Yes what happened to that innovation that we had.  Take something from someone or somewhere else and make it better.  I talked to a guy from the UK just the other day and asked him about that.  He said it was great.  He could get in to see a doc in a week and there wasnt much waiting and their cancer rates were lower than ours.  But I guess if we did this the big insurance and drug companies wouldnt be as rich and we cant have that right?

This has no relationship to the healthcare financing mechanism.

I am a person who lives in a country with universal healthcare. It works. Period.  In the last 5 years, every member of my immediate family has had medical treatment including my grandmother who had to have a 3 hour long operation (her fourth so far) that would have bankrupted us all if we didn't have universal healthcare.  I pay about 10% (a very jewish/christian/muslim ethic by the way) of my earnings every month in taxes to enjoy this service.  Sure, in the short term I have technically have less money but I don't have to worry about saving up for 'in case' or alternatively 'risking it' and not paying anything and hoping 'it never happens' - universal healthcare helps the poorer people in the country work harder and longer to make the financially comfortable, who can afford private health insurance, more financially comfortable (before you flame me, think about where their money comes from - the lottery?)

Given this, isn't asking these financially comfortable people to pay for a service they probably won't use kinda like them paying into something that indirectly helps them to maintain their comfort? Kinda like an insurance policy?

It's also the christian thing to do - or have I completely misinterpreted the bible and the teachings of Jesus Christ?

but it is directly related to their system of universal health

the 10% by the way is not solely for healthcare

We don't have government provided health insurance and it works fine here too. I have health insurance. It's great. I go to any doctor I want, when I want, get good care. If I need a procedure, I can have it done quickly and paid by insurance.

I noticed everyone here keeps saying Obama's never accomplished anything of note and no ones really put anything he has done up here so i'll list a few bills he took part in during his time in the Senate:

* First legislation, the HOPE Act, which increased Pell Grants to $5100, and later joined Senator Kennedy on the Higher Education legislation that passed July 20, by a vote of 78-18. That legislation also included funding for Predominantly Black Colleges to assist with counseling, tutoring and other needs of low income students. It also creates the Teaching Residency Act which will create a school-based teacher preparation program in high needs schools to provide each teacher with a mentor, content instruction, classroom management skills, a master’s degree and state certification, and a 2 year follow-up program.

 

**The Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006
is an act that requires the full disclosure of all entities or organizations receiving federal funds beginning in fiscal year (FY) 2007 on a website maintained by the Office of Management and Budget.

 

Heres one with a republican, important as many people say he never ever worked with Republicans:

 

**The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act
Authored by U.S. Sens. Dick Lugar (R-IN) and Barack Obama (D-IL), the Lugar-Obama initiative expands U.S. cooperation to destroy conventional weapons. It also expands the State Department's ability to detect and interdict weapons and materials of mass destruction.
Signed into Law on January 11, 2007.

 

He also worked on the 2007 ethics bill which was good start in fighting lobbyists corruption. You can read all about it here : http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/302-Hooray-

 

I'll also raise a point that I'm really suprised i don't see more people raising. Everyone does a lot of talking about personal qualities and character nowadays, its all i hear on the media. Yet no one seems to point out an aspect of Obama that I think is VERY important. The world loves him. The whole biggest celebrity in the world things that McCain loved to try to throw in his face has some truth to it. Am i the only one that thinks this is a GOOD thing?

Everyone keeps talking about EXPERIENCE, LEADERSHIP, ACCOMPLISHMENT QUALIFICATIONS no one ever seems to mention that the President is not just the chief executive, he is also the chief DIPLOMAT. In many ways he is the face of America, when the world looks at us they see him first and formost.

 

I'm a firm believer that Diplomacy should be the most important aspect of a Foriegn Policy, so when i'm looking at a president I want to know he can get people behind things. Who better to do that than someone the world thinks highly of? I think just the act of electing him would change the world's view of us overnight. Imagine how much easier it will be to cooperate with the world when we have some good rep with them.

 

Thats something no other canidate could accomplish, not John McCain, not Sarah Palin, Not Hiliary Clinton, not Al Gore, not Ron Paul not Joe Biden. I just returned from ebing overseas and I can tell you the world's watching this election, and they are not rooting for John McCain. I know everyones going to respong the world doesn't elect our leaders we do, but its really something to think about. I think better reputation is something that we could use badly. and theres no doubt in my mind Obamas the best choice for that. Even if he does absoultely nothing (which Isn't going to happen) he can accomplish more on this front than any of the other canidates

I'm sure I won't change anyones mind but I think its a point that needs to be put out there.

I suppose I should of noted I'm not saying Obama doesn't have any qualifications, as i think he does I just wanted to introduce a new way of thinking since i didn't see anyone saying anything on that front. I'm interested to hear other's opnions on it.

Nope.  Once again, the method of financing healthcare has absolutely nothing to do with cancer rates.

Not really...cancer rates have more to do with environmental policy or education (such as abt smoking)

Cancer survival rates maybe if the system is good enough to allow for better early detection. The way things have gone that is possibly true since the copay system we now have is preventing some from getting periodic physicals that are as comprehensive as they once were. Personally I think the window is closed right now as far as universal healthcare in the US is concerned. This economic downturn is going to be much worse than many think.

I wasn't impling that 9 out of 10 people are smarter than you.  I'm saying for every one sucessful person that has accomplished what you have, there were 9 other people who didn't make it simply because they happened to not be as lucky.  Startup companies are often longshots.  Isn't it obvious that investors demand very good payouts because they are assuming a lot of risk?  That risk is luck.  This is really basic -- higher risk (luck) needs to provide a higher payout or no one is interested.  After the fact it is easy to pretend that there was never any risk, because hey it turned out well.  But if there wasn't any risk, it would be very easy to get almost infinite investment--i mean who wouldn't invest money in a sure thing?

Of course not, and this scenario has played itself out millions of times. But people seem to ignore that saying "we took a lot of risks when we did X" is the same as saying "we got lucky with X." (not that there is anything wrong with taking risks, but making those risks payoff is not ALL about talent)

 

So wait, are teachers doers or not?  you seem to contradict yourself here.

I'm confused.  Are you trying to tell me that teachers accomplish things or not? 

Oh I see putting it down as a possibility after knowing that he proved himself more then capable wasn't really saying he was, how'd you put it?  "One of those quota kids."  Why don't you explain what you really meant by saying that.  How could it be a possibility that he is "just a quota kid" if he was in the top 5-20% of his class?  Are you trying to say that he didn't acheive well enought while he was there to prove he could handle it there?  I could understand your comment if you thought he had straight Cs or something, but you already knew he graduated "with great honor." 

Why don't you explain this some more so we can understand the nuance of just suggesting something as a possibility but not really saying it? Do you have evidence of him getting graded easier based on minority status? 

You evoke so much wonderful imagery.  How do you do it?  Keep digging your hole:

INdeed.  As a requirement for graduating the 8th grade, California has (had?) a law that stated all students must pass a test on it.  Given how long they had us study for it (about 4 weeks), by the time the test rolled around, I had already memorized it.  But of course that was when there was only 25 amendments.

No contradiction.  Can you tell the differnce between questions and statements?

Let me guess - reading is not your strong point.  Or do you just think that repeating yourself will prove your point instead of reading what is written?

The question on the table is "Did Obama ACCOMPLISH anything".  So far, we have no proof, and no statements to support an affirmative answer.  Then you jump to the conclusion that it is in fact a fact.  And where did you get that mis-information?

Sure.  When you walk into a doctor's or lawyers office cold - how do you know the competancy of the individual?  You dont.  You can only go on external factors.  What you do know about the real world.  If the doctor or lawyer is a non-minority, you know they did not get special favors to get to where they are.  If they are a minority, you do not know.  So who are you going to trust - someone who made it on their merits?  Or someone who got special favors?

Now, saying that, and the way you like to put words into mouths, I will state further that I am not saying anything about the competancy of any individual.  Nor can you say anything about that doctor or lawyer since you do not know if they are the best, or worst.  You only know the rule stated above.  So who do you trust?

And top of his class?  I went to college where some were Top of their class - of all 12 kids.  And others were at 24th - out of a class of 800.  These are just numbers, but you get the picture.  Graduating top of the class only shows that you can learn, not that you can apply what you learned.  And is not a guarantee of future ACCOMPLISHMENTS (that is what we are talking about, remember?)

You are digging, I am just giving you the shovel.  At least we know you are a good ditch digger, if nothing else.  SO keep digging.  And keep up that good ole boy mentality.  I am sure that network will help you too.  But while you are standing agog at who looks prettiest in a cap and gown, your contemporaries will be out accomplishing things with their education, not wasting it on being impressed by someone who can ace a test in school.

[quote=DrGuy]If the doctor or lawyer is a non-minority, you know they did not get special favors to get to where they are.  If they are a minority, you do not know.  So who are you going to trust - someone who made it on their merits?  Or someone who got special favors?[/quote]

I try to maintain a policy of not feeding the trolls, but this is actually offensive.  I'm Chinese.  I'm at a top technical position in my company.  Do you care to challenge whether I got here on my own merits?

When you see a white person who graduated from UC Irvine, do you question if they got there on their own merits?  (Irvine has an affirmative action scheme in place that favors white kids over Asian ones.)

Earlier in this discussion, Jill and I had this exchange:

[quote=JillUser][quote=pwang]I personally am not a fan of affirmative action, but I am also a minority.  My wife is a female engineer.  We both know the arguments for and against quota systems, but one of the biggest arguments against them is people like you, who will make baseless assertions that a minority could only have been admitted to an Ivy because of affirmative action, or that a female engineer could only have been promoted because she is a woman.[/quote]

I would never do such a thing.  I was a lone female in EE classes myself.[/quote]

Would you like to claim that Jill or my wife possibly "got special favors" to graduate?

I think you owe some people an apology.

LOL

Dr Guy, are you familiar with the concept of a rhetorical question?  It doesn't change the meaning of what you are saying just because you stick a question mark on the end of it.  Unless, of course, you meant to say that teaching *is* does count as "doing something", even though most teachers are not billionaires.

(Actually, last time I checked, 99% of computer programmers, oil tycoons, wall street traders, home architects, and 4-star chefs are not billionaires, either.  I guess they need to get off their butts and become "doers".)



Did you see Vishmaw's list of Obama's legislative accomplishments?  Do those count?  Or are you going to shift the goalposts once again?



LOL You know, I could almost understand the rest of the stuff you've been saying, but *this* bit makes me think that you are trolling us on purpose.



All the resumes I've seen list colleges under the "Education" heading, and if they *accomplished* anything at a college, they list them there (e.g. Dean's List for 8 semesters, or graduating Magna, or president of Law Review).  Then there's a separate heading for work history, where they list the jobs they've had, and, under each, list the accomplishments at each job.

Earlier in the conversation I listed some of the things Obama did as a community organizer.  Vishmaw lists a few of his legislative accomplishments.  I've repeatedly been listing his accomplishments while in school. 

I feel qualified to comment on this. Luck is certainly an element in any endeavor. But there was very little "luck" involved in Stardock's history. If anything, we've had more than our share of bad luck - the OS/2 market died, we've had distributors and resellers go under owing us >$1 million.  There haven't been very many "lucky breaks".

In my experience, successful people make their own luck. 

Successful businessmen rarely risk their whole companies on an endeavor. I certainly didn't.

I think you will find that most businesses that go out of business do so because of mistakes made by the entrepreneur in question that could have been avoided. Not a lack of intelligence but perhaps lacking in some certain area - budgeting, statistical analysis, market understanding, etc.

Many entrepreneurs are strong in a particular area like engineering but are weaker in other critical areas. If I were to talk about luck, I would say I was "lucky" in that my engineering background was tempered by the fact my mom was an accountant so I had been raised with a good understanding of budgeting and analysis.

I'm not sure what this has to do with Obama since there's no evidence he took any "chances". He got into Columbia thanks to race-based preferences but from there straightened out and worked hard and got good grades. He then went into politics in which he built up the appropriate resume to get support to make his way to the next higher office. Community organizer to state legislature to federal legislature to presidential candidate.

But next to his name in terms of actual tangible accomplishments - things you can point to and say thanks to Barack Obama, item X was created, the list is tiny to non-existent. Hence my quip that Obama is no more qualified in my opinion than a middle manager at Circuit City or whatever.

Obama, in all his life so far, has not actually created anything of substance other than two books about himself.

I am glad you are offended.  You should be!  Affirmative action is very offensive, not only to the ones left behind because they do not qualify based on race, color, or creed, but for all those who do qualify and do not need it!  For the very reason cited.

Frankly, you may be the most Qualified there is.  There is no question that Charles Drew was more qualified than 90+% of his contemporaries (and BTW not a Quota kid).  But how do YOU know the doctor that is going to treat you got to be a doctor because he was the best?  or a Minority?  Again, I said going in cold.  The answer is you do not.  And so yes,  "affirmative action" is a very insidious and degarding practice.  I am sure it was created for the best of intentions.  But the best of intentions only lead to disasterous results when not accompanied by hard cold facts, polices and procedures.

Actually most schools do.  WHy?  Asians are disproportionately represented in the harder fields.  Not because they are smarter, but because they work a hell of a lot harder.  It is unfortunate that in many areas, Asians are discriminated against because they are just accomplishing the american dream.

No, but you need to read my response closer.  I never said "Everyone" got special treatment.  I only said - HOW DO YOU KNOW which ones did and did not if they are qualified for special treatment.  So tell me, how do you know?  You know about yourself, but can you speak for every minority out there (and you can probably make a general statement about Asians about not being Quota kids for the reason stated previously - i.e. they dont get special treatment because enough qualify on their own merits.)

Not always, and the resumes I look at had better have the accomplishments listed separately.  Under the job, is a short job description, not your accomplishments.  Employers want to see that at a quick glance.  And then scan the jobs to make sure they include the necessary experience.  Education is just that, not accomplishments.

No one has listed any more than a couple of "accomplishments" for Obama since in reality he has no more than that.  And he is over 40?  My resume has to be weeded because of my accomplishments.  I no longer include what I did 20 years ago, so I can keep it short (another requirement of employers).

I found a great response over on Amazon.com that eloquently states the same thing I believe on the issue:

Would someone with Obama's stellar list of job titles resort to making stuff up? He seems to think he has to. In spite of the many impressive positions he's held, he's done almost nothing with them. If he wants to claim specific, relevant accomplishments, his only resort is to stretching the truth. 

Look at his record: he's now completed over half of a Senate term; yet, is there even one signature issue he has taken hold of, other than his own presidential run? Similarly, as the New York Times recently pointed out, Obama spent twelve years on the University of Chicago Law School faculty--singularly famous for its intellectual ferment and incubator of scholarship--and produced not even a single scholarly paper. He was President of Harvard Law Review, but wrote nothing himself. Even as a state legislator for seven years-or community organizer for three years, there is little that shows his imprint. OK, to be fair, he did write two books. About himself. 

For all his glowing job titles, Obama has never gotten much done. Is it any wonder that his spokesmen respond with sweeping generalities when asked what Obama has actually accomplished relevant to the presidency? 

Obama has held several serious positions from which a serious man could have made a serious impact. But Obama made none. He remains a man of proven charisma, but unproven skill--and not for lack of opportunity. He's treated his offices as if they were high school student council positions-fun to run for, fun to win, affirmations of popularity, heady recognition from superiors, good resume-builders for stepping up to the next position of power, and...well, that's about it-actual accomplishments are not expected; heavy lifting is never on the agenda. 

Obama's record of accomplishment is thin not because of lack of opportunity, but in spite of it. For twenty years, Obama has walked the floors of the most prestigious institutions in the nation, but has left no footprints other than those from his runs for whatever office came next. 

It's been said that some people want to be President so they can do something; and some want to be President so they can be something. Obama has accomplished nothing noteworthy despite the golden opportunities and positions he's had; why should we believe he'd be a different man in the White House?

No company would hire anyone with Obama's empty track record, pattern of underachievement and padded résumé to be CEO. Is America really ready to hire him as President?' 

The media created candidate, (AKA the cardboard Messiah) and the rest of his dreamy-eyed-frothing-at-the-mouth, radical gumball level fanatics are all enjoying a media sponsered 'Magical Mystery Tour'; hold hands, chant and watch the savior with the 'halo' promose to "free" them and create a leftist utopia..., what are they going to do when this ends?

Yes, you've completely misinterpreted the bible.

Asking others to give you money is not the Christian thing to do. Voluntarily giving to those less fortunate is.  

Moreover, advocating for the government to confiscate one person's property to give to the other, regardless of the reason, is definitely not the "Christian" thing to do.

Perhaps there's a passage in the New Testament where Jesus proposes that the Roman Empire start taking sheep and goats from the rich to distribute to the poor.

The liberal version of compassion is voting for politicians who will steal the earnings of other people to give to them and their friends.

You mean merits like academic achievement?  Which is the entire point.  Who cares that anyone got into college through affirmitive action if you know their accademic acheivements when they graduated?  Since you are talking about special favors, why don't you back up that their academic achievement is also tainted from aa?

If i had know you were this ignorant, i would not have even responded.  Well i sure don't judge the competency on their minority status in the same way i don't judge the white doctor's/lawyer's competency despite the posibility that they only got into college as a 'legacy' b/c one of their parents went to that college.  Have you really never heard of the 'legacy' tradition? 

theres plenty of conservatives on wall st. that do the same

Redsonia, if you are inferring that it is the Christian thing to do is to take from the rich and give to the poor I have no clue where you got that.  Jesus did say "give to Caesar what is Caesar's."

As Christians, we are to help those who going through hardtimes.  When the Tsunami happened governments excluded it was Christian Organization that came to the aid.  The American Government relied on Christian Missionaries to get the supplies to where it was suppose to go.