I am watching MSNBC coverage of Mr. Obama's acceptance speech for the nomination of the Democratic Party for the Presidency of the United States. A few moments ago a woman named "Pam" stepped up on the stage to talk about what happened to her. This was one profile of a handful of Americans who now support Mr. Obama and were invited to share their reasons. As it turns out, Pam was nothing short of eager.

You see, Pam and her husband used to have good jobs, a retirement plan, good health benefits and were even able to save some money. Then eight years ago, all of that changed. Pam's husband suffered some heart related health issues and lost his job and with it many of the benefits. A short time later, Pam herself had bypass surgery and was unable to pay all of the medical bills.

And that is why Pam is voting for Mr. Obama.

Consider the following an open letter to Pam:

Dear Pam,

I was sorry to hear of the health problems that plagued you and your husband. You mentioned that everything regarding the stability of your life changed eight years ago when your husband suffered heart related health issues. What I am trying to figure out Pam is whether or not you are blaming President Bush for your husband's health issues? That his health decline began eight years ago is an odd little factoid to be sure but I'm struggling to figure out what you think would have been different had they occurred ten years ago under President Clinton's tenure??

Pam, no one wants you or your husband to suffer from poor health. Still, I'm trying to understand what you think would have been different about your outcomes had a Democrat been in office? Perhaps you'll get back to us on that but in the event that you don't here are a few things you might want to consider.

1. Go easy on the idea that somehow the fact that your husband got sick at the time President Bush came into office is anything other than a coincidence.

2. If you are voting for Mr. Obama because your husband got sick when President Bush was in office then you are truly overestimating the power, job function, and role of the president and possess a staggering lack of deductive reasoning.

3. You stated that you used to be a Republican, but no longer. Wow, you'll be missed, really. I can only leave you with the following suggestion.

**Stop looking for someone to blame for every bad deal that befalls your family. Equating your struggles on such a personal level with the person sitting in the White House is not only horrible logic but might be one of the most self-centered, egotistical and vacant comments I've ever heard.

Wow, thanks Pam.

-Drew

do you know obama wasnt even born in the united states?

Drew makes some good points regarding the power of the presidency however it's not as simple as Drew makes it in his post.

Drew, you and Pam are really alot alike.

Scary eh?

Typically when someone replies to a post with some variation of "It's not that simple" they fail to explain to me A. Why it's not that simple and B. Where I was wrong regarding the specifics. To the poster who suggested that I am a lot like Pam, you might consider explaining why you feel that way. I don't know Pam (and so I limited the scope of my comments to her comments and nothing more) but you don't know either of us. With that in mind, I wonder how it is that you feel so comfortable making the charge that two people you've never met are so much alike?

-Drew

Duckie--actually he was--he was born in Hawaii. Had he been born outside of the U.S. he would not be eligible to run for president.

Take care........

Drew

im to tired to get into this again
but he was born in kenya and his mom being a U.s citizen had the papers drawn up in hawaii
if you look at the birth certificate thats on the net it is not the original one
it is being taken to court and brought up all over the news

Its easier to blame someone or something you never met, and will likely never meet. And it also helps that everyone is blaming bush for everything anyway, so why not that?

Yep, he wasn't born "here".

McCain wasn't born "here", either. He was born in the Panama Canal Zone, when the US was in control of it. Born on a base = born in the US. As for Obama, though...... .::sighs::

In regards to Lynann's attack on you as the poster, this isn't the first time she's brought a "holier than thou" comment to a post without anything to back it up, so I wouldn't let her get to you, Drew.

It's difficult for many people to see where the responsibility lies.. whether it be with an individual or within the system. We were just discussing this in my Social Services class tonight. It's all a matter on whether you're a Conservatist or a Liberal... and from your post (Drew), I would assume you were a conservatist... which is fine, everyone has their beliefs. Pam is obviously a liberal, and although her speech may have been flawed (I missed the whole thing anyway), she probably thought about it a lot and couldn't come up with anything better to say.

Health care issues are complex. People who have devoted their lifetimes to researching health care and the related economic issues disagree with the how's and why's it is such a mess along with the how's and why's of a way to sort out the mess.

Can you and I agree it is a mess?

As for you and Pam being alike?

Because you seem to have missed it I will state it more simply now.

Pam stood up and spoke on a national and maybe international broadcast. She had to summarize her points and what motivated her to support Obama and shift her loyalties from the Rep.'s to the Dem.'s.

When you post here you simplify your arguments too. You don't explore the complexities of every issue.

Had you stood in Pam's place with a limited amount of time you may have done something much like she did. You have unlimited time to post here and you simplify issues processing them through you own experience just like Pam did on that stage. Does it make your experiences and opinions or hers less valid? Nope

EEmbers,

Thanks. I just wasn't sure why someone I have never spoken with (at all) was comparing me with someone who else. I am fine with it--political debates are like that at times. Still, I wasn't so much picking on "Pam" who spoke as much as I was the implication that was being put forth--the idea that somehow, in some odd way, President Bush taking office was somehow related to her husband getting sick.

Still, there were many oddities about the speech tonight and some good points as well. As for my political outlook--I tend to lean to the right but Libertarian would be closer than conservative or constitutionalist.

Thanks for the reply!

hmm you think it was staged?

I attacked Drew pointing out he made excellent points?

WOW

I did not suggest that you attacked me but I did question your comparing me to "Pam" from the speech earlier in that you don't know me. I just thought that your doing so was awfully clairvoyant---or something like that.

Perhaps 'attack' is too strong a word for it... you did that earlier to me... I suppose just the fact that you were being condescending was enough. Old age doesn't always make you full of wisdom.

You are right EE old age does not make anyone smarter.

EE posted, "In regards to Lynann's attack on you as the poster, this isn't the first time she's brought a "holier than thou" comment to a post without anything to back it up, so I wouldn't let her get to you, Drew."

--------

Drew I said you made excellent points in regard to presidential powers.

You went on to say, "Typically when someone replies to a post with some variation of "It's not that simple" they fail to explain to me A. Why it's not that simple and B. Where I was wrong regarding the specifics. To the poster who suggested that I am a lot like Pam, you might consider explaining why you feel that way. I don't know Pam (and so I limited the scope of my comments to her comments and nothing more) but you don't know either of us. With that in mind, I wonder how it is that you feel so comfortable making the charge that two people you've never met are so much alike?

-Drew "

I've followed up now. I've explained why I think you are alot like Pam. Am I completely off the mark making that comparison?

It may be necessary to scroll up to see all posts.

I think most citizens of the United States are much more alike than they are different. I think most of us love our country even when we are disagreeing with each other or the administration in power, I think most of us love our children and our parents and the generations unborn, I think most of us aspire to do better in thought and deed, I think most of us hope to leave a better life to our children than we had ourselves...yet we stand divided red states and blue states accusing each other of being the source of impending ruin while it all falls to pieces around us. Look at what we are doing on these boards.

Please...find out what you have in common with those you disagree with and quit buying into the us and them politics of fear.

Now there's an intelligent, fair, and respectable comment. *applauds*

Lynann, you wrote:

I think most citizens of the United States are much more alike than they are different. I think most of us love our country even when we are disagreeing with each other or the administration in power, I think most of us love our children and our parents and the generations unborn, I think most of us aspire to do better in thought and deed, I think most of us hope to leave a better life to our children than we had ourselves...yet we stand divided red states and blue states accusing each other of being the source of impending ruin while it all falls to pieces around us. Look at what we are doing on these boards.

Please...find out what you have in common with those you disagree with and quit buying into the us and them politics of fear.

Wow. First, you suddenly took a rather sudden macro view of the similarities between Pam, me, and now, the general electorate. I was commenting on her comments in front of 84,000 people tonight. I have no doubt that all of us do want what is good for our nation but that does not diminish the polarizing approach Pam took tonight on television. She tried (using a massively inappropriate Non-Sequitur) to suggest that President Bush taking office had something to do with her husband becoming ill.

The differences I have with Pam are numerous as they relate to tonight--namely that I don't think I could perform the mental gymnastics necessary to attempt to draw a parallel between declining health occurring thousands of miles away from a president just sworn in. Still, I appreciate your response in that now I do understand your point.

-Drew

Drew,

Most of the time your posts are pretty well thought out, but I'm afraid you're talking through your hat on this one.

I've been there. Have you?

Do you know anything about the HIPAA Act of 1996? It could possibly be the reason I'm still alive. It allowed me to keep the insurance I needed to get the advanced medical care I needed for a congenital condition that often kills people.

To be fair, HIPAA of '96 was passed because some Republicans crossed the aisle on this one because they thought it was a better compromise than what Hillary Clinton's commission came up with, but I don't believe it would have been a done deal without the Clintons and some stalwart Democrats not giving in on key provisions.

As far as what the Bush Administration did to undermine the prospects for very unlucky people, consider what the Bush Republicans did to bankruptcy law. I any needs the 'compassionate conservatism', it's someone who, through no fault of their own, finds themselves in the godawful state.

Hopefully, you'll never have to find out the hard way what a mess certain segments of the health care industry are in or how your insurance company will screw you over every way and chance they get.

Oh, and before you try to say I got something for nothing? I've always made health insurance one of my priorities and have done without other things to have been continuously insured since I got out of high school.

-Kerry O.

'Drew',

In the middle of your open letter, you raised the foillowing question:

'... What I am trying to figure out Pam is whether or not you are blaming President Bush for your husband's health issues?...'

The simple answer is an overwhelming NO!!!

Unfortunately (IMO), you chose to develop the other side of this overwhelming NO equation.

By doing so, your OP completely missed out on (IMO) the whole point of what is considered to be one of the critical issues of this election:

'...are you so sure you are covered in the event of health problems, in spite of the fact that you pay for, and should supposedly be covereded ???...'

With all due respect to you personally 'drew', if I were your debating partner in this discussion, I would have gone to extraordinary lenghts to convince you that the premise you have based your argument upon is squarely undefendable, and reaks of dogmatic partisanship.

Of course 'drew' that is not an observation about you, or your character, but it is how I am left after reading the the above OP.

BLAME, in this particular case, is undefendable and impertinent premise (IMO) as a premise to counter argue PAM's case, and let me point out why.

Far from laying blame, or playing the victim, PAM is 'fighting'. She refuses to remain silent about a situation which she considers completely unacceptable.

She lived through it.

That certainly gives her the credibility to present her case and act according to her better judgement, without having her motives questionned on totally unfounded charges of irresponsible conduct for apparently laying blame.

Not only is she not blaming, she is speaking out and taking action through the exercise of one of our most fundamental democratic right: voting for the candidate or party whom represents the strongest case in defense, or in promotion of what she considers to be of uncompromising 'importance' to her.

The whole simple point behind PAM's testimony, is that what all of us legitimately expect to be health coverage, hasn't turned out to be so in her case.

She lived through a situation which most of us haven't experienced, and hopefully won't have to in our lifetime. She is giving people a 'flash forward' with respect to the state of health coverage in the US.

'... Is it enough to pay for 'health insurance' to be secure in the thought that you are 'covered'???...' She raises teh question, and offers her own experience as a case in point...'

Her personal experience, and her point is NO!!!

An experience founded reality check is very far removed from the irreponsible conduct of LAYING BLAME!!!

Like most of us, PAM and her husband worked, and were under the imression that the health insurance coverage they were paying for, was in fact covering them in the 'event' of possible and eventual health problems.

False promise!!! Not so!!! And they found it out the hard way.

They are speaking out, and standing for what they consider is just, and denouncing by the same token what they consider to be unjust. And you focus your attention on the partisan thing?!?!?

Their gesture is altruistic, that is at the opposite side of the blame spectrum. That the democrates take political advantage of their story is strict political fair game!!! Why shoot the messenger???

PAM simply choose to support the 'team' that represents the best chances of correcting the perversion. And that political takes advantage of that fact.

If there is any blame here, it is found in your OP and it is directed at PAM for SPEAKING OUT, AND FOR FULLY EXERCISING HER MOST FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT!!!

As I said, I am confident, given your character, that I would have convinced you of the 'undefendable' and 'impertinent' premise of the 'blame' argument in this case.


Respectfully.