Not a dime's worth of difference

[AAAintheBeltway]

I find all this breathless media babbling over the Dem candidates pointless. For all intents and purposes, they are identical. There is not one significant difference in them on any major issue. They all desperately want to raise taxes as high as they can get away with, they want to spend money even more wildly than Bush, they want to submit our foreign and defense policy to the UN for approval and they want the federal governemtn to become even more intrusive into your businesses, schools and home life.

As I previously said, the main distinction is hair style. You have your basic pathetic '60's retro, JFK wannabe hair with Kerry, and your '80's dress for success, preppy scrubbed do with Edwards. Your sensible '90's corporate board style job with Clark, and the nononsense short and well trimmed head of Dr. Dean. The really bad hair guys, Gephardt, Lieberman and Kuchinich are history.

It's also interesting that the party of class warfare has quickly ranked the challengers in order of personal wealth. Kerry-Heinz first, with the widow Heinz' ketchup fortune, rich brat and physician married to physician Dean second, personal injury lawyer Edwards third, and finally, motivational speaker and corporate board member Clark. Liberal public servants like Gephardt and Lieberman, who spent their careers toiling for the lower classes even without vast personal fortunes, were quickly rejected by the blue-collar yeoman of Iowa and New Hampshire. That's gratitude for you.

I'll say this for the primary voters. They quickly grabbed on to the notion that the only important issue was electability. Gephardt and Lieberman were too boring and old school. Dean scares people, never a good quality in a pol. Clark has an unnerving Stepford wife quality about him, and seems to step in a new controversy every week. Kerry and Edwards, by contrast, are sleek, smooth and rounded. No sharp edges to distract or alienate. Kerry is tall and Edwards is handsome. What more can a Dem want?

 

[Grob109]

Who do you think the republicans will run? How would your democratic equivalent characterize him, whoever he might be?

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Well, not to go out on a limb here, but I imagine that President Bush will be the Rep's candidate. We already know that much of the Democrat activist base cannot distinguish him in any meaningful way from Adolf Hitler.

 

[Magna]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

....they want to spend money even more wildly than Bush

I don't think it's possible to spend more money than the current resident of the White House, but who knows.... I'm sure if we put our Compassionate Conservative thinking caps on we can imagine worse, you know, setup a straw dog and trash it rather than draw attention to the current out-of-control spender who happens to be Republican.

....they want the federal governemtn to become even more intrusive into your businesses, schools and home life.

Again, unless they have a Patriot Act III up their sleeves, I don't think it's possible to intrude more than their current Republican brethren. But I better check with Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter to get my mind straight and see what right-think is today so I can be absolutely sure.

 

[bungrider]

"...deficits don't matter..." -richard cheney

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

So did Kerry and Edwards vote against the budget? Did they even vote? Edwards has missed so many votes, he needs a tour guide when or if he ever appears at the Senate.

The fact remains, for all the Dem's complaints about the deficit, they want higher spending, not less. Their top priority is Hillary Clinton's socialized medicine, which will cost trillions.

 

[dddooo]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

Their top priority is Hillary Clinton's socialized medicine, which will cost trillions.

Medicine already costs trillions, we are all paying for it, we just are not getting it.

The medical share of GDP is significantly larger then for any other developed country. Nevertheless 45 mln people are uninsured, huge number are underinsured and the rest are gettting lousy service or just plain screwed by HMOs, drug companies and even doctors who are forced to be businesmen first and medical professionals distant second.

 

[axeman]

And it will be 10 times WORSE with socialized medicine.

Can anyone name ANYTHING the government has ever
run efficiently?

You think its bad now.... let the government take a shot
at the problem. You dont KNOW bad.


peace

axeman

Quote from dddooo:

Medicine already costs trillions, we are all paying for it, we just are not getting it.

The medical share of GDP is significantly larger then for any other developed country. Nevertheless 45 mln people are uninsured, huge number are underinsured and the rest are gettting lousy service or just plain screwed by HMOs, drug companies and even doctors who are forced to be businesmen first and medical professionals distant second.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from dddooo:

Medicine already costs trillions, we are all paying for it, we just are not getting it.

The medical share of GDP is significantly larger then for any other developed country. Nevertheless 45 mln people are uninsured, huge number are underinsured and the rest are gettting lousy service or just plain screwed by HMOs, drug companies and even doctors who are forced to be businesmen first and medical professionals distant second.

I agree in part, but the devil is in the details. Yes, we pay a lot. Why? The liability crisis is a big factor. The Dem's are a wholly owned subsidiary of the trial lawyers and fight any attempts at even modest reform.

A more subtle reason we spend more than other countries involves subsidizing pharmaceutical research. Canada has next to no drug industry, so they have laws limiting the prices for drugs. In effect, they are free-riding off US consumers. It should be considered a free trade violation, as Canada and other price control countries are basically stealing the drug industry's intellectual property and forcing US consumers to make up the difference.

Countries with socialized medicine also hold down costs by rationing care. Elective surgery can take months to get, advanced equipment we take for granted like MRI machines are either not available or take forever to get at and patients such as the elderly are just denied needed services. Wonder if people here are prepared for that so that illegal immigrants can continue to get first class care for free?

All the talk about lack of insurance has to be put in perspective. Some, like young people, just make a decision not to have it. Theyare healthy and would rather spend the money elsewhere. Others are without it for short periods of time, while switching jobs for example.

Axeman makes an excellent point. What makes anyone thing the government will do a better job? I really don't want going to the doctor to be like getting my driver's license,eg, endless lines, arrogant government employees, stupid policies and , most important, no competition.

Our current system is not perfect by a long shot and probably could use drastic reform, but let's not throw out something that works reasonably well for the vast majority unless we are getting something a lot better.

 

[Maverick74]

Quote from dddooo:

Medicine already costs trillions, we are all paying for it, we just are not getting it.

The medical share of GDP is significantly larger then for any other developed country. Nevertheless 45 mln people are uninsured, huge number are underinsured and the rest are getting lousy service or just plain screwed by HMOs, drug companies and even doctors who are forced to be businesmen first and medical professionals distant second.

You guys are missing the big picture here. You want to know why healthcare premiums cost so much today vs 10, 20 or 30 years ago? Take a look around you. Over 60% of our nation is overweight and 30% is obese. Then throw in the 40% that smoke, the 70% that drink too much and then add in all the drug use. And what do you get? You get a country that is in terrible shape physically. And you wonder why premiums are so high. Well let me ask you something. If a 40 year old overweight, smoker, drinker, and part time drug user walked in your HMO office looking for a policy, what kind of rates would you give him?

The problem with this country is that since we are so unhealthy, everyone pays for it. Yes, even those that are in perfect health pay for through a probability distribution created by actuaries. Instead of people taking responsibility for their own health, they destroy their bodies and run to the HMO's and complain that they can't get a reasonable policy. What a joke.

If you want to lower healthcare premiums in this country, take care of yourself and tell your friends to do the same. Nobody wants to underwrite your health risks when you are a health risk.
And if we had socialized medicine like the democrats are proposing, the health of this country would only get worse because then, you wouldn't have to take any responsibility. Eat all you want, smoke all you want, shoot up all you want, and when you get sick, just pop into the doctors office and he'll fix you up on our tax dollars.

On top of that, if you let the government run healthcare you are just asking for fraud. Imagine who is going to stick their hands in the jar when there are hundreds of billions of dollars there for the taking and all you have to do is file a claim to get it. It's like robbing a bank except you won't need a gun. Come on people, you guys are smarter then this.

You want to fix out healthcare system in this country, we need to reduce malpractice costs, get healthier, create as much competition in the healthcare sector as possible and keep the government as far away as possible from it.