This debate sure sounds familiar
368865
As a country, Canada owes a lot to the poor circus pony. Like it, the Great White North is condemned to plod in political circles with little hope of a significant change in scenery.
317450
Yesterday's piece on health care and the presidential election got a great response, and some of it from Republicans, using the slogans and logic I hoped they wouldn't. But that's okay, it helps me focus my rhetoric on the precise point of disagreement, and hopefully by illuminating it, I can either convince some of the Republicans to come over to my side, or help eliminate some of the confusion on both sides. Or maybe it'll just keep the argument from slopping over into all kinds of irrelevant issues. The basic Republican argument goes like this. Why should I pay for the health needs of people who are so irresponsible as to not have health insurance.  If I got it wrong, please set me straight. Now I'd like to answer this, very carefully. The Democrats aren't proposing that you should pay for the uninsured. Key point. They either agree with you, or know that they're not going to get their proposal passed unless they take this into account. The Obama plan says you don't get care unless you have insurance. His proposal aims to get a lot more people insured. Clinton goes one step further, by requiring everyone to have health insurance.  Also, you already pay for the health needs of the uninsured. Whether you or I like it, we don't look the other way when someone is in need. You may feel the system should work differently, but that's not responsive to the proposal the Democrats are making. The debate is how health care works for the non-indigent.  If you have property, a car, a house, or if your kids go to private school or college, or if you want to take a vacation, or have a baby, or exercise between jobs, getting sick without insurance is a sure way to go from being middle class to being poor, quickly. This is why we have health insurance, to smoothe out the risk, to protect our family's lifestyle. It seems to me it's a good thing. It's the market solving a basic human need.  So this is what we should be discussing, how can we get insurance for all the people who want it, or should we require it for everyone -- this is the debate of 2008. This is what the Democrats are putting on the table, and what McCain, or whoever is the Republican nominee, will have to respond to, if we're going to have the respectful debate everyone is talking about having.  Why is this such a problem?  A lot of people, even healthy people without pre-existing conditions, can't get health insurance. And what if you have a pre-existing condition? Do you really think it's cool for the insurance industry to refuse them coverage? Why is that a good thing? I honestly don't get it. Consider the penalty for not having insurance. (See above.) So far the leaders of the Republican Party have managed to keep health care off the national agenda, but this year, it's there. If you doubt me, just ask a few people you know, and don't just ask poor people or Democrats, ask Republicans. Disease isn't a party issue, and while poor people tend to have poorer health, even well-off people need health care. And most people can't afford to pay for a catastrophic illness, and enough of them can't get health insurance to make this an important national issue. If you disagree with this, please let me know why. PS: Phil Windley asks where it stops. Should we provide free housing for the homeless? And what about free cable TV for people without cable TV? (He provides other examples.) No, this is only about health insurance. It's not about any of the other things mentioned in Phil's post.
54372
SAN DIEGO (CBS.MW) - In light of Interstate Bakeries&#39; bankruptcy filing today, here&#39;s a rehash of something I wrote two weeks ago in Herb Greenberg&#39;s RealityCheck.
459068
In their duel of wits and words, the two &quot;seconds&quot; in the race for the White House sometimes appeared more evenly matched than the two top-of-the-ticket contenders who debated last week.
685945
Calling this one a statement game doesn't do it justice.
90881
If there is one thing on which Jews can agree, it is this: it's good to argue. Jewish culture has thrived on argument - frank, sincere disagreement - ever since Moses disputed with God.Comment
335520
Seeking like-minded political thought, or folks to argue with? Look no further.
103433
IN THE run-up to tomorrowâs first presidential debate between George W Bush and Senator John Kerry, I came across an interesting speech the other day.
142849
The distinction between what politicians say on the campaign trail and what they really believe is well illustrated by the current Kerry-Bush skirmishing on Iraq: If either man really believes some of the things he&#39;s saying, we&#39;re in worse shape than we
102450
Is it repeat of Bush vs. Dukakis? Will George W. break? Will it be another one-state toss-up? Can Kerry catch fire? As if the 2004 Presidential campaign couldn&#39;t get any more unpredictable, now comes a new
365925
In the five days since the third presidential debate, conservatives in the media have drawn comparisons between Senator John Kerry&#39;s reference to Vice President Dick Cheney&#39;s daughter, Mary Cheney, as a lesbian and hypothetical statements about abortion
88993
â¢ Hating the other guy feels good, but it&#39;s a poor substitute for policy positions. John Kerry had some plausible policies, but for two years the Democratic Party&#39;s campaign has been based on &quot;anybody but Bush.
462839
I've heard thousands of sermons over the years, and a ton of them were about sex and money (or substitute: lust and greed). It's as if the two issues are synonymous, and in a way, they are.
119307
If he wanted, the Barack Obama of today could have a pretty good debate with the Barack Obama of yesterday. They could argue about whether the death penalty is ever appropriate. Whether it makes sense to ban handguns. They might explore their differences on the Patriot Act or parental notification of abortion.
168071
A scientific-religious debate is shaping up over near-death experiences. A look at the dangers for both sides.
732683
The film does, in a way, remind us of the old one.
159631
Both olfactorily and opportunistically.