I got this from a friend on Facebook - I'd love to hear the responses from the other side. I think he makes some very valid points:

Subject: response to Obama vote

My wife just linked me to your post explaining your Obama vote. At the end you wrote "it's not too late to convince me otherwise"). I know that, voting in Utah, your vote for Obama doesn't really matter at all, but for me that's not the point. I honestly feel you are missing some crucial perspectives that would seriously change your mind, and so I'm going to take you up on that challenge.

I have a lot to learn about life myself. My own blog is not nearly as cool as your site, for one. I'm sure there's a lot you could teach me about that. But politics - especially the twin issues of abortion and economics / health care - are two issues that have consumed me for years. So I hope what I have to say will be interesting.

So here goes:

1. Healthcare

Obama does get technology more than McCain - and the plan to digitize records could cut costs and increases flexibility. But honestly it has nothing to do with the fundamental systemic flaws in our health care system.

This is a really long, complex debate and I don't want to bore you to death so I'm going to cut to it: with medical costs spiraling out of control, insurance premiums on the rise, companies cutting insurance benefits to trim costs - what types of medical procedures are actually getting cheaper every year? Lasik vision correction and cosmetic surgery. If everything else is getting more expensive why are these things getting cheaper? Because they are not covered by insurance and this means they are subject to market forces: competition. Lasick providers compete for your business. But doctors don't. Your insurance pays for your MD visit - not you. So you don't care how much bang for your buck you get at an MD visit - you only care about the bang. So the buck is unchecked.

That, in a nutshell, is the reason for spiraling medical costs. Paperless vs. paper can explain a static difference, but it can't explain the way costs are rising faster than inflation. The phenomena of people spending someone else's dollars (which is what happens every time you use your insurance) can.

There are two fundamentally different approaches to solving the health care crisis: the market or government regulation. Obama's tech-savy is a good thing (he's pro-net neutrality, McCain isn't) but it's not enough to solve the health care crisis. In point of fact - government regulation will make it WORSE. I encourage you to read this short fact sheet that compares socialized medicine in the UK and Canada with the US: http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://www.cato... The highlights are that socialized care is supposed to be more fair, but it is less fair. It is supposed to grant access to everyone, but cost controls leads to shortage of providers and strict rationing and so in practice people have *less* access. And it's not a theoretical problem. Brits have taken to pulling their own teeth on the funny end, and on the serious end their survival rates for serious cancers are a fraction of what the survival rates in the US a
re.

That's what Obama's health care policies spell for Americans: higher taxes and worse care. He will make the problem *worse*.

McCain's plan is a decent attempt to try and reintroduce some competitiveness to the market by separating health care plans from employment. He also favors HSAs, which also work to maintain coverage for serious illness and injury but make people responsible for their own routine care. In the short run it sucks - you have a high deductible. In the long run it's the only way to reign in run-away costs because people will begin to actually shop around for the best value in medical care.

2. Economy

You basically like the progressive income tax. You think that rich folks should be punished for success. I don't. It's mostly a moral/philosophical difference so I'm not going to spend too much time on it. The US gov't gets the vast majority of its revenue from the wealthy. They already pay more than their share. They pay at a higher rate *and* they have more money. Obama thinks its fair that if you make $1,000,000 a year you should pay 30% and if you make $100,000 a year you should pay 15%. I don't. I think everyone should pay the same percentage.

I also think Obama's spending will result in far, far higher taxes than McCain's. He's promising everything to everyone.

3. Abortion

This is where we part ways in a radical, radical way. You wrote that "it doesn't effect me one way or another if you or your friend of your sister or mom get an abortion". This is 100% true. And it is 100% beside the point. It doesn't effect you because you are born. And slavery wouldn't effect you because you're white.

That's not just rhetoric. That's the point of the pro-life movement. It's a civil rights question. Right now in the US we kill 1,000,000 unborn human beings every year. I usually *hate* the pro-life folks who parade around picutres of aborted fetuses but for the first time in my life (literally) I want to show someone what it is that abortion does and then see if you can tell me it's a non-issue.

Here's what I'm going to do instead. I'm going to give you just a single fact: the human heart starts beating at around 22 days after conception. That's around 5 weeks. The vast majority of abortions don't happen until after 8 weeks. The way they work is to use a razor-tipped vacuum to dismember the fetus inside the womb and suck the pieces - arms, legs, head, etc. - out. Clearly that has no impact on you. And just as clearly it's an inhuman and barbaric way to kill a human being. If you think that this is a non-issue, then so be it. I'll leave it to you to explain to me how the civil rights movement of the 1960s could have mattered to you by this criteria, however. I'm with John Donne on this one: no man is an island. Do not send to know for whom the bell tolls - it tolsl for thee. An injustice against one inncoent human being is an injustice against us all.

It's up to you.

4. Foreign Policy

Obama scares me. He is a n00b. First he promises to meet with foriegn presidents without preconception. This is a n00b mistake. Than he *publicaly* said he would invade Pakistani airspace to go after bin Laden. These are the kind of mistakes that someoe makes only if they either have no idea waht they are talking about about, or if theyu only care about how they look for an election. Did you know that Obama actually tried to delay the withdarawal from Iraq so that it wouldn't look good for McCain? He puts his campaign ahead of the interests of thsi nation.

5. Change

I strongly agree that we need change. And I agree that McCain is not the change taht we need. He's a minor improvement on Bush. But the alternative is a DISASTER. For human rights, for foreign policy, for health care, for the economy. I'm *not* a McCain fan. (I liked Romeny. And not because of his religion.) But Obama is scary. Very, very scary.
I strongly agree wthat we need chagne.

...some feedback from a "conservative":
Healthcare: With all due respect, there is a lot more to healthcare than technology. The current healthcare system in this country, although flawed, affords Americans with the best medical attention in the world. The healthcare issue is a scare tactic used by the democrats to make us feel like we are in a crisis. We are not. There are things that need to be fixed. But socializing medicine doesn't work, never has. That's Obama's plan. He wont / can't enforce technology on an industry. The technology argument is moot.

Economy: Neither candidate is strong here. The biggest problem with Obama's plans aren't his economics plans, they are his plans to socialize more and more of our lives. Turning more control to the government will not help the economy in the long run.

Abortion: Sorry Jesse, I respect you a lot for your candor here but I couldn't disagree with you more here. We have a responsibility as humans to stand and defend all human life. One of the great faults of mankind is to forfeit that responsibility under the guise of "It doesn't affect me". So what if it doesn't. Don't we have the responsibility to stand for those who cannot stand for themselves? Isn't this the very base of our existence? Standing for the sanctity of life is a crucial and important role for those that think beyond themselves. Obama's thinking is critically flawed here. If he were to follow his voting history on this subject, there could be untold thousands of lives lost that could have been a blessing to families that cannot have children. McCain is right on on this one. Fight Roe v. Wade and encourage adoption.

Foreign Policy: Not enough said. Obama will turn the Iraq war into another Vietnam. He's not interested in the war and he's not interested in winning and then getting out. Only in surrender. In addition, his lack of maturity when working with people that are out to kill us is what scares the living daylights out of me.

Change: Obama will certainly bring change, but is it change for the better? With him in the oval office and a democratic majority in the house and senate we are almost certain to see the liberal agenda move forward in this country on a massive scale. It will be a move toward socialism that will be quick and decisive. If you are comfortable with that kind of change, then by all means, vote Obama.

In summary: I respect that you have your own opinion and I'm grateful that there exists the freedom for us to vote according to our own conscience. I just wanted to provide a little feedback as to why this long time conservative thinks now is the time to stand for conservatism and capitalism more than ever. I hope America isn't blinded by the words and speeches given by a smooth talker. His principles and values aren't conservative in any way. Thanks for providing the forum for this discussion.

I wholeheartedly agree with Mike.

On the issue of "Economy": You're right taxes will probably go up with both candidates, but they will go up more with Obama. One thing I like about the McCain plan is his refunds based on Children; That, to me, says he's making an investment in the future. Obama's plan for the economy is to socialize everything, I think that will only make things worse.

I'm only going to reply to the foreign policy part of your comment.

The stated justification of invading Iraq from the Bush Administration has changed over time, revealing the deep disconnect between strategy and tactics. First, it was because of the threat of WMDs, which, we now know, were not there in the first place. Then to remove Hussein, which we did. Later, it was to create a self-sustaining democracy unlike any in the region.

That democracy is there, in its infancy, and they want us out. So either we abide by our stated goals or we renew the idea of an American empire. I see no other courses of action or justifications for those courses. And here's where I suppose we must disagree. I don't think the U.S. can afford empire, in any shaded meaning of that term. Not economically, not ideologically. Not if we want to restore our soft and hard power in the world. We've already given Iran and al Queda the biggest gifts we ever could have given them: America's military might stretched to the breaking point and no longer focused on international terrorism, plus Iran a far bigger player in the region than it was before the invasion. How will staying in Iraq change any of that?

Only one candidate sees the situation as I do, and incidentally, as many independents and conservatives see it as well. That's Obama. McCain, like you, sees the current situation in Iraq as analogous to Vietnam. A dangerous comparison. Obama is not restricted by that ideological vision. McCain is. The safer vote, in my opinion.

I can only add two fairly amorphous reasons for voting for Obama: temperament and judgment, and how important those two qualities are for a President, particularly now. In my mind, demonstration of these two qualities has trumped whatever misgivings I might have had about his "experience," an equally amorphous quality, as well.

Temperament: The man is unflappable, cool, calm, not a hot-head, reasonable, listens wells, not apt to make quick decisions, willing to change his mind and explain why. Um, McCain?

Judgment: Obama's early opposition to the Iraq War is only the most obvious example. Turns out that he also foresaw the subprime meltdown and tried to do something about it over a year ago. Wouldn't be nice to have a President in the White House who knows his stuff and can apply it to the real world? As well as being able to surround himself with good people who can fill in the gaps for him? And is that man McCain?

The way Obama's campaign has been run, not just against McCain, but also in the primaries, gives you some indication of what an Obama presidency might look like: Savvy, quick on its feet, focused on long-term goals, organized and delegated, even-keeled, rarely over-reacting, and last but not least, his campaign may well be the classiest I've ever seen. Compare that to how both Clinton and McCain ran theirs. How many times caught flat-footed, like a deer in the headlights? Neither candidate has known quite how to deal with the freshman Senator from Illinois. McCain's desperation now shows a campaign and an ideology in its death-throws.

Those are all reasons that contributed to my decision. It's
interested that none of the McCain supporters are trying to convince
me otherwise. I wish someone would - I'm pretty convinced I'm voting
for Obama.

Allow?

If your daughter is old enough to become pregnant, it's not a matter of you allowing her to make that decision. It's a matter of her allowing you to express an opinion in the matter.

If you've done a good job of parenting, she will turn to you for your opinion and approval, of course, but thinking in terms of what we will "allow" our children to do is counterproductive. Think in terms of encouragement and support. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. The best we can do is to salt the oats....

(And isn't "don't mess with Texas" an anti-litter campaign?)