CE 7

[JesusLooksLikeMe]

As the debate shifts to domestic policies I expect Kerry to score a clear victory on the health care issue. This must be where Bush is most vulnerable (along with the deficit, possibly).

- Healthcare premiums have soared by 59% since 2000.
- Those without health coverage increased by 3.2% in 2003 compared with the year before, to leave 45 million Americans without any health coverage.
- Americans are banned from buying cheaper drugs from Canada
- Bush is blocking crucial stem cell research to appease some wacko religious loonies on the right-wing fringe of his party, despite the fact it might lead to cheaper and more effective treatments.

If Kerry can't make any telling political mileage out of this shameful, disgraceful situation, then he's really not up to much.

Now, I'm not expecting it to be an election winner. I think the economy, the advantages of incumbency, and foreign policy issues will still see Bush comfortably returned to power. But Kerry needs to make enough of a splash on health during this campaign to force some real change in this area. It's what America needs, and what America deserves.

I honestly don't know why you guys don't switch to European/Canadian healthcare systems. They work. They're proven to work over decades. If there's one area where the USA can learn from other nations, it's in the area of health care systems.

[alexiscarrington]

I agree that this should be Kerry's strong point. However the impact on American people, I am not sure what it will have. They seem to prefer being scared instead of medicated :-)

[Dr. Drum]

Mary said:

I wanted to see how much of the talk about democracy was really "you can have a democracy as long as you vote for our guys" - to put it crudely. I don't think it's really that crude or black-and-white, but I do think the goal of democracy stands in a certain tension with some of our other goals, and we've all too often conflated democratization with the achievement of these other goals.

Mary, I’d agree and I’m sure for the Wolfowitz’s and Fieth’s of this world this conflation you talk about is very much the case. At the same time, shutting out the guys they don’t want has always been a prime factor in the way the coalition has prepared for elections at all levels of government in Iraq. America, under Bush, is setting up for a long stay in Iraq c/w permanent military bases and the largest U.S. embassy in the Middle East. When it comes down to it, I don’t think the powers that be are going to have any illusions about where the rhetoric ends and the realpolitik begins. (In contrast, though it got no play whatsoever afterwards, I thought Kerry saying during the first debate that he would make it clear that the U.S. has no future designs on Iraq was an interesting comment.)

JesusLooksLikeMe said:

I honestly don't know why you guys don't switch to European/Canadian healthcare systems. They work. They're proven to work over decades. If there's one area where the USA can learn from other nations, it's in the area of health care systems.

Last time there was a realistic chance of the U.S. switching to some form of universal, publicly funded healthcare system was in about 1948. The political currents are almost all wrong for it now – in terms of the prevailing ideologies; in terms of the numbers of powerful, corporate interests in opposition, etc. etc.

Although, it is interesting that some American corporate leaders have now begun to talk about Canada’s public health system in terms of the competitive advantage that it gives firms here over American companies.

[Galactus]

Jllm, Rumsfeld's flip flop is being largely ignored, unfortunatly. Cheney said almost the exact same thing, said he didn't say that and then said it again....repeatedly. As much as the pubs complain about a liberal media the current admistration has a phenominal nack for coming out clean when in it up to there eye balls. It's amazing the shit these guys get away with...but the slightest slip from Kerry is turned into gigantic "inconsistancies" within minutes. The W media manipulation machine is a truly amazing thing to watch.

[chrisfan]

Responsible voting
Thomas Sowell


October 7, 2004


Every election year there are great alarms in the media that not enough Americans vote. Supposedly this shows that there is something wrong at the core of our society. In reality, societies where different groups are at each other's throats often have high voter turnout, as each fears the worst if some other group gains political power.

Polarization is a high price to pay for high voter turnout. But efforts are already underway to scare old people that their Social Security is threatened, in order to get out their vote, when in fact nobody in his right mind is going to touch their Social Security.

It is young people who are more likely to find that their promised pensions are not there when they get old -- unless they get some private pension in the meantime, with or without privatization of Social Security.

Since 90 percent of the black vote goes to Democrats, it is especially important for Democrats to scare blacks, in order to get a large turnout. Charges of "racism" have been used for this purpose in the past but it is hard to make that stick against an administration with the first black Secretary of State and the first black National Security Adviser in the White House.

The ploy this time is to claim that Republicans are trying to "suppress" the black vote "again." Senator Kerry has stooped to this, despite the fact that many of the voting booth problems in Florida in 2000 occurred in precincts controlled by election officials who were Democrats.

Other uses of polarization to increase voter turnout include Senator John Edwards' claim that there are "two Americas" and the old familiar line about "tax cuts for the rich."

Whatever the effectiveness of polarization in boosting turnout for Democrats, the larger question is: What is its effect on the country as a whole -- and not just during election years? A country whose people see each other as enemies is in big trouble, often in bigger trouble than its worst enemies can make.

People who have no partisan axes to grind may see a big voter turnout as a healthy form of self-expression. They want to see registration and voting made easier -- and are often reluctant to see that this makes voter fraud easier as well.

Voter fraud is not a small thing, especially when elections are very close, as in 2000 and as apparently this one may be as well, judging by the polls. A more fundamental problem, however, is that voting is not just a matter of individual self-expression. It is choosing the people in whose hands the destiny of this nation will be placed.

That is an enormous responsibility at a time when Americans are in greater peril than even during the nuclear stand-off of the Cold War. After all, the Soviet Union could be deterred by our nuclear weapons but suicide bombers cannot be deterred by anything. And it may be only a matter of a few years before they have nuclear weapons.

Choosing leaders in a time like this as a matter of self-expression may be the biggest, and perhaps last, self-indulgence in a self-indulgent age. We are not choosing politicians for style or rhetoric. We are deciding who has what it takes to confront our enemies and deter nations who would give aid and sanctuary to those enemies.

In this context, the emphasis on a duty to vote is a very misplaced emphasis. When the right choice is so critical, the emphasis needs to be on making an informed decision, not a knee-jerk response to images and talk.

A citizen who cannot be bothered to find out the facts about the issues, not just media spin or party propaganda, is doing a disservice to this country by voting -- especially when electing leaders making life-and-death decisions whose consequences will affect this generation and generations to come.

Those who vote on the basis of what the government can do for them are especially short-sighted during a war against worldwide terror networks. What good would it do to get free prescription drugs forever if your forever is likely to be cut short by more attacks like those on September 11, 2001?

[Galactus]

I can't believe you just posted that. That's not even very good propaganda.

[chrisfan]

DED said:

I can't believe you just posted that. That's not even very good propaganda.

I know it will come as a shock, but I disagree. I think it makes a good point about the difference between voting, and informed voting. I think all the voter registration drives are great, to a degree, but I think they fall VERY short when the focus only on getting people to the polls, and don't mention preparing to be there.

[chrisfan]

DED, a while ago, we had a lengthy discussion over whether or not lying should be allowed in poltical ads. As a follow up to that, I thought you may find this piece from factcheck.org interesting.

factcheck.org/SpecialReports.aspx?docID=188

[pissin2]

Everyone should go to factcheck.com It's a great site.

Bush/Cheney 04!

[JesusLooksLikeMe]

I'll assume the lack of right-wing response to my post on the health issue is a tacit admission that they don't want to defend the indefensible. Further evidence that Kerry really needs to focus on health as much as possible in the next few days, since the right have nothing to say on the subject beyond some vague mutterings about charity.

On a different note, I hope Chirac has been landed in the shit by the Iraq Survey Group. Proof of what we long suspected: The French veto at the UN was bought by Saddam's bribes, and promise of electoral funding for certain French figures and oil contracts for French firms. Watch all those who held up Chirac as an enlightened and principled figure in this war now backslide frantically.

[stratman19]

JesusLooksLikeMe said:

I'll assume the lack of right-wing response to my post on the health issue is a tacit admission that they don't want to defend the indefensible. Further evidence that Kerry really needs to focus on health as much as possible in the next few days, since the right have nothing to say on the subject beyond some vague mutterings about charity.

On a different note, I hope Chirac has been landed in the shit by the Iraq Survey Group. Proof of what we long suspected: The French veto at the UN was bought by Saddam's bribes, and promise of electoral funding for certain French figures and oil contracts for French firms. Watch all those who held up Chirac as an enlightened and principled figure in this war now backslide frantically.

JLLM, on the health care issue, I don't agree with you at all. No tacit admission from me. I don't have time right now..I'm out the door to meet a guy from work in Clare. We're going to a big sportings goods store there, as I'm in the market for another handgun. I'll try to get back with you later today.

No surprise from where I sit regarding the fucking French. Be back later....

[chrisfan]

JesusLooksLikeMe said:

I'll assume the lack of right-wing response to my post on the health issue is a tacit admission that they don't want to defend the indefensible.

Not in the slightest. It's merely an indication that we've discussed this issue at length in the past, I continue to have the same views I had then, you appear to have the same views that you had then, and given that I'm quite tired today, I just don't have the energy to play that broken record again.

[JesusLooksLikeMe]

I ask you all - right and left alike - to join me and support the Stop Esso campaign, by boycotting ExxonMobil products. This company made the largest annual profits ever seen in the corporate world, but after supporting Bush's decision to boycott Kyoto (fair enough) they've increased their greenhoue gas emissions by 2%, pumping out more than the whole of Norway, and admit they have no targets whatsoever in terms of limiting emissions.

Though they have weak excuses, other oil companies seem to be doing better in this area by far. For example, BP produces only fractionally less oil and gas, but Exxon's emissions are 50% higher than BP's.

So a planned consumer boycott may just force ExxonMobil to at least TRY and address the issue as their competitors are doing.

[chrisfan]

JLLM, I'll join you in that boycott, so that it can officially be a Castaways Bi-Partisain boycott. Here's a link to their website that lists their various products, so you can make sure you're not mistakenly buying their products.

www.exxonmobil.com/Siteflow/SF_PS_GlobalProductsServices.asp

I do support not increasing, and in some cases decreasing government regulation on these issues. But with that comes responsiblities for companies to behave themselves. When you don't, you deserve to be slapped.

You've gotta make sure that if you take your car to a service station for oil changes that does not designate what kind of oil they use, that you ask.

[JesusLooksLikeMe]

Thankyou Chrisfan. I'm both grateful and extremely impressed with you.

A bipartisan RS movement it is then!!