Amy Sullivan: Ha! That'll Be The Day! Erm...
I promise to limit the number of times I link to my boyfriend (or myself) on this blog, but since he's a writer, a fellow journalist, and an astute political observer, it's going to happen from time to time. My apologies in advance.
With that over with, I'd like to direct your attention to this observation by Noam Scheiber, of The New Republic. A paragraph at the end of a New York Times story today caught his attention with this quote: "There's going to be a moderate party for Joe Blow, and whether that party is the Republican Party or the Democratic Party, that's the battle we're seeing," Mr. Yelton [a lifelong North Carolina Democrat who recently switched parties] said. "I expect to see Hillary Clinton quoting Scripture before it's over with."
As Scheiber points out, Clinton does quote scripture. She goes to church, too. And she's a devoted member - with Sam Brownback - of a Senate Bible study group.
The fact that most Americans, whether liberal or conservative, "know" that these things can't possibly be true is a problem I've long thought was undervalued by those who assess Senator Clinton's presidential chances. Americans believe she is liberal and faithless. So when Clinton speaks as her true self, as a politically moderate woman of faith, one of two things happen: People either don't hear her because they can't process contradictory information, or they think she's faking it, positioning herself for a White House run.
If Clinton was just an unknown Senate candidate who was appearing on the political stage this fall, her moderate politics and sensible approach to cultural issues would make her a perfect Democratic candidate. But she isn't. And, frankly, if Hillary Clinton wasn't Hillary Clinton, she wouldn't be the presumptive Democratic nominee either.
With that over with, I'd like to direct your attention to this observation by Noam Scheiber, of The New Republic. A paragraph at the end of a New York Times story today caught his attention with this quote: "There's going to be a moderate party for Joe Blow, and whether that party is the Republican Party or the Democratic Party, that's the battle we're seeing," Mr. Yelton [a lifelong North Carolina Democrat who recently switched parties] said. "I expect to see Hillary Clinton quoting Scripture before it's over with."
As Scheiber points out, Clinton does quote scripture. She goes to church, too. And she's a devoted member - with Sam Brownback - of a Senate Bible study group.
The fact that most Americans, whether liberal or conservative, "know" that these things can't possibly be true is a problem I've long thought was undervalued by those who assess Senator Clinton's presidential chances. Americans believe she is liberal and faithless. So when Clinton speaks as her true self, as a politically moderate woman of faith, one of two things happen: People either don't hear her because they can't process contradictory information, or they think she's faking it, positioning herself for a White House run.
If Clinton was just an unknown Senate candidate who was appearing on the political stage this fall, her moderate politics and sensible approach to cultural issues would make her a perfect Democratic candidate. But she isn't. And, frankly, if Hillary Clinton wasn't Hillary Clinton, she wouldn't be the presumptive Democratic nominee either.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Moderate politics? As in the failed health care plan?>
Posted by: Timbo | October 30, 2006 5:59 PM
I don't understand why her faith is important in the first place. Honestly the less Christians in the white house the better.
p>
Posted by: Payshun | October 30, 2006 6:06 PM
"I expect to see Hillary Clinton quoting Scripture before it's over with."
Hillary's a brilliant woman, but I have to say that this is a suitably chilling thought for Halloween ;)>
Posted by: badmash | October 30, 2006 6:56 PM
I don't believe Hillary is as radical as her enemies try to paint her.
What I do believe is that with her brilliant husband advising her, she will say almost anything to maneuver herself into the position she feels will get her the most votes. Her public statements on many subjects just keep "evolving" too much to be anything other than maneuvering (or pandering, if you prefer). She may or may not be the next president - I don't really care.
What will be interesting is when as president she finds herself either defending or continuing some policy of the Bush adminsitration, how quickly Jim Wallis, Tony Campolo and other Democratic-minded folks will insist that the policy in question is all good and they have always been for it. It will also be interesting to see how quickly Bush supporters jump into the fray saying that the policy in question is evil and horrible and no true American or Christian could possibly support it.
It will be an entertaining spectacle, and I can't wait!>
Posted by: timks | October 30, 2006 7:07 PM
Is there any more hypocrisy in Hillary Clinton quoting scripture than with gw bush quoting scripture?
The only differences between Hillary Clinton and anyone else considering a bid for the presidency, Democrat of Republican, is that she is a woman and she is married to a former president. If you put any candidate under the microscope you will find flaws. Everyone running for office panders to the electorate.
If Hillary Clinton won the Democratic nomination for the presidency, I would have no problem voting for her, but I wouldn t have much hope of seeing her win. I m afraid the presidency is one of the few jobs in this country that is still only open to white men, and I don t expect to see that change within my lifetime.
Personally, I would love to see a woman or a minority as the president, but I don t have that much faith in the U.S. electorate.
This post will probably generate a lot of yeah, but responses.>
Posted by: neuro_nurse | October 30, 2006 7:29 PM
Neuro Nurse,
Unforunately I agree.
p>
Posted by: Payshun | October 30, 2006 7:30 PM
I would not like to see Hillary run for the Presidency.
She's a lightning rod for hate from the right.
Hillary is doing a great job in the Senate.
I'd like to see her develop into the grand old lady of the Senate.
I agree with Payshun, the fewer blatantly demonstrative Christians in our government the better.
.>
Posted by: justintime | October 30, 2006 7:54 PM
Bush has a speech writer who's specialty is putting religious talk into his speeches. I've heard some of the things that he says when he doesn't know that the microphone's turned on and he's not reading a prepared speech. Let's just say that it wouldn't get him too far in Sunday School.
Faith talk from Hillary would be phony. I'm not saying that her faith is phony, but the infusion of Jesus and God into her way of communicating would come across as being phony to me.
I'd much prefer we all got back to discussing the pros and cons of pursuing/not pursuing certain initiatives to solve significant problems in our country, but I don't see that happening anytime soon. At least the midterm campaigning in my area didn't indicate that things are about to change.
Two moderates in my area are running for Congress. The Republican incumbent was painted as being in bed with Bush. The Democratic challenger was painted as being one of those nasty "liberals." Based on mailings and tv ads, I couldn't tell you what either candidate would do in office. No significant issues were addressed.
Things aren't going to change. The best we can hope for is a little competence.>
Posted by: watsy | October 30, 2006 8:09 PM
justinintime -
Is it just demonstrative Christians with which you have problems, or all demonstrative religious folks?
Would demonstrative communists (to pick an extreme example) bother you?>
Posted by: timks | October 30, 2006 8:31 PM
American politics is about the middle, or moderate, position. Always has been. But I don't think most Americans want more interference of the government in their lives. Most of us want less. We should vote for gridlock.
As Christians we should be doing the things we see as necessary to the social gospel ourselves and through our churches, not by engaging the political mechanism on our behalf. Only that which is done voluntarily can be done purely.>
Posted by: juris naturalist | October 30, 2006 8:56 PM
2 thoughts:
1. The Clintons, as much as I don't like them, are very good with politics. I have a very hard time believing Clinton is doing this for altruistic reasons, although I hope for her sake that I am wrong. She is blatantly pro-choice, which is pretty hard to do when following Christ.
2. I believe the Constitution states that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States" (Article VI). In fact, I don't just believe it; I actually quoted it. I know you guys aren't saying Christians can't be in office, but I don't understand why you have such animosity towards them. If someone's faith requires them to act it out, they can't be disqualified for the office on these grounds. And Payshun, for you to say what you said, you have to be against every President in US history (since they all considered themselves Christian).>
Posted by: HAC | October 30, 2006 9:20 PM
As Christians we should be doing the things we see as necessary to the social gospel ourselves and through our churches, not by engaging the political mechanism on our behalf. Only that which is done voluntarily can be done purely.
Well said. Gridlock wouldn't be too bad, either, since our "conservative" Republicans keep expanding the government.>
Posted by: HAC | October 30, 2006 9:23 PM
[As Christians we should be doing the things we see as necessary to the social gospel ourselves and through our churches, not by engaging the political mechanism on our behalf. Only that which is done voluntarily can be done purely.]
I see that as half right. Yes, Christians and the whole body of Christ are to be at serving our fellow humans; but some of the founders also thought government should be at "promoting the general welfare.">
Posted by: Deryll | October 30, 2006 10:00 PM
Yes, and people like me believe that the general welfare is best promoted when the government does much less [than it does now] and individuals help voluntarily.>
Posted by: HAC | October 30, 2006 10:03 PM
She is blatantly pro-choice, which is pretty hard to do when following Christ.
Is it hard to think greed, selfishness, lying, pride, lust, etc. should be legal when following Christ?>
Posted by: D4P | October 30, 2006 10:08 PM
"Personally, I would love to see a woman or a minority as the president, but I don t have that much faith in the U.S. electorate."
Why? We elect frequently elect minorities to other positions. What do you think of Michael Steele? I certainly hope he wins in his race against Ben Cardin (Democratic minorities are lining up behind Steele, which is a good sign) and he seems to have the swagger to make it work.>
Posted by: kevin s. | October 30, 2006 10:11 PM
I think people see Hilalry's faith as coldly political because her husband is coldly political (and hardly an example of faith). And also because she is coldly political.>
Posted by: kevin s. | October 30, 2006 10:14 PM
[I know you guys aren't saying Christians can't be in office, but I don't understand why you have such animosity towards them.]
As Tom DeLay waits for his trial; isn't he going around "preaching"? "Some" of those who have blatently professed their faith have given Christianity a black eye. Perhaps that is the source of the comments. I think Jesus commanded us to humble ourselves for good reason!
I'm blatently pro-life; blatently anti war; blatently anti capital punishment; and blatently for balancing the budget by raising the taxes on the wealthiest of us. I don't expect to have a candidate any time soon.>
Posted by: Deryll | October 30, 2006 10:15 PM
I have a problem with anyone who calls himself or herself a Christian, in politics or not, who talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk.
Secularists are having a field day publicizing the hypocrisy of people who wear their Christianity on their shirtsleeve. It hurts all of us.>
Posted by: neuro_nurse | October 30, 2006 10:16 PM
[Yes, and people like me believe that the general welfare is best promoted when the government does much less [than it does now] and individuals help voluntarily.]
I don't like regulations and paperwork in my work; however the government is duty bound to to try to stop those who voluntarily "rape and pillage" their fellow man (and the environment). Considering the nature of "us humans", I believe government must continue.>
Posted by: Deryll | October 30, 2006 10:26 PM
Yes, and people like me believe that the general welfare is best promoted when the government does much less [than it does now] and individuals help voluntarily
Would you prefer volunteer militias over the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines?>
Posted by: D4P | October 30, 2006 10:37 PM
I'm in pretty much the same boat as Deryll. But I do have a Presidential candidate I can vote for - Joe Schreiner.
Hillary Clinton is a consistent death ethic candidate - pro-war, pro-abortion, pro-death penalty. Got a problem? Kill somebody. Unfortunately that does seem to qualify one as a "moderate" in American politics.
But it's sad to see a onetime prophetic Christian group like Sojourners sink to publishing the views of an apparent consistent death ethic supporter like Amy Sullivan, apparently with the idea that she represents their approach.
Sojourners trumpeted having Hillary speak at their conference this summer. But they wouldn't invite a consistent life ethic political alternative like Joe Schreiner.
I suggest that Christians not support Sojourners/Call to Renewal. If you have been contributing, redirect your contributions to groups which more closely represent the values of Jesus Christ, like Evangelicals for Social Action and Friends Committee on National Legislation.>
Posted by: Bill Samuel | October 30, 2006 10:59 PM
timks, "Is it just demonstrative Christians with which you have problems, or all demonstrative religious folks?
I don't have a problem with demonstrative Christians or any demonstrative religious folks per se.
But public servants that need to demonstrate their faith credentials in public cause me to suspect they might not have a humble spirit.
And self righteous arrogance turns me off.
I would like to see more public servants - conservative, liberal, progressive, green, libertartian, whatever they are - who can demonstrate their intelligence, integrity, wisdom, competence, energy and humble spirit.
Would demonstrative communists (to pick an extreme example) bother you?"
Communists need not apply.
Pure communism has many times been proven to be a tragic failure.
I believe government is good at some things and not good for others.
And I believe capitalism with a free market is good at some things and a failure in others.
.>
Posted by: justintime | October 30, 2006 11:10 PM
Deryll,
I won't debate you on DeLay because it will get off topic. To your overall point, however, hypocrisy is wrong and can be damaging to the perception of Christians. But Payshun said, "the less Christians in the white house the better".
Also, I never indicated the government should discontinue. I agree with you on its purpose.
---
D4P,
The current military is voluntary and I believe it should remain that way. No I would not prefer militias over our current DoD structure. Both are necessary.
Also, the sins you mention (greed, etc.) are legal to the extent they do not cause positive harm to another (i.e., I can be as greedy as I want until I start steeling, then the law kicks in). That is because they are sinful thoughts. The government only regulates action, specifically action against someone else. Whatever thoughts may lead one to get an abortion are perfectly legal and should be. To say, however, that the act should also be legal is blatantly unchristian.>
Posted by: HAC | October 30, 2006 11:33 PM
"moderate politics" and "sensible approach to cultural issues"??
Is there any piece of legislation supported by prolife groups and opposed by prochoice groups that Clinton supports? It seems like parental notification for abortion (supported by a strong majority of the US) would be a "sensible approach to cultural issues", but Hillary and the Dems recently gutted such measures in the Senate. It seems like a sensible approach would not use a pro-abortion litmus test for all supreme court judges, and would not support tax-payer funded abortion and partial-birth abortion. I'm trying to figure out what's sensible about Hillary's approach to cultural issues, when she is on the side of death and clearly to the left of most Americans on these issues.
Are there any posters on this blog who are prolife or who think that abortion constitutes an injustice? I believe Ron Sider is. What do you think are the chances of getting him to post a prolife blog? Would Sojo allow him to do so?>
Posted by: jessie | October 30, 2006 11:53 PM
justintime, "But public servants that need to demonstrate their faith credentials in public cause me to suspect they might not have a humble spirit.
And self righteous arrogance turns me off."
I can sort of agree, but I believe a humble spirit will manifest itself whether or not the person demonstrates their 'faith credentials.' I completely agree with you on the self-righteous arrogance part. That is why I have little use for Jim Wallis, Jimmy Carter, Pat Robertson or [insert your least favorite self-righteous arrogant figure here]. I would not make the grave mistake of thinking that the Right has a monopoly on self-righteous arrogance.
"Communists need not apply.
Pure communism has many times been proven to be a tragic failure.
I believe government is good at some things and not good for others.
And I believe capitalism with a free market is good at some things and a failure in others."
Once again, we almost completely agree. I would argue that pure communism - at least as Marx envisioned it - has never been tried, thank goodness. The impure varieties tried so far are quite bad enough.
The only other thing I would qualify our agreement on is the last part of your statement. I think it is important to recognize the difference between an alleged "free market" failure and a free market result not to our liking.>
Posted by: timks | October 31, 2006 12:39 AM
"Are there any posters on this blog who are prolife or who think that abortion constitutes an injustice? I believe Ron Sider is. What do you think are the chances of getting him to post a prolife blog? Would Sojo allow him to do so?"
Nope. But, remember. You can be prolife, and advocate for laws that make abortion legal under any circumstance. Convenient, huh?>
Posted by: kevin s. | October 31, 2006 1:40 AM
"...'There's going to be a moderate party for Joe Blow, and whether that party is the Republican Party or the Democratic Party, that's the battle we're seeing,..'."
May some alternative to the democratic party or republican party emerge.>
Posted by: Mike Hayes 2 | October 31, 2006 2:27 AM
May some alternative to the democratic party or republican party emerge
Amen. I would like to see an explicitly Christ-following party that didn't identify with either of the two main secular parties and that wasn't beholden to monied interests.>
Posted by: D4P | October 31, 2006 2:31 AM
This is an unusual position I find myself in - agreeing with anything Amy Sullivan says. But I must say that she is right in that it is not a surprise that Hillary Clinton would quote scripture. She is after all a Methodist (of the liberal kind). I don't think we have reason to doubt her sincerity.
I would not characterize her as a moderate though. Timbo is right - the attempt at a healthcare plan was about as far left as it's possible to get.
I don't see any reason to believe that her religious expression is essentially hypocritical. Lots of people in liberal mainline churches take the positions she does, especially on abortion. I'm not prepared to doubt the faith of a large proportion of the church in America, even if I am in strong disageement with their point of view. And since I don't beliueve there is anything essentially unChristian about being pro death penalty or pro war, I can hardly fault her for those views.
She is indeed a political opportunist - but then what politician isn't?
I do have some trouble with Sojourners touting the virtues of particular politicians - this is the second recent time they've done that. Shame on them.>
Posted by: Gordon | October 31, 2006 2:33 AM
Deryll, "I'm blatently pro-life; blatently anti war; blatently anti capital punishment; and blatently for balancing the budget by raising the taxes on the wealthiest of us. I don't expect to have a candidate any time soon."
You may never find a candidate that matches up with your all of your criteria.
But it's likely you will find a candidate that meets 3 out of your 4 criteria.
What will you do if that candidate doesn't satisfy your pro-life criterion?
.>
Posted by: justintime | October 31, 2006 2:39 AM
It is an odd commentary here, where the progressives dislike Sen. Clinton becuase of her pro-war stance, and the conservatives are sure that she is a radical underneath all that conservative clothing.
What the Senator appears to be is some sort of ideological lighting rod for the Right. The reflexive response indicates less her actual positions or policies than an internalized need for a "demon" -- a personification of evil. For them, I would recommend the NYT Magazine portrait. The person is indeed some one quite other than the caricature.
(Oh, and healthcare? as the burgeoning millions without it testify, as the sham medicare drug poilcy so eloquently proclaims -- her program was far from radical. It was actually a sensible response. But that is a different argument)>
Posted by: HARRIS | October 31, 2006 2:51 AM
timks, "I would not make the grave mistake of thinking that the Right has a monopoly on self-righteous arrogance."
I try not to.
timks, "Once again, we almost completely agree. I would argue that pure communism - at least as Marx envisioned it - has never been tried, thank goodness. The impure varieties tried so far are quite bad enough."
Pure communism has been tried, I think, only on a very small scale. Even then it failed.
The dramatic failures of communism were totalitarian states.
Today's communists feel that the failures were due more from the totalitarian political structure than from the communistic economic structure.
I think that's what keeps the die hard communists going.
They don't think communism was ever given a fair chance to succeed.
timks, "The only other thing I would qualify our agreement on is the last part of your statement. I think it is important to recognize the difference between an alleged "free market" failure and a free market result not to our liking."
Could you give some examples to illustrate your point?
Where do you think government can be successful?
Where do you think free markets fall down?
.>
Posted by: justintime | October 31, 2006 2:59 AM
HARRIS, "(Oh, and healthcare? as the burgeoning millions without it testify, as the sham medicare drug poilcy so eloquently proclaims -- her program was far from radical. It was actually a sensible response. But that is a different argument)"
I agree with this.
.>
Posted by: justintime | October 31, 2006 3:01 AM
Jessie, "It seems like parental notification for abortion (supported by a strong majority of the US) would be a 'sensible approach to cultural issues', but Hillary and the Dems recently gutted such measures in the Senate. It seems like a sensible approach would not use a pro-abortion litmus test for all supreme court judges, and would not support tax-payer funded abortion and partial-birth abortion."
I agree with you on this Jessie.
I was disappointed when the Dems stripped this out of the initiative.
But I wasn't surprised.
The electorate has been so polarized by the abortion issue that it will be difficult to even get an 'abortion reduction' bill through Congress.
I think this is because of over-the-top aggressiveness by the anti-abortion movement.
.>
Posted by: justintime | October 31, 2006 3:09 AM
"...the attempt at a healthcare plan was about as far left as it's possible to get...".
Availability of healthcare seems parallel with caring for those who are thirsty, hungry, "naked" or lacking adequate shelter.>
Posted by: Mike Hayes 2 | October 31, 2006 3:12 AM
Mike -
"Availability of healthcare seems parallel with caring for those who are thirsty, hungry, "naked" or lacking adequate shelter."
Agreed, but making it a crime to choose your own doctor does go over the top a bit.>
Posted by: Gordon | October 31, 2006 3:16 AM
Gordon, "Agreed, but making it a crime to choose your own doctor does go over the top a bit."
A crime?
A bit overstated, Gordon.
Many private plans don't allow you to choose your own doctor either.
I'm for universal health care where you get to choose your own doctor.
I hope Congress takes another run at passing universal health care.
.>
Posted by: justintime | October 31, 2006 3:20 AM
Justin -
Then it's a matter of finding a healthcare plan that allows you to choose your own doctor, as mine does. Anyway, my point was not that you couldn't choose your own doctor, but that her plan made it a crime to do so - that is, forbade any possibility of a private healthcare market for those with the means to pay.>
Posted by: Gordon | October 31, 2006 3:23 AM
Bill Samuels, "I'm in pretty much the same boat as Deryll. But I do have a Presidential candidate I can vote for - Joe Schreiner."
I like Joe Schreiner, based on his website.
He doesn't say if he's pro-life.
If he had a real chance of being elected, I might vote for him.
What do you think of Dennis Kucinich?
.>
Posted by: justintime | October 31, 2006 3:29 AM
Justin -
"If he had a real chance of being elected, I might vote for him"
In my view, this is why we have so few alternatives.
Take a chance - vote for someone with no real hope of winning, just to make a statement - like Gatewood Galbraith.>
Posted by: Gordon | October 31, 2006 3:32 AM
vote for someone with no real hope of winning, just to make a statement
I'm sympathetic to that approach, and I've followed it before. I'm not sure it did much good...>
Posted by: D4P | October 31, 2006 3:34 AM
D4 -
It actually had a salutary effect in Kentucky, where the independent candidate won more of the vote than the Republican candidate, and the winner got less than half the vote.>
Posted by: Gordon | October 31, 2006 3:36 AM
"I believe government can do some good."
No. It can't.
And even if it could, Christ never sanctioned the use of force to achieve His ends. All government is force. Christians should seek to achieve their ends solely through voluntary means. The free market works well, and supplimented by the voluntary actions of those motivated by imitation of their God, can even meet the needs of the "least of these." Unbelievers have mo moral imperitive to help the "least of these" and Christians have no right to make other people act morally.
It is the Christian's responsibility, exclusively, to care for the world. We do this, in part, by being prosperous, and generous.>
Posted by: juris naturalist | October 31, 2006 3:38 AM
Gordon,
I didn't like Hillary's plan that much either.
It was a valiant effort, but my beef was that it was too much driven by the insurance industry and I don't think it would have been as efficient as the already functioning universal health care systems in the world.
I think most of the inefficiency in our present system is from too many profit centers and more bureacracy than the worst government I can imagine.
.>
Posted by: justintime | October 31, 2006 3:39 AM
Come to think of it, Perot helped Clinton get elected in 1992, and Nader probably helped Bush get elected in 2000. But in neither case did the "other candidate" actually win. If voting for the other candidate means helping your least favorite option, the incentives are pretty strong to vote for your second favorite option instead of the other party candidate.>
Posted by: D4P | October 31, 2006 3:40 AM
Justin -
Once in a while we agree completely on something. I attribute much of the problem with healthcare access in the U.S. to its dominance by health insurance carriers.
D4 -
Sometimes it's not about voting for the winning candidate. Sometimes it's about convincing the two nearly identical parties that we just aren't happy with either of them.>
Posted by: Gordon | October 31, 2006 3:45 AM
I'm with D4P.
The best outcome is that you might encourage the candidate that you like best, but doesn't have a chance, to try again next time.
The American political system is based on two parties.
If we had a proportional representation system we would have more choices of candidates with half a chance of getting in there.
.>
Posted by: justintime | October 31, 2006 3:48 AM
Sometimes it's about convincing the two nearly identical parties that we just aren't happy with either of them
I agree completely, but I question whether the parties ever actually "get the message." I don't identify with either party, largely because I think they're both messed up. I'm usually tempted to either not vote (my normal response), or vote for someone else. But I'm not convinced either of those approaches has the impact I would like.>
Posted by: D4P | October 31, 2006 3:49 AM
Though we generally accept the idea, it's ridiculous to think that all possible combinations of stances on issues are somehow represented by two parties. I personally don't feel like either party (even when they explicitly claim to be Christian) does a good job of representing Christ.>
Posted by: D4P | October 31, 2006 3:51 AM
Gordon, "Sometimes it's about convincing the two nearly identical parties that we just aren't happy with either of them."
You can express your disapproval in many other ways.
In my opinion, voting for a loser is not much better than staying home and watching the election on TV.
.>
Posted by: justintime | October 31, 2006 3:52 AM
D4 -
I would definitely agree with that.>
Posted by: Gordon | October 31, 2006 3:53 AM
Well, Justin, he's only a certain loser because more of us don't vote for him.>
Posted by: Gordon | October 31, 2006 4:00 AM
D4P,
Take for example, Germany.
Right now Germany is governed by a coalition of the Christian Democrat Union and the Christian Social Union of Bavaria.
The Other parties are:
Social Democratic Party of Germany
Free Democratic Party
The Left Party
Alliance 90/The Greens
.>
Posted by: justintime | October 31, 2006 4:08 AM
I also feel like the two-party system provides too much of a "cop-out" for candidates, who can just put an R or a D after their name without having to be completely explicit about their platform or even try to come up with new ideas. The system doesn't seem to provide much incentive for innovation. More competition would probably be a good thing.>
Posted by: D4P | October 31, 2006 4:10 AM
Well Gordon,
You have to get out and work for your favorite candidate.
Did you do that?
Maybe you figured it wouldn't make any difference, he would lose anyway.
That's the problem with using your vote just to "send a message".
No one is listening.
.>
Posted by: justintime | October 31, 2006 4:12 AM
Take for example, Germany.
We have friends from New Zealand, which evidently has a parliamentary system in which many minority parties get representation and some degree of "voice" in decision-making processes.>
Posted by: D4P | October 31, 2006 4:13 AM
One of the problems with proportional representation is the potential for unstable government.
Italy and Israel, for example.
Canada is a constitutional monarchy with dozens of parties, including a marijuana party.
My Canadian friends complain about their government too, but I think it's pretty good compared to ours.
Canadians tend to be much better informed on average than Americans.
That makes a big difference.
.>
Posted by: justintime | October 31, 2006 4:21 AM
Canadians tend to be much better informed on average than Americans
I think a lot of elites in our country (whether politicians, corporations, etc.) depend on us being uninformed.>
Posted by: D4P | October 31, 2006 4:24 AM
D4P, "I think a lot of elites in our country (whether politicians, corporations, etc.) depend on us being uninformed."
Bingo.
I think a big priority for the survival of democracy in America is to reorganize the media.
Americans have become hypnotized by corporate TeeVee.
.>
Posted by: justintime | October 31, 2006 4:31 AM
The corporate media is gouging our democracy.
Politicians have to take bribes to pay for TeeVee ads to get themselves reelected.
I think that providing free air time for serious candidates to get their message out should be a condition for the FCC granting franchises to use the public airwaves.
I see this as the solution to our dysfunctional democracy.
.>
Posted by: justintime | October 31, 2006 4:36 AM
Agreed. And it is very difficult to stay informed if you listen only to the mainstream media. The information is out there, but you have to dig for it - books, internet, independent media, live talks and presentations.>
Posted by: Blue | October 31, 2006 4:42 AM
Corporate teevee is toxic to the brain.
Three years ago our family of 5 stopped watching corporate teevee cold turkey.
We re getting more done.
We re reading more good books.
We watch good movies - without the ads.
We hunt our news down on the internet.
Instead of having it spoon fed to us.
We ve lengthened our attention spans.
We have a more positive outlook on life.
You can kick the habit too.
.>
Posted by: justintime | October 31, 2006 4:47 AM
Agreed again. I haven't owned a TV since I was 18, and that was longer ago than I want to admit. Raised three kids without it too. It's a useless thing. Makes people pay attention to things that don't matter much.>
Posted by: Blue | October 31, 2006 4:53 AM
justintime, "Could you give some examples to illustrate your point?
Where do you think government can be successful?
Where do you think free markets fall down?"
Our current health care situation is perceived as the failure of the free market by many. I believe it is much more accurate to see it as the inevitable result of much government blundering.
I think government can be successful in many areas. The powers enumerated in the Constitution, for starters.
I think free markets fall down in areas where the necessary conditions for them don't exist. For example, where title to property is not clear or not enforced; or where gangs of robbers have free rein; to list two examples.>
Posted by: timks | October 31, 2006 4:55 AM
timks,
I'll get back to you tomorrow.
G'nite all.
.>
Posted by: justintime | October 31, 2006 5:00 AM
I don't think that the role of government is to protect capitalism or the free market. The role of government is to protect the weak from the powerful. Often that will mean restricting the free market, as in outlawing child labor, breaking up monopolies, stopping the dumping of toxins into public water, regulating safety in the workplace...
Capitalism and the free market, left unrestricted, are not some benevolent force for good.>
Posted by: Blue | October 31, 2006 5:16 AM
Force, hmmm. I am not sure Christ never sanctioned force. Granted he only used force once but still he did. I think some force from governement is necessary when injustice and darkness won't be challenged w/o it. Let's look at the Civil Rights era. W/o the federal government backing up what the activists were doing they would have been slaughtered.
Every once in a while the government gets it right which is far better than individual states records on social justice issues.
p>
Posted by: Payshun | October 31, 2006 5:24 AM
And sometimes a state government will get it before the feds will. Some states have raised the minimum wage. They gave up on waiting for Washington. There are other issues too where some states have taken the lead. Here in NY if I outfit my house to produce solar power, I can sell back to the grid. I don't think that's nationwide yet.>
Posted by: Blue | October 31, 2006 5:55 AM
States have a much better chance of getting "it" right before the Federal government. That is why local control has been an essential aspect of American history and government.
The Federal government has been sucking up more and more power over the last few decades, however, which has perhaps made us more powerful internationally, but has created over taxation (I believe we are currently way over taxed - and I pay barely anything - I mean this across the board) and ineffective bureaucracy.
I don t agree that the government does no good, but believe this good is limited to only a few small areas (enacting justice, for instance - one of the only areas the NT speaks to [Rom. 13]). Blue, I don't think the government should be doing most of those things, but believe they shouldn't for probably the same reasons you think they should (although the government should protect both the weak and the powerful equally).>
Posted by: HAC | October 31, 2006 6:16 AM
Gordon:
"Timbo is right - the attempt at a healthcare plan was about as far left as it's possible to get."
If her health care plan was proposed in the UK, it would be considered hard-right - so much so that no serious politician would raise it
The Christian Democratic Party in Germany is pro-choice and it's quite possible to be against abortion and wish to reduce it's frequency while not wanting to make it illegal. Prohibition just lowers the quality and raises the price>
Posted by: Richard Fannon | October 31, 2006 10:12 AM
Generally speaking, the public do not like female leaders who look like they could carry a pregnancy: Hillary will have a more reasonable-chance run at the US Presidency if she waits a few years or frumps herself up some. (For men it is height that matters. Shallow lot ain't we?)
I do not see Clinton as religious or not religious. Her quoting scripture would not surprise me.
There is one thing here that does matter: Her social policy. We're going to have to start working on the male problems. There are now too many to ignore. Yet, it is unlikely that Hillary Clinton can back away from her feminist roots enough to tackle a male problem. This leaves her with insufficient support to gain a reasonable odds shot at the Presindency even if she overcomes her "looks" problem.
Condi Rice probably has a better shot at the White House than does Hillary Clinton, unless Clinton makes some important changes. Both stand a better shot in 8 years than they do right now.>
Posted by: jw | October 31, 2006 10:43 AM
Richard says that Hillary's healthcare proposals would be considered right wing over here.
Absolutely. Even the hardest conservatives support the idea of free healthcare for all at the point of delivery.
The Clintons are very popular over here. But neither would be considered religious. That sort of thing has a far more negative efect on voters over here so politicians don't say much.
From a personal viewpoint I would be more likely to support a candidate who focussed on important issues like poverty, human rights, the environment and peace than one who said 'I am Christian vote for me.'>
Posted by: stevecornforth - uk | October 31, 2006 11:54 AM
You do realize that the US spends a greater portion of their GDP than Britain on govt-funded healthcare, right? I also don't call a healthcare plan that would have taken up 1/7th of our GDP "hard right" (what Hillary's plan would have done). The truth is it was far to the left of the UK's plan, in many ways.>
Posted by: jessie | October 31, 2006 2:04 PM
justintime,
Germany is actually governed currently by a "grand coalition" composed of the Christian Democrats (CDU) and the Social Democrats (SPD).
The current Chancellor, Angela Merkel, is from the CDU. She is actually something of a free-market advocate (at least by German standards) but the grand coalition has tied her hands in this regard.
The Bavarian Christian Social Union (CSU) is a "sister party" of the CDU and as far as I know the two have always cooperated at the federal level.
Wolverine>
Posted by: Wolverine | October 31, 2006 2:31 PM
Blue - Why do you think there should be a national minimum wage?>
Posted by: timks | October 31, 2006 2:35 PM
On the Christian level, it does appear that Democrats are far worse than Republicans.
Foley dwells in another kind of community; and the greedy exist in such large numbers in both political parties it does cloud the issue a bit.
But certainly, the GOP does not hate Christians the way the Liberal/Progressives that fill the ranks of the Democrats do.>
Posted by: AskWhyNow | October 31, 2006 2:37 PM
Hillary Clinton is a great senator, and I hope she disappoints the pundit class, and decides not to run for President.
Her negatives are just to high, IMO, but she is a thoroughly professional, competent, thoughtful woman, and I think she should content herself with representing New York.
Could she be President? No doubt. Will she be? I highly doubt it.>
Posted by: Alicia | October 31, 2006 2:45 PM
Askwhynow, "On the Christian level, it does appear that Democrats are far worse than Republicans.
But certainly, the GOP does not hate Christians the way the Liberal/Progressives that fill the ranks of the Democrats do."
Sounds like AskWhyNow is into hate politics.
Hate will bite you back.
Love your enemy.
.>
Posted by: justintime | October 31, 2006 3:04 PM
'You do realize that the US spends a greater portion of their GDP than Britain on govt-funded healthcare, right?'
Sorry - I wasn't commenting on which of us had the better healthcare system. I don't know enough about your system to say.
I was just agreeing with a previous poster that free healthcare for all is not a party political matter over here - it is no longer a right/left issue as it was before 1948.>
Posted by: stevecornforth - uk | October 31, 2006 3:22 PM
About Hillary, health insurance, and abortion....
I am teaching a course at a local college and in this course I have a student visiting from India for a year. Upon arriving in America she discovered that she is pregnant, having conceived with her husband before leaving home. She cannot afford medical care and she cannot yet afford to travel home. Her student insurance considers it a pre-existing condition and won't cover it. The American government won't cover it. She is scared.
There are people advising her that abortion is her best option. I have worked hard to arrange for the most inexpensive care that I can for her and she is beginning to get excited about the baby. She is in week 12 and has so far accumulated $2,500 in bills she can't pay - fomr one hospital visit when she feared a miscarriage.
This is the wealthiest nation in the world. It is an absolute tragedy that we are not taking care of all pregnant women. Medicaid prenatal care was cut by Bill Frist to fund the Bush tax cuts, a program that was estimated to save 20,000 babies per year. It is absolutely anathema to me that we sit by while this is swept out of sight and out of mind.
Much talk has gone on here about Hillary being pro-socialized health insurance (which is different than health care) and pro-choice. But Hillary wants to provide that service and save those lives - she did not support a regressive tax cut instead. Her failure on socialized medicine masks her biggest success as First Lady and Senator - combatting teen pregnancies.
Hillary has said that she is anti-abortion but she believes that we should stop short of legislating this choice and instead expect families to make the right decisions. For her, my wife, and many other Americans (inclusing Sarah Weddington, archtiect of Roe) choice is about affirming that women are equal partners in marriage and equal authorities in the home. As Hillary says, I've never heard of anyone who is pro-abortion.
I don't want Hillary to run for President. To much ground to make up. But I think it is easy to demonize her without being nearly as critical of her colleagues who, in many cases, are even further off the mark. Let's admit her sins but let's celebrate her good points too.>
Posted by: Daniel | October 31, 2006 3:35 PM
Why do so many on the right believe people on the left are not people of faith? Or worse, that we "hate" people of faith?>
Posted by: curiouser and curiouser... | October 31, 2006 4:11 PM
Fer instance, HAC said, "If someone's faith requires them to act it out, they can't be disqualified for the office on these grounds."
What if someone's faith required them to act differently than, say, an extreme fundamentalist evangelical might act?
Are you saying that person could/should be disqualified for office on these grounds?
Not everyone goes to YOUR "church".>
Posted by: curiouser and curiouser... | October 31, 2006 4:13 PM
curiouser,
I think it's secular fundamentalism that creates that impression. Note that Payshun said very early in the comments above 'the fewer Christians in government the better' or something like that. The distinct impression I get is that people on the right are far more scared of avid athiests and communists than of fundamentalists and fascists. For me it's just the opposite....>
Posted by: Daniel | October 31, 2006 4:26 PM
Curiouser,
As far as people criticizing the faith of others, the Dems and Dem leaders have committed that misdeed time and time again. Pelosi said voting against the Republican budget was an "act of worship." Dean said Republicans only take a few verses of the Bible seriously while Democrats take them all seriously. Kerry said Bush practices "faith without works." And most recently, TN Senate candidate Ford (Dem) said Republicans don't love the Lord.
So, to review...Republican leaders don't criticize the Democrats' faith, yet they get charged with doing so. Democrats attack the faith of Republicans, they get away with it, and even project their own misdeeds onto Republicans.
Something wrong with conventional wisdom here?>
Posted by: jessie | October 31, 2006 4:33 PM
jessie,
TN Senate candidate Ford (Dem) said Republicans don't love the Lord.
I've seen most of what Ford has said and done. Would you mind sharing with me where you saw or heard this?
Ford worked with Republican Mark Green of Wisconsin to redirect and dedicate the the House Community Solutions and Initiatives Coalition as a faith-based caucus precisely directed at acknowledging Republicans and Democrats alike share a strong faith and can agree on a wide range of these issues.
Ford has claimed throughout the race that he doesn't view these questions as democrat or Republican. His latest ad says, "I believe in God, I believe in you, an I believe in a new direction. That's why I approve this message."
Republican leaders don't criticize the Democrats' faith
Ironically, Bob Corker and the RSCC have launched an offensive attacking Harold Ford's faith.
http://haroldfordjr2006.blogspot.com/2006/10/for-corker-desperate-times-call-for.html
">http://haroldfordjr2006.blogspot.com/2006/10/breaking-ford-campaign-launches-new-ad.html>
Posted by: Daniel | October 31, 2006 5:18 PM
Actually conservatives are not just charged w/ criticizing the faith of the left but they do so w/ reckless abandon.
You are right though Democrats do criticize the hypocrisy of the right. Probably the biggest criciticism I have seen is that the Republican party serves the good old boy network and that it is by and large a party for white people.
I realize that the party is more nuanced than that but they have no love for the log cabin republicans and they try to point out how it's inclusive to all but then one rarely sees crowds of people that look different than your stereotyped view of republicans. How often do you see black or latin republicans intermeshed throughout the party?
Or gay and lesbians. Granted the democrats are hypocrits when it comes to dealing w/ gay rights but at least people are out and proud there.
p>
Posted by: Payshun | October 31, 2006 5:31 PM
curiouser,
I have no problem with elected officials governing according to their religious convictions (within the bounds of law and the Constitution, of course). I may vote against someone because I disagree with how their faith plays out, but I don't discredit them because of their faith, or because they act out that faith (things often done by the Left - i.e., read the beginning of this discussion). I discredit them because I believe they are wrong.
.>
Posted by: HAC | October 31, 2006 5:43 PM
Here are some examples of conservative leaders that say the darndest things about their democratic political adversaries:
Tony Perkins:
Mr. Perkins wrote, "For years activist courts, aided by liberal interest groups like the ACLU, have been quietly working under the veil of the judiciary, like thieves in the night, to rob us of our Christian heritage and our religious freedoms."
A flier for a republican event said:
"the filibuster was once abused to protect racial bias, and now it is being used against people of faith."
Here is place where I got it from.
http://www.nysun.com/article/12357
I can list more. Look at what Ann Coulter and Rush have said over the years. Then we got people like Jerry Falwell and the others and you will see this trend among many conservative Christian leaders and republican talking heads that reveal that they don't think people on the left have faith or are faithful.
That's weak sauce.
Granted we on the left have criticized the actions of a few and said that their lack of action reveals a lack of faith but I am not sure that's the same thing as saying we don't have faith.
p>
Posted by: Payshun | October 31, 2006 5:49 PM
How often do you see black or latin republicans intermeshed throughout the party?
Alan Keyes, JC Watts, Colin Powel, Condoleezza Rice, Alberto Gonzales, Carlos Gutierrez, Alphonso Jackson, Clarence Thomas, Michael Steele, Ken Blackwell...
That was just off the top of my head (plus a couble cabinet positions I had to look up).>
Posted by: HAC | October 31, 2006 5:49 PM
Thanks to Daniel for the post about the student from India who realized after arriving that she was pregnant back in India and her pregnancy is a pre-existing condition, not eleigible for coverage here.
May she be able to acquire the health care she must have.>
Posted by: Mike Hayes 2 | October 31, 2006 5:50 PM
Payshun,
Why, when those on the Left want to criticize Republicans, do they quote people who are not in office? I could start quoting elected Democrats to the same "extreme" (perhaps more) than whatever you pull from unelected conservatives.
.>
Posted by: HAC | October 31, 2006 5:53 PM
Each day the level of stupidity in this forum rises exponentially. Sweeping generalizations, uninformed assertions, inappropriate use of terms--my kids and I read it for entertainment.>
Posted by: Dutch fop | October 31, 2006 6:05 PM
Dutch is a communist vegetarian, whom we all know hates Christian fundamentalists. Does this suffice? :)>
Posted by: HAC | October 31, 2006 6:09 PM
Dutch fop, Do you live in Holland?
If you do, tell us about your health care system.
.>
Posted by: justintime | October 31, 2006 6:25 PM
HAC,
Actually we do criticize those in office. THe cultural leaders of the religious right are not always those elected. Some of those leaders include but are not limited to Newt Gingrinch...
Why is that only a small group of black and latin leaders are part of the Republican party? Could it be because there is a perception and reality that the party is not welcoming to folks w/ different points of view?
p>
Posted by: Payshun | October 31, 2006 6:56 PM
Most black and latino voters don't vote Republican.
A majority of asians don't either.
Have you ever thought about that, HAC?
.>
Posted by: justintime | October 31, 2006 7:09 PM
Dutch fop said, "Each day the level of stupidity in this forum rises exponentially. Sweeping generalizations, uninformed assertions, inappropriate use of terms."
The meter just red-lined with that post!>
Posted by: timks | October 31, 2006 7:09 PM
Payshun, Justin...
I gave you examples of predominate minorities in the Republican Party. Is that inconsequential?
Yes, most blacks and other minorities do not vote for Republicans. That is because those on the Left use fear tactics and play the race card frequently (see: Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, etc.). The Left said Bush didn't do enough in New Orleans because he hated blacks! How absurd.
But when ideas like these are so ingrained in American life, it is very hard for someone to get beyond them. Voting Democrat is a religion for some on the Left (also voting Republican for some on the Right, but I'm not talking to that), especially for minorities, and those that dare to act differently are vilified by those of the same race: "Uncle Tom", "Traitor", etc.>
Posted by: HAC | October 31, 2006 7:38 PM
HAC,
It's not fear and stupidity that keep black people voting for Democrats. Al Sharpton's 2004 DNC speech centered on the fact that this kind of statement is itself evidence of why black people can't find a home among the GOP.>
Posted by: Daniel | October 31, 2006 8:11 PM
Payshun,
As HAC said, you haven't quoted any Republican leader. Only quotes from conservatives. All my quotes are from democrats and democratic leaders.
Daniel,
It seems that Corker is attacking Ford's integrity and hypocrisy more than he is directly attacking his faith. I certainly didn't read anything there as blatant as the Democrats I cited. Here is Ford's quote, "'Republicans fear the Lord. Democrats fear and love the Lord.'" The link: ">http://www.commercialappeal.com/mca/politics/article/0,1426,MCA_1496_5105834,00.html>
Posted by: jessie | October 31, 2006 8:26 PM
jessie,
Yeah, that's not cool. I wish Harold hadn't said that. I know what he means - he's referring to two different visions of God, which he clearly gets here: http://www.haroldfordjr.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=149&Itemid=149 - but most people have both and emphasize a different aspect of God. He must be feeling very agitated to say something like that. I hope he explains or apologizes....>
Posted by: Daniel | October 31, 2006 8:40 PM
Daniel,
I don't think it's stupidity at all. I think it is cultural expectations. The same thing can be seen in the Jewish community. I've heard prominent Jews speak about how voting Republican was like changing a religion to them, and how great the peer pressure from family and community to vote Democrat was. I don't think many people consider Jews to be stupid (I hope not - if anything, anti-Semites criticize them for being too crafty [although I find these criticisms unfounded]).
_>
Posted by: HAC | October 31, 2006 8:47 PM
Dennis Kucinich was an outspoken consistent life ethic politician until he decided to run for President, when he felt he had to switch sides on abortion to run as a Democratic Presidential candidate. Ditto for Jesse Jackson earlier, who was once perhaps the most articulate advocate of the pro-life position on abortion on the progressive side of the political spectrum.
There are legions of other prominent Democrats who were never fully CLE but were strongly pro-life on abortion before becoming interested in Presidential politics - such as Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Dick Gephardt, and Ted Kennedy.>
Posted by: Bill Samuel | October 31, 2006 8:49 PM
Oh, and I've heard blacks share the same thing, that changing parties was like committing blasphemy or being a traitor.>
Posted by: HAC | October 31, 2006 8:49 PM
HAC,
Still politically and ideologically conservatives don't get it. The reason why so many black people have a group think is because of what happened after Civil Rights Voting Act passed. The anti-black bitter south jumped ship and decided from that moment forward to always vote republican.
The democrats (being recovering racists themselves) offered blacks, Asians, Latins and many other ethnic groups an alternative to what has been a predominately white party. You see and this is something you all seem to not understand.
Many black people have a very long cultural memory. We remember the shaming that those democrats turned republicans gave us. Even though many have grown and walked away from much of the overt racism that characterized your party party in the past there is still this lingering perspective about your party advancing the causes of rich white men.
Nothing has been done to change that.
As for Pelosi quote, please explain what's so bad about saying voting against the budget was an act of worship? The current republican party seems to worship one thing over God and that's power.
It's about time someone said it.
p>
Posted by: Payshun | October 31, 2006 9:28 PM
HAC,
I noticed your blog post about John Kerry today. I recall back in October 2004, the night Dick Cheney gave his speech at the RNC. I went to a Kerry rally in a hangar at the Nashville airport.
On my way, I stopped for gas on Donelson Pike, near my home. The car in front of me was an Olds and there was a big black man pumping gas into it while his wife talked to him from inside the car. It was raining on us despite the shelter, but I pulled my jacket tight and walked over. I explained that I had two extra tickets to the rally and would love for them to take them and come hear what he had to say.
The black man put his hand on my shoulder. He explained to me that he and his wife both have to work two jobs to pay the bills and keep their kids, whom they never see. The only thirty minutes they spend together every day is between jobs in the car. The man's wife got out of the car and out her arms around her husband. They stood there in the rain crying and both holding the invitations together. After a moment we were all drenched, but they handed them back to me and said, "Thank you. It's such an honor justto get to touch the invitation."
When I got to the event, I waited a long time. On my right I had ended up running into my high school debate coach, a devout Catholic who was a successful lawyer out of Notre Dame who had changed careers when law turned out to be unfulfilling. On my left was a Rabbi with whom I struck up a conversation after seeing that his Kerry Edwards button was written in Hebrew. What I learned was that these men both shared a passion for peace and a heart for the poor.
When Kerry arrived, he was preceded on stage by speeches. First came Phil Bredeson, our governor, who talked about family and the need for health care for all. Then John Glenn talked about the burdens of the poor. Harold Ford got up and spoke about fiscal discipline, competence, and creating real wealth. Kerry took the stage and said that he believes John Edwards has it right - too many Americans are working hard and not getting ahead and that is wrong in the USA.
After I got home that night, I watched the RNC speeches. Arnold Schwarzanegger called democrats girlie men and said, "If you wohk hahd und play by the rools you wuhl get ahhead." The Vice President followed him with crowd pleasers like, "I guess that's why John Edwards needs two Americas."
In one night I saw clearly the two visions of where we are and where we're going laid out. There was no ambiguity in which one matches reality for me....
The following day I processed all this with my coworkers of varioud ethnicities and both genders. Turns out that for the Democrats the message resonated just the same as with me. For the Republicans, Cheney had exposed the bleeding heart, big government, pansies on the other side.
But the image of that couple holding the invitationin the pouring rain is seared into my brain. I can't ignore it or get away from it....>
Posted by: Daniel | October 31, 2006 9:36 PM
Payshun said, "...The democrats (being recovering racists themselves)..."
Are you entirely sure about that and willing to stake your political fortunes on it?
Given the nature of politicians, I find it extremely difficult to believe that all the racists are in only one party. I think Senators Byrd and Reid are two examples of Democratic racists. Senator Lott is probably a GOP example.
Then there is the racism involved in policies predicated on the belief that African-Americans aren't capable of taking care of themselves. Isn't that a racist notion? I believe it is and it is held by members of both parties.>
Posted by: timks | October 31, 2006 9:40 PM
Bill,
American voters are so polarized over the abortion issue that it will be difficult to get even an abortion reduction bill through Congress.
In my opinion, this is because of all or nothing, aggressive tactics of the anti abortion activists.
These hard line, take no prisoners tactics only harden the resistance of "pro-choice" activists.
Hard line anti-abortion tactics play right into the hands of Karl Rove's Republican Party divisive politics, which has given us mediocre leaders of questionable competence.
The Christian right's push for Bush to stack the Supreme Court with anti abortion justices has done little more than erode Americans' respect for the highest court in the land.
We now have a Supreme Court with 4 out of 9 justices who are, above all, partisan Republicans and Bush loyalists.
I think it's time for America to think of incremental approaches to reducing the frequency of abortions, with a goal of reaching zero.
This approach may take longer but I think it's the only way to get the job done.
.>
Posted by: justintime | October 31, 2006 9:46 PM
"The current republican party seems to worship one thing over God and that's power.
It's about time someone said it."
Payshun says it.
I believe it.
.>
Posted by: justintime | October 31, 2006 9:54 PM
"In one night I saw clearly the two visions of where we are and where we're going laid out. There was no ambiguity in which one matches reality for me...."
You are comparing the subtance of an extended stump speech with the substance of a joking sound bite. Arnold has plenty of credibility when he talks about working hard, whether you like his politics or not.>
Posted by: kevin s. | October 31, 2006 9:55 PM
My political fortunes have next to nothing to do w/ the democratic party. I am green but even more important than that I am a member of my father's kingdom. I need not worry about all of the destructive trends currently hitting the world today in the same way as others because I have my father's spirit and he is a great guide. having said that if I find candidates that can support most of what I believe I will vote accordingly.
Racists exist in both parties of that there is no doubt. Heck it is my belief that everyone in this country bares the taint of that most human sin. Honestly I think the world is in its power and hardly even realizes it but I digress.
The culture of dependency which repbulicans and conservatives always point out is a sham based off the very racism conservatives pretend doesn't exist. They use it to show that the democrats don't care about blacks. The reality is that there are more white people on welfare and feed into the culture of dependency than blacks.
The fact is the republican party has no plan to enter into the innercity and revitalize it. The only real plan they have is gentrification. But I will leave that alone for now.
I honestly don't fully buy into the idea that democrats don't care about black people but I do feel that the democratic party uses the black vote the same way the republican party uses the Conservative Christian vote; they both use them to get elected. They take my brothers and sisters for granted and that's a problem.
p>
Posted by: Payshun | October 31, 2006 10:01 PM
Payshun,
Thank you for your thoughtful comments.
We must always be wary of (white) Republicans with their "Dems-Don't-Care-About-Blacks" attack strategy.
Remember, this is the same party who brought us:
"Imminent Threat"
"Mushroom Cloud"
"Mission Accomplished"
"Last Throes"
"Heck of a Job Brownie"
"We Do Not Torture"
and
"Stay the Course/We've Never Been About Stay the Course.">
Posted by: Tenoch | October 31, 2006 10:19 PM
Tenoch - That Payshun's comments were thoughtful, I agree. That you interpreted them to be aimed only at white Republicans demonstrates clearly his point about the entire world being in the throes of racism and not realizing it.>
Posted by: timks | October 31, 2006 10:25 PM
"the democratic party uses the black vote the same way the republican party uses the Conservative Christian vote; they both use them to get elected. They take my brothers and sisters for granted and that's a problem."
--You mean your brothers and sisters in Christ?>
Posted by: jessie | October 31, 2006 11:22 PM
No I mean the vernacular for black people. Some of us call each other brother and sister or brotha and sista.
p>
Posted by: Anonymous | October 31, 2006 11:31 PM
If I had a student who had run up hospital bills she couldn't pay, I would:
1. Pay them myself if I had the money
2. If I lacked the money, go to my church and ask for help (we provide this kind of help all the time, via our alms fund)
3. If our alms fund were tapped out, approach other churches in the area, most of which also provide this sort of compassionate help
4, If no church were willing to help, approach affluent individuals in my church with the problem
This would work, and it is the kind of thing we as Christians are supposed to do. Why should we rely on the government to do what we are capable of doing?
And it doesn't even require the existence of non-Christian charities.>
Posted by: Gordon | October 31, 2006 11:35 PM
Why should we rely on the government to do what we are capable of doing?
Why do we pay taxes for things like road construction and national defense? Maybe we should just rely on people to voluntarily contribute funding for those things as well.>
Posted by: D4P | October 31, 2006 11:44 PM
D4 -
We pay taxes for those things because they are what government legitimately does. We are not, in my view, called generally to build roads and provide for the national defense.>
Posted by: Gordon | October 31, 2006 11:45 PM
First, do you believe in some kind of exhaustive God-given list of the legitimate functions of government, or do you believe such a list is essentially arbitrary?
Second, if we're not called to (e.g.) build roads and fund national defense, should individuals be allowed to opt out of such expenditures if they don't support them? Put another way, should people be forced to fund things they don't support?
Third, do you believe that, if taxpayers were no longer required to support social program functions that Christians are supposed to provide, those taxpayers would contribute the same amount (or more) to those programs that they do under taxation?>
Posted by: D4P | October 31, 2006 11:54 PM
Postcards of the Hanging: Race and Sex in Tennessee
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/103106J.shtml
.>
Posted by: justintime | November 1, 2006 12:26 AM
D4 -
The list of the functions of government is given in the pramble to the constitution. One can argue about what some of the terms mean, but providing for the national defense is explicitly enumerated.
Individuals can't opt out of paying their taxes, which pay for the legitimate functions of government. My point was that we are called a Christians to do particular things, regardless of whether the government does them or not. If we were to take that call seriously, government could concern itself with those things I believe to be the legitimate functions of government.
I have no idea whether we'd pay the same or more (I know I would), but that doesn't make these legitimate functions of government.>
Posted by: Gordon | November 1, 2006 12:32 AM
The list of the functions of government is given in the pramble to the constitution
In other words, the list is essentially arbitrary and has no "absolute" authority. Times change; so can lists.
but that doesn't make these legitimate functions of government
Seems to me that, in the absence of some kind of biblical list, the legitimate functions of the government are whatever we determine them to be.>
Posted by: D4P | November 1, 2006 12:42 AM
D4 -
That's exactly right, and the Framers put them in the Preamble. Until we decide to amend that, those are the legitimate functions of government.>
Posted by: Gordon | November 1, 2006 12:59 AM
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Seems to me that the phrase "promote the general Welfare" can apply to a wide array of functions, and is not clearly limited to a narrow, specified set. People can argue over what should count under "general Welfare," but I don't think there's any authoritative list of what should count.>
Posted by: D4P | November 1, 2006 1:06 AM
D4 -
That's exactly right, and that is the point of my argument. I don't believe that "promoting the general welfare" necessarily implies that government has any business in providing healthcare to the indigent.
What is meant by any statute is a matter of its intent at the time it was written, and I very much doubt the Framers had health care in mind when the Constitution was written. I suspect they had things like the post office and roads and other infrastructure in mind.>
Posted by: Gordon | November 1, 2006 1:23 AM
I don't believe that "promoting the general welfare" necessarily implies that government has any business in providing healthcare to the indigent
It doesn't necessarily imply, just as it doesn't necessarily preclude.
What is meant by any statute is a matter of its intent at the time it was written
There is no consensus on this in the legal arena. Some believe you should stick to what was meant at the time, and some believe you should adapt to current circumstances. Part of the problem with the former is that it's not always unambiguous what was meant at the time, and the process of trying to figure out what was meant is far from foolproof.>
Posted by: D4P | November 1, 2006 1:29 AM
"It doesn't necessarily imply, just as it doesn't necessarily preclude. "
Actually, I think it does. The key modifier is "general", which I think implies that government has a responsibility to do those things that benefit all of us (like roads, infrastructure, etc.) rather than those things that promote the welfare of individuals, like health care. Government does have a role IMO in healthcare to the extent that it should deal with things like communicable diseases and the regulation of practicioners that affect the general welfare, but it does not have such a role in assuring that individuals are adequately cared for.
"Part of the problem with the former is that it's not always unambiguous what was meant at the time, and the process of trying to figure out what was meant is far from foolproof."
True, but courts generally interpret statutes based on their legislative intent.>
Posted by: Gordon | November 1, 2006 1:42 AM
"General" can mean something like "public" (as you suggest), or it can mean something like "across the board." Reasonable people can disagree on which definition we should use.>
Posted by: D4P | November 1, 2006 1:50 AM
"Reasonable people can disagree on which definition we should use."
True, but my definition is the right one.>
Posted by: Gordon | November 1, 2006 1:54 AM
True, but my definition is the right one
Heh heh. That settles it then...>
Posted by: D4P | November 1, 2006 1:54 AM
Gordon,D4P,
You've just hit on another point of agreement between us.
We agree that a healthy population promotes the general welfare of America, as prescribed by the Preamble to the Constitution.
I think it follows if all Americans are healthy, not just the fortunate, the greatest welfare results for all.
If sickness and disease are treated universally, America will be a better place for everyone.
And when sickness and disease go untreated in a large segment of the general population, even the fortunate are distressed.
I believe Corporate health care profiteering interferes with the bedrock foundation of medical ethics, the Hippocratic Oath.
Corporate health care leaves 46,000,000 Americans, one sixth of our population, with severely limited access to our advanced medical technology.
This is detrimental to the general welfare
Corporate health care addresses only the fortunate, who are already healthier than the unfortunate.
And American health care is the most expensive in the world.
America has been left behind on the general health statistics, by nations that have already implemented universal health care for their citizens.
This affects the ability of the American workforce to compete in the global economy.
I think Government is the most logical, the most efficient and the most effective entity to promote the general health of the population of America, as prescribed by our Constitution.
Gordon, D4P, anyone?
.>
Posted by: justintime | November 1, 2006 2:43 AM
Justin -
I agree with much, but not all of your analysis. I disagree that health care should be a governmental responsibility. I believe we should solve whatever problems there are as individuals and as the church.
The one thing I thought was a good idea, at least in theory, was the republican alternative of allowing people to have individual tax-free health care accounts. These are to be distinguished from the current health care accounts, which are not available to everyone, and don't roll over. I believe the theory is plausible, and is worth trying as a means of bringing down the cost of health care and making catastrophic health care available at a reasonable price to many more people.
The truth is that although I have a very good healthcare plan from the place where I work, I can easily pay the costs of routine (and sometimes not so routine) health care out of pocket. Many can't, but if competition were operative in the healthcare field, causing prices to drop, many more would be. I have health insurance primarily because it provides protection against catastrophic costs, which thankfully have not yet occurred.
If the price of healthcare were less, and if people had an individually-controllable tax sheltered means of paying for health care, I believe that we would be left with a much smaller number of persons who are truly medically indigent. I think that if we were responding to our responsibility to love mercy, we would be able to handle that problem.
I think you're right in that the high cost and limited availability of health care is due mostly from its dominance by a few large carriers.>
Posted by: Gordon | November 1, 2006 2:54 AM
I've heard many stories from Americans requiring emergency treatment while visiting in Canada.
They were astonished after being admitted to Canadian hospitals, treated and released with no charges.
The failure of the American health care system to accomodate the health needs of Daniel's Indian student is a national embarrassment and is multiplied many times over.
.>
Posted by: justintime | November 1, 2006 2:56 AM
Well, Justin -
Daniel's student got health care - she just wasn't able to pay for it. The embarassment is that there were apparently no humanitarians available to help her out.>
Posted by: Anonymous | November 1, 2006 3:08 AM
Health care in other countries ("socialized medical care") works... would "tax-free health care accounts" be as effective?>
Posted by: Mike Hayes 2 | November 1, 2006 3:25 AM
Gordon,
Thanks for the quick response.
I thought that the idea of individual tax-free health care accounts was a pitiful band aid for a dysfunctional system.
These accounts would do nothing for the overall inefficiency of our 'pseudo free market' system.
They would just enhance profits of the corporate health care providers.
In fact corporate health care is milking profits from the government programs already in place.
Corporate health care fraud is rampant, causing enormous losses from our taxpayer funded public health programs.
And Republicans focus on the costs of the minimal treatment the unfortunate receive from the system.
Free market dynamics just isn't working at the top level.
I'm not as optimistic as you are that free market dynamics will ever work at the top of a universal health care system.
But there is a place for free markets to operate at the point of health care delivery, in smaller market areas within local communities.
Free markets could be effective in controlling costs at that level.
Government would still be necessary for quality control, though.
Until the large parasitic corporations are gently removed from our national health care system, I don't think there's much potential for overall savings.
.>
Posted by: justintime | November 1, 2006 3:31 AM
Anonymous,
"Daniel's student got health care - she just wasn't able to pay for it. The embarassment is that there were apparently no humanitarians available to help her out."
Yes, it's embarrassing in that way but it's also a national embarrassment.
If Daniel's Indian student was studying in Canada, she would have received the care, no questions asked, no anxiety for the lady and no embarrassment having to depend on charity.
Charity is no substitute for a universal health care system delivering health care for all Americans and their official guests.
.>
Posted by: justintime | November 1, 2006 3:47 AM
No I mean the vernacular for black people. Some of us call each other brother and sister or brotha and sista.
I think this is racist. If you don't agree, apply the same standard to white people (if whites called each other "brother" or "sister", refering specifically to whites), and it will lead you to same conclusions.>
Posted by: HAC | November 1, 2006 3:54 AM
Sorry, Justin - "anonymous" was me. This thing somewimts loses my name, and I don't always catch it.>
Posted by: Gordon | November 1, 2006 4:01 AM
Healthcare isn't free in Canada - it's paid for by the taxpayer.>
Posted by: Gordon | November 1, 2006 4:02 AM
Course, the biggest healthcare issue in the US today is that too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country...>
Posted by: D4P | November 1, 2006 4:09 AM
D4 -
I have no idea what you meant by that>
Posted by: Gordon | November 1, 2006 4:11 AM
Gordon -
">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5B0eFyaM5wo>
Posted by: D4P | November 1, 2006 4:17 AM
Ah, a verbal gaffe... A "botched" statement, if you will...>
Posted by: kevin s. | November 1, 2006 4:20 AM
"Gaffe" and "botch" imply abnormal. In Bush's case, that's pretty much par for the course. I'm shocked that his managers ever allow him to deviate from the script.>
Posted by: D4P | November 1, 2006 4:22 AM
Well, you hvae to admit he's not boring.>
Posted by: Gordon | November 1, 2006 4:24 AM
Well, you hvae to admit he's not boring
Yeah, he provides non-stop entertainment. I'm glad I have no obligation to defend him. That must not be the most comfortable position to be in, whether people admit it or not.>
Posted by: D4P | November 1, 2006 4:27 AM
"I think this is racist. If you don't agree, apply the same standard to white people (if whites called each other "brother" or "sister", refering specifically to whites), and it will lead you to same conclusions."
--HAC, this is kind of what I was getting at. It seems that Payshun was not referring to the conservative Christians he was speaking about as "brothers and sisters", though if he is a Christian, they are truly that. Saying that only blacks can be "brothers and sisters" (to him) sounds racist to anyone who isn't black, though he might want to clarify that.>
Posted by: jessie | November 1, 2006 4:33 AM
Lighten up - he has both strengths and weaknesses. I support him because I think he gets the security issues generally right. I don't much care for his liberal social policies, but I view the security issues as paramount at the moment.
I've made a few absolutely ridiculous verbal errors myself. I'm sure you have too. It's worth a good laugh at his expense, but somehow with Bush, it always becomes fodder for the ongoing hate campaign by the left.>
Posted by: Gordon | November 1, 2006 4:35 AM
Jessie,
Sorry, I see what you were saying now. I somehow missed your point, even though I read your comment.>
Posted by: HAC | November 1, 2006 4:40 AM
but somehow with Bush, it always becomes fodder for the ongoing hate campaign by the left
Perhaps because the "leader of the free world" makes himself sound like a moron...? The guy has a very poor grasp of his native language. Defend that if you want, but it's obviously less than ideal.
BTW: Do you think George W. Bush is more intelligent than you are (setting aside his privileged access to information you and I can't access)? I can honestly say there has never been a moment where I have felt that Bush was more intelligent than I am. I can't think of any ideas he has come up with that I felt were new or innovative in any way. Bomb the bad guys, cut taxes, increase deficits...pretty much anyone could do that. Is this really the best our country has to put forth...?>
Posted by: D4P | November 1, 2006 4:44 AM
"Perhaps because the "leader of the free world" makes himself sound like a moron...? "
Perhaps you missed Sen. Kerry's comments today?>
Posted by: kevin s. | November 1, 2006 4:56 AM
Bush is a very bad public speaker. It makes me cringe sometimes, especially on things I agree with him on. I don't think that means he's not smart, though. Besides, wisdom is more important than smarts when it comes to leadership.
Also, just because something isn't new or innovative doesn't mean it's not a good idea. Sometimes good leadership requires repeating things that work. Regardless, I don't think Bush is any less innovative than Clinton or his father were.
_>
Posted by: HAC | November 1, 2006 5:02 AM
My boss isn't more intelligent than I am either.
I very much doubt that Bush is stupid. He's just not very articulate. Sometimes I think some of that is intentional.
But I don't demand that the president be a genius or that he have a lot of great innovative ideas. I just want him to get the important policies right. And at least in terms of foreign policy and security issues, I think Bush does.>
Posted by: Gordon | November 1, 2006 5:03 AM
If he's so dumb, how do you think he managed to win a few debates with both Kerry and Gore?>
Posted by: jessie | November 1, 2006 5:03 AM
timks -
Regarding a minimum wage.
Actually I go further than that. It should be a living wage, meaning that someone working fulltime should be able to support a family of four at the poverty level for this country. The estimates for that range from 8 to 12 dollars an hour, so many communities have set it at 10. If you have a larger family, or are not satisfied with poverty level, then you would have to work two jobs, or get training or education that would raise your income. But it seems to me that anyone working fulltime should make at least poverty level wages.>
Posted by: Blue | November 1, 2006 5:06 AM
Perhaps you missed Sen. Kerry's comments today?
Your logic appears to be "Given what John Kerry said today, the President of the US doesn't have to be able to speak English very well."
I'm not sure I buy that. But regardless, I don't care about his language abilities PER SE, but they are consistent with other indications I've picked up on regarding his overall intelligence. I don't think he's particularly bright, and I think he has gotten where he has primarily because of his father. Is he the only one to do that? No. But am I impressed by him? No. I would have to think that Republicans would have preferred a better candidate as well, though of course they won't admit that. (I would also have to think that Democrats would have preferred a better candidate than Kerry. I remember thinking during the election "Are Bush and Kerry really the best we can come up with?")
It's fine if you like Bush's policies, but I defy anyone to defend his intelligence relative to other political leaders in this country and abroad. That's not to say a President needs to be intelligent. It doesn't take much to simply follow a party line and do what your advisors tell you to do.>
Posted by: D4P | November 1, 2006 5:10 AM
If he's so dumb, how do you think he managed to win a few debates with both Kerry and Gore?
Who said Bush won the debates? The fact that he "won" the elections doesn't mean he won the debates. Kerry sounded much more intelligent than Bush. If I were a Bush supporter, I don't think I could have even watched Bush up there. He was clearly overmatched. Not to mention the wire he wore during the first debate with Kerry...
Don't get me wrong. I really couldn't have cared less about Kerry, but to think Bush won the debates is ridiculous. Do you really think voters based their decisions on what happened in those debates?
Here's a fun little clip from one of the debates. I love Bush's use of the word "exaggeration." Hilarious.
">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRY_BOYeySc>
Posted by: D4P | November 1, 2006 5:16 AM
"Your logic appears to be "Given what John Kerry said today, the President of the US doesn't have to be able to speak English very well."
Actually, I was joking because Kerry tried to play off his line as a gaffe, when he clearly meant what he said.
I think Bush managed to break even in debated by virtue of the soft bigotry of low expectations. That and two utterly unremarkable adversaries (see above).>
Posted by: kevin s. | November 1, 2006 5:21 AM
"Healthcare isn't free in Canada - it's paid for by the taxpayer."
Are you expecting any credit for that observation, Gordon?
Of course health care in Canada is paid for by the taxpayers.
Health care in America is paid for by the taxpayers, too and by the patients in the form of health insurance premiums, and the patients employer in the form of employee benefits, and by the patient in out of pocket costs for what the health plan does not cover.
Health insurance providers are deadbeats when it comes to meeting their obligations to their customers and the service is terrible, too.
When you add it up, the total cost per capita to the taxpayer/patient is substantially higher in America than the total cost to the taxpayer/patient in Canada.
If you look at total costs, American health care is the most expensive in the world.
And America is by no means the healthiest nation in the world.
This is how the inefficiency of America's health care system has to be measured.
Don't forget the health insurance
corporations are cherry picking the least risky patients.
And they don't even cover 46,000,000 American citizens.
What a sweet deal for the corporate health care industry.
What a lousy deal for the American taxpayer/patient.
Gordon, I think you're blinded by "free market" ideology.
Follow the money.
.>
Posted by: justintime | November 1, 2006 5:23 AM
Actually, I was joking because Kerry tried to play off his line as a gaffe, when he clearly meant what he said
One of the things I appreciated about Clinton's interview with Chris Wallace on FOX was his refusal to back down when confronted. It's refreshing to see someone stand up for themselves rather than cave in to the pressure and retract what they said or reinvent what they did.
I would have had more respect for Bush if he would have acknowledged being "stay the course" all along and acknowledged criticizing those who called for "adjustments in tactics." To lie and say "We've never been stay the course" was both insulting and disappointing.>
Posted by: D4P | November 1, 2006 5:28 AM
Gordon," I just want him to get the important policies right. And at least in terms of foreign policy and security issues, I think Bush does."
I think you're dead wrong, Gordon.
Bush screwed up America's foreign policy and our security.
The world hates us now.
Bush has made the world far more dangerous.
and our domestic security has been neglected under Bush.
.>
Posted by: Anonymous | November 1, 2006 5:35 AM
Jessie, "If he's so dumb, how do you think he managed to win a few debates with both Kerry and Gore?"
Are you kidding us, Jessie?
Bush lost all of his debates, even with handlers talking to him through the wireless receiver under his jacket.
His press conferences are all staged, with softball questions coming from stenographers.
Bush's handlers won't dare allow him in the same room with real journalists asking real questions.
.>
Posted by: justintime | November 1, 2006 5:51 AM
Bush's handlers won't dare allow him in the same room with real journalists asking real questions
Like I said, I'm surprised they ever allow him to deviate from the script. Though, I suppose, he might be doing so against their will...>
Posted by: D4P | November 1, 2006 5:55 AM
justintime and others -
Sorry I'm late into this discussion due to Halloween festivities, but I could not disagree more with your rationale for universal health care. I wish I could address each of your points, but the lateness of the hour prevents that. I will throw out a few things that I hope will at least generate discussion.
Economist Arnold Kling addressed this issue better than I possibly could. http://techcentralstation.com/082305A.html
His conclusion is that the biggest problem with our health care system is our medical care culture, or the way medicine is practiced.
He also disputes the assertion seen here that the poor just aren't getting health care.
I hope you will read his article with an open mind. I hasten to add this in no way exempts us as Christians to see that the underprivileged are cared for in our society, but it may cause us to rethink conventional or mainstream solutions.>
Posted by: timks | November 1, 2006 6:13 AM
Blue - The country is not monolithic. Economic activity is not uniform everywhere. Some states or communities may be booming while others are suffering from recession or even depression. To apply a national wage rate is unfair and unsound.
If the amount set is too high, it will create unemployment among those who are most vulnerable - the young, unskilled or disabled. I just don't see how Congress could possibly have the knowledge to determine what that rate should be.>
Posted by: timks | November 1, 2006 6:18 AM
HAC,
That assertion is ridiculous. I call my brothers and sisters in Christ brother and sister and I also call many in the LGBTQ community brother and sister oh and I also call the those of the indigenous community brother and sister and I also call white people brother and sister. But I also call black people brotha and sista. it's harmless.
If a white person were to call another white person brother or sister it would mean a closeness not a racist conclusion. Do you have any idea what racism means?
Here are a few definitions. It means that I think I am superior to you based off of my phenotype. From a sociological perspective racism involves power structures, societal structures that were created to keep someone down. From a spiritual perspective racism is spiritual power of the air that leads to death.
I don't see you as inferior to me and I don't think of myself as superior to you. I would no more think that a white person (that happens to be Irish) was racist just for calling his people his people. Please don't be ignorant.
Oh and before I forget here is something we should really look at when we talk about universal healthcare.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/25/health/25insure.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
p>
Posted by: Payshun | November 1, 2006 6:57 AM
I have a friend that's a campus minister. he wrote a beautifl blog on being poor in this country and mentioned a book called Development as Freedom.
Here's a quote from his blog.
Amartya Sen, Nobel Laureate in Economics 1998, beautifully contends in his book , that poverty isn t inherently quantifiable in terms of sheer cash & capital, but instead is a poverty of assets, entitlements, and what he terms capability deprivation.
Read the rest here.
http://larsalmquist.wordpress.com/2006/10/26/caring-for-the-uninsured/
p>
Posted by: Payshun | November 1, 2006 7:01 AM
"That Payshun's comments were thoughtful, I agree. That you interpreted them to be aimed only at white Republicans demonstrates clearly his point about the entire world being in the throes of racism and not realizing it."
timks,
Nice try, but you really need to google "NonSequitur fallacy" if you intend on entering debate in this forum.
Stop hiding behind sloppy, opportunistic logical fallacies, timks.>
Posted by: Anonymous | November 1, 2006 2:21 PM
timks: "Economist Arnold Kling addressed this issue better than I possibly could.
His conclusion is that the biggest problem with our health care system is our medical care culture, or the way medicine is practiced.
He also disputes the assertion seen here that the poor just aren't getting health care."
I clicked on your link but didn't find Kling's article anywhere on the TechCentral site.
I did notice Kling has written a book on health care.
TechCentral looks like libertarian "free market" propaganda.
I'm guessing Kling thinks free market ideology will make our health care system work.
I do have an open mind and would like to read Kling's article if you can find it for me.
But I think free market ideology is the main reason why our health care system is such a failure.
Perhaps Kling can convince me otherwise.
Payshun's links are worth a read.
.>
Posted by: justintime | November 1, 2006 2:23 PM
The linked article says what Sen's book is about. I've read books by other Nobel Laureate's and they quite often make good sense. They also are quite often misinterpreted by those with a particular agenda. Almquist sounds like someone with an agenda, so I'm not sure I can trust his interpretation of Sen's book.>
Posted by: timks | November 1, 2006 2:28 PM
Kling also sounds like he has an agenda.
Libertarian ideology.
Can you find his article, timks?
.>
Posted by: Anonymous | November 1, 2006 2:35 PM
This last post is me, but the 9:26 anonymous is someone else.
.>
Posted by: justintime | November 1, 2006 2:37 PM
justintime - I don't know about your chacterization of Tech Central as libertarian propaganda, I just read Arnold Kling, who has an earned PhD in Economics from MIT. I guess I could characterize Jim Wallis's comments as Democratic Party propaganda but instead I try to address what he says - usually. :)
Kling's conclusions are more "nuanced" than you think.
Sorry about the link to Kling's article. Here it is:
MINDING THE HEALTH GAP by Arnold Kling
The fact that the English government provides health care to all its citizens while the United States does not may contribute to the disparity, the authors said. "But it is equally important to recognize that health insurance can not be the central reason for the better health outcomes in England because the top socioeconomic tier of the U.S. population have close to universal access but their health outcomes are often worse than those of their English counterparts," the authors said.'
-- Medpage Today, Americans Lag Far Behind English in Overall Health
British health researcher Michael Marmot has produced yet another study suggesting that America's health care system fails to produce outcomes commensurate with the amount that we spend on health care relative to other countries. This issue might be termed the Health Care Cost-Effectiveness Gap, or simply the Gap.
By now, most people who follow health care policy are aware that America spends about twice as much per person on health care as other advanced countries, yet we fare slightly worse than many of them in overall longevity. For this cost-effectiveness Gap, a number of possible explanations have been offered.
(A) Perhaps the Gap does not really exist. Instead, suppose that the United States actually does have a big advantage in health care outcomes, but this is not being measured. Longevity is affected by too many factors unrelated to health care.
(B) Perhaps the problem with the U.S. health care system is that it is inefficient. Although the United States spends more, other countries actually provide more health care services.
(C) Perhaps the problem with the U.S. health care system is that it is inequitable. It is great for the privileged, but not for the underprivileged.
(D) Perhaps the problem with the U.S. health care system is with the way that medicine is practiced. We favor expensive diagnostic procedures, specialist care, and surgeries, where costs are high and benefits tend to be low.
In my book, Crisis of Abundance, I examined each of these four possibilities. I concluded that the most important factor is (D), and that the only way to slow the growth of health care spending in this country is to change our cultural attitudes about what constitutes good medicine.
I use the term "premium medicine" to describe the high-cost procedures that are common in American health care. I use the term "gray-area medicine" to describe the fact that often these procedures are discretionary, with a low likelihood of affecting health care outcomes.
I wanted to believe (A), that American health care actually is more effective than international comparisons of longevity would suggest. It is true that as an indicator of health care quality, longevity is fatally flawed (so to speak). There are a few favorable indicators for the United States, including better survival rates for some forms of cancer. Overall, however, the evidence suggesting wasteful and ineffective health care services is much more compelling. See the work of John Wennberg and his colleagues at Dartmouth, including their recent study of cost-ineffective treatment under Medicare.
Many people would like to believe (B), that Americans could receive the same health care services that they do today, but at a lower cost. They hope that we could enjoy such a "free lunch" by embracing malpractice insurance reform, electronic medical records, single-payer health care, or some other supposed panacea. I am highly skeptical of the "free lunch" theories. For example, when it comes to high expenditures on health care services without commensurate benefits, our taxpayer-funded system of Medicare is very much a part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Explanation (C), that America's disappointing health care outcomes are concentrated in an underprivileged class, also fails to hold up to scrutiny. If there is an underprivileged group in America's health care system, it is not easy to find. For example, I found that in the government's Medical Expenditure Panel Survey for 2002, on a per capita basis people below the poverty line get slightly more health care (as measured in dollars of services consumed) that the average person above the poverty line. At the other end of the scale, the Marmot study, quoted above, found that indicators of health show affluent Americans to be worse off than British citizens of comparable socioeconomic status.
An MD with an Attitude
That leaves (D), with its radical suggestion that America's culture of medical practice is at fault. I arrived at this conclusion as an economist, looking at the data that contradicts the alternative hypotheses and also at a variety of studies, cited in my book, that show little relationship between health care outcomes and the supply of medical services.
Since writing my book, I have come across the work of Nortin Hadler, an MD who, coming from a very different direction, arrived at the same conclusion that I did about America's medical culture. In 2004, Hadler published The Last Well Person: How to Stay Well Despite the Health-care System
Hadler takes on many popular forms of health care in America, from alternative medicine to colonoscopy screening to anti-cholesterol drugs to heart bypass surgery. In his iconoclastic view, all of these therapies have benefits that are too small in terms of either statistical significance or common sense to warrant widespread use (he qualifies this by saying that certain narrow target populations do in fact benefit from these approaches).
Hadler steps on some very sensitive political toes. Americans want to hear that our doctors "save" men with prostate cancer. Hadler sees it is a common, slow-acting ailment that can be left untreated (there is a less-common variant that is more dangerous). We want to believe that talk-show hosts who scold people to get mammograms, watch their cholesterol, and submit to the indignities of colonoscopies are doing the public a service. Hadler argues that we should take a more stoic attitude toward the risks that we face.
Even though many of Hadler's opinions could turn out to be wrong, if enough of them are right then we could cut back on some popular medical procedures with no adverse effect on health. This reinforces my idea that we need a commission, somewhat akin to the UK's NICE (National Institute for Clinical Excellence), to evaluate our medical protocols. However, my worries that such a commission might be politicized also have increased after reading Hadler's book. He shows that political popularity and medical efficacy can be quite different.
I thought that the idea of basing medical practice on hard-headed statistical analysis was the least controversial idea in Crisis of Abundance. It may in fact be the most radical idea in the whole book. But it may be necessary if we really want to close the cost-effectiveness Gap.
Arnold Kling is a TCS Contributing Editor and an adjunct scholar with the Cato Institute.>
Posted by: timks | November 1, 2006 2:38 PM
timks, Thanks, I'll read it.
.>
Posted by: justintime | November 1, 2006 2:45 PM
Here's excerpts from another article by Kling titled "The Fture of Health Care Policy"
Pain in Every Direction
In March, I gave a talk sponsored by the Mercatus Center, in which I said ...that any direction that we take in health care policy involves pain:
* If we go straight ahead (making no changes to health care policy), then the problems that we face now will get worse. Health care spending will continue to rise, so that our health care finance systems will continue to unravel. Employer-based health insurance will continue to struggle. The price of health insurance for individuals will rise, and more individuals will choose to remain uninsured. Medicaid's burden on state budgets will continue to increase. The trillions of dollars of unfunded liabilities of Medicare will continue to pile up.
* If we turn left (increasing government's role through a single-payer health care system), then we will have to use a national health care budget to ration care. Other countries find it acceptable, for example, that not everyone who is recommended for heart bypass surgery can get it within three months. Our culture is not ready for that. If you thought that many Americans reacted badly to managed care, imagine how they will react to managed care with government in charge.
* Turning right (a market-oriented solution) also would produce culture shock. We are used to obtaining health care services without having to worry about what they cost. Over 85 percent of health care spending is paid for by third parties -- about 45 percent comes from government and about 40 percent comes from private health insurance. A market-oriented solution, as I propose in Crisis of Abundance, would limit government support to the poor and limit health insurance to covering catastrophically large expenditures. Most consumers clearly prefer -- or at least are used to -- health plans that insulate them from a much larger share of the costs than would be the case with true health insurance.
Why Spending is High
The United States is an outlier in terms of health care spending. In my book, I point out that in 2002, 14.6 percent of our GDP went for health care (more recently, this figure probably has reached 16 percent), while for most other countries the percent of GDP devoted to health care is closer to 10 percent or less.
I believe it would be unwise to claim that our high level of spending on health care is a good thing. That would be true if spending were not distorted by perverse incentives and/or it could be shown to yield noticeable benefits. However, the incentives are distortionary. Moreover, while most statistics used to measure overall quality (such as international longevity comparisons) are too flawed to enable one to draw definitive conclusions, based on the information that I found while working on the book, I believe that it is likely that we are not getting good value for all of the money that we spend on health care.
One explanation of high health care spending is that it reflects the inefficiency and greed of our capitalist system, compared with the more socialized systems of other industrial countries. This viewpoint is popular on the left, but it does not stand up to close scrutiny. In the United States, it is the intensity with which we utilize health care services -- particularly specialists and high-tech equipment -- that is responsible for our soaring health care expenditures.
We are getting real health care services for our money. Although there certainly are ways to improve efficiency in health care, efficiency measures cannot provide enough savings to enable us to consume the same services we consume today at drastically lower cost. The only way to rein in health care spending is to change the way that we consume services.
Real Solutions
My TCS readers know that I see our current notion of health insurance as fundamentally flawed. In the book, I describe what we call health insurance as "insulation," and I contrast it with what I call real health insurance. I spell out how a long-term, catastrophic health insurance plan might work.
I also show how a combination of long-term catastrophic health insurance and savings could substitute for Medicare. That makes my book the only health care policy discussion that offers an effective way to prevent the fiscal train wreck that Medicare threatens to become.
I also propose that government charter a commission to study the benefits of different medical procedures. American consumers undergo many health care procedures that have very little expected benefit. Cost-benefit analysis would help consumers make better decisions, particularly if some of their insulation from health care costs is removed, which would give them an incentive to compare benefits and costs in making their decisions.
The Policy Establishment
The health care policy establishment in Washington, including the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, and every think tank to their left, dismisses real solutions to health care financing as politically irrelevant. Instead, the wonks are looking for gimmicks that will "contain costs," which means that they are looking for clever ways that government can cut prices charged by health care suppliers or "improve" markets to make them more efficient.
Where I claim that any direction we take in health care involves pain, the establishment is circling its wagons around the Massachusetts health care plan, which promises a free lunch. Where I say that we need to make realistic promises in our entitlement programs, the establishment says that such talk is politically absurd.
The health care policy establishment today reminds me of the macroeconomic policy establishment in 1967. At that time, inflation was a growing menace, and the establishment blamed the "wage-price spiral." The wonks of that era focused on designing "incomes policies," which were ways for government to intervene in wage bargaining and price-setting. That same year, Milton Friedman was President of the American Economic Association, and he gave an address which laid out the basic economic theory behind what is now enshrined in textbooks as the vertical long-run aggregate supply curve. His back-to-basics economic analysis showed that the way to curb inflation was to control the money supply, rather than use "incomes policies."
The policy establishment did not listen to Milton Friedman in 1967. The next dozen years saw incomes policies tried, failed, and finally abandoned. Only when they had unsuccessfully attempted everything else did the establishment give Friedman's policies a chance, in the 1980's. They worked.
What I try to do in my book is provide that same sort of back-to-basics economic analysis for health care policy. Maybe some years down the road, after the public is fed up with health care gimmick policies that don't work, the policy establishment will discover the ideas in Crisis of Abundance.>
Posted by: timks | November 1, 2006 2:46 PM
I have bad news for you "anonymous" or Tenoch or whoever you are:
I intend to enter into debate here whether you like it or not.>
Posted by: timks | November 1, 2006 2:52 PM
Some facts in Kling's articles stand out for me.
We spend twice the money per capita on health care as other advanced countries and the results are "slightly worse".
This amounts to around 16% of our gross domestic product.
"...the top socioeconomic tier of the U.S. population have close to universal access but their health outcomes are often worse than those of their English counterparts."
Kling's conclusion is that "...the only way to slow the growth of health care spending in this country is to change our cultural attitudes about what constitutes good medicine."
I disagree with him that this is the only way to slow the growth of health care spending.
I agree this has great potential for reducing costs, but I think Kling overlooks the fact that under the present system, corporate health care is likely to just profit from the savings and not pass them on to either government or the taxpayer/patients.
And Kling overlooks the savings that would result from changes to the system itself, because he has a perceptual bias against a single payer system.
I agree with Kling's main point that there is a lot of cost ineffective medical practice.
I agree we need to use statistical analysis to arrive at a more cost effective application of advanced medical technology.
I didn't find Kling making a case either way for a universal health care system for America.
Obviously Kling has given health care serious thought and I would like to read his book, "Crisis of Abundance".
.>
Posted by: justintime | November 1, 2006 4:14 PM
jessie:
I'm sorry, but I'm sceptical about both those figures. Do you have a source? The National Health Service is the UK's largest employer and (last time I checked) was the second largest employer *in* *the* *world*>
Posted by: Richard Fannon | November 1, 2006 4:27 PM
What figures are you skeptical about, Richard?
.>
Posted by: justintime | November 1, 2006 4:34 PM
justintime - I'm not sure your criticism "Kling overlooks the fact that under the present system, corporate health care is likely to just profit from the savings and not pass them on to either government or the taxpayer/patients." is valid. I didn't read that Kling is advocating keeping our present system unchanged.
The problems with a single payer system, where the government is the payer, are numerous. They include: privacy issues; the very real potential for politicization of the system; the "genetic" make-up of all government programs to spend more and yield fewer benefits than forecasted.
Have you examined the problems of a single payer system like Canada's? How much worse would Canada's be if people couldn't "escape" to the US for private health care?
I have not seen advocates of universal government health care address these issues thoughtfully, using data and statistical analysis as Kling does. If you know of some, I would like to see them.>
Posted by: timks | November 1, 2006 5:11 PM
Some get healthcare others do not. That's the interesting thing. As someone w/ a chronic major illness I know how lame the healthcare establishment is. I also know that healthcare in this country is based off of prevention it's based off of an intervention model.
One can see this in the drugs our doctors prescribe the way they handle disease. I definitely prefer more eastern approaches to medicine because they approach it from a wholistic perspective. We need more of that in American medicine today.
p>
Posted by: Payshun | November 1, 2006 5:16 PM
Bottom line: the US (and possibly, captilalism in general) places wealth over health. This is not only the case in healthcare provision, but also in decision-making processes involving pollution, occupational safety, land use, etc.>
Posted by: D4P | November 1, 2006 5:19 PM
Payshun - My wife also has a chronic illness. She is very glad she lives in the US. Despite the known flaws in its health care "system" (I use the term lightly), we have many choices, including so-called unorthodox ones, rather than a one-size-fits-all system.>
Posted by: timks | November 1, 2006 5:24 PM
D4P said, "Bottom line: the US (and possibly, captilalism in general) places wealth over health. This is not only the case in healthcare provision, but also in decision-making processes involving pollution, occupational safety, land use, etc."
You have data to support your contention that "the US" does what you say?>
Posted by: timks | November 1, 2006 5:27 PM
You have data to support your contention that "the US" does what you say?
Take a look at pretty much any speech Bush has given on global warming, environmental issues, etc. His rationale for either (1) not strengthening pollution controls, environmental regulations, etc., or (2) loosening said controls and regulations, is almost invariably along the lines of "We can't protect the environment because it will hurt the economy."
I read an article within the last year that talked about how the fluid in women's wombs contains literally hundreds of industrial chemicals that the fetuses are submerged in. Many of the chemicals are considered cancer-causing. Yet, here we have a President who claims to care about fetuses in one arena (abortion), but not enough to actually regulate the chemicals in which the fetuses mature. Why? "Because it would hurt the economy," by which he means "Because it would upset my cronies at the corporations that gave money to my campaign and others like me.">
Posted by: D4P | November 1, 2006 5:35 PM
FYI: type in "womb industrial chemicals" in The Google on the Internets to see what I'm talking about.>
Posted by: D4P | November 1, 2006 5:37 PM
D4P - I'm not sure I follow your logic. Please help me. You believe that Bush is inconsistent in his concern for fetuses. How does that therefore demonstrate that "the US" puts wealth over health and the other things you mentioned?>
Posted by: timks | November 1, 2006 5:44 PM
timks, "I didn't read that Kling is advocating keeping our present system unchanged."
I didn't either.
"The problems with a single payer system, where the government is the payer, are numerous. They include: privacy issues; the very real potential for politicization of the system;"
I think privacy is an issue with both government and private health care. Hackers can even get into Pentagon top secret files.
Not much difference here, in my opinion.
What do you mean by "politicization" of the system?
"the "genetic" make-up of all government programs to spend more and yield fewer benefits than forecasted."
As Kling points out, cost ineffective medicine is practiced within both private and public systems. I agree with Kling that statistical analysis is needed to arrive at cost effective application of our advanced medical technology, whether we have a private or a public system.
Right now we have a hybrid system with the worst features of both private and public systems.
"Have you examined the problems of a single payer system like Canada's?"
I haven't seen any formal studies.
"How much worse would Canada's be if people couldn't "escape" to the US for private health care?"
I suspect not much difference.
My Canadian friends tell me those who purchase health care in the US do so for convenience rather than necessity.
Many, including Kling, think this is a big issue but I think it's exaggerated.
If we want to design a system, with no waiting time for elective surgery, we could easily do so and Canada could as well.
I think it's just a cost-benefit calculation.
"I have not seen advocates of universal government health care address these issues thoughtfully, using data and statistical analysis as Kling does. If you know of some, I would like to see them."
Offhand I don't know of any, but I'm sure they exist.
.>
Posted by: justintime | November 1, 2006 5:47 PM
Hi. I am a loser. I have no social life and I live in the basement at my parents' house. I am 37 years old and I'm a virgin.
I am a regular on this forum.
I like to argue about things that I really know nothing about. I am a clerk in a video store. I go to church every Sunday.
I am a regular on this forum.>
Posted by: 17th century Dutch fop | November 1, 2006 5:52 PM
timks, Single payer info:
Physicians for a National Health Program:
http://www.pnhp.org/
Massachusetts Health Care Studies: Projected Single-Payer System Costs
http://www.massmed.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=2571
CT Coalition for Universal Health Care:
http://cthealth.server101.com/the_case_for_universal_health_care_in_the_united_states.htm
Canadian Single-Payer Health Care Program: Is it Better than US System?
http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?ID=1503
The Pacific Research Institute (Creationist think tank) has anti Single payer propaganda at:
http://www.pacificresearch.org/pub/sab/health/speech_sally.html
.>
Posted by: justintime | November 1, 2006 6:03 PM
Scholarly studies on single payer health care systems:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=single%20payer%20health%20care%20studies&hl=en&hs=jKz&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&oi=scholart
.>
Posted by: justintime | November 1, 2006 6:08 PM
Dutch, "I like to argue about things that I really know nothing about."
You're not the only one.
.>
Posted by: justintime | November 1, 2006 6:10 PM
Timks,
I am glad I live in the United States too as I would be dead w/o the medicine this country provided. I just want the healthcare to be better.
Just look at the food we eat and how processed it is. That alone causes so many health problems here.
Then when one gets sick and doesn't have the money to pay for treatment they are stuck. I don't think that's just. I have been thru both scenarios, one having had excellent medical care and then not having insurance and I think it's lame penalize people for something that is not there fault.
p>
Posted by: Payshun | November 1, 2006 6:15 PM
Payshun, "I definitely prefer more eastern approaches to medicine because they approach it from a wholistic perspective. We need more of that in American medicine today."
I agree.
The American Medical Association has resisted this for years, but they're finally coming around.
I hope someday we'll see wholistic medicine incorporated into the national plan.
I think it will prove out to be cost effective.
.>
Posted by: justintime | November 1, 2006 6:17 PM
How does that therefore demonstrate that "the US" puts wealth over health and the other things you mentioned?
Because Bush prioritizes corporate profits over protecting fetuses by not requiring the polluters to control the chemicals in which the fetuses mature to a greater degree. And, Bush is far from the only person (Republican or Democrat) with these priorities. But he's the most important at this point in time, given his status as President.>
Posted by: D4P | November 1, 2006 6:20 PM
Payshun, Did you see the movie "Supersize Me"?
.>
Posted by: justintime | November 1, 2006 6:23 PM
And, I suspect people who align themselves witht the Republican party feel compelled to defend "industrial chemicals in the womb" because of their party affiliation, not because they actually like the idea of industrial chemicals in the womb.
This is a good example of what I consider to be the problem with partisanship. It either blinds one to one's own faults, or makes one defend the faults even though they violate one's own principles and one wouldn't tolerate them in the "other side." At the same time, partisanship makes one hypersensitive to the other side's faults.>
Posted by: D4P | November 1, 2006 6:26 PM
Payshun said, "Just look at the food we eat and how processed it is. That alone causes so many health problems here."
I could not agree more. That and our increasingly sedentary life styles.
How much of the many problems associated with that do you think a national health care plan would be able to solve? I believe very few.>
Posted by: timks | November 1, 2006 6:36 PM
justintime - Thanks for the links. I will read them. I have work related travel for the next 3 days so please excuse me if I don't respond.
I'm sure the subject will come up again, though! :)
I find it interesting that only one of those is characterized as propaganda by you. I haven't read them, of course, so you may be right; but my initial mind set is to assume they all are propaganda until I see their data and how they handle it.>
Posted by: timks | November 1, 2006 6:41 PM
D4P - I am second to no one in my distaste for partisanship as I'm sure I've made clear more than once here.
However, you seem to believe there is no correlation between increased wealth and increased health?
It should be non-debatable by now that the wealthier countries have better and cleaner environments than poor countries.
It seems to me that the laws enacted by Congress and signed by the President are a more accurate representation of what "the US" feels than the opinions of one elected official, even a President.
As I told justintime, I probably won't be able to respond for a few days due to travel, but wanted to get this last word in.>
Posted by: timks | November 1, 2006 6:49 PM
Justin,
I loved supersize me. I like Morgan Turlock a lot. His show is awesome.
How many people know what high fructose corn syrup is? Check out your kitchen its' in everything. Stay away from it. That junk will kill you.
Tim,
I think a national health plan could do wonders if it were written well ie calling food manufactures to switch from chemically laden foods to more natural alternatives. I also think by putting the pressure on HMO's and insurers their can be an equitable system for the sick.
The problem is we don't have a system that helps the sick. They get punished for being sick when we as a society should be lifting them up and healing. It doesn't matter if someone is Christian, Athiest, Pagan, Sufi or animist. No one wants another person to suffer needlessly especially w/ "us being the richest nation on the earth."
p>
Posted by: Payshun | November 1, 2006 6:51 PM
Also when we look at major pharmaceuticals we need to really look at what they are doing. Often times they are not interested curing disease and illness but are more interested in keeping people sick that way others can use other medicines (drugs) to alleve the other symptoms while ignoring the cause.
I realize that's a blanket statement and some illnesses require a great deal of different drugs ie HIV, Cancer... but I also know that some of the stuff I see in commercials don't need drugs to fix.
p>
Posted by: Payshun | November 1, 2006 7:21 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/10/31/Dobbs.Nov1/index.html is Lou Dobb's view that corporate contributions control decision making by both major political parties.
My impression is that recently he has become more outspoken than he was previously.>
Posted by: Mike Hayes 2 | November 1, 2006 7:43 PM
Corporate pharma has the most expensive and powerful lobby in America.
It costs a lot of money to bury the idea that Americans are getting ripped off for their medications.
Big Pharma gets taxpayer funded research for no cost and turns it into obscene profits.
And when we have AIDS and birdflu epidemics, Big Pharma just sees it as another opportunity for obscene profits.
Big Pharma corporations bribe our public servants to pass legislation to increase their profits.
They have corrupted our government.
Reforming the pharmaceutical industry is a top priority if we expect to get health care costs under control.
.>
Posted by: justintime | November 1, 2006 7:53 PM
is Lou Dobb's view that corporate contributions control decision making by both major political parties
I tend to agree with that view. The following points seem undeniable.
1. Corporations make financial contributions to both parties.
2. Said contributions are not altruistic or "ends" in themselves. They are means to ends. In other words, corporations expect something in return. From the standpoint of the corporation, these contributions are seen as "investments."
3. That which corporations expect in return from the recipients of said contributions are decisions, policies, plans, etc. that favor said corporations.
4. If the recipients of said contributions generally did not provide a sufficient "return" on corporate investments, corporations presumably would stop making said contributions.
5. Corporations presumably would not make said contributions if they didn't think they had to make them (i.e., they believe said contributions have a significant effect on the recipients, and that the recipients very well might not make favorable decisions unless the contributions were made).
6. (Not to mention the fact that politicians often have direct connections to corporations, e.g. Cheney and Halliburton, as just one example).
I think it is therefore reasonable to conclude that corporate contributions control decision-making by both parties.>
Posted by: D4P | November 1, 2006 7:54 PM
Reforming the pharmaceutical industry is a top priority if we expect to get health care costs under control.
Second only to ensuring that OB/GYNs get to practice their love with women across this country.>
Posted by: D4P | November 1, 2006 7:55 PM
Any plans on how to reform the pharma's?
p>
Posted by: Payshun | November 1, 2006 8:06 PM
D4P just described the American system of legalized bribery of our government.
Both parties together are spending $2.6 billion in this election, mostly for media time to spread obfuscation, distortions, propaganda, slander and outright lies for public consumption.
You don't spend that kind of money unless you get something for it.
The corporations and the political parties also get something out of the media for the money they spend.
So the media lets them do spin on our news.
Corporate tv gives us corporate newspeak.
We can't trust corporate news anymore.
Thank God for the internet.
We can fix this and clean up our government.
Our Federal Communications Commission needs to require the major media to set aside free air time prior to election so our candidates can get their message to the electorate.
This should be a condition for granting the licenses to broadcast over the public airwaves.
The less money candidates have to spend on communicating their message, the less they owe back to corporations and wealthy individuals.
And the cleaner will be American government.
.>
Posted by: justintime | November 1, 2006 8:17 PM
Payshun,
Anything I can think of to reform Big Pharma requires a clean Congress first.
Some thinking points:
If we could reform the media and make it more accessible for political messages,
then we can make it unnecessary for a politician to take bribes to pay for air time.
Elect a clean Congress - relatively speaking.
Push for a universal health care plan.
Require that the national health plan administration negotiate with Big Pharma for price controls.
The Veteran's Administration can do this but Medicare can't.
There's a substantial price difference.
BigPharma bribed our Congress to prevent Medicare from negotiating prices.
But Canada's health system can negotiate with Big Pharma on pricing.
This is why people go to Canada to buy their medications.
BigPharma is trying to make this illegal too.
.>
Posted by: justintime | November 1, 2006 8:41 PM
This is not on topic, but I just received an email which illustrates a point about the values that Christian Right leaders promote:
"...The stakes this election season are high, as you know. Not only does the makeup of Congress -- and the future of legislation such as the federal Marriage Protection Amendment -- hang in the balance, but voters in several states will also decide how marriage will be defined, whether embryonic stem-cell research should be allowed and even if abortion should be banned...".
It is an excerpt from an invitation entitled "Dr. Dobson Invites You to Subscribe to CitizenLink".>
Posted by: Mike Hayes 2 | November 1, 2006 9:22 PM
Regarding gay marriage and abortion: can someone provide me with a summary of Bush's accomplishments (or at least, efforts) with respect to these issues? For example, are gay marriage and abortion less common than they were when Bush first took office? If so, why? If not, why not?>
Posted by: D4P | November 1, 2006 9:56 PM
I don't understand why the obvious truth is not spelt out in clear terms, which is, all the mess in Iraq, the destruction of the middle class from outsourcing, inadequate border and port security etc,etc can be traced to one and only one main reason, which is, the dismal and pathetic lack of leadership of the doofus residing at 1600 Pennsilvania Ave and his republican 'rubber stamp' cronies in congress.
Don't you think the president with his republican majority in congress can do all the right things, guided by 'common sense'(or is that asking for too much?) with the stroke of his pen, if he wants to ?????
For the media to blame the democrats as much as the republicans in an attempt to be 'fair and balanced' or appear 'impartial' is not only ludicrous but also a distortion of who is to be held accountable first and foremost.
So long as this grand charade and pretense 'for glory' is entertained by the majority of the electorate, dog-tags and flag draped coffins are going to pour in from Iraq, which begs the question,"How many dead bodies and maimed limbs will it take to change the course of an ill conceived military adventure?" it is time to admit the truth and deal with reality.
If the Dems are bad, the republican majority in Congress is dreadful and horrendous; lumping the two together, there by making them "share" the numerous fiascos, is inaccurate and misleading reporting.
On the "stink scale" of 1-10, if the Dems are at 5, the Republicans are at a solid 10!
So there you have it folks, the choice is between 'bad' and 'terrible' !!
By the way, whatever happened to the "Able Danger" inquiry and the John Connyer investigation ?>
Posted by: Amigo | November 1, 2006 10:00 PM
I have a response to right-wing perverted slogan "cut & run", It is "Stay and Die" in Iraq for our brave soldiers who has been deprived of proper body armour,extra troops to get the job done and worst of all, NO PLAN OR SRTATEGY TO DEAL WITH THE INSURGENTS !!!!!!!!!
This adminstration and its 'rubber-stamp' republican congress is GUILTY of letting down our brave soldiers !!!!!!!!!!!!!>
Posted by: Amigo | November 1, 2006 10:09 PM
What Price Glory ?
"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?"
- Mahatma Gandhi ?
I am a devout Catholic. I am against any kind of abortion, except to save the mother's life. And of course, just like abortion I am also against murder and mayhem of any kind, which is what is happening in the killing fields in Iraq, Darfur and elsewhere in the world.
Every "true" believer attests to the fact that Jesus Christ was and is the 'Prince of Peace'; even when St Peter used his sword to defend his Saviour towards the end, Jesus then and later, on the cross, preached nonviolence !
Now tell me, how can any "true" believer of Christ (who is also against abortion and murder) defend and support what is going on in Iraq ?
[I don't want to hear any 'spin' because that will be breaking another commandment," Thou shall not lie".]
To all citizens, please vote your conscience on Nov 7th; unless you want this charade of 'democracy' and 'one-party' rule to go on, which will be a prescription for fascism to follow!>
Posted by: Amigo | November 1, 2006 10:17 PM
IT IS HAPPENING AGAIN FOR THE THIRD TIME ! I AM SORRY TO SAY THAT DEMOCRACY IS NO LONGER "AT RISK" BUT HAS ALREADY BECOME A CASUALTY !!!!!!!!!
MiamiHerald
Posted on Sat, Oct. 28, 2006
ELECTIONS
Glitches cited in early voting
Early voters are urged to cast their ballots with care following scattered reports of problems with heavily used machines.
BY CHARLES RABIN AND DARRAN SIMON
dsimon@MiamiHerald.com
After a week of early voting, a handful of glitches with electronic voting machines have drawn the ire of voters, reassurances from elections supervisors -- and a caution against the careless casting of ballots.
Several South Florida voters say the choices they touched on the electronic screens were not the ones that appeared on the review screen -- the final voting step.
Election officials say they aren't aware of any serious voting issues. But in Broward County, for example, they don't know how widespread the machine problems are because there's no process for poll workers to quickly report minor issues and no central database of machine problems.
In Miami-Dade, incidents are logged and reported daily and recorded in a central database. Problem machines are shut down.
''In the past, Miami-Dade County would send someone to correct the machine on site,'' said Lester Sola, county supervisor of elections. Now, he said, ``We close the machine down and put a seal on it.''
Debra A. Reed voted with her boss on Wednesday at African-American Research Library and Cultural Center near Fort Lauderdale. Her vote went smoothly, but boss Gary Rudolf called her over to look at what was happening on his machine. He touched the screen for gubernatorial candidate Jim Davis, a Democrat, but the review screen repeatedly registered the Republican, Charlie Crist.
That's exactly the kind of problem that sends conspiracy theorists into high gear -- especially in South Florida, where a history of problems at the polls have made voters particularly skittish.
A poll worker then helped Rudolf, but it took three tries to get it right, Reed said.
''I'm shocked because I really want . . . to trust that the issues with irregularities with voting machines have been resolved,'' said Reed, a paralegal. ``It worries me because the races are so close.''
Broward Supervisor of Elections spokeswoman Mary Cooney said it's not uncommon for screens on heavily used machines to slip out of sync, making votes register incorrectly. Poll workers are trained to recalibrate them on the spot -- essentially, to realign the video screen with the electronics inside. The 15-step process is outlined in the poll-workers manual.
''It is resolved right there at the early-voting site,'' Cooney said.
Broward poll workers keep a log of all maintenance done on machines at each site. But the Supervisor of Elections office doesn't see that log until the early voting period ends. And a machine isn't taken out of service unless the poll clerk decides it's a chronic poor performer that can't be fixed.
Cooney said no machines have been removed during early voting, and she is not aware of any serious problems.
In Miami-Dade, two machines have been taken out of service during early voting. No votes were lost, Sola said.
Joan Marek, 60, a Democrat from Hollywood, was also stunned to see Charlie Crist on her ballot review page after voting on Thursday. ''Am I on the voting screen again?'' she wondered. ``Well, this is too weird.''
Marek corrected her ballot and alerted poll workers at the Hollywood satellite courthouse, who she said told her they'd had previous problems with the same machine.
Poll workers did some work on her machine when she finished voting, Marek said. But no report was made to the Supervisor of Elections office and the machine was not removed, Cooney said.
Workers at the Hollywood poll said there had been no voting problems on Friday.
Mauricio Raponi wanted to vote for Democrats across the board at the Lemon City Library in Miami on Thursday. But each time he hit the button next to the candidate, the Republican choice showed up. Raponi, 53, persevered until the machine worked. Then he alerted a poll worker.
Miami Herald staff writer Linda Topping Streitfeld contributed to this report.
THERE IS NO HOPE HERE FOR FREE & FAIR ELECTIONS, AS LONG AS THE MAJORITY PARTY IS HELL BENT ON KEEPING THIS A 'ONE-PARTY' RULE; FASCISM IS NOT FAR AWAY!
YEARS FROM NOW WHEN WE LOOK BACK ON THESE TIMES, WE WILL FIND IT ABSOLUTELY INCREDULOUS AS TO, HOW IT EVER CAME TO THIS SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS !!>
Posted by: Amigo | November 1, 2006 10:29 PM
PLEASE CONSIDER THESE FACTS - - - -
1 Going to war with a country on the basis of lies and deception.
2 Over 2,700 American soldiers killed and over 22,000 wounded; Iraqi civilians killed and maimed, thirty times as many; the threat of terrorism has gone up, as a result.
3 Costing the country $6 billion a month and over $400 billion so far and mounting; the only plan on the table is "STAYING THE COURSE"!
4 Not fully securing our borders and ports, five years after 9/11 !
5 'NO BID' lucrative contracts to 'BIG OIL' and corporations with links to party officials.
6 Encouraging and abetting wholesale OUTSOURCING of jobs and bringing in cheap labor through illegal aliens (NOT immigrants ), thereby undermining American wages.
7 Corporations and CEOs raking in record profits at the expense of American worker's right to decent minimum wage and basic health care.The number of Americans without health coverage rose by 1.3 million last year, up to 46.6 million.
8 Widespread cronyism and favoritsm in appointing incompetent officials, based on loyalty to the party.
9 Colluding with this secretive adminstration in passing the outrageous 'warrantless arrest' bill in the name of national security.
10 Secretly giving away port security contracts to foreign companies at the expense of domestic ones.
11 Voting AGAINST miniimum wage increase nine times in the last five years, while giving themselves a raise, as many times! For the first time in our nation's history, the Forbes list of the 400 wealthiest Americans includes only billionaires, while at the same time median earnings of full-time working males fell nearly 2% last year and wages of working women fell by 1.3% according to the Census Bureau
12 Massive waste and abuse in federal spending resulting in ever increasing NATIONAL DEBT.
NOW TELL ME, YOU STILL WANT TO VOTE REPUBLICAN ??????>
Posted by: Amigo | November 1, 2006 10:37 PM
Not me amigo.
.>
Posted by: justintime | November 1, 2006 10:54 PM
"NOW TELL ME, YOU STILL WANT TO VOTE REPUBLICAN ??????"
If you wouldn't mind. Yes, please.>
Posted by: kevin s. | November 2, 2006 3:01 AM
"For example, are gay marriage and abortion less common than they were when Bush first took office? If so, why? If not, why not?"
The why not is that these issues are being settled by judges who are not accountable to the electorate. Bush's accomplishment is to nominate judges who believe it is not the role of the courts to settle these matters.>
Posted by: kevin s. | November 2, 2006 3:04 AM
That's Bush's mistake.
p>
Posted by: Payshun | November 2, 2006 4:37 AM
"That's Bush's mistake."
?>
Posted by: kevin s. | November 2, 2006 2:31 PM
Yes the judges he appointed will not stand up for justice when the time comes. If a case came up that could help the little guy the current court would probably not side his/her way. Topeka vs Board of Education would probably not be law right now because of the traditionalist bent on the court right now.
p>
Posted by: Payshun | November 2, 2006 4:00 PM
So you think the judges are... racist? On what grounds do you make such an absurd claim?>
Posted by: HAC | November 3, 2006 4:05 AM
I am over sixty years old, and have seen the truth of the axiom "Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it," proven more times than I care to remember.
As long as the Republican Party continues to be the haven of extremists, there will be little progress on any of the issues confronting us. At the very least,
we should deny them, or at least the extremist majority, the right to call themselves by the honorable name of "Conservative". What these people of the ilk of George W. Bush Richard Cheney and Ann Coulter, to name but a very few, really are is the same Radical Reactionaries that caused the Civil War and the alleged "Reconstruction" that followed. The same ones who have always been the rabble rousers bent on destroying the Noble Experiment that our Forefathers created with a great deal of help from God. The same ones who have never cared about preserving our way of life and the beautifully balanced form of government thought our by our Founding Fathers more than two centuries ago. Those who supported Richard Nixon's ignoble priorities that not only lengthened the Vietnam War, but caused a war in Central America in his largely successful effort to destroy the moderate wing of the Republican Party, in the person of one of its leaders, Nelson Rockefeller.
The same ones who hijacked the Republican Convention some years ago, and who have done everything in their considerable power to hijack our electoral process in the last two presidential elections, as well as in the by-elections.
These people are militantly against conserving ANYTHING, be it clean air, clean water, historic sites, the Bill of Rights, our inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, or anything else that once distinguished the Shining City on a Hill that our country was to the whole world, and therefore can in no way be entitled to be called Conservatives.
They ONLY thing they want to conserve is what they consider their "God-given" right to make a buck at the expense of the powerless, which also makes them ineligible to call themselves Christians, since we Christians follow a Lord who said, "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto Me."
In addition to preventing their ability to pervert the honorable appelation of "conservative", we must return to the ideals that made our country great for so many years, e.g., "I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it," and to return the above-mentioned inalienable rights to all of our citizens, and all who live under our government. As John Donne once wrote: ..."Every man's death diminishes me...Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee."
The fact that George Bush has proven himself unwilling to preserve protect and defend our Constitution, believing, as he does, that the Bill of Rights, which most of our Forefathers insisted on before they would approve and sign the Constitution itself, is optional, or expendable, means that he is forsworn on his oath of office, and should be impeached. He swore to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, and the only one of the Amendments contained in the Bill of Rights that he supports is the "right to keep and bear arms", which he chooses to misunderstand. How sad.>
Posted by: Lang | November 3, 2006 4:44 AM
Ann Coulter caused the Civil War?
Wow>
Posted by: Gordon | November 3, 2006 6:10 AM
That was a pretty good rant, Lang.
But I think Gordon may have missed your point about the present leadership of the Republican Party being more radical than conservative.
.>
Posted by: justintime | November 3, 2006 1:39 PM
That is absolutely reprehensible coming from a Republican Administration. Disgusting.>
Posted by: Julie Johnson | November 3, 2006 3:12 PM
I have been very sad to see respectable conservatives taken in by the folks you are referring to and their conservatism changed into something else. It's pretty sad to see The National Review fall into the hands of neo-cons and watch Buckley & Sulivan toe the line. In the recent documentary "Goldwater on Goldwater," barry Goldwater's grandaughter investigates his perspective and comes up with the conclusion that Barry Goldwater would be appalled at the current Republican party and the people who are claiming to be the leaders of conservatism - particularly the religious right.>
Posted by: Daniel | November 3, 2006 3:26 PM
Hillary is has an "edge" to her personality that invites criticism like lightning to a lightning rod. Many folks are uncomfortable with that. Politics requires toughness as well as compassion, because effective politics is all about negotiation and compromise. Look at any political candidate. The ones who "wear well" in Washington have strong personalities, but also capable diplomats. If you really want to see where politics is headed, read Barack Obama's new book, "Audacity of Hope". Hillary would be very capable as a Commander-in-Chief, IMO, but my real hope is that Obama becomes our nation's leader...we need his level head, political strength, uncompromising values and tolerant faith at this time in our nation's life.>
Posted by: Kevin K | November 3, 2006 7:13 PM
Justin -
I didn't miss the point. I was just being ironic.>
Posted by: Gordon | November 3, 2006 11:11 PM
Come on Gordon. Everyone knows that Coulter represents all Republicans and especially all conservatives, and since she is clearly a racist, of course she started the Civil War. Her and the Republicans invaded the Union because they wanted to keep slavery...>
Posted by: HAC | November 4, 2006 5:01 AM
I stopped reading when you called HRC 'politically moderate.' Her husband was just that, honestly, but she is not.
She is not her husband.
She is polarising.
She is not welcome.>
Posted by: Jonathan | November 9, 2006 5:34 PM
good site
">http://www.wifiplanets.org/>
Posted by: wifiplanets | November 14, 2006 5:32 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?