jbtilley,

It's closer in its aims, but I believe the implementation is flawed. I believe his lack of a mandate will only result in higher insruance premiums, which will possibly price it even further out of reach of the working poor. And Edwards plan was never perfect to begin with since it didn't adequatley address the issue of rising health care costs, which is critical for keep Medicaid and Medicare sustainable without incredibly high tax rates. If anything it might have driven up costs more by increasing demand for health care resources.

I ussually gave Edwards slack on this point because he openly acknowledged that his plan could lead to a defacto single payer solution, if the government offered policies that were consistantly more preffered than private alternatives. And I believe that the government would be more capable of constraining health care costs than private insurance companies given their current incentives to never say no to patients. I'm not sure if Obama even understands the problem, let alone how it could be solved.

But even still I was not convinced Edward's plan was affordable. If the government became responcible for everyone's health insurance, how would we pay for it? How high would taxes need to rise? There is a tug between social policy and fiscal responcibility that none of the remaining Democrats are openly acknowledging.

McCain's plan is much more modest. It won't achieve universal coverage, but it will help make coverage more affordable for the working poor. It won't solve the problem of rising health care costs, but it will help slow their growth by encouraging the wealthy and healthy to accept greater responcibility for paying their medical bills (see my first post for details). And it will all be fiscally feasible given our current budget concerns.

Personally, I would rather have a modest plan that I know can work than ambitious, expensive reforms that we can only hope wont screw things up majorly.

[Edited on February 27, 2008 at 12:41 PM. Reason : ``]

[Edited on February 27, 2008 at 12:44 PM. Reason : ``]

2/27/2008 12:35:11 PM

McPain properly stresses the need to control costs, but he misses what should be the goal: to provide all Americans with affordable access to good healthcare. Slowing down cost growth will help some people hold onto their insurance, but won't do much for those who lack it. Moreover, only by getting everyone covered can we achieve savings from better preventive and chronic care that avoids unnecessary ER visits and hospitalizations.

By requiring everyone with employer-provided insurance to pay taxes on the value of that benefit, while providing them with a tax credit as an offset, McCain is exposing middle-class people to higher taxes as the cost of health insurance increases, and if they currently have rich benefits. He's also incentivizing them--as President Bush's proposal does--to buy or choose cheaper policies. In the long run, like consumer-driven care, this will lead to most people having less insurance. Conservatives and liberals are divided on whether that's desirable, but I think "moral hazard" is less of a problem than people avoiding necessary care.

The 'free market' does NOT work in health insurance. Been there done that and it has failed to work for over 60 years. The 'market' wouldn't cover the elderly - that is why we have Medicare. The 'market' wouldn't cover the disabled - that is why they are included under Medicare (SSD) and Medicair (SSI.) The 'market' wouldn't cover women for pregnancy - that is why there are mandates.

And the list continues. The 'market' will never work for all because the profit motive is intrinsically and diametrically opposed to including those who are or may become ill.

2/27/2008 12:49:22 PM

The problem with Obama's health care plan is that his understanding of health care is fundamentally flawed.

See this quote:

Quote :

"Q: "Sen. Edwards says your plan doesn't really provide universal coverage. Does it?" OBAMA: "Absolutely it does. John [Edwards] and I have a disagreement. John thinks that the only way we get universal coverage is to mandate coverage. I think that the problem is not that people are trying to avoid getting health care coverage. It is folks like that who are desperately in desire of it, but they can can't afford it." "

Regardless of what Obama *thinks*, the reality is that there are many more people who can afford health care but don't, than those who cannot afford it but need it. Millions of younger, relatively healthy people will continue to opt out of health care coverage if given the option. The same thing is true for many families which choose to spend their extra income on things other than health care.

And his platform of negotiating with health care companies, putting more burden on businesses and further taxing the rich to subsidize health care to the poor does not solve the problem of escalating costs. It simply shifts the burden around, and continues to allow people to slip through the cracks.

What the hell is this gonna solve?

Quote :

"“I emphasize reducing costs. My belief is that if we make it affordable, if we provide subsidies to those who can’t afford it, they will buy it…. [I will] bring all parties together, not negotiating behind closed doors but bringing all parties together and broadcasting those negotiations on CSPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are. Because part of what we have to do is enlist the American people in this process…. I am absolutely committed to making sure that anybody in America who needs healthcare is going to get it.”"

Does he really think that congress can solve anything? When have they ever reduced costs? The net result would be more regulations, more red tape and fewer health care providers if congress has its way and regulates the hell out of the industry.

Oh, I see, Obama wants to just dump more money into our system and shift more of the burden to employers and the rich (who, as the primary source of investment in this country, are de facto employers as well).

Quote :

"To help pay for all this, we will ask all but the smallest businesses who don't make a meaningful contribution today to the health care coverage of their employees to do so by supporting this new plan. And we'll also allow the temporary Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans to expire. "

How is that gonna keep the costs down?

Compare that with McCain's quotes, which reflect the reality of the issue and fresh ideas that may actually help:

Quote :

"McCain says he thinks affordable health care can be made available to all Americans without a mandated universal system. McCain said that he doesn't think government-run systems such as those in Canada and in Europe will succeed in the US. "I think it's a warmed-over proposal that we rejected back in the early 1990s and I'm certainly not interested in raising people's taxes," McCain said, adding he also is opposed to requiring everyone to buy health insurance coverage. "We've got to make health care affordable and available. There's plenty of ways to do that." He said he's been working on a plan "for a long time" but "it's a very tough issue." One way, he said, would be to expand community health centers and the S-CHIP program, offer tax incentives for poor people, put health care online, medical malpractice reform and promote health savings accounts. However, he said, one problem getting everyone covered "is there's a lot of healthy Americans that say I just don't want health insurance." United Press International, "McCain sees room" Jun 10, 2006 "

Quote :

"The solution, my friends, isn't a one-size-fits-all, big-government takeover of health care," he told the Rotary Club of Des Moines. "It resides where every important social advance has always resided - with the American people themselves, with well-informed American families making practical decisions to address their imperatives for better health and more secure prosperity." "

Quote :

""I propose that we try a time-honored approach and let the states work on whatever method they find most promising. The federal government can help fund this effort, but in exchange, states should allow Medicaid and SCHIP funds to be used for private insurance and develop methods to augment Medicaid and tax credits for more expensive care.""

[Edited on February 27, 2008 at 1:14 PM. Reason : 4]

2/27/2008 12:55:58 PM

"fresh ideas"? There's nothing fresh about his ideas, much of what he is proposing is similar to Bush before him. McCain IS Bush part deux in issues like this and definitely issues of foreign policy.

By placing the onus on individuals to purchase Health Insurance from competing insurance companies MCCain, and all Republicans I have seen, will create a situation where people with illnesses cannot afford to be insured.

One of the major sources of insurance company profit nowadays is avoiding sick people. They do this by charging higher rates or by making policies increasingly less attractive to people who are not in perfect health with higher deductibles and cost shares or fewer covered services.

2/27/2008 1:13:05 PM

I can't see McCain's mouth because the cock of the Medical Insurance companies are currently occupying it.

2/27/2008 1:14:30 PM

^^

Quote :

"One of the major sources of insurance company profit nowadays is avoiding sick people. They do this by charging higher rates or by making policies increasingly less attractive to people who are not in perfect health with higher deductibles and cost shares or fewer covered services. "

Well, you know, that's kind of how insurance works. It's a risk assessment business. And yes, it's a problem with few solutions. Tell me, what is Obama's solution to this problem? Oh yeah, he just has lots of soundbytes about "bringing people together".

What do you believe in, a single-payer system? Mandated coverage? I, for one, think that McCain's proposed changes would do more than Obama's in lowering costs.

2/27/2008 1:19:16 PM

Well to be perfectly honest, any plan that panders to the health insurance industry will not improve our health care miseries; the fundamental flaw of treating health care as a business commodity remains.

When everyone comes to grips with the fact that, in our current system, the dolla bill is an obstruction to health care, maybe good solutions will evolve. Health care must direct the dollar bill as opposed to the reverse relationship, which is our current m.o.

Socialized health care has actually worked vert well for Canada and most Westrn European countries. It's not perfect - it has some big flaws - but it's fair, and in the end it's cheaper. The current American system is failing much more than the socialist systems in other developed countries. There's no solid proof that a socialized system would cause the care itself to worsen - I don't really understand that claim, since Canada's numbers for things like life expectancy, infant mortality rates, and cancer survival rates are equal to or better than the US. And while the wealthy would certainly be able to fly somewhere else if they knew they could get superior care elsewhere, for the most part, the care they'd get in the US would be more than adequate.

I wouldn't oppose a system that allows for the free market to compete with a government-run system. And I also wouldn't oppose some procedures not being covered by universal health care.
But the very idea of fields that are designed to save or protect people - whether it be medicine, police, firefighters, or similar things - having a profit margin is just . . . wrong. Leaving people's lives to the marketplace is not the way to go about it.

[Edited on February 27, 2008 at 1:49 PM. Reason : 123]

2/27/2008 1:48:12 PM

Spoken like a true socialist.

I would recommend that you read up on Canada's system before you praise it so much. You gotta look deeper than just life expectancy, infant mortality, etc.

In fact, Canadian citizens hold their health care system in lower esteem than we do ours, based on polls I read. When they need urgent medical care, many come over here, not vice versa.

The costs associated with our care cannot be attributed solely to the fact that there is a profit margin associated. Read deeper and you'll discover that we actually subsidize some of the health care costs of the rest of the world by being innovators in the medical and pharmacutical industry. We also pay out the ass simply because affluent Americans demand top-notch care, and are willing to pay top dollar for it. Wait times and shortages are a hallmark of socialized health care systems, and Americans will not stand for that.

2/27/2008 2:06:25 PM

No. Spoken like a true beleiver in socialized medicine. Not a socialist. Quit the whitewashing.

Dude you are speculating wildly about Canadian's views of their health care system. You're pulling out anecdotal statistics like the best radio talk shows in the land. There's been limited studies to compare the two specifically of those in ALL demographics that could understand the comparison.

One poll in 2007 did attempt this - and had a sample size of 310 Americans living in Canada. Of the respondents, more than half had a household income of more than $100,000 a year, and 58 per cent had a master's degree or higher. The demographic was considered highly as 'upper middle class' by local standards (so keep that in mind. In a survey of this size, there is a margin of error between four and five per cent

Overall, they liked the U.S. system slightly better but the results were suprising. The Americans said they preferred the U.S. system for emergency, specialist, hospital and diagnostic services, and said they preferred the timeliness and quality of the American system. However, they also rated Canada's system high for access to drug therapy and ranked the services of family physicians almost equally in both countries. They also rated the equity and cost efficiency of Canada's system highly.

Having this come from a sampling size of affluent Americans that would be well covered in the U.S. says something about what's important in a health care plan. OK, so wait times could be improved - there are far worse things....LIKE OUR SYSTEM.

Concerning the costs in general though - I do think it's very very complex. In the U.S., we are not doing the right things to reduce the costs of health care. Manipulation of the funding mechanisms does nothing to address the underlying causes of cost. Medical costs are driven by the costs of building, eq uipment, medicine, tests, education, etc. Changes in funding, health insurance, merely changes how the costs are distributed to individuals, but does nothing to reduce the basic costs. In fact, the efforts to reduce payment rates divert resources from addressing the underlying issues driving cost. What is also needed is a concentrated effort to review diagnosis and treatment and establish effective protocols that eliminate unnecessary steps and ensure useful steps are taken.

It is easier to debate funding mechanisms and personal philosophies, but that debate ignores the fundamental issues actually driving costs.

2/27/2008 3:10:51 PM

Socialized medicine is awful for people

Oh wait...

Quote :

"In the Japanese health care system, healthcare services, including free screening examinations for particular diseases, prenatal care, and infectious disease control, are provided by national and local governments. Payment for personal medical services is offered through a universal health care insurance system that provides relative equality of access, with fees set by a government committee. People without insurance through employers can participate in a national health insurance program administered by local governments. Since 1973, all elderly persons have been covered by government-sponsored insurance. Patients are free to select physicians or facilities of their choice."

Quote :

"Health care in Australia is provided by both private and government institutions. The Minister for Health and Ageing, Nicola Roxon, administers national health policy. Primary health care remains the responsibility of the federal government."

Quote :

"Healthcare in Switzerland is regulated by the Federal Health Insurance Act. Health insurance is compulsory for all persons resident in Switzerland (within three months of taking up residence or being born in the country). International civil servants, members of permanent missions and their family members are exempted from compulsory health insurance. They can, however, apply to join the Swiss health insurance system, within six months of taking up residence in the country."

Looks like you're entirely wrong. Now shut up.

2/27/2008 3:23:25 PM

I am much closer to Kainen in sentiment than I am to most Republicans. I am concerned about working poor that cannot afford health insurance (though as Prawn notes, there are those that do not want insurance). However, I am also concerned for middle class people that already have insruance. That's exactly why I support John McCain over Barack Obama.

Obama proposes forcing insurance companies to sell people policies whether they are sick or healthy. However, he does not mandate that everyone get insurance. As a result, many people will probably wait until they are sick to buy health insurance to avoid paying premiums when they don't need it. This will not only result in higher premiums for those of us who already have health insurance, but also higher premiums for poor people that want to buy insurance and wont be able to afford it. IOW: Obama's plan makes health insurance LESS affordable for everyone!

John McCain proposes expanding Health Savings Accounts. As Kainen has pointed out, these accounts are only available for people buying certain types of high deductable policies. Since people enrolling in these plans will be paying a higher deductable, they will most likely consume fewer health resources. But this is exactly what we want! Who do you think will buy these policies? Healthy people that want to have a place they can protect their savings from taxes. And guess who saves more money and pays more taxes? Rich People!

IOW: Expanding HSAs encourage Healthy, wealthy people to use fewer health resources. This frees up health resources to be used by less healthy, less wealthy people. That's exactly the result we want. And on top of that, McCain is advocating using a tax credit to make insurance even more affordable for our working poor.

Simply put, Obama's plan will make insurance less affordable for people with lower incomes, while McCain's plan will make it more affordable at a lower cost. If progressives care about results over rhetoric, this is exactly what they should be paying attn to.

[Edited on February 27, 2008 at 3:39 PM. Reason : ``]

2/27/2008 3:36:49 PM

ok well what if healthcare isnt that big of an issue to me? i should definitely vote for obama then, right?

2/27/2008 3:38:43 PM

drunk,

If you care about Climate Change, McCain was among the first politicians to realize something had to be done. In 2003, he introduced the McCain-Liberman Climate Stewartship Act in the Republican dominated Senate--the first bill of its kind. The bill proposed to install a cap-and-trade system to lower GHG emissions. Where's Obama been?

If you care about getting the special interests out of Washington, John McCain has been fighting that fight too. In 1995 he introduced the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act in the Senate. Though it was a losing bill at first, he kept fighting until it was finally passed in 2002. It turned out to have loop holes and missed-opportuntiies, but that's why democracy is an iterative process. Where's Obama been?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act

On a similar note, John McCain has resisted ethanol subsidies since at least the 2000 election. Subsidies that have turned out to only result in environmental harm and higher food cost. McCain did this at great political risk, because as Kay_Yow has shown, ethanol producers in many states benefit from this subsidy--including Iowa. What's Obama been saying?

If you care about the freedom to trade with other people, despite their nationality, then John McCain is the only free trade candidate left in the race. Where does Obama stand?

John McCain has the right policies and the right experience. Obama has words and...hope.
If you want more than that, vote John McCain.

2/27/2008 3:51:46 PM

i like the environment, i hate ethanol, and i'm not the biggest fan of china...is that one mccain?

2/27/2008 3:57:11 PM

Because Free Trade agreements were successful for America..

2/27/2008 3:59:43 PM

drunk,

China is not a huge issue for me, but after some googling I found this bit...

Quote :

"McCain wrote in the journal Foreign Affairs..."China's newfound power implies responsibilities," McCain said. He said China should "behave as a responsible economic partner," guarantee the safety of its products and abandon "its go-it-alone approach to world energy supplies.""

http://www.chinapost.com.tw/news/2008/02/10/142402/McCain:-U.S..htm

So as best as I can tell, he wants us to improve our trading relations, but China needs to guarantee the products they sell us as safe. Elsewhere in the article he voices suspicions of China's warline rhetoric and stance toward Taiwan.

Quote :

"McCain urged China to explain its large, secretive military buildup. The United States, he said, "must take note" when China "threatens democratic Taiwan with a massive arsenal of missiles and warlike rhetoric.""

2/27/2008 4:07:06 PM

Quote :

"Looks like you're entirely wrong. Now shut up."

Your post did nothing to refute what I posted. Try again Gronke.

PS that graph you posted is stupid. It is obvious that per capita spending on health care and life expectancy at the national level have virtually no correlation. Why bother superimposing the 2?



[Edited on February 27, 2008 at 4:16 PM. Reason : 2]

2/27/2008 4:14:27 PM

Seriously, Socks``, I'm more concerned with fundamentals. How will McCain govern? Plans will be muddied, tabled to committee, and ultimately disposed of--or perhaps, may survive in some convoluted form in no way resembling the original promise. Such is the job of the legislature.

I have strategic questions for an executive. Fuck the nonsense in the papers.

Will John McCain's administration govern according to the unitary executive interpretation of the Constitution?

My original intent--to cast a symbolic vote for Ron Paul regardless of political circumstances--may have changed. But I'm not sure "change" will be worth the cost, cannot forgive or endorse hypocrisy in the slightest when it comes to torture, and don't know what else is supposed to motivate me to go to the polls.

2/27/2008 4:26:08 PM

Oh shit! A real name callout! You're breaking the fourth wall man!

2/27/2008 4:27:47 PM

I think too many of people supporting Obama think he's actually think he's proposing some sort of socialized medicine scheme. However, that simply is not the case. So even debating the benefits or costs of such a system are totally besides the point.

if you look at what Obama is actually proposing, there's no escaping the conclusion it will make insurance more expensive and to the extent it works at all it will only result in increasing the amount America spends on medical resources. So G*d is totally off base with his line of argument.

2/27/2008 4:32:31 PM

No, there's some good points about McCain (jeez you really have to wonder how conservatives could even stomach the guy) because socially he's quite diverse from a domestic point of view. HOWEVER

McCain is still an old war hawking coot who I don't want in office, starting more wars and up Iran's ass for 8 years. Forget some of the actual progressive things he's done...which is nice, but the economy still sucks ass and I don't see how he's going to fix it, and our foreign policy is such bullshit that I don't want him in there screwing us even further.

I can and will not vote for any candidate that supports the war. That pretty much takes McCain and makes him worthless in my eyes.

2/27/2008 4:33:12 PM

Gamecat

I realize that specific proposals will not roll through the legislative process unchanged. Instead, I prefer to use a candidate's policy proposals to figure out how a candidate thinks about policy and what goals they have in mind. McCain clearly prefers to solve problems through the use of market forces and he clearly values the freedom of individuals, while having concern for the less well off. Not to mention having a consistant concern for improving the political process in Washington. This is evidenced through out his entire career and not just recent policy proposals. Those are things I want in a candidate that I can't find in Obama.

As far as how McCain will govern, we can only guess. Like Obama, he has limited executive experience. I'm not worried about McCain being like Bush--with delusions that congress has no power to constrain his actions. I feel like this unlikely given his long time in the legislature and his own attempts to constrain Presidential powers, such as the "ban" on torture. McCain's plans in this regard did not work as well as he had hoped. Many consider that he suffered a legislative defeat. But that's the danger of getting in a fight--there's a chance you might lose. I respect that McCain was willing to fight despite that risk. Can you say the same for Obama? I think that's the real question. Obama has talked a good game about telling people what they don't want to hear, but McCain has taken actual political risks to fights for things I believe in. That counts for something in my book.

[Edited on February 27, 2008 at 4:45 PM. Reason : ``]

2/27/2008 4:43:56 PM

Kainen,

Yes, McCain does support the war in Iraq. His proposed surge has actually worked to help reduce violence. And he doesn't think we should abandon the Iraqis after we fucked up their country. That's something I agree with, even though I did not support going to war.

If you're a one-issue person, and this is a deal breaking issue, there isn't much I can say to change your mind.

[Edited on February 27, 2008 at 4:51 PM. Reason : ``]

2/27/2008 4:50:46 PM

Quote :

"Socks``: I'm not worried about McCain being like Bush--with delusions that congress has no power to constrain his actions."

How has Congress proved the administration's belief delusional?

My fear is that McCain will view that specific dispute as baggage of the old administration and sidestep the issue while continuing to consolidate executive power. I have similar reservations about Clinton.

I'm just as concerned that Obama is an over-marketed Rorschach blot resembling pouting kittens proposing expensive ideas, mind you. I've emailed the same question to his campaign, as well. I highly doubt I'll get a response (more likely added to a goddamned mailing list, but we'll see).

2/27/2008 5:01:26 PM

No, I'm not a one issue person but his foreign policy is a deal breaker for sure. Even conservative Pat Buchanan had this to say about McCain..

"That's one of the things that makes me very nervous about him," Buchanan went on. "There's no doubt John McCain is going to be a war president. ... His whole career is wrapped up in the military, national security. He's in Putin's face, he's threatening the Iranians, we're going to be in Iraq a hundred years."

Sorry but that's not going to fly with me, ever.

2/27/2008 5:04:25 PM

^ We can get to that next.

2/27/2008 5:08:56 PM

Gamecat

It's a legitamate concern. But unlike Bush, McCain is comming from a loooooong career in the legislative branch. On top of that, McCain has taken active steps to constrain executive power. Maybe not as often as "progressives" would like, but it should at least serve as indication that he believes congress can check and balance the powers of the executive branch.

I just can't see how a person who has worked with fellow Senators for 20+ years to make *major* legislative accomplishments would turn his back on that experience. Like I said, no one can know for sure how McCain or anyone else will govern. But I can just say there is no evidence to suggest he will take executive power to the limits Bush has.

[Edited on February 27, 2008 at 5:22 PM. Reason : ``]

2/27/2008 5:17:32 PM

^^ TAFT~

2/27/2008 7:42:29 PM

man honestly i wish i could pick gamecats brain for like an hour on political things no homo

2/28/2008 11:26:29 AM

Lots of truth in Socks`` point about McCain's respect for the legislative process, but like he says, my fundamental point remains a legitimate concern.

We've got a Constitutional problem that's going to well-outlive the Bush administration due to the dangerous precedent it set through its willful interpretation of executive power. While McCain may not follow Bush's dictatorial model (feel free to argue my choice of words here, but I ask that anyone look up Unitary Executive before starting), a later President damn well may. It's not perfect, but presidents customarily adopt the relative power of their predecessors.

Not something to hold against McCain necessarily, but it has to be considered when you listen to his priorities.

Specifically his eagerness to continue unilateral military interventionalism in the GWOT. ("Bomb Iran...")

We're coming to a critical point of opportunity cost when it comes to our foreign misadventures in this crusade. Estimated costs of Iraq are approaching a trillion dollars. Yet we still are not serious about what we mean by "terrorism," who and what we're fighting, what victory looks like, and how much it's going to cost to achieve it.

Why entrust another man whose operating stance is "fight first, figure it out later" with the near monarchial powers he could claim and exert without challenge when he makes this battle his priority?

2/28/2008 2:02:13 PM

GameCat,

I disagree. If you look back through our nation's history you will find that Presidents that abused executive power were almost *always* immediatley followed by very weak Presidents. After Lincoln came Johnson. After T. Roosevelt came Taft. After Wilson came Harding. After F. Roosevelt came Truman. After Nixon came Ford.

The true may be said for McCain or Obama. However, I don't believe either would face the same problems people like Johnson or Ford did. That's only Bush's abuses were no where near on the same grand scale. If the Republic can survive Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus or Wilson's Sedition Act, I'm sure it can survive Bush.

That isn't to say we shouldn't worry about keeping Presidential power in check with the next person to occupy the office. In that respect your concern is always legitimate, if not pressing.

I just don't see this as any sort of major Constitutional problem. Not even something I am going to loose sleep over.

[Edited on February 28, 2008 at 3:33 PM. Reason : ``]

2/28/2008 3:23:56 PM

zomg mccain is liberal b.c he cares more about getting shit done then squabbling partisan politics!!!

2/28/2008 3:39:40 PM

?

We have a Constitution to prevent us from having a King.

I consider these serious problems.

The circumstances under which F. Roosevelt, Wilson, and Nixon--three of the presidents you mention as expansionists--will be as present for an adversarial President McCain as they were for President Bush. Ongoing high-profile global conflicts requiring the further restriction of domestic freedom and the further consolidation of executive power. And for the record, the current status of habeas corpus is debatable.

McCain's posturing makes voting for him seem like a dangerous temptation of fate from an already-unenviable position. Already the law-abiding, tax-paying American citizen can be snatched in the night, held incommunicado, and have his nuts crushed on the whisper that he may have information about "terrorism."

What liberties would remain for him after a 5-year, multi-billion dollar war with Iran?

[Edited on February 28, 2008 at 3:48 PM. Reason : ...]

2/28/2008 3:42:47 PM

The current status of habeas corpus is debatable? For non-US citizens in Gitmo maybe. But as far as I can tell, naturalized US citizens have no worry of being drug off in the night in the name of terrorism.

You may be thinking of the case Yaser Esam Hamdi, a US citizen that was being held indefinatley after being captured in Afganistan because he was declared an "enemy combatant". However, the Supreme Court already turned this over in 2004 and re-affirmed a US citizen's right to pursue writs of habeas corpus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld

Again, I don't see any contistutional crisis on our horizons.

[Edited on February 28, 2008 at 4:18 PM. Reason : ``]

2/28/2008 4:08:10 PM

Standing one-testicled before a judge because some asshole called you a terrorist may not sound like a loss to you, but it sounds like a Constitutional crisis to me.

2/28/2008 4:22:17 PM

A painful image, but not one full of legal substance.
What is your criterion for a constitutional crisis?

If it we are in a crisis when the government does things that seem to step outside their constituinal powers, then we have always been in crisis. Remember the Alien and Sedition Acts that were signed into law by John Adams in 1798?

They were passed during an undeclared war with a foreign power (France) for the purpose of protecting the US from citizens of foreign powers and US citizens seeking to weaken the government. Of course, critics argued that they were only used to quash criticism of the administration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts

If things are always in crisis, then that kinda makes the word "crisis" a little meaningless doesn't it?

2/28/2008 4:45:48 PM

Quote :

"Already the law-abiding, tax-paying American citizen can be snatched in the night, held incommunicado, and have his nuts crushed on the whisper that he may have information about "terrorism." "

This is not an accurate statement due to you inlusion of the highlighted portion. If only the American citizen criteria was involved, then the victim would have personal injury lawyers crushing each others nuts to get a piece of that action.

18 USC 2340 would land any CIA operative that did this in prison and the TVA creates a private right to sue for such tortious conduct.


and the Prize cases give the President the power to determine when a "emergency" condition exists. If he weren't given this power, then there is a good chance the South would be its own country right now.

Simply put, you don't like the way in which Bush wields the executive power that was established decades ago and I don't particularly care for it either. But what makes you think that McCain would be the same way? Because he made a play on words with a Beach Boys song which has been commonly used among all branches of the military concerning Iran, Iraq, Japan, insert any other country?

[Edited on February 28, 2008 at 4:53 PM. Reason : asdf]

2/28/2008 4:50:44 PM

^ Thanks for bringing things back around to topic. I agree on all points. Especially that there is nothing to suggest McCain will single mindedly pursue expanding executive power in the same way Bush has. And, indeed, there is already substantial evidence to suggest he will not.

2/28/2008 5:00:17 PM

I don't believe you.

2/28/2008 7:13:27 PM

^ Excellent argument.

2/29/2008 12:17:48 AM

It's just as unfounded as your claim that "the evidence suggests that McCain will not expand executive power."

2/29/2008 8:27:38 AM

Not really. My evidence is 1) that unlike Bush (or Obama), McCain has a long career in the legislative branch, which suggests a respect for its powers 2) McCain has taken active positions against abuses of executive power such as torture.

These are both suggestive of he has respect for the legislative branch and that he feels it can be checked by congressional authority.

This is actually more than you will find for Obama. He talks a good game, but so did George W. Bush. He said he wouldn't get into the business of nation building as President when he was runing in 2000.

I'll hold my breath while you either offer convincing counter evidence of McCain's thrist for expanding executive power OR offer evidence for why Obama is more trust worthy in this regard.

[Edited on February 29, 2008 at 8:53 AM. Reason : ``]

2/29/2008 8:52:26 AM

You really can't fairly compare Bush and Obama like you just did.

Bush had a failed history in the private sector, many companies went under or were bought out by his families Saudi ties.

Obama was the president of the Harvard Law Review and a constitutional lecturer.

Obama has been a legislator for 12 years. Bush was governor for 6.

2/29/2008 9:17:14 AM

^ The comparison was only in regard to how Obama will govern if elected, not who was smarter or whatever those examples are supposed to illustrate. My point was that since Obama's experience is limited, our understanding of how he will approach leading the executive branch of the government is also limited.

I'm not saying experience is everything, only that it can help answering these questions. McCain has displayed his respect for the legislative branch and acknowledged the limits of the powers of the executive both in words and action. Obama simply hasn't had the same opportunity to demonstrate this.

2/29/2008 9:49:09 AM

Skankin Monkey,

PS* Obama has actually been of member of any legislative body for only about 10 years.

He was a state senator for 8 years (he was elected in 1996, re-elecyed in 1998, had a failed run for US House in 2000 and then re-elected in 2002).

And he was sworn into the US Senate in 2005, so a little over 2 years there.

Of course, Obama has been running for President for half of that time. I wonder how many votes he's missed since the 110th congress started. I mean, that was a huge issue for Edwards in 2004. Yet, no one seems to give a crap about Obama because he speaks so well.

Anyways, that's a topic for another thread. I just thought I would again show you up on your own candidate.

[Edited on February 29, 2008 at 10:00 AM. Reason : ``]

2/29/2008 9:59:59 AM

Quote :

"McCain has taken active positions against abuses of executive power such as torture."

He was against it, before he was for it!

Quote :

"YELLOW SPRINGS, Ohio (AP) — Republican presidential candidate John McCain said President Bush should veto a measure that would bar the CIA from using waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods on terror suspects"

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g6SZlJHXgjMOdFhCzXpbioaeXCuQD8UU94G03

2/29/2008 10:34:52 AM

Quote :

"Socks``: A painful image, but not one full of legal substance. "

The Executive Branch called. John Yoo would like a word with you. He testified under oath to that effect with an even more unconscionable example.

Quote :

"Cassel: If the President deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him? Yoo: No treaty."

Quote :

"Sputter: This is not an accurate statement due to you inlusion of the highlighted portion. If only the American citizen criteria was involved, then the victim would have personal injury lawyers crushing each others nuts to get a piece of that action."

How does being a law-abiding, tax-paying American citizen prevent you from being tortured if you're accused of "terrorism?"

Further, how does hiring a personal injury lawyer erase the enormous pain, humiliation, and psychological damage resulting from such a trauma?

I think what you meant to say was "this had better not be an accurate statement because I sure don't want to think it could be."

You can sue all you want. You can even win. But you were still tortured by agents of the Republic.

Quote :

"Sputter: But what makes you think that McCain would be the same way?"

That he wants to continue the Iraq war for another century, and prosecute another war as soon as politically feasible.

No leader could maintain Democratic freedoms and a loose executive power during either act. Doing otherwise would make him unique to history. Forgive me, but I don't give John McCain that much credit.

2/29/2008 11:05:29 AM

^ the point is that if what you claim had occurred we would have heard about it ad naseum on every news channel for months. it would have been in every newspaper.

there would have been a huge criminal trial and prosecution against CIA agents followed by a massive and likely precedent setting tort liability claim.

It clearly hasn't happened. Furthermore, you can postulate what may happen in your imagined draconian evul republican landscape all you want, but that doesn't make it any more real.

Quote :

"That he wants to continue the Iraq war for another century, and prosecute another war as soon as politically feasible. "

1) John McCain doesn't want to continue the war for one hundred more years and you know it. You are typically more insightful in your posting and I hate that you have stooped to reducing sound bites to fit your opinion and demonize a man that has done so much for this country. When he made that statement he was referring to maintaining a presence. If this really upsets you then you should stage a rally protesting the occupation of Germany and South Korea by US troops, among others.

2) There is no evidence to indicate that McCain wants to go to war with Iran except for the aforementioned and largely debunked quote of McCain making fun of a beach boys song, which if you had ever been in the military as has John McCain, then you would know that sense of humor prevails at every level. He was even laughing when he sang it. And there's nothing wrong with letting Iran know that we don't mind invading them, in fact I encourage it. If anyone invades Iran; however, I think that it won't be us. Sarkozy is practically chomping at the bit. Of course, they are French and are historically the most beligerent nation in history.

I know you like Paul Kennedy's argument that there is an equilibrium between creating wealth through war and finally over extending yourself and essentially insuring your own loss of power, but there is no work outside of some hack journalist with no scientific training that are making assertions that we are at that level.

In short, you can believe all you want to that McCain is some awful Bush clone, but his legislative history and continual bumping of heads with the Bush administration and the Republican party in general strongly indicates that you are basing your opinions on superficial blog posts and not fact.

2/29/2008 11:34:51 AM

Quote :

"And there's nothing wrong with letting Iran know that we don't mind invading them, in fact I encourage it. If anyone invades Iran; however, I think that it won't be us. Sarkozy is practically chomping at the bit. Of course, they are French and are historically the most beligerent nation in history."

rofl

2/29/2008 11:37:10 AM

DNL you should probably stay out of Soap Box, this is where the adults talk and use big words.

I have to assume that you aren't aware of history.

Quote :

"Luard, author of War in International Society has arrived at a total of over 1000 wars for the period between 1400 and 1984. Of the largely recognized Great Powers of that time period, France was the most belligerent, followed by Austria, Spain, and then England."

That's from Cash Nexus by Niall Ferguson.

Or maybe you think that we should take a policy stance that no matter how many times Iran refuses to obey international law, that we should tell them that no matter what you do, we will never invade you. Please bomb Israel as soon as possible, there will be no retribution.

[Edited on February 29, 2008 at 11:46 AM. Reason : adsf]

2/29/2008 11:43:08 AM