Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Convention, Day One 39

Journal by pudge

Lately I've been even-handed toward the Democrats, but on the first night of this convention, much of that effort to be fair and objective washes away quickly.

Kerry wants to make us think two conflicting things: that he will do the same good things Bush does, and that he won't do the same things Bush does. For example, he will bring democracy to Iraq, but he will also bring in our allies (who only won't help because they disagree with the Bush goal he says he will bring about).

He says he is against Bush helping corporate buddies, but he would give five percent tax breaks to American corporations.

He says he will bring down the budget better than Bush can, but he would increase spending dramatically on health care and education and first responders and homeland defense and the military, and he is only planning on increasing taxes on the rich (incomes over $200,000). Where's the rest of the money coming from? Why, increased revenues due to a healthier economy, of course (which we are already getting now, under Bush).

I don't wish to try to paint him as a flip-flopper, changing his views; that's tired. What I am pointing out is that Kerry is sending conflicting messages and trying to have it both ways. So on the one hand I might like Kerry's message, but dislike his plan; or vice versa.

But there's one big place I can't stand his plan or his message, and that's in his socialistic ideals for wealth redistribution.

One Kerry spokesman talked about how health care is a problem in this country -- as if this originated with Bush -- and that one big problem is for people who have high health care costs they can't pay for, which employers can't or don't want to pay for. She said Kerry's plan is for federal government to pay. Not the individuals, not the employers, not the state governments, but the federal government.

So because individuals cannot pay, because businesses cannot or will not, because states will not, I will. That's right, I am paying. You are too, probably.

Heck, and you won't just be paying for the health care of other people who have jobs, you'll be paying for people who don't have jobs. She showed a 40-something guy who used to be a messenger and then in the tech boom became a "communication specialist," and now he can't get a job doing that anymore, so he stays home feeling miserable and taking my money.

But Kerry's spokesperson said that if we want a flexible workforce, we should take the benefits that come with that and "share" it with the people it hurts. I don't think it can reasonably be called sharing when you take it from me, but whatever: it's the very thinly veiled language of the socialist, and it's something I could never support.

I am not saying there are not problems. But the first answer in solving the problem should not be to take from Jill to give to Jack. This is especially true with health care. I know it is heretical for a conservative to say it, but perhaps we should consider some sort of price controls, for example. It's not the best capitalist solution, but what else is there? Government price controls are better than government paying for someone else because the prices are too high. Government price controls are better than -- kill me now -- single-payer health care.

And I am not against helping people who can't get a job, but when you are employable and you spend over a year trying to get a job in a specific market that doesn't want you, you shouldn't be paid by me for it. And it shouldn't be done at the federal level, clearly (the fact of the Tenth Amendment is completely lost on the Democratic party ... at least the Republicans know it exists, despite ignoring it).

And when it is done, it should be with the goal not of making the worker happy, but of getting him into a job. This guy sent out hundreds of letters in over a year of collecting my money, and he got not one reply. Dude, take a hint. You're wasting my money, and I don't like it. I'd rather give you money for retraining in something else.

Don't want to retrain? Tough. That's the price you pay to get my money. This guy was a horrible case study for the Democrats to use, because he is part of the problem: someone who shouldn't be in a particular industry and sucking off us while he stubbornly refuses to see thet fact. Maybe I am wrong, and he is a genius at whatever he does, but if he wants to pursue it, he should do it on his own dime.

One last thing: Bill Clinton noted in his talk that Kerry is willing to listen to people with other views, even when they disagree with him, as though Bush is not. I don't know why so many people believe this. His cabinet is fairly diverse of opinion (even apart from Powell) on many issues. But what this reminded me of was how Bush is often bashed over "stacking the deck" on his committees that brief him on issues related to science, such as in regard stem cell research and the Council on Bioethics.

I don't know if Bush did fudge the Council to get the result he wanted -- it wouldn't surprise me -- but the Council had been sharply divided and its report was a balanced one, especially compared to Clinton's own National Bioethics Advisory Committee, which unaninmously recommended that stem cell research, including cloning, be allowed to move forward unfettered. I don't recall cries of stacked decks then, let alone complaints that Clinton wouldn't listen to other views. "Listening to other views" to most people means "agreeing with me in the end."

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Convention, Day One More

Convention, Day One

Comments Filter:
  • Perhaps if ambulance chasing was more controlled we would not have such high insurance costs which should translate into cheaper healthcare for all. Then again, having Edwards on the ticket pretty much cancels out that possibility, with the conflict of interest and all.

    As far as unemployment, sure, lets help the fellow. But I agree with you that if you cannot get a job within a few months, you are barking up the wrong tree. Time to look elseware. Just because you are trained to be a doctor doesn't mean

  • Really (Score:2)

    by Otter ( 3800 )
    If the more lurid stories about the "health care crisis" were true and Americans were really dying without medical care then, yes, a plan to care for them would be a net cost.

    But, in fact everyone does get health care, whether or not they can afford it. It just gets paid for through some roundabout method. I'm not eager for nationalized medicine either, but it's not obvious that a plan like that (with some cost controls, at least) would be more costly than the hat-passing we have today.

    I do agree, though,

  • The Clinton (they're like so weird Borg... anyone notice they didn't mention they were husband and wife? He was the Former President and she was My Senator.) speech was full of numbers. Weird numbers. Numbers that could never be proved.

    I'm not saying that Republicans won't do the exact same thing so everyone please remain calm!

    However, how precisely do we know the exact number of children who don't go to after school programs. How do we know 44 million people do not have health insurance? These are n

  • Pudge, I try not to think much on North American politics, since as it is I already have a handful with the Argentine variety. However little I might be interested on this or that American candidate, I'd like to point out, regardless, that your opening comments do not strike me as especially dicotomic.

    For instance, you say: Kerry wants to make us think two conflicting things: that he will do the same good things Bush does, and that he won't do the same things Bush does.. Nowhere you say that he will do ex

    • How can that be conflicting?

      The conflict isn't in him doing things slightly different from Bush, but in him saying he will do things completely opposite of Bush, and then doing things that are the same or similar. The conflict is in his words versus his deeds. He implies or states that he is anti-war, for example, or that he is against special treatment for wealthy corporations, or that he is against shipping jobs overseas, but his actions are the opposite of those stated beliefs (voting for the war, fa
      • Actually, Kerry voted in favor of the war, but against funding of the troops. Talk about flip-flopping. Bush is not all that desirable by any means, but he will at least make a decision and follow through with it. I agree, it would be great if someone like John McCain were able to run. I don't think that will ever happen, though, because the Republican establishment is afraid of him since he will do what he wants and can't be pulled around like a string puppet.
        • Actually, Kerry voted in favor of the war, but against funding of the troops

          Actually, Kerry favored a bill that would have funded the troops the same amount, but would have funded them differently. He said at the time he voted against the bill because he was against the method of funding. That's what I was referring to.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Regarding the argument that someone can always get trained for a different field and that the fact someone has been unable to get a job "proves" they're just not suited for the field they're searching in. There are several major issues with that. The first is that it isn't necessarily the right thing in the first place - people are rejected for jobs for a variety of reasons, but honestly, appropriate skills tend to take second place to recent work experience and ability to bullshit.

      Sure. Note I did not s
  • Lately I've been even-handed toward the Democrats, but on the first night of this convention, much of that effort to be fair and objective washes away quickly.

    Yeah. Especially with the male Clinton's speech. I'm sorry. When he was president HE fired missiles into Iraq day after day after day WITHOUT going through the UN. When Bush goes in, even after TRYING to get UN approval, he's the bad guy. How can he bring up bad relations and unilateralism (as if 33 countries didn't support us)? The ONLY reas
    • A slip on the gendercentric title.

      It was late, and yesterday was long. :)

      How is that different from automobile manufacturing plants over the last 50 years?

      It isn't.

      And didn't Kerry vote for and support NAFTA?

      Yes. This is the conflicting stuff I was talking about: his words don't match his actions. Remember the whole calling-of-CEOS-who-send-jobs-overseas "Benedict Arnolds"? They later amended that to mean only those who send jobs overseas in order to get tax breaks -- tax breaks which the CONGR
      • Oooo! Good work on the chart linkage. Thanks. I always like having numbers to back up an argument instead of just comparisons ("better," "higher," "larger").

        jason
    • I make about $40k and don't pay any taxes: how is he going to "lower the tax burden on the poor?"

      Well you do pay 6.2% for Social Security, and your employer pays an equal amount on your behalf, so that's $4,960 a year more that could be yours. Eliminating social security would be the equivalent of boosting salarys 12.4% for the entire working class.

      • Well you do pay 6.2% for Social Security, and your employer pays an equal amount on your behalf, so that's $4,960 a year more that could be yours. Eliminating social security would be the equivalent of boosting salarys 12.4% for the entire working class.

        And it would completely negate the POINT of social security, which is for you to put money away for yourself.
        • And it would completely negate the POINT of social security, which is for you to put money away for yourself.

          That is a point at which I must disagree. SSI is not money put away for yourself. What you're talking about is retirement income. Social security is a safety net for those whose income has been limited or eliminated through physical/mental debilitaion due to illness old age, congenital defects etc. Social security was never meant to be a retirement plan for all the old folks. That is the probl
          • SSI is not money put away for yourself. What you're talking about is retirement income. Social security is a safety net for those whose income has been limited or eliminated through physical/mental debilitaion due to illness old age, congenital defects etc.

            [...]

            Social security was never meant to be a retirement plan for all the old folks.

            It certainly was: not the *primary* retirement plan, but the fallback plan, the safety net. And it was designed to pay out what was put in, except in those cases whe
      • I make about $40k and don't pay any taxes: how is he going to "lower the tax burden on the poor?"

        Well you do pay 6.2% for Social Security, and your employer pays an equal amount on your behalf, so that's $4,960 a year more that could be yours. Eliminating social security would be the equivalent of boosting salaries 12.4% for the entire working class.

        Sort of. You're assuming that employers would pay employees an equal amount to their tax saving. They won't if they're smart, since at least some o
        • My question is: how does one justify trying to lower a negative tax burden?

          Simple: because an actual handout would never pass Congress, so they instead tie it to taxes and make it seem like a rebate or refund. So this is all justified not in the means, but in the ends: giving money to people who need it, by taking it from those who don't, is good!

        • Eliminating social security would be the equivalent of boosting salaries 12.4% for the entire working class.

          Sort of. You're assuming that employers would pay employees an equal amount to their tax saving.

          Actually I'm assuming a perfect labor market. An employer can ask that you take a 6.2% to keep the same take home pay, but there would be a huge uproar over that.

          An employer can bump your salary up 6.2% to pass on what they save in payroll expenses. But you are right, they probably won't, at lea

    • The ONLY reasons the European leaders liked Clinton, as near as I can tell, is that he was a Socialist, just like they are. American policy did not really change! Maybe they didn't like Bush because they knew that when Bush made threats, he'd probably carry them out, whereas Mr. Clinton had a real problem with that.

      Europeans hated clinton's foreign policy. In fact, there was a term coined by the French foreign minister to describe it in a derogatory fashion.
      This is a misconception brought about by cli

  • Man, what a complicated issue. Personally, I think much of the rising cost of health care is due to increased usage. Since many people have moved to an HMO type setup, where they pay a larger portion out of each paycheck, but then only pay a tiny, fixed amount everytime they see the doctor, regardless of how much the visit cost, they end up going much more often. People go to the doctor all the time for simple things that they don't need to go for.

    My health plan is a more traditional PPO type offering

    • I have a $3K deductable and no co-pay (ie I pay it all) so I don't want to go to the doctor if I can at all help it. Ever. It is emergency medical coverage only. The good news is that it only costs me $100 a month for that coverage. There is also a $500 accident clause that kicks in before the other coverage in case of a trip to the ER (yes I know a trip to the ER is much much more that that, but it would help).

      jason
  • The issue with a magnifying glass examining Bush and Blair on the cover has an in-depth section on health care. It explains why price controls don't work in the long term and predicts that healthcare spending will eventually reach 30% of GDP in the developed world. It was really an interesting read, Pudge I think you would enjoy it.
  • What I am pointing out is that Kerry is sending conflicting messages and trying to have it both ways. So on the one hand I might like Kerry's message, but dislike his plan; or vice versa.

    You don't suppose that John Kerry is a.... politician?
  • You complain about the principle of paying for others. How is this different from any old insurance plan -- C&C car insurance, for example?

    You are also already indirectly paying for others' health care through whatever health insurance you may have, not to mention through your taxes (Medicare/Medicaid). What is your objection to extending health insurance to everyone -- whether in Kerry's plan or not?

    Finally, what would your alternative to Kerry's health care plan be?

    Cheers,

    Ethelred

    • You complain about the principle of paying for others. How is this different from any old insurance plan -- C&C car insurance, for example?

      Because I get something in return: insurance for if something happens. Isn't that obvious?

      You are also already indirectly paying for others' health care ... through your taxes (Medicare/Medicaid). What is your objection to extending health insurance to everyone -- whether in Kerry's plan or not?

      That I should not have to pay for someone else's service. I am en
      • Because I get something in return: insurance for if something happens. Isn't that obvious?

        If you never have an accident, then you never get something in return. Even if you do have an accident, chances are the aggregate cost of your premiums that you've paid is still higher than the cost of the accident itself. Thus your money goes into the pockets of others who needed it more (and of course some goes into the pockets of the insurer).

        I ask again: where is the difference?

        Not paying for other people's

        • If you never have an accident, then you never get something in return.

          False. The fact that I will be covered if I do is something I get, something I have.

          I really don't think you understand how nonsensical this analogy is. There are so many ways in which it doesn't fit. The most obvious is what I noted about what I get in return. Another is that I choose to participate; although obviously I am forced to have car and house insurance, I get greater than the minimums, and voluntarily have other kinds of

          • No, I get something when I pay for highways and the military.

            You also get something when you pay for insurance, even when you don't collect on it. You said so yourself. Yet others benefit at the same time, both directly through payouts and indirectly through distribution of risk, just as with other things paid for (voluntarily or involuntarily) through taxes.

            In other words, with insurance, you are in a very real sense paying for other people's services. That is the point of how insurance works. The mor

            • In other words, with insurance, you are in a very real sense paying for other people's services. That is the point of how insurance works.

              You are completely missing the point which I have explained several times. Why is that? Directly implied in the initial statement -- and later stated explicitly -- is that *I get nothing in return* for giving people my money for medicare etc.; that I am forced to do it; that government controls it. Your other examples don't fit *any* of these criteria, let alone all
              • Directly implied in the initial statement -- and later stated explicitly -- is that *I get nothing in return* for giving people my money for medicare etc.

                I wasn't talking about Medicare in particular (and in point of fact I don't even support it). Because of your statement "I should not have to pay for someone else's service", naturally I focused on that as the basis for further argument.

                I was talking about services provided by the government in general, along with any old insurance scheme, as examples

                • Because of your statement "I should not have to pay for someone else's service", naturally I focused on that as the basis for further argument.

                  Even after I clarified several times that it wasn't merely that. And still you persist in attacking straw men.

                  Your counter-argument was merely

                  Stop lying. I clarified much further than that, talking about coercion and government control.

                  and the clincher "You're wrong", which of course proves nothing other than you've run out of arguments.

                  I said "you're wro
                  • If you weren't being so rude, I won't be so hostile.

                    Who's being rude here?

                    You have yet to actually answer my statement that you pay for other people's services, aside from ducking the question and claim that you don't (without backing it up aside from saying I "missed the point", a point you never bothered to explain -- and "there are so many ways it doesn't fit", without bothering to name those "ways" or backing them up).

                    I take that back -- you did manage to name one reason. Supposedly it's "coercion

                    • Who's being rude here?

                      Insisting that I would think something you think I should think is not rude? Attacking straw men is not rude? Ignoring my clarifications is not rude?

                      You're right on one small thing, though. This conversation is over, as far as being civil and constructive -- but not for lack of effort on my part.

                      Perhaps lack of competence, then?

Slashdot Top Deals

It's been a business doing pleasure with you.

Close