Sunday, December 02, 2007

Obama-rama in Iowa

Whoot whoot!
THE NUMBERS — DEMOCRATS:

Barack Obama, 28 percent

Hillary Rodham Clinton, 25 percent

John Edwards, 23 percent

Bill Richardson, 9 percent

Joe Biden, 6 percent

Still statistically too close to call between Obama, Clinton, and Edwards but I'll take it. This really surprised me, though:
THE NUMBERS — REPUBLICANS:

Mike Huckabee, 29 percent

Mitt Romney, 24 percent

Rudy Giuliani, 13 percent

Fred Thompson, 9 percent

John McCain, 7 percent

Ron Paul, 7 percent

Tom Tancredo, 6 percent

Giuliani is getting trounced. And why is McCain so low in the polls, even behind Thompson? Ouch. I think he probably blew it with his refusal to endorse torture. Republicans seem to enjoy Jack Bauer-esque fantasies about ticking time bomb torture scenarios and McCain keeps trying to remind them that such things are, you know... fiction. Torture reality is more like what McCain actually experienced. But who is he to burst their bubble?

Mental note: I think I need to do a little investigating on Huckabee if he's gonna be a playah.

12 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Huckster is getting popular where I live ever since he announced his affection for the Fair Tax. His before/after pictures regarding healthy eating/exercise should be a testament for all regarding health care coming from within and not from insurance benefits or lack thereof.

1:12 PM, December 02, 2007  
Blogger Logic101 said...

I've seen snippets of Huckabee's debate performance but not enough to form an intelligent opinion on him.

Regarding health care... wouldn't it be nice if everything about our health was in our control. I've seen two people I fiercely love struggle valiantly against hideous illnesses. One of them was my perfect newborn son at three weeks of age (no smoking, caffeine, alcohol, asparatame, veggie avoidance etc, during pregnancy). As far as I know, he did not smoke, drink, eat junk food, or refuse to exercise during the any of the three weeks after his birth. It was medicine that saved his life and it was health insurance that paid for the cost of it. Without either, he'd be dead.

I realize good living contributes much to good health (although doctors give us crazy about-face guidelines constantly) but it's the ultimate act of ego to think you can ward off illness and accidents by jogging 5 mile a day. Lots of people keep trying, though. Good luck with that.

2:11 PM, December 02, 2007  
Anonymous eagle eyed milton said...

You can crunch the numbers yourself if you want to, but it doesn't take a genius to figure that if the entire USA population didn't smoke, drink, take illegal drugs and got plenty of exercise, you wouldn't have rising health care costs. Of course we all need insurance, but any actuarial science grad will agree with me.
Why have elaborate health care programs when we have a lot of low hanging fruit to pick. Oh, I forgot, most voters don't have a brain to take care of themselves and want a hand out.

9:25 PM, December 02, 2007  
Blogger Logic101 said...

Maybe you're right, maybe "most voters don't have a brain to take care of themselves and want a hand out."

Or maybe you're just an asshole.

Did I not agree that good living contributes much to good health? What I balked at is your smug absolutism. Sorry to be rude but you'll find no tolerance of that here.

Your comments regarding the sub-prime meltdown are the perfect example. Like it's ONLY the idiot borrowers at fault... not the greedy brokers or the risk whores carrying the paper. It's ONLY the borrowers who have caused the credit problem. And you, you're only upset that they've inconvenienced you, personally, by lowering property values in your neighborhood with their irresponsible foreclosures. Nevermind that you were probably enjoying an unmerited, accelerated appreciation on your home during the bubble years. A complex problem is made so much more simple with a little focused blame.

And now it's ONLY badly behaved Americans who are driving up the cost of health care in this country. Nevermind that smoking is nowhere near the national habit it was 30 years ago. Nevermind that we're now told moderate drinking is actually heart healthy. Skyrocketing health care costs couldn't possibly have anything to do with insurance companies, drug companies, and health care providers being "responsible to their shareholders" by maximizing profit, or trying to suck in ever more investor dollars by promising an insane ROI. No, no... the inflating cost of health care is ONLY because irresponsible people are super sizing their McMeals and laying around in front of the teevee.

It's so much easier to understand when you make it simple.

And there's a lovely superiority dividend, too.

12:07 AM, December 03, 2007  
Anonymous eagle eyed milton said...

Gee, never once did I use the word 'ONLY' in my description of the health care problem. However, considering the fact that Type 2 diabetes is probably 10 percent of health care costs, I think you would at least give some respect to my argument. There is something to be said for competitive health care reform but not a government run single payer system (that indeed would be a black and white idea). Being called an a-hole is pretty black and white also...but since it is your web site, I can move along.

9:55 AM, December 03, 2007  
Blogger Logic101 said...

I did acknowledge your point... I said good living contributes much to good health. Who could deny that? But come on... "Oh, I forgot, most voters don't have a brain to take care of themselves and want a hand out." There's no logic behind presenting anything that way and your habit of attacking folks in that hyperbolistic manner compels me to defend them. Still, I should not resort to name calling and for that I apologize.

I don't have time to look up facts but I am fairly certain that people are living as healthfully, if not more healthfully, than they were 40 years ago. Obesity rates are up, this is true, but I have to believe this is negated by changes in public awareness on a variety of health topics from childhood vaccines to prenatal health to proactive screenings. I think you'd have a very hard time proving that health care costs are rising in direct proportion to, and as a direct result of, declining national health.

TIP: The best argument I've heard on your side of the debate is that the government will have a right to meddle in what the government pays for (or something to that effect, I'm paraphrasing). i.e., If the government is paying for health care, the government should be allowed to dictate healthy living. If I were on the anti-single payer system side, that's the argument I would use. I would not try to promote my side by saying people are lazy idiots after my money. 1) It's a silly way to frame an argument. 2) It's not true. 3) It would kind of make me sound like an egocentric, arrogant asshole.

10:48 AM, December 03, 2007  
Anonymous eagle eyed milton said...

You are misguided and living in the wrong country.

1. "if the government pays for health care..." (Last time I looked, it was the government taking money out of my pocket to pay for these things, it isn't the governments money.

2. You state that high costs are due to "Drug companies....maximizing profit" and because they are evil. (Do you think that the government is entirely ethical? Do you think that perhaps it fosters an uncompetitive environment to compete due to stuffing AMA and drug company special interest groups money in their pockets? Unless you are a communist (sometimes I think you are) true competition and fair trade leads to lower costs and better product a la Walmart).

3. I read Obama's plan. I don't see ANY incentives to stay healthy. Only more government beurocracy because it doesn't assume the general popluation has a brain (and maybe they don't). A national health care progam that doesn't ban tobacco in this country? Don't you think that a risk taker should pay his share of the risks. If I am forced to have to pay for everyone else's health care, than I want the government enforcing good health.

4. Duh, health care isn't always in our control. Some people like Michael Landon (whom, had he lived long enough might have been on your man-looking-like-old-lesbo list) died of cancer but took care of himself. But because medicine can now care for the comatose indefinately, transplant hearts and lungs, allow a cancer patient to live longer on cancer drugs, it can now take care of many type 2 diabetes convalescents much longer and at a high cost because of poor preventative maintenence.

3:30 PM, December 03, 2007  
Blogger Logic101 said...

Sorry, I didn't think we were operating on a grade school level where I needed to make the direct translation of government funded = taxpayer funded. I kind of assumed we both passed our govt exams in high school.

I also don't recall saying drug companies are evil.

Does one need to be a genius to realize companies (health care industry included) are pushing all previous limits to capture a piece of investor pie in this market and then extrapolate what that means to consumers?

Did I not pretty much already state your point #3 as the argument I think is the most productive counterpoint?

And regarding point #4, growing old pretty much guarantees growing infirm. Perhaps it's a tribute to our IMPROVING national health that so many old people are running around clogging up the health care system.

Frankly, I find all of the hostility toward your peers a little odd. And distressing.

BTW, I'm not saying type 2 diabetes isn't a significant health care issue but I don't know a single person who has it. You're saying 10% of health care costs? Link, please.

4:22 PM, December 03, 2007  
Anonymous eagle eyed milton said...

I thought the whole purpose of THIS blog was to generate 'THINKING'. Everytime I read your blog, I think and want to vent (you're intended purpose n'est pas?). Thanks for allowing me to post a comment. I don't mean to offend the sacred author of any blog.

I am passionate about my taxes and my health. I had my own wake up call (high blood pressure pre stage 2) and within 9 months I am now 25 pounds lighter...a finely tuned health machine. I have ticked other people off on eating habits etc. and I appologize for all those I have offended (the list is large!)

The link for Type 2 is www.diabetes.org/diabetes-statistics/cost-of-diabetes-in-us.jsp

I agree we need national health care for all American citizens to take care of the disasters that affect all of us sooner or later and for the genetically challenged.

I do not want a government health care system. I want a private health care system regulated by the government that allows me to choose, offers incentives for good behavior, and is competition based to drive costs down. A free economy.

Today, AARP, AMA, Insurance Companies, Lawyers have created an artificial environment propped up by our government to create the mess we have. I don't see any politician trying to fix that!

Have YOU read Obama's health care plan? I'm sure you've read much on single payer systems and should supply your readers some links to formulate our own opinion.

We are living longer. Duh. Wake up! We are living longer because our bodies are being sustained on expensive medical equipment and doctors. This drives up health care costs. By the time we turn 50 it is too late to turn back the clock on how we've abused our bodies through high blood pressure and being overweight.

We waste health care insurance through bad living. I hate libertarian thinking when it comes to driving without a motor cycle helmet, smoking, drinking to excess (I enjoy drinking), drugs. It hurts everyone in the pocket book, not only the one doing it. If we have national health care, I demand accountability and incentives for those that take care of themselves, and penalties for those that don't.

Sorry, but the more selfish person is the one that expects something for free and gives nothing in return. I'm already paying too much in taxes for entitlements to those that pay 0 income tax and FICA.

One more thing. Your comment on 'government funded' instead of taxpayer funded.... I'm not buying it. Your slip was freudian.

8:57 AM, December 04, 2007  
Blogger Logic101 said...

Sacred author... LOL. Yep, that's me. Worship at my blog altar! JK... :-)

I would never dis-invite anyone from commenting here. Or at least I can't imagine why I would... maybe if someone was totally pervertedly creeping me out for some reason. But I don't object to contrarian views.

I can appreciate some of the arguments you've made here (not all) and maybe even agree on a point of two. Rarely will I profess to have all the answers on a topic... usually I only obsess on a train of thought. If someone else has something to bring to the table, go for it.

My husband was asking me last night what set me off about this thread and, to be honest, I don't rightly know. Your tone, I guess (not that you've offended me, personally). Whatever. It's a good reminder on why I should be stronger about keeping emotion out of debate.

In this case I will give you the arguments that stem from the one I already expressed and have my own reservations about: that we, as individuals, ultimately give up our autonomy to the government whenever we ask it to intercede.

p.s. Your last comment was just silly. I pay a lot in taxes, trust me. I am keenly aware of who funds the government.

11:16 AM, December 04, 2007  
Anonymous Eagle Eyed Milton said...

I hope this thread has:
1. caused all viewers to get free well-care testing regarding the systems of type 2 diabetes

2. Get all of us looking at real health care solutions, not just the rhetoric and false promises of all our candidates

3. Caused all readers to gag at the comment 'give up our autonomy to the government'. Karl Marx couldn't have said it better.

11:37 AM, December 04, 2007  
Blogger Logic101 said...

Huh... that's the one comment I made I would have expected you to agree with.

Whatever.

11:57 AM, December 04, 2007  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home