Who will be the next US president? (Will it be a woman?)
And why?
And isn't it just a little unfair that such a world-powerful person is elected by Americans only?

I would really like to hear some Americans' opinions on this (- and some non-americans' ofcourse...)

Either will be an improvement over what we now have.

As long as it isn't Hillary...

I would be curious exactly why you think other nations should have a say in our elections. Should I get to vote for your leader?

I know the arguement you are trying to make, and I fear the more Liberal amongst my fellow Americans might even agree, but it is a trully silly proposition. You are also free to join us, in which case you could vote for our president.

Oh, my choice?

Condoleeza Rice. Smart, educated, pianist, and beautiful to boot. I doubt she'll run though.

It's a little early in the game for me. One thing I'm sure of, I'd never vote for anyone connected with the Bush administration, look at the colossal mess he's gotten this counrty into.

Same here, musdan. "I'd rather have a President who's doing it to a woman than to the country." Will Rogers

ditto here...

I'm liking Obama and Giuliani myself. I was tremendously impressed with how Rudy reacted during 9/11.

I have no problem with folks liking Giuliani, as long as the reason has nothing to do with his supposed effect on crime in NY (see Freakonomics!).

Monica: just curious why you seem repelled by Clinton.

David

P.S. Hey, what is this ...the coffee room or something? :p

Yikes a new forum to watch.

Is this akin to playing a second instrument?

The only observation I can make is that in the last several elections I can think of (with the exception of the incumbent) the early front runners faded and a relative unknown or dark horse emerged to win either the party or the election.

Maybe we are noodling on the wrong people?

On the other hand name recognition is worth alot.

Can you imagine if Hillary wins and then Jeb Bush wins after her? We would go Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush- 36 years of dynastic rule shared by two families. We are already over half way there.

What then would other countries think?

No matter who gets elected, we will be in better hands...

If I could choose anyone I would pick Ron Paul but I doubt that will happen...

Vote for the one who is more openly crazy, so that the rest of washington will more likely block their nonsense.

Yep, it would be 32+ years of crime-family control of the nation.

You do realize that socialism doesn't work?

[][/QUOTE]You do realize that socialism doesn't work? [/QB][/QUOTE]

DITTO

I am against all those things. And it's not something I hear about - it's something I see everyday (I work in bio-med engineering field). If you've ever wondered why everything that has to do with health/hospitals is so expensive, then socialized medicine is your answer.

The solution is not more government's meddling, bureaucracy, and entitlements. The solution is to allow - and require - people to take personal responsibility for their health by separating medicine and state.

Somebody once said:
"If you think health care is expensive now, wait till it’s free"

I hope my kids won't have to find out about that - because free health care for all, will ultimately translate into 50-90% of your income taken at the gunpoint to support the corrupt system.

I personally have absolutely no clue what people have against universal health care or some socialist reform of the health industry. I live in TX and I get taxed like hell, on top of that I have to pay for my own insurance, and on top of that I have to pay 20% of my health costs(before my insurance pays the other 80%). I have lived and worked in Europe, and I can say, that yes, taxes are high, but you also get some of the best medical care, for free. When you consider how many taxes you pay in the US, it comes out to be pretty close to what you pay in let's say Germany or France. At least in my case, I am in a high tax bracket. So, am I for Universal health care? Heck yeah, that'd be just one less thing to worry about. In the US most people are insured through their employer, imagine what happens to you if you lose your job and the next day you're diagnosed with cancer or something? What will you do besides go broke? I am not at all for receiving handouts from the government, that is not what I am talking about. I worked hard through college, work hard at my job, pay my taxes and obey the law, if I ever lose my job and find myself in financial trouble, it would be nice to know that at least don't have to worry about my health insurance.

I pay over $23,000 in taxes every year from my job alone; that doesn't include property taxes, sales tax, school taxes, etc. I'd like to get something more for my $$ other than corrupt politicians, mickey-mouse administrations and unjust, unnecessary wars.

USAPianoTrucker:

The phrase "separation of medicine and state" is intentional. Same goes for more general "separation of economics and state".

Republicans don't get the idea behind "separation of church and state", Democrats don't understand "separation of economics and state". That's why I'm a Libertarian.

People tend to support universal healthcare, because they look at the skyrocketing prices of medical services. Those high prices wouldn't be there if the entire industry was privatized. Competition works wonders when prices are concerned.

Universal healthcare is an inherently unfair system. I take care of my body - I don't smoke, I don't drink, I don't eat fast food. Why should I be forced to pay for treatment of an overweight smoker, with an aclohol problem?
Everybody should be responsible for their own life - if we removed the "socialist" factor from medicine, we'd end up with services at much lower price, and everybody could buy their own health care plan at a fraction of the cost.

When I get a chance, I'll give you some medical horror stories from the "socialized medicine" capital of the world - Sweden...

By the way - the website you mentioned, is not my[/b] website - but I do find the list of terrorist attacks useful. And even after you compensate for its obvious bias, it's still clear which group can't quite play along with the rest of the world - and no it's not the Eskimos...

jsalzer:

You complain about spending $23,000. Guess what - if the state wasn't taking that money only to distribute it, you'd only have to spend 1/10th of that amount - you could allocate the rest for anything you please (including private health insurance). Government's only job should be protecting its citizens (military and police).

Unfortunatelly the way it is, you'll never see that money. But you should be happy - because you're basically paying medical expenses for a bunch of bums, too lazy to get their own jobs. You and me may not be looking for a handout - but most other people are - it's human nature.

Public health care stinks (same goes for public schools - and pretty much everything else "public") - that's why given a choice, if cost wasn't an issue I'd always go to a private specialist. They tend to care more, because that's how they make a living.


Socialism = everybody gets what they need.
Capitalism = everybody gets what they deserve.

So true, so true. Socialists get universal health care. Capitalists get George W. Bush.

i'm all for 'Universal health care', but it has to be a 'bottom line' system (i.e. bare minimum), and any additional services should be covered with additional insurance people are free to choose. i believe that's the only system could work without either asking government to tax too much on it or people playing too much for the mandatory insurance.

the problem with all current and past proposals of such a system is that they want to include everything and end up with nothing.

as to the orginal question, i'd say: 'as long as NO Rice'.

The communist health care plan is just part of an agenda to phase in the big brother verichip system...

Lets see I need..dental implants..Lasik for my nearsightness.. hip/knee(both) replacements..
if I went to Europe..what would it cost?