

[Anonymous]

I agree; conservation is a huge part. However, even mentioning the possibility of opening up the domestic oil supply by the president lowered gas prices. What do you think about T. Boone Pickens' plan?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I agree; conservation is a huge part. However, even mentioning the possibility of opening up the domestic oil supply by the president lowered gas prices. What do you think about T. Boone Pickens' plan?

I think a lot more was likely involved in the price drop than simply the President's words. As for T. Boone Picken's, he still has a lot to explain about his plan. So far, I like the sun and wind powered parts, but am not too thrilled with the natural gas ideas. Nevertheless, I'm very happy that he is spending his money on these ideas rather than funding 527s to attack Obama (he largely funded the Swiftboaters during the last go around).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Oh Please!

You obviously have no idea how gas prices are around the world, or how the price of oil is determined.

Personally I can't wait for universal healthcare and the monstrous tax increase that comes with it. Ever lived in Europe?

I am not the PP, but in answer to your question, I have lived in Europe for significant periods of time. France is consistently rated the top healthcare system in the world. When I lived in Germany for several years, I received far better health coverage and services than I ever have in the US. I think we could learn a lot from Europe on this issue - I don't understand what your gripe is!

The cost of living and the incredible tax rate. Also, the health care system in Europe is breaking down, and waiting lists for procedures are getting longer and longer. If you have private insurance, they can fit you in, but if you have to rely on their health care system, it could be years. I was watching something on BBC the other day, and there was a woman who needed general anesthesia for dental work. Her teeth were rotting out of her head, and she was taking pain meds and Valium. She was put on a two year long waiting list.

People from all European countries are shopping around for the best prices on procedures, because they don't wish to wait a year or more for things that are deemed non emergency. I had one friend who had to wait four years before her child could have his tonsils and adenoids removed. He wasn't able to sleep through the night, because of sleep apnea, and he would often wake her up. It was extremely difficult on her as a single mother going to law school.

[Anonymous]

The cost of living and the incredible tax rate. Also, the health care system in Europe is breaking down, and waiting lists for procedures are getting longer and longer. If you have private insurance, they can fit you in, but if you have to rely on their health care system, it could be years. I was watching something on BBC the other day, and there was a woman who needed general anesthesia for dental work. Her teeth were rotting out of her head, and she was taking pain meds and Valium. She was put on a two year long waiting list.

People from all European countries are shopping around for the best prices on procedures, because they don't wish to wait a year or more for things that are deemed non emergency. I had one friend who had to wait four years before her child could have his tonsils and adenoids removed. He wasn't able to sleep through the night, because of sleep apnea, and he would often wake her up. It was extremely difficult on her as a single mother going to law school.

It sounds to me like you are talking very specifically about the UK system, and I think most people agree there are problems with that. However, I don't think the UK system has ever been put forth as a model for universal health cover in the US, nor do I think it is fair to point to that as the only model for universal health cover and then conclude from that it is a flawed concept. There are many other good examples of health systems that offer universal coverage but don't have the problems you mentioned. The WHO study (where France, Japan and Australia were ranked the best in the world) evaluated not only universal coverage, but the responsiveness of care givers, patient freedoms, and overall longevity.

Interestingly, the WHO study also noted that the best-ranked French system, which is considered very expensive in European terms at $3,500 per capita, is still much, much cheaper that the cost of the US system at $6,100 a head.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The cost of living and the incredible tax rate. Also, the health care system in Europe is breaking down, and waiting lists for procedures are getting longer and longer. If you have private insurance, they can fit you in, but if you have to rely on their health care system, it could be years. I was watching something on BBC the other day, and there was a woman who needed general anesthesia for dental work. Her teeth were rotting out of her head, and she was taking pain meds and Valium. She was put on a two year long waiting list.

People from all European countries are shopping around for the best prices on procedures, because they don't wish to wait a year or more for things that are deemed non emergency. I had one friend who had to wait four years before her child could have his tonsils and adenoids removed. He wasn't able to sleep through the night, because of sleep apnea, and he would often wake her up. It was extremely difficult on her as a single mother going to law school.

It sounds to me like you are talking very specifically about the UK system, and I think most people agree there are problems with that. However, I don't think the UK system has ever been put forth as a model for universal health cover in the US, nor do I think it is fair to point to that as the only model for universal health cover and then conclude from that it is a flawed concept. There are many other good examples of health systems that offer universal coverage but don't have the problems you mentioned. The WHO study (where France, Japan and Australia were ranked the best in the world) evaluated not only universal coverage, but the responsiveness of care givers, patient freedoms, and overall longevity.

Interestingly, the WHO study also noted that the best-ranked French system, which is considered very expensive in European terms at $3,500 per capita, is still much, much cheaper that the cost of the US system at $6,100 a head.

Actually, no, I wasn't talking about the UK alone. While the French may have a great heathcare system, what is the cost? Unemployment is astronomical, and their taxes are too.

Japan is also not the greatest either. They are actually taking away personal rights of their people, and enforcing BMI restrictions on them, as one way to cut costs.

I knew someone who lived in Australia, and still had to pay thousands, because they wanted to get treatment on their own, and not wait the months (in pain) for a procedure.

[Anonymous]

Some Canadian doctor said to me that he does not think that national health insurance would work in the US because Americans don't want to be told what to do. All of those systems mentioned here depend on the patients doing as the doctor says and not arguing. It is like that in the military and VA here. I can not imagine the average American accepting their doctors advice without question. That adds to the reduced cost over there.
Also, they don't sue doctors and hospitals the way we do.

[Anonymous]

Can we get back to the question? I agree with the OP. We were watching the news the other night and my husband turned to me and said "Is it just me or is he totally half @ssing this?" Are we the only people who think so?

[Anonymous]

He seems tired. Obama jets sets and still makes good speeches.

[Anonymous]

Actually, no, I wasn't talking about the UK alone. While the French may have a great heathcare system, what is the cost? Unemployment is astronomical, and their taxes are too.

Japan is also not the greatest either. They are actually taking away personal rights of their people, and enforcing BMI restrictions on them, as one way to cut costs.

I knew someone who lived in Australia, and still had to pay thousands, because they wanted to get treatment on their own, and not wait the months (in pain) for a procedure.

I actually addressed the question of cost in my posting: "Interestingly, the WHO study also noted that the best-ranked French system, which is considered very expensive in European terms at $3,500 per capita, is still much, much cheaper that the cost of the US system at $6,100 a head." Another study of health care systems, released just 2 or so weeks ago, concluded very clearly that the US health care system is the most expensive in the world.

In addition, I am actually married to Australian and we have spent significant amounts of time there. Everyone in my family has used the Australian health system at some point, and my experience is consistent with the WHO findings that the system is better and cheaper than health care in the US. There is both a public and a private system there, and through the public system, there are waitlists based on medical priority - but please tell me how that is different from the US? My insurance company dictates which doctors I can see, what procedures they will and won't pay for, and when I can have them. My father, for example, had to have an emergency dental procedure a few weeks ago to avoid losing a few teeth. He had to pay out-of-pocket for it because his insurance company deemed it a cosmetic procedure (despite being in pain) or else not get the procedure. How is that any different?

Could someone PLEASE tell me why the US being ranked last in the developing world for healthcare isn't a national embarassment? I don't think it is very intellectually honest to point out much lesser shortcomings in health care systems that studies have shown to be significantly better than ours as a defense of our own broken system.