I re-read my post from November 2004 explaining why I think re-electing George Bush would be a mistake. I didn’t say anything about Kerry in that post and I remember not wanting to endorse Kerry, but also not wanting to have Bush. Kerry won my vote by default. I also peppered my plea to not vote for Bush with lots of tags. I won’t do that here (I don’t have time).
In 2008, I have a candidate that I am for, rather than one that I am against. I’m living in Poland and I voted by absentee ballot. I voted for Barack Hussein Obama.
There are many reasons why I voted for Obama, rather than simply against John Sidney McCain III. Obama believes that health care is a right. I agree. Obama will finally push hard for universal health care. I think there are plenty of good options for implementing health care for all in America while avoiding some of the problems of the health care systems in other well-developed nations. Obama is pro-choice and I believe it is a woman’s right to choose to have a child or to abort an unwanted pregnancy. I also support Obama’s push for equal pay for women. The long-standing fact that women are paid less than men in the same occupation — even the same job and many times, the same firm — has to end. Obama will expand faith-based initiatives in social services, one of the only things that Bush got right during his tenure. Obama says that he will end trickle down economic policy; actually, I believe he will slow this down, rather an end this economic policy, as the entrenched interests in trickle-down economic policies are too difficult to completely overcome. But this is a welcome step in the right direction. Obama wants to re-tool No Child Left Behind, a law that has had more problems than benefits thus far.
As for foreign policy, Obama will strengthen international relations, especially with “old Europe.” His economic plan includes partnering with the EU to reduce the effects of the global economic crisis. Obama’s presence has an indirect benefit here: I’m guessing European leaders would prefer to deal with a president who sees international relations as mutual benefits rather than as aggressive competition. Obama will promote new ideas on how to handle Iraq and Afghanistan beyond sending in more troops. I don’t think Obama can pull the troops out within the next two years, but I do think he will replace Bush’s foreign policy advisors with those who have new and better ideas.
Of the two candidates, I believe that Obama will promote creative domestic policies and will surround himself with similarly creative domestic and foreign policy advisors. Obama has shown that he prefers deliberation and debate about major issues, and I believe this way of thinking makes for sound decisions and good leadership.
Obama has been on the campaign trail for over a year and has answered just about every question that one can have about his capabilities to be a good president. He has good ideas and he has shown he can be a responsible leader. Beyond that, I agree with Obama’s position on most of the issues. An Obama administration could truly promote positive changes in this country.
And that’s why I voted for Obama.
Josh, Health Care cannot be a right.
You cannot have a right that enslaves one person to another. If every person has a “right” to healthcare, then any person who can meet that person’s need can be forced to do so, which is slavery.
Why do you hate America?
You’re right, Von. I should have titled this post, “Why I hate America.”
Health care is a right, just as are the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. People are owed by their goverment certain basic services, such as protection under the law. Health care is a basic service that the goverment, if it has a right to rule, collect taxes, and demand our subservience, has an obligation to provide. We have medicaid, but it is not enough. We need universal health care for all.
well here are some well written articles on why it is not a right – both from a moral and a practical perspective:
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=9
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5285
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4511
also – as I said – examine what it means if it is a “right” – rights cannot conflict with other rights.
According to you – if you have medicine I need, I have every right to take it. If you may treat me (as a Doctor), I have a right to demand treatment from you for free, because it is my right.
This desire also totally fails to recognize that there are always limited resources, and essentially unlimited demand. This means that by necessity there is rationing – which is decided not by the parties who should decide (the doctor and the patient who pays) – but by an intermediary. This intermediary really has either no interest, or alternate interests, in the outcome.
Look at Nations with such plans – they are disasters. People actually die waiting for care, and this is good as far as the administrators are concerned, since it lowers costs.
This is what you want – you want to have your cake and eat it too – it is impossible and cannot be sustained. It will create disaster.
Morally, it rewards the irresponsible – people who do not save, do not work, do not care for themselves,
and it punishes those who do, who have to pay, and need the service less, or who, when they do, wait in line behind those who are irresponsible.
You punish good behavior, and reward bad behavior.
This is immoral, not moral. In fact, it is evil.
One final thing it does is create a government that now owns your body – since they pay for keeping it healthy. It is not too far to go then to controlling your diet and other aspects of your life. Ultimately, you become nothing and it won’t matter if you live or die, as long as you serve the state or the needs of others.
This is what happened when the principal was put in practice under Commnunism. You don’t hear from those people any longer, they are dead. 100 million dead bodies. So you say you only want a small amount of poison? It is still poison.