Printable View
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...E-64D3F7972C8B
Interesting article. It posits that a lot of the health care woes have been caused by the concentration on employer-based health care and other government interventions.
Author is in advisor to Giuliani. I support neither the candidate or this approach. He makes a number of salient points, however. At the very least, there should be a better way for individuals to pool risk and get insurance.
JT
Im voting for Hillary.
Cool:thumb: I don't agree with the guy's criticism. I'm just trying to wrap my mind around the whole health care deal. I'll vote Green but I am hoping the pendulum swings back.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jax
JT
Yeah I used to vote green, but really, they have no chance. Id rather give my vote to someone who might actually make it.
Rational choice. Do you like Obama at all? He impresses me in some ways, but he doesn't seem to go off the cuff too well. Hillary is very disciplined. I haven't compared their plans as yet. That is roughly what you will see though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jax
JT
Naw, I really dont think he has enough experience or gusto to run a country.
yeah he's a rookie. I'm surprised not to have heard from Gore. Guess he really isn't running. Giuliani just can't be the next President. His governing tendencies are similar to Bush's + he has a good legal mind. Dangerous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jax
JT
Dunno about Obama.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackie T.
Rodham-Clinton I really can't stomach, 'cos of her long-standing, until quite recently, support for the US mis-adventure in Iraq.
If I'd my druthers, probably either Edwards, though he came across really weakly in the third Democratic presidential candidates' debate, or Kucinich.
Richardson has some good ideas, and, as for the rest, dunno enough about 'em to comment on 'em right now.
Obama will sweep ...... law schools across the land:1orglaugh :thumb: I've never been too fond of either major party. I usually vote for Greens or Libertarians (an admittedly odd mix). In reality, I just have too many disparate views to vote for a major party without feeling wrong about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donald Rilea
2 Exceptions:
Tom Campbell R CA (Campbell v. Clinton over Kosovo) + Libertarian Constitutional Law Prof at Stanford
Mike Doyle D PA (Had some good ideas + his staff spent 2 hours trying to trade another member of congress so I could see the President of Ukraine address the full house and senate).
My district in MN isn't even competitive. It is inconceivable that I would vote for any R in MN. D is unlikely but vaguely possible if the right person ran.
JT
Nothing odd about the mix to me, JT, as, from what I've seen in your posts here, it's entirely consistent with your expressed views here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackie T.
The biggest problems that the Libertarians, Greens and other minor parties face, in my view, are that they are generally neither financed nor organised well enough to play more than, well, minor roles in national or even state elections.
Add on to those party ballot registration laws in the various US states that make it quite hard for minor parties to get and stay on the ballot over time.
The Nevada Libertarian Party, for instance, lost its ballot access late last year, after the last statewide elections, because its total number of ballots cast in that election were lower than the amount required under Nevada law for a third party to get to stay on the ballot.
That means that the Nevada Libertarian Party's got to get out a petition drive to regain ballot access for the 2008 election.
By the way, the Nevada Green Party did well enough in that election that they could keep their ballot access here.
Still, you can see the pickle in which many minor parties find themselves in this country from that example, I hope.
the way that things are now and the problem is that people don't have a health care plan. so what they are saying is that the government spending our tax dollars on services for it's citizens is the problem. If they gave everyone a health-care plan, then we would be worse off then we are now.
am I the only person that sees that makes no fucking sense?
let's talk about the the fact that the US government spends more on it's military budget in one day than it spends on providing social services in a year.
Oh shit, I think I see some guys with a tazor coming this way.
The buck does't stop here, it always get's passed.Quote:
I'd rather give my vote to someone who might actually make it...and then effectively do nothing once they're there.
let's just be honest here please. no canididate for social change will ever be in a position of power. the whole point of that position, it's sole existance, is to maintain the power structure. the two are total opposites. to believe in a third party candidate is more of a fantasy than even believing that there are two parties.
you know what black guy they got elected to end segregation? none. because no black guy could ever be elected under segregation. think about it. It's a fixed game, you can't win
.
(mods, please feel free to merge these post together.)
Greens are already on our city council, school boards, and several other positions in the Twin Cities. It would only be a fantasy believing they will win beyond the local levels at present.Quote:
Originally Posted by Morning Glory
JT
I don't agree with the guy's overall argument. I did see one point that candidates never mention: They make it to where employers are the main source of health insurance. An individual person is basically penalized trying to buy one themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Morning Glory
Personally: I'd end entire depts, subsidies etc and put it into social programs. The way we are treating the aged and disabled is simply unacceptable.
JT