|
DomKen -> RE: Could we kindly cut the Nazi/communist crap? (9/1/2009 12:58:25 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
Missed this so I'll add it as an 'edit'.
quote:
You've always claimed to be pro business and yet you're opposed to health care reform but you've never made any sort of cogent argument. How much higher do health care costs in the US have to go before they completely render all of our businesses non competitive in the world economy? Do you really think waiting till then to fix the system is the way to go? My argument is basic. The current, so called, Health-Care Bill does not address either the economic issue or care issue. It is overpriced, and does nothing to slow down spiraling costs. It caters to the politicians 'special interest' benefactors; something that should be obvious to anyone looking closely at the attempt to push it through at all costs prior to the August 1st recess.
Speaking of "Scare Tactics" weren't we all supposed to experience some dire consequence if this wasn't passed in the artificial time line dictated, and then backed off from, by this Administration? Pass it now - read it later seemed to be the rallying cry. Made for an easy target for all the purported 'fear mongering' coming from the opposition. Actually, it made it quite easy to generate the suspicion that currently exists about the agenda of this Administration. But that's commentary and not representative of fact.
The solution? Require all employers to pay for their employees health coverage regardless of their status as full or part time. Include access to family coverage at the market rate to cover the employee's family. All uninsured would be covered through existing Medicare/Medicaid programs. Require all government employees to be covered by the existing Medicare/Medicaid programs.
Qualify as a "cogent argument" and alternative solution? Won't require 1000 pages, the 'pay-back', and the pork. Too simple for anyone in this current batch of Senators/Congressmen to consider.
An interesting proposal but flawed. Your plan wouldn't address the insurance tricks used in dropping people who start getting expensive for innocent application errors. It wouldn't address the insurance companies shrinking coverage under the co called 'consumer driven plans.' It would actually price many mor people out of insurance as family coverage at so called market rates would be exorbitant.
But credit where credit is due. Pare off a bunch of rhetoric and red herrings and you have a plan.
quote:
quote:
We can start with Dukakis, Carter and Max Cleland.
I'm comfortable letting the record and results of the Carter Administration speak for themselves. Disagreeing philosophically with him doesn't change those. I consider him innocent and naive but of good intention. I would question that he represents someone "destroyed" by the right wing and not his results.
His record of successful Middle East peace talks, reduced dependance on foreign oil, starting the absolutely necessary research on alternative sources of power, beginning the arduous process of getting stagflation, caused by mismanagement of the money supply under Nixon and Ford coupled with the oil embargo, under control. A very successful POTUS.
Or did you mean the propoganda lies that have been repeated like a mantra by the right to alleviate the guilt of destroying the best man to be POTUS in the 20th century?
quote:
As a candidate Dukakis never got his message across. What was it? Is the caricature of him in an ill fitting helmet your reference point for "right wing" destruction? Is that what translated into him winning ten States and DC? I would think what occurred with the viable Democratic candidate from that year, Gary Hart, would make your case better, or even Joe Biden's "plagiarizing" disclosure; back when integrity had a place in politics. Living through those times and as much as a political junkie as I am now; I recall the most negative campaigning came in the Democratic primaries from Al Gore directed at Richard Gephardt which cost him the UAW endorsement. You also had the very viable Jessie Jackson campaign which split the party, especially in the South. I remember Senator Dukakis being the fall back candidate after Cuomo, Kennedy, and even Bill Clinton passed on the opportunity to run against the Reagan legacy. However, I'll need you to provide what you are referring to regarding any "right wing" destruction of the man or the candidacy. Much of what was used in the National campaign was a re-hash from the Democratic primaries. I always wondered why Jackson wasn't pegged as the VP over Bentsen. If nothing else the debates with Quayle would have been a lot more entertaining, and could have produced a different result.
His message was put out, deficit reduction was a major plank. It was drowned out by the Bush/Atwater Willie Horton ads and all the rest of the dirty tricks. Nice to see you decided to throw red herrings about other elements of the campaign than defame him though.
quote:
Cleland, running in 2002 as an 'anti-war' candidate was victim of 'right wing' destruction? He provided an alternative for the Bush Administration action after 9/11. The voter at the time didn't want that person representing them. He brought more attention to the 'swift boat' issue than the issue itself. Again - this is the "destruction"?
Cleland's patriotism was attacked. Chambliss ran a repugnant ad putting OBL and Cleland together. It was a lie, Cleland opposed the war in Iraq which we all know had nothing to do with OBL or 9/11.
Do you deny that they were all good patriotic men better than the men who won those races, which was what the discussion is supposed to be about?
|
|
|
|
