<p>Nah, I meant your parents were Republicans, as are you.</p>
<p>But watever, no sense debating politics lol</p>
<p>Um, no, they're most definitely not Republicans...</p>
<p>If I could vote (can't cause I live in Canada), it would definitely be McCain. </p>
<p>Though... I still think Obama is going to win. 90% of people in this world are followers. They'll rally behind whoever appears to be the most confident, and Obama has McCain crushed in that department. That scarce 10% are the few that actually think while the rest just go with their friends and base their decisions off emotions.</p>
<p>I can't place it, but something about Obama is seriously "off".</p>
<p>Shocka, the tax rate for the rich people (those making over $250k) will go back to what it was during the Clinton years which was 39%. So it's moving from 35% to 39%. That is not high at all compared to other countries. Obama's 'fair share' isn't a big increase.</p>
<p>I'm just curious because I haven't gotten a clear cut answer on this: what would Obamas national healthcare policies mean for my future career as a doctor (I am a freshman biology premed major)? Not just money (I would like an explanation of that too) but also how will it affect owning a practice, treating patients in general, etc. Will I just become a government worker?</p>
<p>And please don't give me the "you shouldn't be a doctor for the money" lecture. Coming from a single-mother household that makes $19K a year, it's obviously something that I have to keep in mind (a family to watch over, etc.), especially as I make my decision. I am not my friend who is solidly voting McCain solely because he will be getting less money as a doctor.</p>
<p>HansTAR, </p>
<p>Considering that in countries where medical care is socialized, such as in France and the UK, doctors still make several hundred thousand, I don't think doctors will have a problem. </p>
<p>Obama isn't against doctors making a profit; he should be against insurance companies and HMO's making a profit off of people. A government can do medical insurance far more efficiently than private companies can, because the government isn't out to make a profit. The sole goal for private companies is to make a profit, which means less money goes to the patients and doctors, and legitimate claims are denied in the name of making a profit.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Obama isn't against doctors making a profit; he should be against insurance companies and HMO's making a profit off of people.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Just a general question: why are insurance companies relatively more "evil" than doctors? I mean, doctors take the inelastic demand for health care, and basically price gouge (some of it due to factors they can control, others not). I don't see why singling out insurance companies is so important. Why doesn't Barack Obama stop biotech companies from making ginormous profits from the products they sell too?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I can't place it, but something about Obama is seriously "off".
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Fantastic, excellent reason to not vote for Obama. I think I'm leaning a little bit on McCain's side now.</p>
<p>Myrimidon- biotech companies make a profit, but the difference is they make money by developing new technologies that actually help people. Insurance companies maximize profits by the exact opposite- denying coverage to people who need it.</p>
<p>A lot of the problems with US healthcare are caused by insurance companies. For one, paperwork is annoying, hospitals have to do a LOT of logistical stuff before they can actually work on the patient to not get in trouble with insurance companies, and they can deny coverage to certain patients (heck, they actively TRY to deny coverage to increase profits). Also, they limit the types of healthcare that people can get- some people can't go to X good hospital and have to go to Y bad hospital because their insurance only covers Y.
Insurance companies are one of the reasons why doctors are losing a lot of the former power that they had, while patients are getting shafted in the process.</p>
<p>McCain/Palin</p>
<p>by the way I'm voting for obama CHANGE WE NEED!!!!</p>
<p>You can put forth any argument you want for McCain, but at the end of the day, it's wrong for one reason alone. Palin. And I'd really like to hear one person here defend Palin, because I haven't seen it yet, even from McCain supporters. How can you support a president who has the VP equivalent of an acorn?</p>
<p>An acorn? I'll admit that's a new comparison to me. What do you mean by that?</p>
<p>I think he is inferring that Palin has the IQ of an acorn.</p>
<p>She threatened to go to war with Russia, and McCain made a joke about bombing Iran. Both don't have enough foreign policy sense to be good leaders IMO.</p>
<p>I just can't help myself, everytime I see Sarah Palin I get an image of a Waffle House waitress. I used to like McCain but the last couple of months have shown his true colors. His judgement is seriously bad in choosing her as a viable VP candidiate. Ambition for POTUS at the expense of common sense!</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Though... I still think Obama is going to win. 90% of people in this world are followers. They'll rally behind whoever appears to be the most confident, and Obama has McCain crushed in that department. That scarce 10% are the few that actually think while the rest just go with their friends and base their decisions off emotions.</p>
<p>I can't place it, but something about Obama is seriously "off".
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Since you can't explain why Obama is "off", you have to basing your opinion on an emotion.</p>
<p>Just sayin'.....</p>
<p>Actually, most people vote by emotion, not by the issues or actual rational.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Shocka, the tax rate for the rich people (those making over $250k) will go back to what it was during the Clinton years which was 39%. So it's moving from 35% to 39%. That is not high at all compared to other countries. Obama's 'fair share' isn't a big increase.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It is high when there are people who pay NO taxes at all. Most other countries make even the poorest people pay taxes. And with Barack cutting taxes for those families making less than 250k a year, AND giving them additional tax bonuses, you can see that it is really not fair for the rich to get taxed a bunch so that they can give the money to other people.</p>
<p>
[quote]
by the way I'm voting for obama CHANGE WE NEED!!!!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Keep the change.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You can put forth any argument you want for McCain, but at the end of the day, it's wrong for one reason alone. Palin. And I'd really like to hear one person here defend Palin, because I haven't seen it yet, even from McCain supporters. How can you support a president who has the VP equivalent of an acorn?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>for the vast majority of voters, the President carries the weight of most of the ticket. It is the main office. If the candidates are equal, maybe the VP can tip things, but most voters are voting for the President of the United States... and whoever the presidential candidate has chosen for their VP candidate are along for the ride.</p>
<p>I don't really think Palin was the best choice... but she does have executive experience, unlike Obama. So there, if you wanted to elect based on executive experience, which wouldn't be that far out there, as she could be elected to the second highest executive office in the country (and arguably the world), you could make the argument that Palin is more prepared than Obama. Again, I don't think she was the best choice, but I also think the Democratic ticket should be flipped, and be Biden/Obama, instead of the way it is.</p>
<p>Also, I find it hilarious that you used the word "acorn" to equate palin to. Clearly this means that you aren't following many election issues at all... type in "acorn" to google news search, and read some.</p>