Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Howard Dean: "We Cannot Continue to Spend 16 Percent of Our GNP on Health Care. Period."
Talking on the generally excellent and substantive Morning Joe today, DNC head Howard Dean, an M.D., former governor of Vermont, and legendary presidential screamer says, "We cannot continue to spend 16 prcent of our GNP on health care. Period."
He added that he "thinks the decisions should be made at the individual level."
And that he's against "corporate care."
Confused? I am, and it's not just the corporate prescription pharmaceuticals. Just wait until the hard-core health-care reform roposals start hitting the ground in late January.
Also on Morning Joe: Co-host Mika Brzezinski, whose former National Security Adviser father Zbigniew appears on the show from time to time, avers that there's "something slightly distasteful" about the Kennedy name opening doors for Lady Caroline to become the next carpet-bagging senator from New York.
|12.17.08 @ 8:07AM|#
"We cannot continue to spend 16 prcent of our GNP on health
care. Period."
He added that he "thinks the decisions should be made at the
individual level."
And if individual decision making shows what in economic terms is
called a "revealed preference" for spending 16 percent or more of
GDP on health care ... then smart people like Dean will override
those individual decisions with collective decision-making ... for
our own good, of course.
ed|12.17.08 @ 8:25AM|#
"something slightly distasteful" about the Kennedy name
opening doors for Lady Caroline
No kidding. The sense of entitlement is sickening. Throw in
sympathy for Uncle Teddy (tick...tick...tick) and it seems like a
sure thing. Unless the people of New York come to their senses.
Which is doubtful. "A woman must replace a woman!" "A Kennedy must
replace a Kennedy!"
Other Matt|12.17.08 @ 8:31AM|#
"A woman must replace a woman!" "A Kennedy must replace a
Kennedy!"
It's all just "acceptable candidates", dontcha know.
Other Matt|12.17.08 @ 8:35AM|#
"We cannot continue to spend 16 prcent of our GNP on health
care. Period."
Is it just me, or can this also be inferred "It must be far in
excess of 16%"
|12.17.08 @ 8:55AM|#
Is it just me, or can this also be inferred "It must be far in excess of 16%"
No. National health plan advocates like Dean think 16% is too
much.
We should be spending what enlightened countries like France or
Canada spend.
And somehow this will improve the delivery of medical care.
|12.17.08 @ 9:00AM|#
Co-host Mika Brzezinski, whose former National Security
Adviser father Zbigniew appears on the show from time to time,
avers that there's "something slightly distasteful" about the
Kennedy name opening doors for Lady Caroline to become the next
carpet-bagging senator from New York.
That's absurd. She's totally qualified. If her name was Betty Lou
Gilhooly, the Demos would be looking at her just as hard.
*********
And does:
...he "thinks the decisions should be made at the individual
level."
...he's against "corporate care."
mean Doctor Dean wants to smash the AMA monopoly?
|12.17.08 @ 9:13AM|#
Of course we could save a lot of money if we just stopped
letting geezers have those fancy-schamcy cancer treatments and
heart surgeries.
And then we could process their bodies into motor fuel.
Come on, stop being so sentimental. The solution to the "health
care crisis" and the "energy crisis" all in one package.
|12.17.08 @ 9:15AM|#
And if individual decision making shows what in economic
terms is called a "revealed preference" for spending 16 percent or
more of GDP on health care...
It won't. That's the point. You get up to 16%, and still have our
lousy heal outcomes, because the system is irrational.
We should be spending what enlightened countries like France or
Canada spend. Since they have better health care than we do -
in the aggregate, across the entire population - and since we're
considerably richer than they are, there's nothing remotely
incongruous about saying we can spend the same % of GNP on health
care and get better results.
|12.17.08 @ 9:16AM|#
On the question of who gets what health care treatments, I find wealth and luck in the job market to better criteria than age.
creech|12.17.08 @ 9:25AM|#
Caroline Kennedy is probably as qualified to be senator as Sarah Palin was to be vice president. Which isn't saying much. Frankly, I'm surprised Michelle Obama's name hasn't surfaced to replace Barrack as Illinois senator. And we all know Beau Biden will replace the Delaware stand-in when he gets back from deployment in Iraq. Wanna bet Chelsea won't be running for Congress soon?
Hugh Akston|12.17.08 @ 9:30AM|#
Just wait until the hard-core health-care reform roposals
start hitting the ground fan in late
January.
fixed.
adrian|12.17.08 @ 9:33AM|#
Since they have better health care than we do - in the
aggregate, across the entire population -
this just means that poor people have health care right?
|12.17.08 @ 9:37AM|#
avers that there's "something slightly distasteful" about
the Kennedy name opening doors for Lady Caroline to become the next
carpet-bagging senator from New York
Look, people are just going to have to get used to the fact that
there will only be two possibilities for New York Senator in the
future: Chuck (we know what that rhymes with) Schumer and a
politically connected woman from another state.
kinnath|12.17.08 @ 9:41AM|#
The best way to control overall costs is to dramatically
increase availability and lower cost of routine care.
Break the AMA and let Walmart open walk-in clinics staffed by nurse
practioners.
|12.17.08 @ 9:41AM|#
joe,
I was just explaining the reasoning.
Now, as to whether a country as big as the US could administer a
National Health system in the same way those countries do is an
open question. I tend to doubt it.
Individual states, maybe.
As to my second comment, i surely hope you don't think I was
serious. But to be blunt Medicare spending does take up a
disproportionate amount of that 16%.
When other countries start keeping records the same way as the US
does I will revisit "the better heath outcomes" issue.
I do hope that we can at least agree that we do no have a free
market in healthcare in the US.
And yes, I recognize that one can reasonably argue that a free
market in healthcare is not possible but lets not pretend that
there is not already all kinds of government intervention in US
healthcare, all of which was intended to lower the cost.
I'm just glad the glad the government never came up with a National
Widescreen TV Plan.
|12.17.08 @ 9:42AM|#
adrian,
Poor people have health care, and lower-income people have better
health care.
creech,
Caroline Kennedy has more natural gifts than Sarah Palin, but she's
got even less of a resume. Run for Congress! Run for Lt. Governor!
She's the sharpest of this generation of Kennedys, she'd do great.
But handing it to her like that...who the hell is she, that she
gets to jump the line like that?
|12.17.08 @ 9:46AM|#
Isaac B,
France doesn't have a national health care system like Canada. It
has an almost entirely private health care, but a public health
insurance system.
It's the difference between the government owning the roads, and
the government owning the cars.
As to my second comment, i surely hope you don't think I was
serious. No, I was just taking exception to the statement that
we could have a health care system that is both better and cheaper.
We certainly could - our current system, on top of everything else,
is incredibly inefficient.
|12.17.08 @ 9:48AM|#
Canada has a single payer system, where in many cases it is
actually illegal for a doctor to provide services to patients
outside the system.
In 2006, per-capita spending for health care in the U.S. was
US$6,714; in Canada, US$3,678. The U.S. spent 15.3% of GDP on
health care in that year; Canada spent 10.0%.
So Canada has a much cheaper system, for a few reasons:
1) Healthcare is rationed. You can wait months or years for
operations that would be done immediately in the US. Hospitals are
closed, doctors & nurses are pushed into early retirement,
diagnostic equipment not purchased, all to save money.
2) Free rider. Canada benefits from medical advances and
pharmaceuticals from the US, developed due to the profit to be
earned in the US.
3) Demographics. In the US, there is much more variation in
lifespans and health problems between different ethnic groups than
in Canada. Plus, the average age is lower in Canada.
Most of lifespan and health is based on public health measures
(clean water, vaccinations, nutrition), and more now is personal
choices (weight, smoking, drugs). Spending more money on hospitals
and treatment will not raise average lifsepan in the aggregate by
much, but of course would make a difference to you if you are
waiting 2 years for a hip replacement.
|12.17.08 @ 9:48AM|#
"We cannot continue to spend 16 percent of our GNP on health
care. Period."
Yes, because anything paid for through governmental redistribution
of wealth is suddenly no-longer expressible as a percentage of GNP.
I mean no one could possibly express Social Security or Medicare
expenditures as a percentage of GNP.
Oh, you mean he's saying the government run health care would be
cheaper than our current system? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
I'm pretty sure Howard Dean got into medical school based on a
decibel test alone.
|12.17.08 @ 9:48AM|#
But handing it to her like that...who the hell is she, that
she gets to jump the line like that?
Uh, joe...she's a Kennedy. That's the point. You would, however, at
least think that she'd have the decency to line-jump in MA. Maybe
RI.
adrian|12.17.08 @ 9:50AM|#
adrian,
Poor people have health care, and lower-income people have better
health care.
And wealthy people have worse health care (than wealthy people
here)?
|12.17.08 @ 9:53AM|#
joe, I actually know what kinds of health systems other
countries have. But thanks anyway.
France's system still relies on a great deal of central control.
Social conditions that do not exist in this country make this
possible.
One of them is that it's a much smaller country, with respect to
both area and population.
|12.17.08 @ 10:01AM|#
Canada has a single payer system, where in many cases it is
actually illegal for a doctor to provide services to patients
outside the system.
That's not a single-payer system, that's a single provider
system.
Episiarch,
The Kennedys in Massachusetts or Rhode Island all won their offices
in open elections. THAT'S the point - they're talking about
appointing her. In fact, the last Kennedy to run for a seat he
didn't already hold in Massachusetts got laughed off the stage -
Michael, I think it was, when he tried to run for governor.
adrian,
And wealthy people have worse health care (than wealthy people
here)? That probably depends on the country, and whether it
allows private spending and services outside the public system.
adrian|12.17.08 @ 10:08AM|#
So to sum up, by saying "better health care system", you mean
worse health care for people who can afford it unless they pay
extra for private care, and better health care for people who can't
afford it.
Got it.
dhex|12.17.08 @ 10:09AM|#
morning joe is an unwatchable load of what the hells.
that said, the kennedys are just everyone's favorite robber baron
family. i don't get it in the slightest. ted gets the dying pope
treatment and everything.
so weird.
|12.17.08 @ 10:11AM|#
THAT'S the point - they're talking about appointing
her
Sure, sure, point taken. But my point about the point is to point
out the point that she wouldn't be getting ap-pointed if she wasn't
a Kennedy.
|12.17.08 @ 10:23AM|#
that said, the kennedys are just everyone's favorite robber
baron family. i don't get it in the slightest. ted gets the dying
pope treatment and everything.
It's all about Camelot, Acid Damage. Frank Sinatra and Jackie and
Marilyn Monroe and Peter Lawford and all the rest. Why do people
love Princess Diana? Same idiotic bullshit.
|12.17.08 @ 10:30AM|#
When we start comparing health care systems across the board, we
better correct for life style issues. Americans shoot each other at
a very high rate. Americans are also more obese than other
countries. No amount of government healthcare is going to make
Americans skinnier, exercise more, or stop inner city gang members
from killing each other. Further, a lot of healthcare statistics
like infant mortality are deceiving. America spends billions on
premature babies that would be aborted and not counted toward
infant mortality rates in countries like France and the UK. The US
tries to save those kids and the unsuccessful attempts count
against our infant mortality rates. Even beyond that, no amount of
government healthcare will stop mothers from using drugs. The US
has worse healthcare statistics not because we have a bad
healthcare system, but because we make bad lifestyle
decisions.
Creeps like Dean would love to run our lifestyles. Government
healthcare will come with coercive lifestyle changes. For
governments it is always about control. Socialized medicine is
nothing more than an excuse to control more of our lives.
|12.17.08 @ 10:40AM|#
"It's all about Camelot, Acid Damage. Frank Sinatra and Jackie
and Marilyn Monroe and Peter Lawford and all the rest. Why do
people love Princess Diana? Same idiotic bullshit."
People love elites. We didn't have monarchies in the world for
1000s of years because people hated them. Sadly, we are developing
a terrible dynasty system in this country. With the Bush's on their
way out, we don't really have one on the R side, but Dems love
them. Don't forget the Udals out west and the Daly's in
Chicago.
Caroline Kennedy seems like a nice enough woman. But I can't figure
out what she has done warrent being anywhere near power. But this
is just the begning. Wait until Chelsea runs for office or one of
the Obama girls. Why don't we just stop lying and just grant them
peerages. At least we would be being honest.
|12.17.08 @ 10:41AM|#
That's not a single-payer system, that's a single provider system.
Joe, in Canada, it is known (and referred to) as a single-payer
system.
|12.17.08 @ 10:44AM|#
The other notable result of a single-payer system is that people
with connections, or people willing to make a bribe, jump to the
head of the healthcare ration queue. If not, they just go to the US
to get treatment.
The poor, and unconnected (there's a pretty good overlap between
those groups), are at a serious disadvantage in Canada.
dhex|12.17.08 @ 10:46AM|#
"It's all about Camelot, Acid Damage. Frank Sinatra and Jackie
and Marilyn Monroe and Peter Lawford and all the rest. Why do
people love Princess Diana? Same idiotic bullshit."
i dig your point here episiotomy, but still. good goddamn.
especially ted. fuck that asshole. any justice in this world and
he'll drown in the bathtub.
and john, people generally don't love "elites" - any bar in any
town will have all sorts of talk about theys and thems and those
people, invariably up to no good. even lonelywacks has an elite
behind his brown horde, controlling things.
|12.17.08 @ 10:48AM|#
Sorry, I like a two minute hate for the Kennedys as much as the
next guy (probably more), but I'm going to have to be contrary
here.
I see absolutely no reason why Caroline Kennedy is unsuitable to
replace Hillary. She was after all born in NYC, is a longtime
resident of NY state and has a long record of public service in the
state.
She is well connected to the Democratic Party without being a hack,
that is, she does seem to have had a life outside of politics, and
well regarded apparently.
And she seems to have escaped the stupid gene that so many of her
family, especially practically all of her cousins and late brother,
seem to inherit.
kinnath|12.17.08 @ 10:52AM|#
Caroline is at least as qualified as Hillary was when she ran. But at least Hillary won the seat in an election.
|12.17.08 @ 10:53AM|#
"and john, people generally don't love "elites" - any bar in any
town will have all sorts of talk about theys and thems and those
people, invariably up to no good. even lonelywacks has an elite
behind his brown horde, controlling things."
They say that but then they talk about how wonderful Caroline and
John John are. They just don't like other people's elites. If they
truely hated elites, mediocrities who happen to be children of
popular politicians wouldn't be getting elected all over America.
Again, the monarchies were popular among a lot of people.
|12.17.08 @ 10:54AM|#
dhex
I think John used the wrong word.
What Americans love is celebrities. And we have made the Kennedys
into celebrities. I mean how much attention would JohnJohn's plane
crash have gotten if he had been John Nobody. Six lines on page
ten?
And, yes, lacking royalty, we have created our own with
celebrities.
A love/hate relationship, perhaps. But the LOVE is there.
|12.17.08 @ 10:57AM|#
especially ted. fuck that asshole. any justice in this world
and he'll drown in the bathtub
Oh, I am with you 100%, dude. The Massholian love for the man
mystifies everyone but them.
|12.17.08 @ 11:08AM|#
IB,
Good point. I should have used the more modern term celbrity. Back
in the day people like Marie Antonette (she was actually a rock
star in France when Louis first married her), Austrian Emperess
Elizabeth (Franz Joseph's illfated wife), and Prince Albert were
just as much celbrities as Angelina Jolie or George Clooney are
today. We don't have royalty anymore we have celbrities who
function as the same thing.
|12.17.08 @ 11:15AM|#
Oh, you mean he's saying the government run health care
would be cheaper than our current system?
It could be, if you went full socialization (either overt or via
sub rosa "single-payer" with no opt-out and all the attendant
requirements imposed on providers), and were willing to implement
draconian rationing.
Of course, you would see hundreds of hospitals close, thousands of
doctors leave medicine, and a great deal of our high-tech medical
infrastructure rust in place.
But you could do it, no question.
|12.17.08 @ 11:17AM|#
Caroline Kennedy has more natural gifts than Sarah
Palin,
And we know this how? Sarah Palin at least built her resume from
the ground up. Caroline Kennedy, who I'm sure is a delightful
person, was born with literally every possible advantage (wealth,
social position, media recognition, political connections, you name
it), and has done very little with it.
|12.17.08 @ 11:24AM|#
John
We also don't have royalty anymore because we told fat King George
to fuck off two hundred and thirty two years ago.
Some people have felt a void in there lives ever since so they
crwned movie stars royalty. Then we got the Kennedys who were
possibly our first real political celebrities (certainly the
greatest ones).
|12.17.08 @ 11:28AM|#
They wanted no more Mother England.
They knew the time had come
For them to take command.
It's very clear you're being unfair, King,
No matter what you say, we won't obey.
Gonna hold a revolution now, King,
And we're gonna run it all our way
With no more kings...
|12.17.08 @ 11:35AM|#
For the love of God, can we drop these people once and for all?
No more Bushes, either, please, though I suspect we're going to get
one in the Senate soon. He, at least, will have credentials and
will have to actually win an election and stuff.
As bad as the GOP can be, what's with the Democrats and all their
pre-anointing lately? Obama, Clinton, Kennedy, etc. Bah. Let them
earn the higher office before you "assume some qualifications."
ed|12.17.08 @ 11:46AM|#
Caroline Kennedy...was born with literally every possible
advantage (wealth, social position, media recognition, political
connections, you name it
She can't help it. She was born with a silver shoe in her...wait,
that was Bush the Elder.
The biggest advantage, of course, is that her daddy got his head
blown off (because he was held upright after Oswald's first shot by
the brace he had to wear because of the back he reinjured in
September during a bedroom tussle with a lady friend of Hugh
Sidey's at Bing Crosby's house).
It's one of history's great comic ironies, if getting your head
blown off can be considered comical.
robc|12.17.08 @ 11:48AM|#
No more Kennedys, Bushes, Clintons, Adamses, Harrisons,
Roosevelts, Tafts, or Lees.
Some of those seem to be well taken care of, but just added them to
the list for completeness.
|12.17.08 @ 11:53AM|#
As to C Kennedy "earning" the office, it's my understanding that
she'll have to do just that in 2010 even if she is appointed
now.
I just can't see her being any worse than any of the other NY
Democrat hacks that have a shot at this thing.
|12.17.08 @ 11:56AM|#
Incumbents, even short-time incumbents, have a much easier time of getting re-elected. If she's so great, how come this is her first foray into politics? I'm sure the alternatives are bad, too, but another Kennedy? What hath God wrought?
|12.17.08 @ 12:04PM|#
Also on Morning Joe: Co-host Mika Brzezinski, whose former
National Security Adviser father Zbigniew appears on the show from
time to time, avers that there's "something slightly distasteful"
about the Kennedy name opening doors for Lady Caroline to become
the next carpet-bagging senator from New York.
Slightly distasteful?
SLIGHTLY?
WTF America? After two goddam centuries you want to bring back
royalty? We avoided replacing Bush II with Clinton II. We avoided
having the scion of a military family dynasy assume the executive
powers. So now we need another Kennedy?
Why don't we just give the spoiled rich girl a crown and
scepter?
I have to go practice my bowing now.
|12.17.08 @ 12:32PM|#
No, adrian, you don't got it.
adrian | December 17, 2008, 10:08am | #
So to sum up, by saying "better health care system", you mean worse
health care for people who can afford it unless they pay extra for
private care,... Extra, above and beyond what they're
receiving under the universal system. Not extra, above and beyond
what they're paying now.
meerdahl,
Joe, in Canada, it is known (and referred to) as a single-payer
system. So it's sort of like the English vs. American
"billion," eh? The distinction I'm making is between the provision
of health care (providers) and health care financing (payers). In
France, they have a single payer, but private providers who, IIRC,
can take fee-for-payment as well as government reimbursement.
The other notable result of a single-payer system is that
people with connections, or people willing to make a bribe, jump to
the head of the healthcare ration queue. Good thing the
wealthy and connected don't get better health care here. And thank
heavens there aren't any bureaucrats who ration care! Um...
RC Dean,
And we know this (that Caroline Kennedy has more natural gifts
than Sarah Palin) how? Because we've heard them both
speak.
Caroline Kennedy, who I'm sure is a delightful person, was born
with literally every possible advantage (wealth, social position,
media recognition, political connections, you name it), and has
done very little with it. Wow, you really don't know much
about what Caroline Kennedy had done, do you? *sniff* I've never
read about here winning a mayoral race, or writing something in the
WSJ, so what could she possibly have done with her life?
|12.17.08 @ 12:55PM|#
I've never read about her winning a mayoral race, or writing
something in the WSJ, so what could she possibly have done with her
life?
I have to agree with joe. "Experienced" career politicians are the
problem, and 99 times out of 100, H&R agrees with that. She
wouldn't be my choice, but I'd pick her over nearly any
politician who's "earned" it. She's active in the community and a
reliable lefty. If I was the lefty looking to appoint someone, I
could do a lot worse.
|12.17.08 @ 1:08PM|#
Whatever ones politics, why support yet another member of this
messed up family getting into national politics? There are millions
of other people to choose from! Even being selective, there are
probably a hundred reasonable candidates not named Kennedy, Bush,
Clinton, etc.
I wish they'd appoint Eliot Spitzer, myself.
|12.17.08 @ 1:14PM|#
I have some predictions that the good folks at reason will
archive and make available to y'all if I'm wrong.
After whatever health plan the Democrat party shoves down our
throat -
1) Per capita spending on health care will continue to rise.
2) Life spans will increas but at no faster rate then they have
been increasing over the last couple of decades.
3) The rich will still get better and more expensive coverage than
the poor.
4) It will be used to justify taxing things that the nannis decide
aren't good for you.
5) Petty bureaucrats will still make unjustifiable decisions on
health care. The only difference is it will be more government
bureaucrats and less private bureaucrats making the damnable
decisions.
Dig this post up in five years.
|12.17.08 @ 1:24PM|#
Whatever claim Caroline had on being a "different kind of
Kennedy" goes out the window as she actively seeks to be appointed
to the Senate, based on her specialness.
and
I let this slide, earlier, but... the generally
excellent and substantive Morning Joe ...
?
Cut it the fuck out!
|12.17.08 @ 1:24PM|#
Oh yeah,
6) joe will be posting that all of the above would have been worse
if not for ObamaCare.
PFJ|12.17.08 @ 1:29PM|#
"We should be spending what enlightened countries like France or
Canada spend. Since they have better health care than we do - in
the aggregate, across the entire population - and since we're
considerably richer than they are, there's nothing remotely
incongruous about saying we can spend the same % of GNP on health
care and get better results."
Ceteris Parabis. Another country getting better results from their
healthcare system does not prove that its better. Other countries
have different lifestyles that make their results better, even if
the healthcare system isn't causing it.
That said, the current system is a complete disaster.
|12.17.08 @ 2:02PM|#
Good thing the wealthy and connected don't get better health care here. And thank heavens there aren't any bureaucrats who ration care! Um...
Joe, I think you're missing my point. The Canadian system is much
cheaper than the US one, and the rationing element of it would
reduce US costs as well. Plus, either system is not going to make
much of a difference in lifespan. So I'm generally in favor of the
Canadian approach, as long as individuals are allowed to buy
treatment out of their own pockets.
But people are pretty naive if they think that a government
controlled healthcare system in the US will result in equal
treatment for all. People with connections and/or money would still
get much better, faster treatment.
|12.17.08 @ 2:24PM|#
Let's go to Wikipedia, then, which reveals that Caroline
is:
(1) an attorney
(2) a member of the board of directors of the Commission on
Presidential Debates and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational
Fund.
(3) a fundraiser for public schools in New York City.
(4) an honorary chairman of the American Ballet Theatre.
I'm sorry, but that's a pretty slim resume for a US Senator,
especially given where she started in the whole liberal/lefty/NYC
scene.
|12.17.08 @ 2:31PM|#
You know, I'm as qualified as Kennedy to be in the Senate. Maybe
I should call Patterson. He owes me one.
After reading the wiki entry, I must say that I didn't know that
she was the Caroline in "Sweet Caroline". Another knock against
her, in my book. Hmmm, I wonder who the Kentucky woman was
then?
|12.17.08 @ 2:45PM|#
honorary chairman of the American Ballet Theatre.
Now that I think of it, The United States Senate as dance theatre
has some appeal.
|12.17.08 @ 4:48PM|#
that's a pretty slim resume for a US Senator.
I'm starting to see that I'm in the minority on this, but we're
talking about a position that requires no special skills
whatsoever. Yes, ProLib, you are qualified. As am I, as is joe, and
as is Ms Kennedy.
A poor choice? Yes. An unqualified choice? I think
not.
I'm also noticing that this is a dead thread. Sigh.
|12.17.08 @ 4:52PM|#
Sounds like a pretty standard resume for a northeastern liberal
democrat to me, RC. :)
Pro Lib, of course we all know you'd be a better Senator, but I'm
fairly certain that the two sitting Senators from NY are prima
facie evidence that NY voters have no sense at all. You wouldn't
stand a chance.
|12.17.08 @ 4:54PM|#
Now that I think of it, The United States Senate as dance theatre has some appeal.
I pretty much see it as performance art myself.
|12.17.08 @ 4:57PM|#
Sorry, but i'm having a hard time taking any of this
seriously.
It's as though when they stopped involuntarily committing people
years ago the lunatics all just turned around and started running
for office. And the voters are too fucking stupid to recognize
insanity.
|12.17.08 @ 5:00PM|#
I don't want to harp too much on "qualifications", because the
qualified in this business are usually good at corruption, lying,
and all the other things that make term limits a great idea.
However, I do protest most strenuously the idea of putting yet
another Kennedy in power. Ye gods, haven't we had enough?
It would be nice if we could have people who we trust and/or view
as competent. "And" would be nice, but I'll take "or" if that's all
I can have. "Neither" is the big problem these days.
|12.17.08 @ 5:25PM|#
The single most important demonstrable "qualification" displayed
by the Senators who win their seats in open elections is an ability
to win elections.
What does that tell us?
|12.17.08 @ 5:39PM|#
Well, to get back to the main topic here, I must confess that it
occurs to me that I'm not exactly sure what the percentage of GDP
spent on healthcare has to do with the issue of whether we actually
need more government intervention in healthcare (or less).
I mean to say, does someone actually know what the right
percentage of GDP to spend on healthcare is?
Maybe, given our demographics "we" should be spending more, not
less.
What relevance does Canada's spending (or France's or anywhere
else's) have anyway?
But every time someone like Dean gets off on a tear like this it's
the same thing.
|12.17.08 @ 6:31PM|#
You see, it occurs to me again.
You know how every time some study comes out that says how stupid
American kids are compared to BanglaDeshi kids, or some such, the
always a clarion call that we're not spending enough FOR THE
CHILDREN.
So, it seems our kids will get smarter if we spend more money on
education but the rest of us will get healthier if we
spend less money on healthcare.
Right?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245