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?

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?

the 10% by the way is not solely for healthcare

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.

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

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)

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.

[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.

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. 

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.)

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?

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? 

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.