Obama Senior Advisers: “juggernaut” to crush McCain

Word coming from senior advisers within the Obama campaign of their plan to establish strong grassroots local organizations in all 50 states to create a insurmountable battle for John McCain come November.

Report from the UK Telegraph:

With the Illinois senator declaring himself “within reach” of the Democratic nomination after achieving a majority of the pledged delegates – those allocated by vote – on Tuesday, his campaign has already pivoted to preparing for the general election against Mr McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee.

Although publicly heaping praise on Hillary Clinton, Mr Obama’s Democratic rival, and carefully avoiding putting pressure on her to drop out before the final states vote on June 3rd, the Illinois senator’s staff is impatient to launch a full-scale offensive against Mr McCain.

But they believe that the ferocious fight Mrs Clinton has put up has helped them build an organisation of unprecedented strength.

“I don’t think John McCain realises what he’s in for,” said one adviser. “We’ve created a juggernaut,” said another, “and it’s going to overwhelm him.”

They cite their internet fundraising operation, the grassroots organising network that secured victory over Mrs Clinton by winning a series of caucus states and hundreds of thousands of idealistic young volunteers as crucial advantages over Mr McCain.

Obama was in Florida today touting his lead and essentially speaking as the nominee:

I would not doubt this Telegraph story in the least. Obama’s grassroots organization has been strong since Iowa. Plus, he’s got the continued cash to expand it further. McCain will have a battle on his hands between this and the plethora of celebrities that will inevitably be campaigning for Obama.


    Hes running for a 4th eh eh a four more years of bush term. This man screws up so much and People John McCain is not a third Bush term. This man is such an arrogant liberal and will never win in the general election because the people of the country I love will not vote for a guy who says “Iran is a tiny threat” then the next day says “IRan is a huge threat.”

  • If you truly rejoice in what your country stands for, understand that there are different people with different perspectives than your own; that these differences are voiced in our political process is a wondrous thing.

    ’nuff said.

  • Michel

    Nothing more to add to what Michael said. I think it’s a great thing that Obama is getting ready to enter full “general election” mode.

  • Cameroon

    I am not American but I have this question for you as an American.
    Try to compare Afghanistan before the invation of Iraq and Afghanistan now.Much attension was drifted from afghanistan to invade iraq giving the terrorist in Afghanistan a breathing space.Which is of greater threat now to the other.Before the Iraqian invasion or after Iraqian invasion.liken that to Iran….I leave the consequences to the Americans.The problem is that most Americans do not travel if not you will know how American is being looked upon since the invasion of Iraq.
    You better hate Obama and look at his ideologies.But never think all Americans think like you do as MICHAEL has told you.
    God Bless American.

  • Jason

    I went to the rally at Water Front Park, simply amazing. I’ve never seen anything like it. I just gave another 100 dollars to his campaign. Can’t wait for the fun to start! Bring on McCain!

  • Jeff

    The only important difference McCain has to Bush is that he realises that America can no longer ignore the threat to the environment and that global warming is a real and serious issue.

    On all other core issues McCain will represent a third Bush term (ie: Iraq, economy, etc.)

  • Jeff

    And also health care. America is the only developed nation that doesn’t have Universal health care and McCain wants to continue America’s regressive attitude towards the U.S. health care system.

  • Stalin


    What do you propose? The UK system? The Canadian system? Please tell me how the government will take better care of me than I can.

  • Jeff Edwards


    So you’re happy with having to pay exhorbinent fees each time you have to go to the doctor or hospital for what people in other developed countries get to use for free whenever they urgently require health care. Why should health care in the U.S. only be straight forward for those few people who are extremely wealthy and healthy?

    And “socialised” health care in other developed countries hasn’t weakened the economy and has only made access to health care much greater for normal working class people and their lives easier (and policy should be designed to benefit the majority of people, not the rich elite).

    I now live in Australia and our health care system covers everyone whenever we need medical tests or need hospital treatment. The only downside is that we might have to wait a few months when our doctor refers us to a specialist to get treatment or have an operation.

    I also hear that France has a great health care system that covers everyone and doesn’t discriminate against people for being sick like the U.S. version does.

  • Stalin

    “The only downside is that we might have to wait a few months when our doctor refers us to a specialist to get treatment or have an operation.”

    Do I need to say more?


  • Michel

    Doctors treat you right away in Canada. And I speak from experience. And references from canadian friends too. Are they trying to convince me to move to their country because they are lonely?

    Visit other countries once in a while, Stalin.

  • Shawn

    But Obama isn’t even offering a socialized health care system, he’s simply offering more affordable health insurance to everyday Americans. Universal Health care that’s mandated is what scares me, mainly because of personal family issues. If my mom had to wait on a list to receive treatment from a specialist, she might not still be here. I would support Obama’s plan mainly because it lets you decide whether you want to purchase it or not.

    My info might be off, but isn’t that what he offers?

  • Jeff Edwards


    In Australia anyone has the choice to purchase private health insurance which means you don’t have to wait for a operation if you need one but the public health insurance is necessary for the majority of people who are not rich enough to purchase private health insurance. While we may have to wait a few months for an operation to mend some cartlidge in our knee or a few months to see a neurologist at a public hospital it certainly beats having to fork out thousands of dollars that most normal people just don’t have.

    I think the fact that America has never had Universal health care has made it more easy for Americans to be fearful of a foreign system to them that many U.S. conservatives have spun as being “socialised” medicine which subconsciously reminds people that America is on the forefront of capitalism thus shouldn’t condescend to adopt a system where every person, regardless of their economic status, is covered instead of only rich individuals having an easy time (ie: the conventional hallmark of capitalism).

  • Whobody

    I find a mandated payment for universal healthcare(for adult citizens)scary too. That’s why I like Obama’s plan better as well.

    When we would allow the government to REQUIRE us to PAY for health care, what happens when the low-prices that they say are reasonable are too high in someone else’s opinion? What happens if they decide that it’s okay to raise these “affordable” prices but still require us to pay?

    If it is free to us, then who is complaining that it is universal. But if we are required under law to pay what the government says is affordable, how is that the best thing to do for middle- or low-income households. A plan to make healthcare affordable is good, but to MAKE us buy it is a little too much control for the government to have.

    We should be required to have healthcare coverage for children, because they have no choice and parents are required to take care of them. But adult citizens need their power of choice. That would allow them to show the government what is affordable for them and what is not. No?

  • Realist

    Yes, sure they will crush McCain…look how nice they crushed Hillary… Obama according to himself and the media is now the presumptive nominee but in Kentucky and WV he was badly crushed and even in Oregon he did not crush Hillary…be realistic Obama is not selling anything besides cheap talk, if he is not a politician that will do anything to get elected he is just a college boy that didn’t decide which way to go yet, till lately he refused to wear a flag pin but as people start accusing him of not being patriotic he wears one…he clearly said that he will sit down to talks with Iran without any preconditions but since he noticed how stupid that made him look he changed, now there will be some conditions…in thebeginging he refused to denounce Rev. Wright but now he does in the strongest way…one strength he has, he is a good speaker, and that’s what draws the crowds to fall to his rhetoric, can any of you Obama supporters tell me how we the people will change Washington by screaming “yes we can” what do you think once Obama enters office he will look at our side he will take polls to let us decide what he should do…no he will do what every Washington Politician does…so I would rather prefer having a president that I Know who he or she is like McCain or Clinton, even though I don’t like them at all I would even pick a third term of Bush then electing a guy from nowhere that all we know about is that he sat thru 20 years of hate talk in his church, and his former campaign advisor had talks with Hamas…a guy that Hamas would like to see as President…and FYI Hamas are not freedom fighters like some of you have tried to portray terrorists in the previous posts, a freedom fighter kills soldiers and Government members of the regime their fighting against…a Freedom fighter doesn’t bomb their own brethren like we see in Iraq, or target civilians like they do everywhere, a Freedom fighter might blow up the pentagon but not blow up the twin towers with thousands of innocent people in it, a terrorist does! a terrorist terrorizes people, wants us to live under terror, wants to see me and you killed unless we follow their sick mindset and extremism…with all critic on Bush, the fact is there wasn’t another terrorist attack small or big on American soil, only tapes from Osama bin laden warning us that they will come…unlike like in Israel and other countries that constantley have Terror attacks, they have struck London, Madrid and others but not us thanks to the policies Bush implanted! Don’t blame high gas prices on Bush and Republicans, blame the nutty liberals that won’t allow us to drill or build new refineries on American soil! For 30 years now the US did not build a new refinery because of the environmentalists, now we paying the price…so if you want to give out your fury by screaming “yes we can” or thinking we civiilians have a chance of changing Washington go ahead stick to Obama, if your a democrat seeking change elect a women like Hillary that has already helped millions of peope in her life including me and my community in NYC and knows how to stand up to fellow politicans cause she is a great one, or vote McCain that has done the same and as matter of fact has shown Bi-Parisanship, where we can see nobody likes him not liberale nor conservitves just centerists cause thats what he is, and a Republican can certinley not vote Clinton, but if you want no change nothing done the next four years or worse alot of harm done to our country go ahead vote Obama that hasn’t done anything for this country, and beleive him that this election is about us…we need a Politican in Washington just as we need a Doctor in the medical office and a butcher in the meat shop!! (P.S. his color doesn’t bother me at all I am white but know alot of great Black politicians that I would vote for and have voted for! also I am a long time reader of this forum that didn’t comment yet.)

  • I’m going to have to take Stalin’s side with this issue. The “Universal Health Care” plan proposed and now implemented in Canada and the UK most definitely does not hold any appeal for me. I’m a poor college student, married with two kids, working full time and going to school paying for insurance on my own, so affordable insurance is available on almost any budget. While difficult, it is much better than what I see and have experienced with, as Jeff says, “socialized” health care. My grandmother, who I stress has never had any problems with the medical process here in the States, moved to Canada and had a stroke. She was immediately rushed to the hospital, where she waited weeks for the test results to come back, only to find that they had lost her results. She decided to move back down here, and was diagnosed and treated within days. And I am aware of many other similar stories.

    Getting the help I need, when I need it, is much better than waiting for the government to tell me if I need it or not. I, not a “socialized” government, know what is best for me, and I shouldn’t need their approval to go ahead with critical medical procedures.

  • Babs

    One of my closest neighbors just became an American citizen (applause, we threw her a party!). She was born a Canadian and moved here about 8 years ago after marrying a local man she met on a cruise. I gave her a call this morning and she laughed at anyone saying Canada’s health care system was better than Americas. She said “the treatment was okay if you could ever get treated” and better than nothing, but she much prefers the health care system we have here. She agreed with what others have said here basically, its confining in its privileges – and that “a person could die waiting for test results and red tape”.

    Just thought I’d throw in a little testimony from someone who’s participated in both systems.

  • Michel

    Well, thanks for that testimony Babs. Your canadian friend called liars to all her fellow canadians interviewed in “Sicko”?
    For anyone willing to see more testimonies, see that film. It’s got plenty of testimonies to form an opinion. I’m sure lots of them can be easily seen in youtube.


    You said: “I would rather prefer having a president that I Know who he or she is like McCain or Clinton, even though I don’t like them at all I would even pick a third term of Bush then electing a guy from nowhere that all we know about is that he sat thru 20 years of hate talk in his church, and his former campaign advisor had talks with Hamas…”

    That’s all you know about the guy? All you know? What kind of press do you read?

    Why do you think people gather around Obama because of “rethorics”? Why don’t you think they support him because of his Message and his Political Stances? Why can’t you believe they trust him because of his Views?

    I can respect your opinion at some degree because you have fears that come from misinformation… it isn’t your fault. But electing McCain or Clinton because you know who they are?

    “Realist”…. this election is not a contest of name recognition. Is a contest of political views.

    And, by the way, we all know what the definition of “terrorist” is. Now take that definition and apply it to G.W. Bush. Apply it to the Iraq war. And then see if McCain supports the policies of president who practices terrorism abroad.

  • Good lord people, how do you get this far off topic?

    Either way, Michel I would counter your statement on “Sicko” with this question: How can you make an informed judgment when you only take one side of the issue presented in the film? Of course it’s full of opinions supporting Moore’s position, he made the film to do so as an advertisement for socialized medicine! You have to go outside the propaganda on either side and examine all points of view on the issue. I don’t think watching “Sicko” is reason to believe you formed an educated opinion on the matter, it’s more like getting one side of the issue, then you have to go elsewhere outside the film to get the other side.

    Not that I’m targeting you on the site, because I’m not, just thought I would toss this in the ring for discussion since it sparked my interest.

  • Babs

    Well, back on the subject, Nate, is it just me or was the crowd reaction to Obama’s touting of McCain a little less enthusiast than it was a few weeks ago? I find very few people – even people who are not voting for McCain – that agree that McCain is another Bush, quite the opposite. They believe more like CG, that he is really a closet Democrat. How far do you think this tactic will carry Obama during the General campaign?

  • Michel

    Yes, Nate, it is an Advertisement for the option of universal health care. I can’t deny that. However, it is a documentary advertisement. It is an advrtisement with testimony and sound evidence of the VALIDITY of such opinion. It is a debunking of all the voices that say that universal health care is crazy and irresponsible, and that our health care hasn’t grave defficiencies.

    It’s just one view, but is a backed up one. So, I offer it to people to oppose it to other differing views. It is propaganda, yes, but at least is a very intelligent one and that shows many example that debunk common fears about that type of system.

    Don’t worry, I don’t think you’re targeting me.

  • Michel

    Getting back on the subject:

    I don’t know if McCain is a third Bush term or a close Democrat. I do like, however, to base my opinion on facts, and not on people I talk to. I used to like McCain a lot. But people need to realize there is a big difference between 2000 McCain and 2008 McCain. Noticeable changes in his stances: 1-Jerry Fallwell 2-Bush Tax Cuts 3-Global Warming 4-Influence of Lobbyists (he has 47 registered lobbyists on his campaign) 5-Confederate Flag 6-His OWN immigration Bill (said he wouldn’t vote for it in a Rep. debate) 7-Torture (I hope this is just some Senate technicallity, otherwise it would be appaling) I mean, all the things he was a moderate on, he flipflopped on them. He isn’t George Bush, he’s just carrying all his failed policies: The War, the economy, health care. McCain’s problem is the Republican problem. They don’t get this isn’t 2004, 2002, or 2000. The country has changed. The same “If you vote for a democrat you are going to die” line isn’t going to work. It didn’t work in 2006 it won’t work in 2008.

    Surrounded by lobbyists, dead wrong about Iraq and Iran, no clue about the economy, what recommends him? It used to be that he demonstrated some integrity, but that, apparently, just got in the way. Sad, really. I have no idea who he is now, and I onced liked him a lot. But he’s transforming now in a mere representation of what’s wrong with government.

  • IndiMinded

    Realist, I think a comment in there was directed at some things I said, and I suspect you misunderstood them, so let me try to articulate myself again.

    I disagree entirely with Michel – there’s not an agreed upon definition of the word “terrorist”, nor an agreed upon definition of the term “freedom fighter”. They’re both essentially terms used by US to define US and THEM.

    You can find definitions of these terms, but lots of people you probably consider to be “good guys” will have practiced most any definition of terrorism you find in a dictionary. What I’m saying is that we don’t use the word to mean that definition – we use it basically as a synonym for “bad guy”.

    I do agree on one point you make in there though, that one obvious difference between us and our enemies is that they are willing to slaughter civilians, whereas we try hard to avoid that. That just isn’t particularly relevant to what I had been trying to say.

    Hope that clears things up, and glad to see we’ve got a viewers warning sign now 😉

  • Babs

    IndiMinded, did you know that now the law calls threatening bodily harm to another person a “terroristic threat”? The term is being used by local law officials every day, and I think that speaks to what you are saying. According to present day law enforcement language, if I threaten to whip your a**, I’ve just made a terrorist threat to you. Doesn’t make me a terrorist in the sense that Bin Laden is, it just means that we bandy the word around quite loosely these days. And I think that’s close to what you’re trying to say, isn’t it?

    I’m glad to see the disclaimer as well, and especially the last sentence of it. 😉


    Just realized Nate wrote Obama wants to get a good base in all 50 states. Nate you must forget that Obama thinks that there are 57 states in our country, maybe you should fix that real quick.

  • Melvin

    Wow I love this thread today for several reasons.

    Anyone thinking we should follow McCain and stay in Iraq. Where were you when I was shot in the leg and had to bandage it myself. Staying there for any reason is not only wrong but illegal and we should be holding Bush for war crimes right now.

    If they want a war I will gladly put my uniform back on to support we should have been invading Saudi Arabia since thats where the bulk of the 9/11 pilots came from.

    As far as the finance policies I would gladly have backed Huckabee. A straight Fair Tax on good and services instead of income would put more money into the government coffers while taking less away from the middle and lower class.

    Having actually traveled a ton and visited hospitals in many countries (never a good thing believe me),but in most places I have been with universal health care it was fantastic. I must admit though that Vancouver Canada had one of the longest wait times. The wait time in Los Angeles has been much worse at times. My baby sister currently living in France LOVES!!!!!! her health care and has tried to get me to move there several time. I am an American always and will live or die for it so moving is out.

    That being said Universal Healthcare is only going to be as good as the county and government running it. Anyone that believes America is a great county must also believe that we would have a great universal healthcare system because our government will be running it. If you don’t believe in our government then please find somewhere else to live.

  • “The only downside is that we might have to wait a few months when our doctor refers us to a specialist to get treatment or have an operation.”-Jeff Edwards

    I was diagnosed with cancer at the age of 15, had the biopsy and was told that I needed to have surgery ASAP within the next few days. I was blessed to have a top surgeon in his field of oncology. Now let’s review what would have happened if I was a citizen of Canada. According to Jeff, I would have had to wait to be referred to a specialist and then wait to have surgery and risk the cancer spreading to the lymph nodes. I just thank God for our health care system and am blessed to be living in the United States. The health care I received was stellar and I’m grateful that I have a choice to pick and choose from my doctors. I currently am paying out of pocket to be seen by my current doctor and I have no problem paying for my health care out of pocket. If you’re responsible with money then more than likely you will be responsible for your health. Insurance is important, but having a say in my health care is also important.

    As a side note, my mother who has spent her life’s work in caring for the ill (registered nurse), the Medical Director used to chat with her on the possibility of a Universal Health Care System and the effects it would have on the United States and our current health care system. He spent five years practicing in Canada and he said that it still haunts him to know that there were patients who could have been helped but b/c of the wait to receive the basics of health care i.e X-rays, Cat scans, blood tests, many lives could have been saved especially when dealing with cancer. Mind you this was a very Liberal man who was speaking out against this form of health care.

    Take a look at this: http://www.heritage.org/press/dailybriefing/policyweblog.cfm?blogid=AB69914D-A0C9-D18A-0F81A5C44F919338

    It’s a chilling thought that there are people dying from illness, the same illnesses that here in America patients are treated for and there risk of death is significantly lower. Yes, it’s from the Heritage Foundation but that does not change the fact of statistics. If you’re going to dispute them, try disputing the numbers themselves and not the source.

  • Melvin,

    Thank you for the service you have rendered. It really is appreciated. That said, and as impressive as our patriotism is, I have to disagree with some of what you said:

    “That being said Universal Healthcare is only going to be as good as the county and government running it. Anyone that believes America is a great county must also believe that we would have a great universal healthcare system because our government will be running it. If you don’t believe in our government then please find somewhere else to live.”

    I believe that America is a great country precisely because of the principles it was founded upon. In this case, namely capitalism and freedom. I do not want to need or have to wait for government approval for everything I do, especially for important medical procedures that I might not have time to wait for. I am opposed to big government telling me how I can live my life.

    This does not mean I do not believe in our government, only that I believe that the government should do what it was intended for: governing and not controlling. Look what has happened to Social Security, because the government stepped in and tried, albeit with the best of intentions, to control and ensure the elderly’s retirement. Now when I retire in the next 40 years or so, after paying thousands upon thousands in Social Security taxes, it is expected that I will receive nothing in return. Look at the national debt. And now a Universal Healthcare program would cost us trillions more, and I expect create more problems than it solved exactly like Social Security. It is the same government – who’s to say it won’t be handled in the same way?

    I love America. I love the ideals and principles for which it stands. I plan on enrolling in the Air Force to help put me through school and will gladly serve my country. I just want the country I serve to respect me back, and allow me to make the decisions that affect my future – not try and tell me that I need their approval before receiving life-sustaining care.

  • Michel

    I have a question… Why does so many people here believe that the only alternative to our current system is a fully government control over the entire Health Care industry? That’s not what I’m for. I’m for having both, the free tax-payed health care and the private practice. And that way, people can have a choice in their medical conditions, and those who can’t afford it, or those who are denied of their health care by insurance companies scams, can have an medical assistance available for them.

    What’s so wrong with that? The private health care would actually do better with some competition. That way, at least, the prices would normalize.

  • IndiMinded

    That’s funny Babs, I’d never heard that, but it makes sense = I mean threats cause terror. I wonder how long it’s been in the law enforcement vocabulary that way

  • Michel,

    Again, a well intentioned plan. But where is the money going to come from? Who is going to pay for it? I’m already paying for Social Security I’m never going to receive, and I’m paying for many people on welfare that have been taking advantage of the system for years. Again, I’m a poor student going to college and working full time to support two kids. I’m not on welfare, nor plan to become so, and neither would I want to be on a Universal health care program that puts further burden on the hardworking people of America. With the national debt rising, the talk of legalizing millions of illegals that is estimated to cost trillions in welfare and other expenses, the near-failed Social Security policy, etc., how in the world are we supposed to afford trillions more for a Universal Health Care program that many more will just take advantage of.

    And no, I don’t believe that Universal Health Care would create competition. In fact, if many people leave the private insurances, they will have to drive up their prices to cover their costs. And then you will have to choose between waiting for months to be approved for a critical medical procedure, or you will have to pay a whole lot more to get on an insurance policy that will cover the procedure. Not the greatest plan.

  • Michel


    That’s why the economy needs to be reactivated. The housing foreclosure crisis, the rising unemployment rates, the country knocking on the doors of recession… now is the moment when more people than ever are getting less or no health care. That’s why health care is so big a subject in this election. Unproductive plans need to be cut off in order to sustain better plans to solve this crisis.

    “if many people leave the private insurances, they will have to drive up their prices to cover their costs”

    Regarding competition, in standard markets you don’t elevate prices because that would be further disencouragement for your potential consumers. You low the prices to encourage them to pay for your services. See Wal-Mart. Health is an area where people always need to consume, but many tests, treatments and drugs have huge prices because there isn’t a service out there that provides a lower price standard. Free health care would provide this.

    With many current absurd government subsidies out of the way, that could work. We have now huge expenses in many areas that we label as necessary when they are not. Military expenses, for example, are more targeted as encouragement to our humongous military industry, and therefore creating conflictive military situations around the world has been our traditional way to foster that military industry. With preemptive wars, we are actually making markets for that. Defense projects are one thing, and ocupations in others countries at the expense of our economy is another thing.

    Just by looking at its impact on national economy, you see that the war must go. Pork should go. Signing subsidies for insurance companies, drug companies, oil companies (yeah, those who block alternative fuels research and take no responsability in the gas prices), big airlines companies… all those subsidies must go. And then you could appoint the funds to fix services that have a social and constant need, where most people get benefits.

    Some here may be eager to call that ‘socialistic’. I think of it as ‘pragmatic’. You would actually have to pay less for taxes than what you pay in current medical expenses and private insurances. And the thing about taxes is not only that you are paying for other people’s medical needs… is that someone else is paying for yours too.

    And, of course, taxes should be proportionate to people’s income levels.

    My knowledge of economics is far from perfect but, as far as I know, more competition improves the quality of the service. Government-run health care (as an option, not a totality) is another form of competition. That should improve the quality of the service. Government stoped being a copetition with Nixon’s administration, when they privatized the whole national health care and allowed it to take a profit-oriented direction, instead of a result-oriented one. As a costumer, I don’t want that. Neither should you.

    Maybe socialized medicine isn’t the way to go. But the huge cracks in our current system are undeniable. And people notice. Check any poll.

  • Michel

    Here is a take on Canadian health care system. You can check out some other stuff on the related videos part. I must say that there are some videos who speak not so well of the canadian system, but most of them do. You just do the math.


    And here is the excellent Michael Moore canadian feature in Sicko. Biased or not, here it goes if you haven’t seen it.


    Don’t take it as proselitism, just as some testimonies to offer a differing view.

    Take care, Kelvin 😉

  • Babs

    IndiMinded, I don’t know how long its been out there. The first time I heard it, I thought it was a joke. We own a little race car, and was at the track one night last season when a pretty bad shouting match broke out in the pits between two drivers. When the law was called by the track management and they dealt with the two, I was told that they had both been charged with “making terroristic threats”. Well, the track manager that told me that is a friend and quite the comedian so I thought he was joking and laughed. He wasn’t joking, and since then I’ve asked a couple of officers I knew in the city and county, and they say the same thing – that’s the wording that goes on the books now. I think that used to be called simple battery, didn’t it??

  • Michel,

    Thanks for your posting, you bring up some interesting points. And I respect your point of view. We’re actually in a agreement on a lot of things: the need for an economy boost because of rising unemployment, the forecolosure crisis, etc. I just respectfully disagree on how to solve those problems. I believe that the best way to boost the economy is to encourage capitialism, not big government. Economic problems, whether from health care or rising oil prices, create a need for a solution. This need gives rise for opportunities for great entrepreneurs and innovators to create a solution and a niche in the economy. In this capitalistic way, most all of the great inventions we use today were created. The growing need for a solution gives rise to more entrepreneurs, who provide better ways to solve the problem, thus creating competition and a healthy economy.

    I do not believe that you can compare the government to Wal-Mart. We are in no way obligated to shop at Wal-Mart, nor have to pay taxes to them. To me, that is what is so scary about the situtation you are promoting: when people expect the government (instead of a capitalistic economy) to solve every economic crisis that arises. Free Health Care would indeed create a sort of competition for private health insurance, but not a healthy competition. Many people would opt for the free health insurance, which we have no reason to expect would turn out any differently than any other government controlled program (Social Security, etc.). It is very possible that it will eventually be like the Canadian system, where some people are treated very well but many others wait weeks and months for approval and opportunity for medical procedures they need immediatly. The private health insurance industry cannot compete against a “free services” competition. They, in turn, will either go out of business, leaving only the government health care system (the exact opposite of a competitive economy – only one way to get a service is equivalent to a monopoly, and I hesitate to give anyone, especially the government, a monopolistic power over my health care), or they will have to guarantee immediate health care service to attract those consumers who do not want to wait. They will have to raise prices to cover their normal expenses, make a profit, and because their clientel will have diminished as most people opt for the free health care system. This will create the exact problem you want to avoid: only rich people get immediate and specialized health care service. And again you’ll want the government to intervene, leading to even bigger government with more control.

    And then, what is next? The prices of surgeries and medical proceedures is not going down anytime soon. And with the trillions required to offer “free” health care to everyone (along with a growing national debt) we, as a nation, will not be able to pay for it all. So again, the government will have to step in to force lower prices for health care, saving everyone money, right? Doctors will make much less then, making the profession much less attractive for the intelligent, highly adept student. The quality, in turn, will decrease.

    The “free” health care offered by the government is not free. As you say, “not only that you are paying for other people’s medical needs… is that someone else is paying for yours too.” That’s the whole point. And it’s not just health care that I’m talking about. That’s the whole rational behind a socialistic society. A forced equality that eliminates capitalism and competition, and is government controlled. See how well that served the USSR. See how well it is serving China. I most definitly do not want that here. A government run health care would eventually be a totality, not just an option, at least for anyone BUT the rich and powerful. In a competetive capitalistic economy, the need for profits pushes companies to provide results. That’s why it works.

    Taking money away from the military to fund health care, I believe, is not the smartest idea. Especially with the growing threat of terrorrism. However, I agree wholeheartedly that all the pork must go. There is so much waste in the way things are now. That’s precisely why I don’t trust the government to take control of anything else (especially my health care!). All the excess and pork you listed must go. But we should use that to pay of the national debt and give back to the people to promote spending and stimulate the economy. Of course the war and the occupation must end, but not at the expense of our national security, and especially not at the expense of weakening our military and making us even more vulnerable to the terrorrist threat.

    There is a very real need for a strong central government. But it is for governing. Not for controlling. There are huge cracks in our system. But socializing everything most definitely will not help. Returning to the roots and founding principles of our society is what will create a strong America for the future.

    Thanks for the links, I’ll sure check them out. And thanks for the discussion. It is nice to hear and contemplate different points of view. It helps to analyze and think through problems and situations without ariving at a rash conclusion. I’ve been a long time reader but never commenter on this site. I’ll be sure to try and be more active.

    Take care as well, Michel.

  • Stalin


    Doctors treat you right away in Canada?


    This guy had to come to the US to save his life.

  • Babs

    Stalin, great link there, and really enforces my “canadian friend” in her accessment. I particularly liked the statement near the end where he said that if we adopt this system in America, he’ll have nowhere to send his patients from Canada. I wonder if there are available stats anywhere to show just how many Canadians cross over to the US for medical treatment every year?

  • Stalin


    Here is the link to the company that saved that guys life. Some interesting stats on there about how long it takes to get treatment in Canada.

  • Michel


    This girl had to go to Canada, married by convenience, for health care, after an american insurance company denied her the insurance because they said she was “too young to have that kind of cancer”.


    And this is a Canadian waiting room.


    And this is a guy that lost almost all the fingers from his left hand and the Cnanadian surgeon DID NOT WAIT AT ALL to put them back.


    Are these videos the whole truth? I’m sure they’re not. That’s exactly my point. It’s dumb to extrapolate a country’s whole medical system by just looking at a handful of examples.

    And, if you want to marry a canadian to get their health care for life, you can go here:


    😉 Take care.

  • Michel

    Kevin, I think you have very clear ideas, but we have fundamental differences in our points of view. I think that the best possible health care is a fundamental right, not a privilege. Yes, it should be paid, not charity, nut a right, not a privilege. And I think that many of the costs imposed by the HMOs are not valid, and are driven up to improve their finances.

    We actually have lots of programs that are tax-payed and free. Thake the police force as an example. Why it is that we don’t have a private taskforce that could enforce the law?
    It wouldn’t be right.
    Many other interests would interfere with the actual work of that private police.
    And one could argue that the Police takes care of the safety of the citizenship, of our safety, and we need that to be free. It is the government’s duty to take care of our safety.

    That’s the same thing I think about the health care. Like security, it is a right. Health is the very supporter of life. And to make it completely privatized is to allow external interests (financial interests) to interfere with actual medical care.

    Don’t take the Canada system as the counter proposal, if you don’t want. Take the French system. Our economy has been traditionally much better than France’s, and yet France has the #1 health care system in the world. And many many other social benefits that we americans couldn’t even dream of.

    The question is, how can that be? Aren’t social programs doomed to failure? How come France has the best health care system in the world their’s is run by the government and ours is completely privatized?

    That’s a question that needs answering.

  • Michel, one has to wonder why you don’t move to Canada if you are so fond of their system? What’s wrong with your Cuban system?

    Saying that health care is a “fundamental right” is insane. Who’s going to pay for it? Why do you or I have to pay for someone else’s health care? Why does someone have to pay for mine? When did everything in life become a “fundamental right,” it’s like we’re born into entitlement. Do we need socialized car insurance, socialized cell phones, socialized electricity, socialized life insurance, socialized housing, socialized vehicles, socialized computers, socialized landscaping, socialized mp3 downloads, socialized roof repair, socialized internet connections, what else do we need the government to do for us?

    Beside that, anyone who advocates for socialized medicine misses the point that not everyone wants the government in control of health care. Michel, and other hardcore socialists, are fine with it, and good for them! What I find so hilarious is that they believe the federal government is some kind of murderous pirate yet they want George Bush in charge of their health care.

    It’s insanity to argue both points. Then what about people who are mad at the Patriot Act because they feel they’re being spied on? Why do they feel it’s OK for the government to spy on their health care? Can someone answer that? Can someone rationally explain to me why they are distraught at the government listening to a phone call but are just fine with the government in charge of their health care?

    You can’t have it both ways, you either think the government should be in charge or you don’t. People like Michel argue out of both sides of their mouths. They claim the Bush administration has overstepped it’s authority yet they are calling for more government authority in the area of socialized programs! Does that make sense? Is that not the dictionary definition of insanity?

    The United States does not subscribe to the notion of socialized health care but several socialist countries do, try one of them out instead of trying to shove it down everyone’s throat.

  • Frank

    I really dont understand conservatives anymore.
    The economic and foreign policys of Bush have failed. Why continue them? And why are you afraid of Obama?


    Good job Nate. Makes me wonder why for someone who dislikes our country and their own so much, why they dont seem to move somewhere else, but then again all liberals dont like america and talk about moving but never do. Just the same old same old.

    Frank.. The economic and the foreign policys of Bush have not failed at all. The economy is coming back and Bush has always kept us plus for every 2 quarter cycle while he has been in office. We are doing great things in Iraq, that is why the liberal media has now stopped talking about it, why do you think Barack Obama doesnt bring up his stupid “100 year” misquote of John McCain anymore. Why is it that noone says how in Sadr City people walk the streets freely now with no signs of extremists and why is it that Sadr has moved into Iran. Which proves my point that McCain and Bush are right when they talk about Iran unlike the flip flopper Obama on that subject.

  • Nate,

    I feel the same say as you in that I do not want the government

    to have too much control, and I am of the opinion that they would

    not do a very good job if they were to be put in charge of health

    care. I have already listed several government programs that,

    although founded with the best of intentions for the good of the

    people, have created an even greater economic burden for our

    nation and that future generations will have to pay for.

    As Michel said, we have some fundamental differences in our

    points of view. However, I respect his opinion greatly, and he

    brings out some very good and interesting points. I am very

    conservative in my views, but I am glad that there are differing

    opinions that make me think through and defend my views. The

    problem with many conservatives, such as yourself, is that you

    don’t take the time to truly contemplate different arguments,

    however well presented and thought out, and immediatly jump to a

    conclusion that sounds judgemental, rash, and ignorant. Michel’s

    opinion, however much I may disagree with it, is one that he has

    respectfully and articulately presented, and he deserves to be

    respected for that. When will conservatives learn that the way

    to present their views and perhaps convince others of them is not

    through impeteuous criticism and benighted arguments?

    Michel is perfectly correct to say that there all men are endowed

    with certain unalienable rights, among them being life. There

    are fundamental rights that we have and are righfully entitled to

    precisely because we are part of a civilization and support a

    central government through taxes and service. A police force is

    one of those, and because I pay taxes and help to support them, I

    certainly feel entitled to their services and help if and when I

    might need it. You missed the point of the argument by taking it

    too far and comparing Michels opinion to socialized mp3 downloads

    and the like. Definitely not what he is promoting.

    However, Michel, I have to agree with Nate that just because we

    are entititled to life, that doesn’t mean that the government has

    the responsibility of providing all life sustaining services.

    Financial interests “interfere” with many life sustaining

    services, food probably being the biggest. I would hate for the

    government to take over the food industry and tell me what’s good

    for me and what I can and cannot eat. The housing industry is

    another example. What a disaster it would be if the housing

    industry turned into a program similar to the Social Security


    In short, While I respectfully disagree with you, Michel, I appreciate your point of view and value your arguments along with the class with which you have presented them, Michel. Hope to talk to you again.

  • Obama_sucks and Frank,

    Again another example of an impetuous conservative. The reason that Michel doesn’t move to Canada, even though he admires their system and way of doing things, is mostly likely because he loves this country and is trying to change it for the better by modeling after something he approves of. Why is it when you disagree with someone they suddenly become anti-American?


    There are some conservatives I don’t understand either. However, I firmly believe in and champion the traditional conservative view. Why has it become the popular thing to say that Bush has failed when so many things are, in fact, going right? Obama_sucks was right when he said that the policies of Bush have not necessarily failed. The war in Iraq, while it can’t continue indefinitely and will eventually end, have produced amazing results. Unfortunately, many liberals in Washington declared the war lost even before these positive results were known. And now they need America to loose the war so that they can be “right.” It is sad ironic when America winning the war would hurt them politically; they need America to loose a war and still declare themselves as patriotic.

    Obama does scare me, because I truly think he is sincere in what he says he’ll do. Namely, meet unconditionally with leaders of terrorist countries (which he has now flip-flopped on), create a national health care system, give drivers licenses to illegal immigrants (making it easier for more to come in and for terrorists get legal documentation), legalize the many illegal immigrants here in the states, create 57 states out of the current 50 (*joke*), etc. His naivety in national policy, his poor understanding of economics, and his policies on immigration, among many other things, are what scare me about Obama.

  • Michel,

    I do see your point, and though disagree, respect it completely. If a nationalized health care could work the way it should, I supposed I wouldn’t be as opposed to it (excepting the fact that big government in control makes me very nervous). It is just judging from our government’s performance with past programs, I don’t think the government would be a good choice to entrust such an important program to. I can see why people would support it though.

    P.S. Canadian socialistic pig indeed, eh? 🙂

  • Wait a minute. Michel just had a couple of posts on here that I read and now are removed. Even though there was nothing inappropriate about them.

    What is this? Why can’t differing but respecting viewpoints both be on this site? If that’s the way it is here, then you have just lost a supporter.

  • I read your posts though, Michel. This doesn’t go unnoticed.

  • Differing but respectful opinions have always and will always be welcomed on this site. Just look at the 5000+ other comments.

  • Frank

    By Obama_sucks,

    “Frank.. The economic and the foreign policys of Bush have not failed at all. The economy is coming back and Bush has always kept us plus for every 2 quarter cycle while he has been in office. We are doing great things in Iraq, that is why the liberal media has now stopped talking about it, why do you think Barack Obama doesnt bring up his stupid “100 year” misquote of John McCain anymore. Why is it that noone says how in Sadr City people walk the streets freely now with no signs of extremists and why is it that Sadr has moved into Iran. Which proves my point that McCain and Bush are right when they talk about Iran unlike the flip flopper Obama on that subject.”

    With all due respect, if you really think George Bush’s policys have been succesfull and Obama is flip flopping over Iraq then you truly are ignorant.

    You deserve another Bush term, maybe when the country is more unsafe and more in dept maybe you give will a liberal the chance to actually fix problems.


    But frank you got it all wrong McCain is not another Bush term, it is only liberals who paint that picture, while every independent and conservative know’s he is no GW.

    “if you really think George Bush’s policys have been succesfull and Obama is flip flopping over Iraq then you truly are ignorant.”

    I never said that Obama was flip flopping on Iraq, I said he was and did on Iran. Do not change my words around and call me ignorant for something I did not say.

    And maybe we should give a liberal a chance but no way in hell will we ever give the most liberal person in the senate a chance ever.

    Also read up about Iraq lately even though articles are hard to find because the liberal media doesn’t talk about it anymore as an issue because what McCain has said is right, so try to find a recent article and you will see how good things are there.

  • Kevin


    That’s good to know. But then what happened to Michel’s posts???


    Michel was one intollerant person but I did love my arguments with Michel, always brought up the most idiotic stuff to try and link to John McCain lol.