I'm tired of the left trying to prop up Clinton's legacy...

[Equity Trader]

I do realize that many in the Democratic party are very good people, but the party in it self as a philosophy on a whole is as follows.

The left continues to drive the economic button as a great achievement for Clinton,well,I won't go into that, since trying to explain will probably go way over your heads....

First of all, a legacy is an achievement based on a monumental life changing of social proportions that one can inherit and call his own.......Clinton does not have a legacy except for one and that is "Monicagate" and turning his tenure with lies and dishonesty.. Economic or other intermediate happenings will never be remembered for an achievement in a president's tenure after a generation (38 years) passes.These areas are not considered life changing but merely obstacles of tasks that is required for managerial expectance....

Nixon's legacy was his "watergate",FDR was his Social Security,which changed a very important social structure of the times and still considered the third rail of politics and a fabric of our society.John F. Kennedy,unfortunately his assassination and the fact that just about everybody on both sides loved this guy and of course Ragean, who broke up the Soviet Union.

Clinton was close and would have achieved his name among the greatest if only he could have brought the calamity of the Middle East to a close.Although, everything Clinton tried to do was for self-serving purposes and basically his leadership wasn't based on principle,but rather the governing from deceit and denial and what the public wanted to hear (polls).

The difference between Republican and Democratic parties is like night and day...Republicans are a people with deep convictions and moral clarity with respect to individual rights and religious freedom.When we are shamed with disgrace,we accept it and move on.On the other hand,Democrats spin it and are in continuous denial and shed blame.Democrats also seem to have replaced moral clarity with everything goes attitude, that it's my business until I get caught and then it's your fault..They are also a party without religious convictions, since they consider this area as only a hurdle and a vice of allowing the imagination to degenerate the immoral ideology that is so pervasive in Hollywood.The family values in Hollywood is based on who you are and what I have, better than you mentality and adulterous behavior seems to be a prerequisite to their only existence.Your party should be proud for that.There is little doubt that we have in both parties people unwarranted for office,but it has shown that Republicans were able to expel memebers for their unworthness (Nixon) and Democrates tried to shed the blame t the victims.

Democrats on a whole are not independent thinkers or visionary from a self-proclaimed view point as individuals...They are extremely group oriented and very socialistic.They prefer government as their ultimate ruler and follow in suit accordingly...Look at your part leaders and the states that are predominately Democratic...Most are the highest in taxes and laws and want to control your destiny.

The Democratic party controlled the congress for more than 45 years and your hallmark programs like Education and Social Security are nothing to be proud of..As a European born and educated in catholic schools, your public school system is in shambles and disarray and is the total blame of Democrats...Reason is, that the Unions as a collective body is only interested in preserving their existence without consequences,get their pension and move on,without doing a dam# bit of real work....Your scare tactics on Social Security is just that....You people talk about how we (Republicans) are raiding the system,jeez, you people have been stealing from the cookie jar for years.

I couldn't in a million years even think of being a Democrat...When Bush got into office it has been one ridicule after another and you people blame him for everything....Totally unwarranted.Surprised you, did he??You people are very worried and you should be..

Clinton does not deserve the attention and leave his so called legacy the way he made it....It's written in stone and nothing you liberals can do will ever change that.That man came into office not understanding respect and now he doesn't deserve it....Interestingly enough, it seems that is the way most feel about him and it fits......He turned the office of the president into nothing more than a brothel....Most of his administration coming from the baby boom generation had an attitude of selfishness,greed and anywhere but me philosophy....Sure, you people have a nice story to tell,but deep down it's control that you want and you display your rhetoric to your flock as they being imbeciles and we will be doing the thinking for you.

One other point about your self indulgent leader....He even had the gull to hire a consulting firm to look into how he could get the Nobel Prize......Now that is your leader..What a laugh..

In ending, I will say this, president Bush will go down in history as one of the top 5 of this country's greatest presidents....His biggest achievement will be The Middle East.Although, never really will we see a quiet type peace, that is not possible,but never the less, a state for Palestine and the over throw of terrorism on a large scale.

The economy will rebound and life goes on.

You have a good day here....

 

[wondo]

that's all fine and good but anyone who lives in a major city, has to see and understand the need for fighting poverty and trying to help the standard of living for the majority of its residents. that's where some of the republican initiatives seem to fall short in my perspective. you end up with a lot of WASPs who make decent money (and work their ass off to get there) saying that they dont have any obligation to help the less fortunate.... while that might be true, i think its a pretty lousy way to go through life and a lousy way to view other humans.

 

[selkirk]

ET I take it that you are not a liberal

I think Clinton had some very good people work for him such as Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin.

As for the politics well history will decide. I think there are good people on both sides, with interesting ideas. Also do not forget that Democrats gain support from more people than Hollywood, Republicans also have sex scandals, not an excuse but it happens in all parties. Every party tries to put a spin on it.

Mr. Clinton won two elections Mr. Bush will have to win back to back elections, it may not be as certain as you may believe.

There is no peace anytime soon in the Middle east, and there will be no Palestine state, they do not want to hold elections. of coarse it is basically War like conditions.

As for party policies I thought the Republicans were supposed to support free traders, well let us examine a few things.

1. large duties on Cdn. Softwoods. (raising the prices of lumber and US homes, Cdn. government will appeal and will probably win but until then 20-30% tarriffs. (notice Bush does not put any tarriffs on Cdn. oil or natural gas....interesting)

2. they have signed a 17 billion farm aid bill. the EU and the US are spending billions to aid there farmers.....free market????, some help I can see but these subsidies seem to be growing by the year. hurt farmers in other countries (AUS, CDn., ARgetina,ect.) also the poorest 50 countries in the world have exports in Textilles and agriculture. dont worry more US tarrifs not less in fact some extra are going on. Would be nice to encourage economic devolpment in the 50 pooorest countries.
is that free trade, more like US protectionism.


ie: American grain farmer in the mid west who grew grain on 1000 acres for last 5 years could expect to receive $28,000 in subsides, now that will go up to $35,000. based on a few factors (source Western Producer.)

As for me I do not belong to any political party. one quick story my Grandfather (in the 50s) would argue politics with a Conservative (Ontario/provincial/state) he had quite bit of power in the party (not an elected member) ..

My grandfather was a member of the CCF (left wing/ make democrats look conservative). he would later leave the party when it became the NDP said it no longer supported the farmers and would get taken over by special interest groups, (he owned his own business, so more in the middle on many issues) , history has proven him correct.

anyways they argue about politics and one day my Grandfather stated " I bet you are all talk, you for $10 cannot get me hydro in one year" he turned around and said to his sons "boys I got us Hydro". sure enough within 4 weeks hydro lines were extended four miles and stopped at his farm, they could have gone down another 2 miles and hooked up 3 more families but that was not done for another year. (by the way $10 was much more in the 50s...inflation.

thanks
selkirk

 

[djv]

Well since I try to stay in the middle of the road. I guess I can't get blamed for either of these Parties. They both have there shame and Good. But one thing for sure. The right does not take time to ever share in the shame. Now this statment about deep moral clarity. Is that like there Florida policy towards Cuba. Lets say what we must to try and win the election. As for Clinton. Did not like him a great deal. However what ever they did that made the 401K's jumb through the roof. Well I hope sooner or later Bush catches on. So we can get some results that good. We have more then one war to fight. It's right here at home. His Dad never did catch on.

 

[AR182]

I am a registered independent,I vote on issues instead of parties.I have voted for Republicans & Democrats.I say this so in case no one likes what I write here they can't accuse me of being in favor of one type over the other.
To say that Republicans are morally superior to Democrats is incorrect & naive.Sure Clinton is morally bankrupt.He knew that his legacy as president will be Monica & a cigar.That is why he tried in his final months as president to work out a peace agreement in the Middle East.Too bad for everyone that it failed.But the Democrats probably had the most moral president of all time in Harry Truman.This man was all quality.
Richard Nixon(Republican) tried to rig an election & then by trying to cover it up he obstructed justice.Is that morally correct?
Equity Trader,I disagree with you when you say that Democrats are without religious conviction.I think you are basing your whole theory on the Clinton people.The Democrats have as much religious beliefs as the Republicans.Nothing more,nothing less.

The point that I am trying to make is that the 'quality" of Democrats is about the same as Republicans.Neither one is more moral than the other or religious than the other.All politcians are after one thing,the vote.They all cater to their constituency.That is all they care about.

It is much too early to say that George W.Bush will become one of the great presidents.If we will not see peace in the Middle East,how could his biggest achievement be the Middle East ?
Whether he likes it or not,his presidency will be defined by the war on terrorism.

 

[Blitz]

that's all fine and good but anyone who lives in a major city, has to see and understand the need for fighting poverty and trying to help the standard of living for the majority of its residents. that's where some of the republican initiatives seem to fall short in my perspective.

I fight poverty everyday by actually going to work. For a large chunk of the Democratic base work is a foriegn word. The biggest lie out there is that the Democratic party is the party of the working man, wrong, it is the party of the welfare man. The Democrats just want to tax the working man. This is coming from a reformed Democrat!:drinky:

 

[Blitz]

As for Clinton. Did not like him a great deal. However what ever they did that made the 401K's jumb through the roof. Well I hope sooner or later Bush catches on. So we can get some results that good. We have more then one war to fight. It's right here at home. His Dad never did catch on.

O.K., here we have more revisionist History. If you go back and check the dates on your old 401k statements, you will find something amazing, Bill Clinton was still in office when your 401k was doing it's freefall. He hasn't even been out of office for a year and a half yet, but it amazes me how short everybodies memory is. They want to blame the economy on Bush, but it was already on a downward spiral even before the election.

The fact is, the economy is starting to come back. What do you think might have helped it come back and kept the recession very mild? Could it have been the Bush tax cuts the Democrats fought so hard to stop.

 

[Equity Trader]

Response

Response

Yes there is no doubt that both parties have very good people...Most of the support for Democrats are your unions and government works and immigrants from latin countries that prefer government inclusion in their lives (Socialistic)..If you look at rural American,most are Republican dominated and just as soon keep gvernment out of their lives...Look at the last election and you will see that Democrats control the populated cities and Republicans have middle America..Heck there were more Red areas than Blue..

As far has Republicans with their sex scandals, yes that is apparent in both parties,But in recent history Republicans that got caught resigned from office, ie: Livingston,Gringrich to just name two...Democrats have done nothing about their stituation other than denial until the truth comes out and their spin starts...As most recent with Condit and earlier with Clinton...Noticed how Democrates stood behind Clinton and said it was personal and gave Condit the cold shoulder...

Yes Republicans are free traders and I am personally against tarrifs,but when Eu countries and some others subsidies their industries makes competition a slanted trade and causes dumping on our soils,as so noted with steel that killed this industry here...

The 17 billion farm aid bill.,yes another subsidy that I am against,but here in America and in the farming belts makes this nothing more than political poly and we have a election year this fall and all politicians from both sides don't want to go back to their districts without this bill passed...This is a must for reelection,and these subsidies have been going on for years...

Democrates have had more election fraud than Republicans and is so noted...First lets go back to Nixon and Kennedy where there was fraud by the infamous major from Chicago ( Major Daly)..It was found out but Nixon didn't want to put the country through a contested court battle so life goes on...Than the Democrats tried again during Gerald Fords tenure and Republicans didn't again want to pursue legal avenue,so it too was dropped....This last election was about some of the same coming from Democrats when the liberal media (CBS,CNN,) called an early victory for Gore when other states in the same time zone were not calling yet.See Florida has two time zones and most from the latter time zone are predominately Republican areas....This race was so close and even neck to neck that Democrats were in fear of losing so they started playing with the rules in Dade,Palm and one other county in around Miami by keeping polls open late and paying people to vote......By the way, those voting commitees in those areas are controled by Democrats and saw the problem near the end and had to try to reverse it.....

After it was all over in Florida and the recount started,Democrats again started to make rules up in the middle of this procedure,hoping to lean the votes..When it was finally over it landed on the State Supreme Court,they were totally baised (liberal) and they too changed the rules because of the possible outcome for them (Democrats) losing....Finally the US Supreme court had to step in even though they are mostly conservative,but it was a must move....

Eight months later when the various press and other concerned parties went back and counted the votes,Bush still came out ahead.....

Nixon's problem,yes was the watergate affair,but at least members from his own party marched to the White House and asked for his resignation,something that Democrats wouldn't do and even Al Gore came out on the lawn and said Clinton would go down as one of the greatest presidents of all time during this impeachment...There was nothing personal about what Clinton did and the outcome was well deserved.

Clinton's 2nd term was not by a big margin on the votes and since the country was basically enjoying economic prosperity as common sense tells you not to rock the boat so he gets relected with only about 42%....Gore got more....

In ending I am in no way implying that Democrats as individuals are anything other but decent and solid Americans and have fought for this country that gives us our freedom like the other side.....Their cresendo of liberalism speaks for itself,that is why they are from the liberal left....

ET

 

[Nolan Dalla]

Re: I'm tired of the left trying to prop up Clinton's legacy...

NOLAN: Sometimes, I love a good old fashioned knock-down, drag-out political debate. I appreciate Equity Trader's willingness to share his political views publicly, to which I have several comments which follow.

I do realize that many in the Democratic party are very good people, but the party in it self as a philosophy on a whole is as follows.
The left continues to drive the economic button as a great achievement for Clinton....

NOLAN: Agreed that the "Clinton economic recovery" is a complete misnomer. It's a myth. It's a lie. Anyone that understands how the legislative process works to any degree knows that ALL bills (economic, and otherwise) originate in Congress, not on the President's desk. The Executive Branch, through it's proxy OMB, the Office of Management and Budget, creates, writes, and submits the President's economic plan each year to Congress. But the final product that is regurgitated out of Congress usually bears no resemblence to the original plan (exceptions occured during the Reagan years 1981-88, which was truly the era of Reagan economic plans, eg. "Reaganomics."). Republicans won complete control of Congress in 1994 and originated welfare reform and a host of other important measures. Treasury Secretary Rubin, Alan Greenspan, and the Republican Congress deserve joint credit for overseeing the economic boom of the mid to late 90s -- if such credit is to go to individuals. Not President Clinton, who was a passive bystander in the process (not once was a "Clinton Economic Plan" ever passed). Another strong case can be made that since government did not interfere with the economy and there were no pressing crisises during the Clinton years, that market forces simply asserted themselves and prosperity followed (proving the validity of free-market economics as advocated by most conservatives). Finally, Clinton was very lucky in the sense he was in the right place at the right time. The stock market's craze in the late 90s was largely the result of high-tech growth and the Internet. Hard as it is to imagine -- Herbert Hoover could have been in office and it wouldn't have mattered. The economy was in a boom cycle.

First of all, a legacy is an achievement based on a monumental life changing of social proportions that one can inherit and call his own.......Clinton does not have a legacy except for one and that is "Monicagate" and turning his tenure with lies and dishonesty....

NOLAN: Agreed that the past President's legacy is appallingly thin, considering his length of time spent in office. At best, he is an Eisenhower-like figure, overseeing an era of prosperity (much of it inherited and none his doing -- see previous point). At worst, he may have lowered the bar to its lowest level in history in terms of what we expect and hope for our national leaders. In this regard, I think the harm he did to the highest office will last for decades and may be irreparable. I, for one, think the Presidency is something to be looked up to and revered (no matter who is in office). President Clinton's actions and personal irresponsiblity in the highest office will certainly outweigh any lasting legacy of a positive nature. When one thinks of President Clinton's "accomplishments," I'm left with a long pause.

Nixon's legacy was his "watergate"

NOLAN: Total disagreement here. Nixon was far more complex and had far more impact economically, socially, politically, Constitutionally, and diplomatically than just the Watergate scandal. When I think of President Nixon, many images come to mind -- some positive, some negative. To say "Watergate" was his legacy is a very shallow interpretation. Even his worst critics and unbiased historians look far deeper than that when characterizing this often brilliant, but enigmatic man.

FDR was his Social Security,which changed a very important social structure of the times and still considered the third rail of politics and a fabric of our society.

NOLAN: I would use "the New Deal," but we are splitting hairs here. Agreed that FDR's advocacy of government as an instrument of change was revolutionary.

John F. Kennedy, unfortunately his assassination and the fact that just about everybody on both sides loved this guy

NOLAN: The most over-rated President of all-time. He certainly wasn't loved on both sides, even to this day. It's doubtful he would have won re-election in 1964, according to most historians and political pundits of the time. The assassination made him a martar. But his record and 1,000 days in office were incredibly transparent. The country he inherited in Jan, 1961 as President was much more dangerous, and in much more trouble by Nov. 1963. He did very little to alter the course of history or effect the changes that were to come.

and of course Ragean, who broke up the Soviet Union.

NOLAN: I've heard this claim made by Conservatives (and I used to be one), that President Reagan "broke up" the Soviet Union. I think that is an incredible over-simplification of history. However, I do agree Reagan's hard-line against the Reds hastened the deteriorization of that totalitarian grip on Eastern Europe.

See next page......

 

[Nolan Dalla]

Clinton was close and would have achieved his name among the greatest if only he could have brought the calamity of the Middle East to a close.

NOLAN: That is a quantum leap of logic. You say, Clinton would have been a great President had he acheived peace in the Middle East. It's like saying MadJack would be more famous than he is *IF* he was the first man on Mars. It's just wacky. President Clinton's international policies were so thoroughly confused and ineffective that virtually no progress was made on any front anywhere in the world in terms of increasing the United States' respectability diplomatically and international power abroad. So many blunders were made in Africa alone (Somalia, Rwanda, Angola, etc.), that America is practically out of the picture on that continent today. One possible exception was the war in Yugoslavia, for which the prior Adminstration deserves credit. Clinton's nomination of Warren Christopher as Secretary of State alone has to be the worst appointment of the last 20 years.

Although, everything Clinton tried to do was for self-serving purposes and basically his leadership wasn't based on principle,but rather the governing from deceit and denial and what the public wanted to hear (polls).

NOLAN: Most political leaders are cognizant of polls and public opinion. Some leaders may not say they look at polls, but the fact is -- they all do. Clinton, Bush, and everyone else who is elected to office.

The difference between Republican and Democratic parties is like night and day...Republicans are a people with deep convictions and moral clarity with respect to individual rights and religious freedom.

NOLAN: Here is where you lose me. I used to believe Republicans enjoyed a definite advantage on the "moral clarity" argument. But now in retrospect, I see much of the past (and present) corruption of the Democrats and the left being the result of those figures being tied to urban, corrupt centers of power in the North and the East than due to their political philosophy. In other words, it much more likely to have an elected official who blurs the lines of ethics when he comes out of the Chicago Democratic machine, or Youngstown, Ohio, or the South side of Philadelphia (usually Democrats) than an official elected in Salt Lake City or Butte, Montanta (usually Republicans). So far as Reoublicans being pro "individual rights," you've got to be kidding. You mean the Republicans like Goodlatte, Wolf, and Kyl -- who are all leading the fight to take away our rights as gamblers. You mean the Republicans across the board that want to outlaw abortion? You mean the Republicans who want to get into bedrooms and impose laws of morality against things they don't like? Republicans are hardly the champions of individual rights. In fact, that's why I left the party in a fury over ten years ago. They are not pro-individual. Libertarians are.

Democrats on a whole are not independent thinkers or visionary from a self-proclaimed view point as individuals...They are extremely group oriented and very socialistic.

NOLAN: You are right, in part. But Conservatives have some serious political issues to contend with, which makes your attack on all of the Democratic governmental programs extremely short-sighted and frankly -- flat out wrong. The Democrats are winning and will ultimately win the battle for national health care in this country. If this is the richest country in the world (not true anynore, but free market Conservatives love to tout that myth), the numbers of those who do not get adequate health care is approaching that of a third world country. That alone should scare you. And the numbers are increasing. The health care system in this country is shameful. It's downright criminal. Far too much money is wasted, health care providers are grossly overpaid and overcharge for their services, pharmaceutical companies and the AMA esentially write the legislation in this country, not to mention the crimes being commited by HMOs and health cooperatives against people (anybody out there that hasn't been f*cked by the health care industry or an HMO?). Conservatives will lose this battle in their argument to let the free-market take care of things. It doesn't work. When a hospital charges you $1400 a day for a room, and doctors want $600 for an z-ray -- something has gone amiss. Then, there are the ultility companies. Deregulating utilities is going to have huge problems for middle and lower class Americans. This country has good, clean, affordable power and energy for most of its existence in the 20th century because of pioneers like Leland Olds who fought the utility monopolies back in the 1930s and 40s. Now, the utility companies are making and hiking the prices, and criminal firms like Enron come in and act as middlemen, take their cut, DRIVING UP THE COST FOR EVERYONE. This is what happens when something which should be regulated and controlled by government reverts to privatization. Real people get shafted. Enron, the CEOs, and stockholders get wealthy. We get the California energy crisis of 2000. We get Enron scandals. Trust me on this -- you 'aint seen nothing yet. Wait until you start getting $400 electric bills and water bills for $250 a month. Once these companies get control and monopolize everywhere, you're screwed. So much for getting the government out of our lives. When Enron starts dictating your energy cost, you'll be screaming for the government to DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. As much as I don't trust and dislike government -- corporations can be even more dangerous.

The Democratic party controlled the congress for more than 45 years and your hallmark programs like Education and Social Security are nothing to be proud of..

NOLAN: Agreed that there is NO reason for this country to have a national education policy or a Department of Education. That's a responsibility of state government. Social Security has it's problems, but I shudder to think what Republicans would have done in the 1930s or Herbert Hoover would have been elected to a second term (1932). We may not be living in a democracy today, had that occured. I believe there would have been a revolution.

your public school system is in shambles and disarray and is the total blame of Democrats...Reason is, that the Unions as a collective body is only interested in preserving their existence without consequences,get their pension and move on,without doing a dam# bit of real work....

NOLAN: The teachers' unions are arguably the most selfish, most dangerous impediments to real "education" for schoolchildren as any organization in or out of government. We agree here.

In ending, I will say this, president Bush will go down in history as one of the top 5 of this country's greatest presidents...

NOLAN: Again, strong disagreement here. This bumbler of a President can't even speak a straight sentence or communicate a thought, let alone lead. Thank God he has Colin Powell, Dick Chaney, and Don Rumsfeld at his side, and Arti Fleisher to help translate into English for the bumbling President in the daily news conference. Every time the man opens his mouth, I ashamed to be say I'm a Texan, let alone an American. One thing in President Bush's favor (and why he was elected) -- he's not President Clinton in terms of sauve or slickness, and he ran against a muttering robot. I thought Republicans were brain dead to nominate this moron of a man to the nation's highest office, then I saw what the Democrats nominated ( the woodman) and it was almost as bad. Obviously, I'm for a third party and think both parties are so thorougly corrupt, that I've become a radical. Looking at who we have elected as Presidential nominees the last several elections, I don't know whether to laugh, or cry,

His biggest achievement will be The Middle East.Although, never really will we see a quiet type peace, that is not possible,but never the less, a state for Palestine and the over throw of terrorism on a large scale.

NOLAN: I always try to give respect to other points of view and opposite points of view than my own. But this prediction is preposterous. Bush's Middle East policy is so one-sided towards Israel and so dumbfoundingly shallow, that he's painted us into a narrow corner where we will have to defend ourslves against acts of terrorism at home and abraod for years and decades to come. Admittedly, this is a continuation of past Middle East policy (giving creedence to the notion that Bush has absolutely NO NEW OR ORIGINAL ideas when it comes to the Middle East -- or any other region of the world for that matter) of prior Administrations. The point is -- I've seen nothing from this President that indicates anything positive on the horizon for the Middle East or other regions.

The economy will rebound and life goes on.

NOLAN: Life goes on, as long as you don't get sick in this country, and so long as you can pay your utility bills. Thanks for the debate. -- ND

 

[Equity Trader]

Well pointed out opinions Nolan..

Well pointed out opinions Nolan..

I agree that republicans need to be more driven in their social awareness....As far as a national health plan similar to what the Europeans have,well that would be certainly a benefit to all,but with almost 300 million poeple and a free capitalistic society, would require major changes in free market and consider your taxes be about 40-50% of your earnings.. Certian aspects of healthcare should be nationalized,but way to deep a subject and complicated one for a total government system...

ET

 

[Nolan Dalla]

Re: Well pointed out opinions Nolan..

Re: Well pointed out opinions Nolan..

I agree that republicans need to be more driven in their social awareness....As far as a national health plan similar to what the Europeans have,well that would be certainly a benefit to all,but with almost 300 million poeple and a free capitalistic society, would require major changes in free market and consider your taxes be about 40-50% of your earnings.. Certian aspects of healthcare should be nationalized,but way to deep a subject and complicated one for a total government system...

ET

NOLAN REPLIES: I'm certainly no expert on the health care debate, but I do know that health care costs and medical coverage are about 10 percent of GNP in the US each year.....which is also about 10 percent of each individual's income. If we shifted this 10 percent cost in favor of a nationalized system paid by everyone across the board , that would likely bring the cost down for everyone, since the medical people wouldn't be able to rip off average people through outlandish charges. Since government (i.e. taxpayers) already pays a significant sum of the medical costs in this country -- the elderly and poor, for instance -- transfering the cost from the health care providers and HMOs (WHICH TAKE A CUT OF THE ACTION IN PROFITS) to a government-run non-profit system can only save the average person money. It's the hosptials, health care industry, pharmeceuticals and so forth who would be "hurt" by a new system. That's why they have people brainwashed into thinking we are getting good medical coverage in this country, when the fact is -- we are getting screwed up the ying yang.

Of course, I once fell for the free-market conservative line of thought that government should not run the health care industry. But I've seen too many lives ruined and too much waste from this broken system to still go along with this AMA-led conspiracy against average working people in this country.

-- ND

 

[wondo]

Blitz,

I don't understand your retort. I work everyday as well. So do many people. It helps my situation but it doesn't help the overall standard of the community in which I live. Just because someone is on welfare doesn't mean that they have no pride or no work ethic. I hope you remain fortunate enough to not need any type of welfare. You might look at things differently.

 

[Equity Trader]

Response to Nolan

Response to Nolan

Couple of good arguments.....


NOLAN REPLIES: I'm certainly no expert on the health care debate, but I do know that health care costs and medical coverage are about 10 percent of GNP in the US each year.....which is also about 10 percent of each individual's income. If we shifted this 10 percent cost in favor of a nationalized system paid by everyone across the board , that would likely bring the cost down for everyone, since the medical people wouldn't be able to rip off average people through outlandish charges. Since government (i.e. taxpayers) already pays a significant sum of the medical costs in this country -- the elderly and poor, for instance -- transfering the cost from the health care providers and HMOs (WHICH TAKE A CUT OF THE ACTION IN PROFITS) to a government-run non-profit system can only save the average person money. It's the hosptials, health care industry, pharmeceuticals and so forth who would be "hurt" by a new system. That's why they have people brainwashed into thinking we are getting good medical coverage in this country, when the fact is -- we are getting screwed up the ying yang. Of course, I once fell for the free-market conservative line of thought that government should not run the health care industry. But I've seen too many lives ruined and too much waste from this broken system to still go along with this AMA-led conspiracy against average working people in this country.

Ok lets go with the 10% of GNP and put that towards a national health care plan.....Now, with that said we can only assume that coverage for everyone being taken care of,which covers the total population at about 300 million..An aggregate figure of about 125 million taxpayers with an average income of about 48,000, this figure is probably not close and I believe it to be less..

So based on your 10% of each taxpayer's income is about 4,800 average outlay to cover 300 million citizens,I doubt that is enough..It would most likely under your scenario with the additional hypothetical health tax and your regular income tax would on these figures put your tax bracket in the 40-50% range. This hardly gives an individual family much room for growth and thus reduce the GNP since the disposable income has been greatly hampered and potential industry dominos will fall...

There are many facets to bringing in a national healthcare program to a free market economy...First and foremost you have to change the mindset of the pharmeceuticals companies and their corporate structure ei:taxes, research, execution and time line of new found cures and the process for conducting research and the medical professionals and insurance companies.

Second and probably the most difficult to implement,is the medical professionals with Doctors already commanding huge salaries,largely contributed to education costs and extremely high mal-practice insurance,which is already way out of proportion to their incomes....

Third an equally as forboden is your insurance companies who's sole business is based on profit and loss balance sheets and one hurdle that was very problematic with HMOs... HMOs,although a very positive start,but in certain areas,like mine, being rural is not always considered to be the best of care.Although,one could argue that at least it is care....The other problem with HMOs is that the insurance companies have a more of a hands on in your medical treatment taking the way from solid health care for the sake of profits than the well being of the individual....

The one area that it can and should be nationialized is prescription drugs and this can be acheived at a reasonable cost and still be able to conduct research without the introduction of inferior medicines...The problem with this last idea is on a couple of fronts...First and foremost is the cost of R/D..To bring a drug to even Phase 1 and you still have 11, 111 of FDA guidlines is in the 100's of millions of dollars and that is without success..After getting into the door with the FDA is already a trial and error period that goes on for about 5-7 years without a clear picture of success.They now have what they call "fasttrack" cuts it back to half the time.....From intial R/D to success is a 15 year average period to a market for a drug...Now once a drug is accepted the company files for a patent and let's assume they get the patent and are locked in for 7 years until it expires....Here is one area that should be looked at,expiration on ending patents after 7 years...Most big drug companies file or refile the same patent again,thus preventing generic companies that have a potential successful drug equal to the competitor, is prevented from filing a patent..This is called "Patent Stacking"..Of course this is legal and only congress can reverse this law,but it would greatly reduce the prescription drugs and make it more affordable..

This area of prescription drugs should be the first part of nationionalized medicine and would assist the many with already an overburdened cost that will skyrocket with the coming of the babyboom generation now moving into requirements for such care.

So you see, it isn't easy from any stand point other than the need for it and still keep in mind the political overtones this would take on....Monumental task to say the least.

Have a good day

 

[Nolan Dalla]

Excellent retort. I don't agree with quite every point you made, but your general notions of the complexity of nationalized health care are certainly the biggest challenge to implementation. Very well thought out analysis of the situation.

-- ND

 

[nighthorse]

healthcare

healthcare

If you think government can do a better job than the private sector, you need to take a look at Canada and Britain......Yeesh.

 

[nighthorse]

Blitz,

Just because someone is on welfare doesn't mean that they have no pride or no work ethic.

You're correct, it doesn't necessarily mean that, but it's much more likely to describe people on welfare than people who aren't.

 

[nighthorse]

liberal/conservative

liberal/conservative

I think I can sum up the differences by listing the positives of Clinton and the negatives of Bush Jr.

Clinton:

NAFTA/GATT

Welfare reform (yes, he was kinda dragged into it, but you can bet he caught a lot of hell for it from his friends. Not to mention his wife)

He did sign bills that eventually brought the budget into balance. (And as we know he could have vetoed those bills and likely gotten away with it)

Held down spending a lot more than say, A Micheal Dukakis, Walter Mondale or even Big Al Gore.

Signed on to the Freedom to Farm act, which eventually would have eliminated most government intervention in the farm industry.

Bush:

Watered down education bill

The porkiest farm bill in history (would have made FDR blush)

Gave in on the arsenic standards, allowing them to be strengthened to an unnecessarily costly level.

His backing of tarriffs for lumber and steel.

The positive accomplishments of Clinton are conservative ideas and Bush's shortcomings could have come out of the Democratic Platform committee in 1972.

One part of Clinton's legacy is that he tried to pull the Democrats closer to the center. It's up to the Democrats whether or not they stay there, move forward or slide back to their old pseudosocialist ways. If they do revert back, his legacy will be Monica and just about nothing else.

 

[selkirk]

many problems with the Cdn. system but in general I think it is a good model, it needs to be improved. For instance when I go into emergeny with a broken (shattered) hand i was in on a quiet night for 12 hours, still think the system has some advantages. of coarse you pay for any system just look at my tax bill

also to many people go to emergency if they have a little cut, that is what walk in clinics are for.

 

[djv]

Look out with that health plan folks. You all want to make Mrs Clinton look like a genious. Believe she mention the need for this about 8 years ago. Everyone thought she was nuts. But now that prices have gone through the roof. Well times do change. Now we have to fight from behind. We could have been some what proactive.
Clinton and did he help the economy. Well thanks to Gore's tie breaking vote in the Senate start of Clintons second year. Heck yes it got some things rolling. The other way he helped. Well he stayed out of the way some what. He talked to us all and made us think and feal good. Sometimes it's what you don't do that makes things go.
Will Bush get second chance. If he can keep the war on terror going he has great chance. If people get remined about the high unemployment being in bed with oil, and other economic issues. Who knows.