Comments Related To: YOUTH VOTE FOR OBAMA IN 08 WILL HURT PARENTS FOR YEARS TO COME.

At the rate things are going, they'll have even taken away my gun so I can't just shoot myself... pity that.

Don't put it past this administration, there may a Gun Czar coming to a neighborhood near you before you know it..

Guess I'll be left with nothing but my katanas, tai chi swords, and combat knives... I guess every dark cloud has a silver lining...

The entire amendment granting 18 year olds the right to vote was another agenda of "progressives" that somehow believe that developmentally 18 year olds are more mature than the 18 year olds of the founders, when if anything due to the fact that kids today do not grow up on farms working AND going to school at a young age, or by and large, serve in the military after graduation - the 25 year age the founders intended actually acknowledge that few young adults had the wisdom or maturity in order to vote, and didn't own any significant property or earn much to have such a fundamental "right," until they were mature adults most likely out on their own with their own families.

That age, plus the driving age unless kids have to work to help their families part-time or provide their own spending money, need to be re-evaluated and soon.

Ross1776,

I think this amendment definitely needs to be reexamined.At 18 years old you can do as much damage getting behind the wheel of a car while drunk as you can pulling the lever inside a voting booth without scrutinizing the candidates.

Instead of posting an insulting series of messages calculated to do no more than inflame and antagonize, I'll stick to respectfully and vehemently disagreeing.

Countries with institutionalized public health care have, by and large, the most effective medical infrastructures on the planet, the highest life expectancies in the world, and a generally contended populace who know that their government has provided them with a social safety net if they ever fall into economic woes.

But don't take my word for it. Take a look at the CIA Factbook, where France, Canada, Japan, Australia, Sweden, Iceland, Italy, Norway, the Netherlands, the UK, the entire average of the European Union, and even Denmark and Portugal beat out the United States in terms of life expectancy. All countries with institutionalized and nationally subsidized health care systems.

The United States is in a recession due to poor corporate oversight, limited liability laws which allow CEOs to drive companies into the ground and escape unscathed, and neoliberal economic trends (from a school of thought founded by Milton Friedman and which has never been shown to work anywhere in the world) which have led to a system of exploitation and record profits for corporations - surprisingly little of which has managed to trickle down to the people at large. In the midst of such a crisis, the United States desperately needs to make sure it can take care of its own people as they go about losing their health insurance and being deprived of even the most basic worker's rights (the ability to unionize among them) by the corporate giants which grind them under.

I know you'd like to take a potshot at my liberal, perhaps slightly socialist views, blame it on media saturation or whatnot - that's why I specifically picked the CIA factbook to back up one little irrefutable fact.

Perhaps America needs to rethink her place in the world.

hear hear

Life expectancies in the countries you are quoting are not tallied the same way so cannot be judged the way you are judging them.

Your Michale Moore philosophy of looking at the BROAD picture instead of the details is incorrect. The CDC's life expectancy figures in the United States also incorporate non-natural causes of death, (motor vehicle accidents, falls, accidental poisonings, homicides, et cetera.) Other countries do NOT.

Once fatal injuries are taken into account, U.S. "natural" life expectancy from birth ranks first among the richest nations of the world.



http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html

MaryAnne,

You never know how much will miss something until it's gone.
I am convinced that this health care reform will be one of the leading causes that will put this country on the brink of Bankruptcy.

At a time when we are running trillion dollar deficits, is is irresponsibel to try and ram this down the throat of the American people without taking time to think this over.

As always, thanks for you insights.

As with Cap and Trade. Bad plans and bad timing. Your article brings to light a major reason Obama won his elections. He appeased a generation looking for a role model to lift them up. Still in college - and 18, perhaps just breaking HS....who WASN'T a democrat? The problem is - no land, no children, no mortgage, lower salaries jobs - at that age - life is still about growing and "getting."

What better opportunity than to elect a person who would raise you up - rather than earn it - at the expense of the old foogies - who they think have to much???

And lastly - T-6005 _ You're re-writing or not reading your history correctly either...Our recession is a buildup of MUCH more than what you state...

History brings us back to the Carter Administration and the passage of the Community Reinvestment Act which came about after relentless badgering by left wing activists who accused mortgage lenders of racism and redlining (denying urban blacks mortgages.) The pressure to provide loans to minorities mounted and Congress acted. They empowered through the Community Reinvestment Act, bank regulators to impose punishments to banks that did not offer mortgages to low income, minority, and people from distressed neighborhoods. Thus began the lowering of borrowing standards for mortgages and the introduction of the sub-prime mortgage financing in current historical times. Welfare checks and unemployment benefits were considered valid income when applying for mortgages and banks gave the mortgages for fear of a discrimination lawsuits.

Mortgage lenders could show that they made attempts to loan to minorities and this was considered enough under this Act until The Clinton Administration repealed the Glass-Steagall Act and credit and payment history no longer mattered – what mattered was numeric numbers and amounts of loans given within specific neighborhoods, income groups and race and this is how a bank was rated on performance. The Clinton Administration placed enormous pressure on the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to expand mortgage loans among low to moderate income home seekers. Banks were forced to give bad loans to maintain their “phenomenal growth in profits” as reported back then in an editorial that ran in “The New York Times.”

Things remained wonderful for many years and housing values went up, everyone received huge bonuses and the American people were happy. But, it was a bubble and all bubbles burst.

In 2000, Republican Congressman Richard Baker raised concerned about the risks created by Mae and Mac but even as Chairman of the House subcommittee with jurisdiction over the government-sponsored enterprises (GSE’s) – Baker was unable to find sufficient support for his bill to bring it to formal consideration and possible amendment by the subcommittee.

In 2003 the Bush Administration proposed to Congress a new agency to assume supervision over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The agency would have had the authority to set capital – reserve requirement, veto new lines of business and determine if risks of the portfolios were being properly managed. Barney Frank –Democrat – defiantly stated Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were not facing financial crisis and alluded to the problem lying in the Bush Administration's exaggeration of the problem within the two companies.

In 2005, Alan Greenspan told Congress it was urgent they take action now and that if Mae and Mac “continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios…” “We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.” The Senate Banking Committee immediately responded with a reform bill that would give a regulator power to CRACK DOWN, and would require the companies to eliminate risky assets.

That Bill never made it through. DEMOCRATS opposed on a strict party line vote in the committee and Republicans could not even get the Senate to vote on the matter. In an article addressing this fact, Peter J. Wallison of the American Enterprise Institute wrote: “The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.”

During this entire time, the mortgage crisis is growing and many of the Democratic Senators who are protecting Mac and Mae (including now President Barack Obama, now Head of State Hillary Clinton and Senator Chris Dodd – CT are receiving monetary funds of financial support for backing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

So flash forward to President Barack Obama’s inheritance. A Republican issue – President Obama’s inheritance? YES…BUT NOT FROM THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.

I'm surprised by the level of partisanship in this debate.

Redhanded - Excellent article. When there is not as much at stake - there is much less to lose.

T-605,

If there is one thing that most of us can agree on is that there needs to be some level of reform. Where we disagree is on the approach.
85% of Americans recently polled by Gallup, were satisfied with their health plans. The one thing driving up the approval, was the number of choices availible to them. With National health care there is a sense you won't have as many choices and that medicine will be rationed. For the 47 million people who are supposedly uninsured, many of them are so of their on volution. But the point in all of this is that the Constitution does not guarantee anyone the right to health care. When you add up the numbers it just does not square. It will cost each taxpayer and avg. of 62,500 dollars over the next ten years to insure a little over 16 million people. 16 million is the net of the 47 million uninsured and the 25-30 that will be dropped from their current plans as a result of National plan. What is the tax rate in some of these countries that have national Health care? It is in the 30-60 % range. There are other solutions to this problem, HSA's are a better fit and going after Malpractice lawyers is something the President will not do.
Adding more people to the insurance rolls without bringing in more doctors = rationing. you cannot simply cover more people without the doctors to go around. There are just so many other unknowns, like Medical boards regulating who gets treated and what medicines you can get that the cost of it all is not worth the investment at this time of economic turmoil.
If you so prefer the medicine in these other countries, you are more than welcome to make your home there if you feel you are somehow being short changed here.

I am offended by this entry and many of the responses to it.
First, I don't know of one parent who voted for Obama just because their child did.
Second, 18 year olds are just as intelligent as 18 year olds were during the founding fathers' time, if not more intelligent. Last time I checked our literacy rate was at all time highs.
Thirdly, an 18 year old is just as likely to be conned in by politics as you are. 18 year olds didn't vote for OBama because he was hip and young. They voted for him because he was not going to be more of the same. Same meaning Bush, Cheney, Rimfield etc.

I am 28, the first election I was legal to vote in was during the first term of W. I did not vote. I did not like or trust Gore nor Bush. I didn't fall for either's tricks and lies.
During the re-election period, I didn't vote again. I hated Bush, because I don't like ignorance and it is shameful to have such an ignorant person as the leader of my country. And even though my father was part of the John Kerry campaign I didn't like how Kerry handled attacks on him and thought he was not a good leader.
When Obama came on to the scene, I was doubtful. It was not until a week prior to election day that I had decided to vote, and vote for him. My decision was not made by CNN, FOXNews, CBS, NBC or any other media rep.. I made the decision based on the promises he made. And I will be the first in line to ask for his head if I think he is leading us to ruins.
From where I stand it is about time we get universal healthcare. I want to save the money I make. I rather pay higher taxes than higher insurance costs. I have a job, I have bills and if I lose my job at least I will not have to worry about seeing a doctor if I get insurance from the government. It is the duty of a government to keep me safe, not just from terrorist, fires, and criminals, but also from diseases as well.
There is no way that healthcare will bankrupt America. But I'm sure baseless wars and hiring contract soilders will.
Your fears are baseless, there is so much money in the country I live in, that we are not going to go bankrupt helping our own citizens...all of them, wheter they have a job or not.
The police doesn't help only people with jobs, neither does the fire department, FBI, CIA etc.. Shoot even arrested people that might have commited a crime can get a free lawyer, so tell me why do I and every one else have to pay for a doctor out of our own pockets even if we can't afford it.
I work in a work enviroment that the employees dislike severely. They all only stay because the job offer insurance. IF people start to get insurance from the government many will not have to work for big firms that do not respect nor like their own employees. It gives employees more power over where they want to work.
At the same time consider how many companies will save howmany dollars if they did not have to offer medical insurance.
One out of ten people have lost their jobs, others have jobs but can not afford medical insurance, others could afford it once and with new increases in cost can no longer afford it. And others more have insurance and afford insurance but go bankrupt trying to pay bills of anyway.
I don't what kind of American you are but I am the kind that believes that no American should die because they couldn't afford something. I live in the United States of AMerica, and I like the fact that we are united. This whole attitude for I worry about me, you worry about you is not healthy for the country, it is only healthy for people with money.

Amalgam80,

Why shouldn't I have a right just like you, to state my opinion on what i think is just another entitlement program for those that have become so dependant and trustworthy on the ability of this government to run anything. They have screwed up Social Security and Medic Aid & our education system. For crying out loud they can't even run the Postal service. This whole thing is a sham. I wish more people would do their homework and look at what this administration is doing to this country. Did you know that you will also be taxed on those same benefits you receive now. But if you work for a Union or the government, you will be exempt from these taxes? It is easy to be critical of what you have in hand until you lose it. I would bet a dollar to a penny that you would never live in France, Europe, Australia or any other country thta offers national medicine.Our own Congressman & Senators when asked if they would trade in their current Health Plans for the one they are pushing and amazingly they said no.
i wonder why?

The billions of dollars that go to private health organizations will be saved and spent on the health of most vulnerable in our society. We need to study the health systems of Australia, New Zealand and Norwegian countries. Where everyone receives the same health care. They also have private health insurance for the rich. The only difference is that people with private insurance get a private room in the hospitals. All other facilities are the same for everyone.

Starsandstripes,

They also have a tax rate of about 50-60%.
This is not Australia or New Zealand. People prefer to have choices and the ability to keep their doctors versus having some Medical board dictating to them what they can or can't get treated for.

Try living in one of those countries for a couple of years and then report back to us.

Sometimes I agree with Ross1776 that 18 year olds are indeed not mature enough for such important decisions as voting and that 15 year olds might not be mature enough for driving. I just turned 19 this past June, and I look back on my past year when I was 18 and did not vote. In a way, I am upset that I did not make my voice heard, but I am happy that I did not haphazardly place my trust in someone who I knew nothing about. I did not have a voice to be heard because I had not informed myself on what each candidate had to bring to the table, so in that regard, I felt that I did not have the expertise to vote. Thus, what I feel my mistake was was not investigating what each candidate had to say about pertinent and pressing issues. I heard about all the buzz about change and a new America, and I felt the rhetoric through the random snippets of Obama speeches I'd hear or through my friends extolling the fresh face of Obama. But never did I clearly hear what that change would be. The only fact I heard was that healthcare was to gradually become universal and this is because my whole family are doctors and were apprehensive about this change -- a doctor's salary would greatly reduce with this change. So, in my case, my parents were on the side of McCain. The author of this article is right in that putting the decision in the hands of youth was premature and rash. We are youth. Yes, we are the face of tomorrow, but we still have so much to learn. We're impetuous, brazen, impatient and passionate. Sometimes we're lazy or busy and cannot read up on the issues at hand that candidates are pressing for. We're still youth and need guidance. In a way, the author is correct that some parents did not help their kids become more informed. On the other hand, this critique is a bit harsh in that parents weren't truly the cause of the shift in electorate votes -- youths became enamored with the passion put forth by Obama and were disillusioned and swayed. I don't see the fault in anyone except perhaps ourselves -- we failed ourselves to be responsible and perhaps our parents (and other adults) now have to pay for this vote. Yet, it is still early and I have hope.

aquamarian217,

I give you a lot of credit for being a stand-up person. It sounds like you have a good head on your shoulders and that will serve you well in future elections.
The intention of the article was to shed light on the importance of voting and the power that goes with that vote. Being prepared by doing your research, listening to debates and standing for issues that may not necessarily affect you but may impact the lifes of those around you as well.
To be fair, I am not sure that John McCain would have gotten us out of the recession any quicker, but I know where he stands on other issues that I believe in.

I would tend to agree with those that say that 18 year olds have a mind of their own & can act responsibly. Does that mean they need to be left on their own? I don't think so.

The least that needs to be done is ensure that they think using their heads. And not with their hearts ... or whatever! Check the pic I'm about to post which aims to define what Gen Y is all about!!

myVox,

Good point & good advice that applies to many other facets of our lives. Think with your head and not with your heart.

Redhanded - a very interesting and well expressed point of view. It is true that parents have a responsibility to teach their kids about politics, national issues and how to use their voice sensibly, just as much as to drive safely or seek the right education. The lack of political involvement or awareness was something I found uniquely disturbing when I was in college and while I look on greater youth participation as a good thing, perhaps that's because I was just there myself. The fact that kids need to learn more about the consequences of their vote and not just the consequences of being 21 is something that is likely to become very important as you've noted. How that is possible I do not know, unless it is by learning from their mistakes.

Changez,

I feel that this voting block over the years has tilted more & more to the Democratic side as a result of the infiltration of Liberal academians into the predominance of our higher learning institutions. If they are not being taught anything at home about politics as you suggest, they will in most cases be exposed to a more Liberal point of view in these institutions. This is just one problem. As I mentioned, the Obama administration was able to mobilize and energize this group of voters with his lofty rhetoric and they took the bait. This is not to say that perhaps many of these young voters truly believed some of the promises that were made.But I just get the sense that many cast their blindly and did not perform due diligence on the candidates. Overall, this should be a topic that can easily be part of the conversation for any family.

Redhanded - Thanks for your prompt reply. I guess the level of engagement in the family corresponds to how much politics plays a part in their daily lives. Before 9-11 most people weren't actively engaged in knowing about more than their community and local issues. It took the Iraq war and 9-11 to really get people engaged on a political level again. Silver lining as they say. Looked at in the long term, the short term problems of administration may actually help create a culture of political awareness and engagement - as long as a certain level of stability and growth remains. Here in Pakistan, political instability actually creates the need for people to remain aware of current politics. There is a culture of dining-room political debate because of the constant mini-political crises.

Changez,

That is a very interesting dynamic and approach to being politically engaged, albeit as a result of the constant mini-political crises.. You may be unto something. It seemed that after 9/11 there was an awareness level on the populace that led them to keep in power Republicans who are seen as stronger on Defense issues. Americans felt safer with a Republican leader and thus G. Bush became a 2 term president. As the focus on the Iraq war shifted and more emphasis was put on the economy, National Security was not as a big a concern to many Americans and thus G. bush was now a villain. So, as this administration puts in place it's agenda of big government spending and national medicince and energy reform, I get a sense that more and more people will get involved when they see the impact and rising deficits created by these programs. And if god forbid this country ever gets hit again, Democrats will be shown the door quicker thatn you can say No more Obama.

What about the kids who cannot vote legally and instead make their parents voice count on their behalf! watch this video :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOgunsUIWU4

mona37,

Very interesting. I was surprised that the McCain campaign did not counter with a similiar video. But it just goes to show you that a lot of the people voting do so more for emotional reasons than someone who is their equal on the issues.

Good promotion, the video. Underlines the fact that Obama didn't leave a stone unturned in his campaign to become Prez. McCain's campaign must've ignored the vid as something that will not work and they seem to be right - going by the number of views the vid has got!!

Another tid bit to add to the debate:

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/06/25/obamas-michael-dukakis-moment/

What's good for the goose is not good for the gander?

Maryann,

Good catch. This is more evidence of the fact that if ObamaCare is not good enough for his daughters, wife and family, why should he try to sell it to the American people? This is such a sham and a big waste of tax dollars. We have HSA's and should move toward this option before wrecking the system completely.

Redhanded 101

I have lived in New zealand and Australia for 14 years and always had a doctor of my choice. There are no medical board. It is your Doctor that decides to refer to a nearby specialist out of a list of your choice. The high tax rates are not because of health care. High taxes are for numerous other safety nets like children allowance, unemployment Pay, guaranteed housing, retirement allowance even if one has not worked for a day, free school education, and interest free college and university education allowance and much more ..... and there are no homeless AND BEGGARS in these countries.

starnadstripes,

I would prefer that my tax dollars go towards funding a college education than trying to reinvent the Health care system. The system is working well. yea it needs to be tweaked and some costs need to come down. But for the price tag that it comes with, it will be a drain on this economy for generations to come. I would prefer a preventive medicine approach combined with Health Savings Accounts before committing Trillions to this type of National Health Care system.
Could you give me some some additional reference on this system of referrals to specialists?

Stars and stripes - Please correct me if I am wrong - but isn't New Zealand having severe difficulties managing healthcare costs? I also have read the it is facing increasing shortage of trained personnels as well and in 2001 passed a healthcare reform to attempt to address these increasing issues but it is not working. The New Zealand government is stating that despite policy reform, by 2050 public health spending as a share of GDP could double, driving up the public debt by 80 percentage points of GDP over the 30 years to 2050.

European Nations however have other issues - European countries who were regulated by the European Union's requirement that healthcare cots not rise above 3 percent of GDP. started pulling back when deficits climbed prior to the economic downturn which has in almost all nations - lead to sky rocketing taxation.

I think your point that healthcare for all is understood - but the plan for the United States needs to balance the needs for us. Canada doesn't even allow for private insurance - some nations ration care and some raise taxes and all have some form of socialism.

What other countries do should not necessarily be our model. It has done nothing for the State of Massachusetts and reason would argue to follow that plan at the State level would see a similar fate.

At the FEDERAL level - not State