I'm watching the replay, and I love the answer Obama gave on Iraq War and how he brought up McCain and reminded people the difference that way. And it's just funny that Wolf Blitzer followed up with the statement "Senator Clinton, that's a clear swipe at you;" and Hillary was like "what are you talking about?"

Yea I loved how Wolf Blitzer tried at every possible moment to pin the two against each other. I've been dreaming of a Clinton/Obama ticket for months, and tonight was the first time I realistically saw it happening.

I watched the replay last night while I was winding down before bed. In all honesty, I don't think either stood out. I hate both Democrats plans for immigration, and I cringe at the thought of universal health care.

They both did well, but I couldn't be further from on board with their ideas in that regard.

Why do you cringe at the thought of universal health care? That's quite a statement, to say you cringe on the thought. Why do you think it is so bad? You must hate Canada... well, a lot of countries for that matter.

Peace,
Mike

I dislike "universal" healthcare because I want to keep my own damn money. If I want health care, I will pay for it.

Why do you cringe at the thought of universal health care? That's quite a statement, to say you cringe on the thought. Why do you think it is so bad? You must hate Canada... well, a lot of countries for that matter.

Peace,
Mike

It's nice you like the idea or are actively using it, but I don't want to see the government getting it's hands in being the overseer of health care to every individual in America. It would only create more problems while giving us yet another entitlement that will be hard if not impossible to reverse in the future.

Why would he hate Canada because of a domestic policy?

I dislike "universal" healthcare because I want to keep my own damn money. If I want health care, I will pay for it.

Sorry, perhaps that was a little extreme, but I just wanted to understand why he'd cringe on the thought. I understand why most Americans don't prefer universal health care, but I cannot understand why it is perceived as being so "evil", so unfathomable in trying to help improve America's lacking health care system. Maybe it's the state of the US government that changes the perspective.

Peace,
Mike

Americans can keep their existing coverage or access the same menu of quality private insurance options that their Members of Congress receive through a new Health Choices Menu, established without any new bureaucracy as part of the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program (FEHBP). In addition to the broad array of private options that Americans can choose from, they will be offered the choice of a public plan option similar to Medicare.

Americans who are satisfied with the coverage they have today can keep it, while benefiting from lower premiums and higher quality.

End to Unfair Health Insurance Discrimination: By creating a level-playing field of insurance rules across states and markets, the plan ensures that no American is denied coverage, refused renewal, unfairly priced out of the market, or forced to pay excessive insurance company premiums.

Individuals: will be required to get and keep insurance in a system where insurance is affordable and accessible[/quote

The government is stating this according to her. Now, people can't decide to Not have insurance. That comment is not to suggest it's the right decision but that they no longer have that choice because they will Have to get something.
[quote]
Employers: will help financing the system; large employers will be expected to provide health insurance or contribute to the cost of coverage: small businesses will receive a tax credit to continue or begin to offer coverage.

Government: will ensure that health insurance is always affordable and never a crushing burden on any family and will implement reforms to improve quality and lower cost.

Provide Tax Relief to Ensure Affordability: Working families will receive a refundable tax credit to help them afford high-quality health coverage.

Launch a Retiree Health Legacy Initiative: A new tax credit for qualifying private and public retiree health plans will offset a significant portion of catastrophic expenditures, so long as savings are dedicated to workers and competitiveness.

Strengthen Medicaid and CHIP: The Plan will fix the holes in the safety net to ensure that the most vulnerable populations receive affordable, quality care.

Most Savings Come Through Lowering Spending Due to Quality and Modernization: Over half the savings come from the public savings generated from Senator Clinton’s broader agenda to modernize the heath systems and reduce wasteful health spending.

I understand why most Americans don't prefer universal health care

Levin Amendment Confusion

Clinton was asked why she didn't vote for the "Levin amendment" in 2002, prior to voting for the resolution that gave President Bush authority to invade Iraq. Viewers might well have been confused by her answer, because the questioner described the amendment inaccurately. We offer background here in the interest of clear understanding. Here is the pertinent part of the exchange:

Q: Before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, you could have voted for the Levin amendment, which required President Bush to report to Congress about the U.N. inspection before taking military action. Why did you vote against that amendment?

Clinton: ... I have the greatest respect for my friend and colleague, Senator Levin. He's my chairman on the Senate Armed Services Committee. The way that amendment was drafted suggested that the United States would subordinate whatever our judgment might be going forward to the United Nations Security Council. I don't think that was a good precedent. Therefore I voted against it.

The Levin Amendment went far beyond requiring a "report to Congress." It would have required that the U.S. get authorization from the United Nations Security Council before taking military action to disarm Iraq or, failing that, that the president come back to the Senate for a separate war authorization. It was amendment No. 4862, debated Oct. 10, 2002, and defeated 24 to 75. Clinton did not speak during debate.

Democratic Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, arguing for his amendment, said Saddam Hussein needed to be disarmed by force or threat of force, but that military action by many nations would be better than "going it alone" and that the president could still ask the Senate to act if the U.N. refused:

Sen. Levin, Oct. 10, 2002: I believe that Saddam Hussein must be forced to disarm. I think it is going to take force, or the threat of force, to get him to comply. It seems to me there is a huge advantage if that force is multilateral, and going it alone is a very different calculus with very different risks.

If we fail at the U.N., then under our resolution, the president can come back at any time he determines that the U.N. is not acting to either adopt or enforce its resolution. He can then come back here under our resolution, call us back into session, and then urge us to authorize a going-it-alone, unilateral resolution.

But arguing against the measure, Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona made essentially the same argument that Clinton offered during last night's debate:

Sen. McCain, Oct. 10, 2002: Mr. President, at the outset, let me state that I agree with the distinguished Chairman of the Armed Services Committee: U.S. policy would be stronger if we received the unequivocal support of the United Nations Security Council. Of that, there is no doubt.

But that does not mean that our country must delegate our national security decisionmaking to the United Nations. It is neither morally necessary nor wise to give the U.N. Security Council veto power over our security.

McCain pointed out that getting a Security Council resolution would require the support of Russia, China and France, all of which he said had reasons to avoid supporting military action against Iraq.

– by Brooks Jackson, with Viveca Novak, Justin Bank and Jess Henig

Why I don't like Universal health care:

- We don't have the money to pay for it.

I dislike "universal" healthcare because I want to keep my own damn money. If I want health care, I will pay for it.

Why I don't like Universal health care:

- We don't have the money to pay for it.

What happens when Obama undoubtedly turns out to be wrong, and forcing people to have health care doesn't do anything but line the bloated insurance companies wallets?

Fight the insurance companies. Make them provide more affordable insurance, fight the premiums, fight the outrageous prices they impose, then we can talk.

"If I want health care." My god. It burns.

That's the kind of "thinking" that has helped keep America in such dire straights in terms of health quality, coverage and cost.

Americans spend twice the money per capita for health care as Canada and receive much poorer quality care. You don't get to "keep" your money (which is kind of stupid anyway since you've gladly advocated spending BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of dollars in an endless money pit in Iraq and your enabling of Bush's trillions of dollars in national debt). It's going to come out of your pocket one way or another, and when it does, it will be for a lot less than you'd get under a universal health care system.

Or how about this. You and the other 28%ers who still support the war can shoulder that $500 BILLION boondoggle. And me and the majority of Americans who favor universal health care will take care of that one. Deal?

I suppose I think we need to work on Health care REFORM before we go adding to the problem.

that's a valid point.

My problem is that what makes you think the country that got us into the "boondoggle" in Iraq will be any good managing the health care of people at home?

I don't know -- why can't we do both at once? Reforming the system is just a band aid -- it may reduce costs but it still won't give coverage to those who can't afford it at all.