Denis Kucinich along with his highly educated, articulate and comely wife just concluded the most enlightening, interactive, interview I have ever heard in my 30+ years of being an American voter. His Radio host Ed Schultz has other candidates scheduled in the future. Which ones I do not know at present. I do know however that Rudy Giuliani has emphatically turned down Ed Schultz’s open offer of 3 full interactive hours of air time with the American voter. (perhaps lisping fear-mongering only works in 10 second sound bytes).

 I’ll continue to give updates as to subsequent Presidential candidates slated for Ed Schultz’s Radio talk show. Where on the radio dial you can find his show depends on your region, and its current media monopoly held by free market parochial programmers. If you’re a Sirius satellite subscriber just tune to #146.

something or someone.

Most of us from the "OTher side" have for the most part be simply subjected to pants wetting, hair on fire, bitchninny mommajabber.

FWIW, I have listen to Schultz before at lenght and he sometimes makes good arguements.

For him, the challenge is how much of the "righty" lefty" bullshit does he want to engage in to maintian his pants wetting base or drop it and possibly broaden his appeal....

What makes sense to him would only make sense to other brainwashed drones.

- Single-payer system of universal health care:

A disaster just waiting to happen. There's just too many leeches in this country, although I *will* happily pay for any and all abortions the poor wish to have. If I were in charge, abortions would be available for free at sidewalk kiosks.

- The immediate withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Iraq; replacing them with an international security force.

OK, if you can get the international force to show up.

- Guaranteed quality education for all; including free pre-kindergarten and college for all who want it.

Preschool is bullshit.

As for the colleges, instead we should burn the current K-12 system to the ground and rebuild it with standards so that a high school degree is as good as a general college degree today. Colleges would become for those that really intend to specialize or do something technical/scientific.

- Immediate withdrawal from the World Trade Organization (WTO) and North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

Eh...

- Repealing the USA PATRIOT Act.

OK.

- Fostering a world of international cooperation.

Vague touchy feely. Meaningless.

- Abolishing the death penalty.

OK, but I want some things in return, like some sort of penal colony for the real hard core criminals. And *ONE* strike laws for certain crimes.

- Environmental renewal and clean energy.

Whatever. As long as it doesn't monkeywrench the economy. The REAL solution is to have a vibrant economy and a lot of prosperity. THAT pays for the research and development to invent cleaner tech.

- Preventing the privatization of social security.

Why? The government is doing such a stellar job here? This is what I mean when I call ideology a mental illness. He takes this line because he has to be a big leftist and be against any sort of privitization. One size fits all. That's why ideology sucks. It prevents people from thinking outside their little boxes.

ANyone with a brain knows that sometimes the solution from the left is best and sometimes a solution from the right is best. Sometimes, the best solution is a combination of both. Sometimes it's something completely different.

Personally, I abolish SS and replace it with more IRA/401K type stuff, and other more innovative ideas to allow people to grow their own investments. This gigantic boondoggle to trickle out some paltry sum to retirees is so idiotic. Seriously, I question the very sanity of anyone who can support the SS system as it is.

- Providing full social security benefits at age 65.

See above. SS is a complete mess that should have been shot dead 30 years ago.

- Creating a cabinet-level "Department of Peace"

Totally and utterly gay.

- Ratifying the ABM Treaty and the Kyoto Protocol.

Useless. Even some of the folks behind Kyoto admit to it now. It's dead, and it's time to move on. Let it go, folks. There's REAL work to be done.

- Introducing reforms to bring about instant-runoff voting.

Eh... I'd rather see a system of Approval Voting. that's where you can vote for Every candidate you approve of. With one stroke the two Party lock on the system would be demolished.

- Protecting a woman's right to choose while decreasing the number of abortions performed in the U.S.

OK, but I don't know how you accomplish the second goal..

- Ending the war on drugs.

OK.

- Legalizing same-sex marriage.

Don't care. Sure, why not.

- Creating a balance between workers and corporations.

Vague ideological whatsis.

- Ending the H1B and L1 Visa Programs

Eh...

- Restoring rural communities and family farms.

Take the most productive farming system in the history of the universe, so productive farmers have to be compensated NOT to produce, and stick a knife in it? Huh? Explain this one please?

- Strengthening gun control.

Fuck that. You do not want to live in a society where only the authorities have guns. I would have thought the abomination of the Bush Administration would have driven that point home a bit better.

So, some things and some bad. The bad ones exist because he's basically an ideologue. It's like those cabe TV channel packages. To get the channels you want, you have to subscribe to a whole bunch of others that might suck.

So we get logical stuff like ending the useless war on drugs, but we also get terrible leftists crap like wanting to shackle the economy to clean up the world instead of growing it and using that power to produce the cleaner technologies we need.

1. The Iraq War: The best way to support the troops is to expediently bring them home from a political war of establishing privatization policies. Then revitalize our military for their only rightful purpose; the “defense” of our nation.  

2. Healthcare: A National (not for profit) healthcare system can be instituted covering every American citizen for approximately $1,500.00/year per family.

3. NAFTA: We can restore and revitalize our working & middle class as well as our manufacturing base and economy overall by merely The Presidents signture rescinding our alliance/participation with NAFTA.

4. Burn the Patriot Act and all its insidious dangers to our Bill of Rights and Constitution.

5. Energy: Vigorous research, development and implementing of alternative energy sources/technologies that do not tether us to unstable, problematic regions of the world.

 Kucinich made a powerful point that during the economic devastation that was the Great Depression; FDR addressed the country saying “We have nothing to fear but fear itself”. Since 9/11/01 all we have been fed is fear by the current Administration that unless we surrender our liberties the terrorists will win.

BTW: Kucinich voted AGAINST the Patriot Act right from the beginning. He also voted AGAINST going to war in Iraq.
Agree or not with his platform; at least he is more consistent than most of his contemporaries.  

-- Modified on 9/12/2007 10:31:42 PM

if we leave Iraq, the Jihadists will leave us alone is an illusion. These Jihadists have been fighting us for a thousand years and they will not stop until, I am paraphrasing Bin Laden, until:

1. They kill us and wipe us off the face of the earth or...
2. Covert to Islam.

This war has no boundaries and no timeline. We are in a Holy War not a political war.

I do support point Number Five, we need a comprehensive Energy Policy, now.

much wind would leave their sails if we didn't have an occupying army trying to stabilize their region so that we could pump oil out of their ground.
I do not portend to be a well read historian; but I don't EVER recall a major Muslim uprising against the west when the west was NOT having anything to do with them. The major quagmire with Iraq presently is that they can't get along with themselves. Wasn't it the imperialistic/evangelistic impetus of the Christian Crusades that got those un-evolved camel jockeys pissed off originally?
IMO the entire western civilized world should pull every bit of infrastructure out of the mid east and just let em’ bow to Mecca and live in dirt huts like they seem to want to. Then if "they" decide to move or interfere with the west we have every justification to nuke em' all the way to Allah.

we need leaders who (1) have brains, and (2) aren't committed to hiding them, and (3) use them for the nation, not their own personal mercenary benefit.

Why the fuck are we surprised that this crew is lining their own pockets while personally avoiding the dirty work?   That's what they've ALWAYS done.

If you want to win a war, you do NOT lead by walking into an ambush.  DUH!!!   "Quagmire" is Cheney's description, and his rationalization is that after 9/11, we need to look for quagmires and jump in.

Regardless of any other interpretation, there can be no question that the Iraqi war has been incompetently managed.  After 4 years dicking around with handfuls of ragheads, we're still asking what the fuck we're doing, and getting "I don't know" for answers.

WHAT THE FUCK!!!!!   IMPEACH NOTHING!!!  WHY AREN'T THESE FUCKERS IN PRISON?!

Empires fall of their own weight.  We have become so successful that we manage to protect our dumb & dumbest, and now they have taken over and shot us in both feet.   Fuck us.

""IMO the entire western civilized world should pull every bit of infrastructure out of the mid east and just let em’ bow to Mecca and live in dirt huts like they seem to want to. Then if "they" decide to move or interfere with the west we have every justification to nuke em' all the way to Allah.""

I'm speechless. I'm sorry, but this is just not very solid thinking on your part.

Don't just offer criticism.

that sudden complete disengagement isn't just unreasonable, it's impossible.

OTOH, foreign-policy-in-a-forum is also a pretty dumb idea.

But a lot of the 'infrastucture' can't be magic-carpeted away.  More to the point, there's plenty enough divisions in the developed world (not all of which is western and even in the west) that "we" can't monopolize technology.

Your point that messing with fire is dangerous is well taken, and especially after Iraq.  It seems unavoidable that bin Laden suckered us into the briar patch, like big fucking dummies.

IMHO, we don't know how to negotiate for shit.  We don't know when to raise, when to call, when to put them down.   We're fucking clumsy, and that's inexcusable.

Next, if we're gonna defend, you defend on your strong point, not your enemies'.   You focus on transportation security.

We don't do that for political reasons.  Ie., it doesn't have the political advantages that war does.  It's boring.  Effective leadership IS boring, and doesn't get re-elected.  What gets re-elected is the interactive entertainment we have in DC, with the variable price - they let you in and then let pickpockets and shysters run loose in the audience while the show distracts you.

the Persian Gulf?

2nd. When you say pullout, we also have to pull out of Indonesia 5-10 percent of out oil and Nigeria another 10 percent. All these countries have sizable Muslim populations as does the Phillippines et al. What will you do about those countries?

3rd. If we leave Iraq and even if we leave the oil back to the Bedoiuns, the Jihadists will demand we give up support of Israel. Is that also part of your proposal that we forsake Israel?

4th. You are delusional if you think even if do all of the above the Jihadists will leave us alone. Again I repeat, we are in a Holy War. Yes to understand this war, you must learn the events of the crusades and all the way up to the British Mesopotamia War to current events. To a Jihadist, victory only comes from:

a) Our death
b) We covert to Islam.

There is no other alternative.

If a Jihadist dies i.e. commits suicide or if we all end up living like Western Civilization did at the dawn of Islam, Allah promises them Heaven and a thousand virgins.

I agree TOTALLY with Energy item 5. That should be item ONE.
`
5. Energy: Move to number one

1. Iraq. His support the troops mantra is actually his most disingenuous cliché. His, and your answer is effectively to immediately turn over complete control of the middle east to middle easterners. Sounds simplistic, BECAUSE IT IS, at least until (item 5 errr excuse me, we mean item 1. . .)  ENERGY is solved, WE NEED KEEP THE OIL FLOWING ! ! ! Leave Iraq in the terrible mess it would be and pretty soon the rest of Arabia's gone and the oil stops.

2. Healthcare: Most certainly his cost “estimate” of $1500/year/family his TREMENDOUSLY LOW. Given roughly 110 million households, that’s only $165 BILLION. In 2005 we spent $6700 per PERSON or $2 TRILLION on healthcare. That's right. We spent 12 TIMES his estimte. I guarantee you the difference is NOT insurance company profit and waste and fraud. So much for his ability to count, add and multiply. Let's ASSUME the government just happened to have somewhere around $2 trillion (minus something) available from somewhere, then his idea sounds great and it would probably work. . . . .  for a couple of years.  

Some of the simple problems with all national healthcare systems are:

A single payer system might work if the ONLY thing the government did was pay the health insurance premiums. The problem is that the government won’t stop there. In the name of cost control and efficiency, they will do away with the “for profit” insurance companies and industry. Eliminate the middle man, right? Sounds good. But it will also eliminate your choices. Everyone then gets the same services for the same prices, right?

Once the government takes control of the DELIVERY system, in the name of efficiency and uniformity and quality, it ends up being a simple and easy way to ration healthcare. If there are no other choices, then where are you going to go? Certainly, "for profit" health insurance companies try to ration healthcare delivery also, but there is still enough competition so that choices remain available. If rationing doesn’t happen in Canada, then why do they have government websites dedicated to tracking the wait times?

By eliminating the profit incentive, all competition disappears. What remains is a single payer (national government) who becomes the total and final arbiter of “fair” pricing and payments, thus making it easy for them to ration services. The degradation of equitable payments leads to lower skilled and less motivated delivery of healthcare services. In other words fewer and dumber doctors, nurses and overcrowded hospitals. Soon your auto mechanic has more on the ball than your doctor.

Even a simple government plan that somehow pays the health insurance premiums for the 45 million “uninsured”, has probable disastrous unintended consequences. On a side note. The real number is much lower than 45 million, but let’s not argue the “accepted” figure here. The main problem with this “scheme” is that as soon as industries realize that the uninsured are being paid for or picked up by government, how long do you think they will continue to pay for the voluntary benefits. Then what? Mandated health coverage provided for by SOME companies but not others. OK, Let's just mandate that ALL companies provide healthcare.

3 NAFTA: Dump NAFTA? Right. He and Pat Buchanen are buddies on this one. YOU CAN”T DEGLOBALIZE (prevent globalization of) SOMETHING THAT IS INEVITABLE. At the same time, all these new laws and agreements have lots of unintended consequence and the wrongs need to be constantly repaired (e.g. uninspected, unreliable Mexican truckers crawling all over our roads).

4. Burn the Patriot Act. Kinda goes along with turning over the middle east to the middle easterners. He thinks we won’t need it if we just stayed home and minded our own business. We must certainly maintain a judicial vigilance to fix the mistakes and problems where true unconstitutionalities exist, but a reduction in personal freedoms is NOT the same as shredding the constitution. Some of my freedoms have been reduced but NONE of my constitutional rights have infringed.

*******

Kucinich certainly may be the most intellectually honest Democrat running for President, maybe even in the whole Congress. It’s that honesty and oh. . . . HIS IDEAS! ! ! are the reasons he will never be President.

-- Modified on 9/13/2007 10:33:59 PM

You are about a thousand years to late for that strategy. That's about as likely as us giving this country back to the indigenous people that originally inhabited this continent. Ain't going to happen

Damn, I couldn't have said it better myself. WTF are you doing here? This is a place for partisans, not for people with independent thought. You sound like a Neal Boortz in a sea of Sean Hannitys and Al Frankens.

My only disagreements are not fundamental, they just differ in scale.

Death penalty- some crimes are so heinous, the perpertrators really, really deserve to die

School system-needs a major overhaul, but scrapping the entire system seems like overkill, scrapping "no child left behind" would be a good start. Kids should learn at an early age that life is a game played for keeps, good sportmanship counts, but it really does matter if you win or lose. we are turning into a nation of pussies.

Iraq- Until someone comes up with an alternative to fossil fuels, we need to be there, not just until next year,but until that region of the world becomes stable, if that's a hundred years then so be it. Its that important.

Socialized health care- I'm with you
Patriot Act-ditto
Social Security-Bushes best idea and probably his biggest failure
Department of Peace-worse than gay
Gay marriage-more important things in my life
War on drugs-as stupid as prohibition
gun control- I believe in both the first and second ammendments, banning guns would be great, as long as I get to go last

I didn't finish your list, but I'm tired and we aren't fixing anything tonight anyhow.

I'm sure there are plenty of typos, but I've been drinking so I don't care

hampered by too many laws that protect terrorists.  These Jihadists simply do not follow the law of man i.e. constitution, Bill of Rights, they simply do not care. These Jihadists will use these freedoms, to harm us.

If you release them they will not give up until we are dead. It does not matter if we lock up these Jihadists for thirty years they will return to harm us.

-- Modified on 9/13/2007 11:06:46 PM

I listened to Schultz for the first time recently and I was pleasantly surprised.Of course if he doesn't play to his "pants wetting base" he probably won't be on AA for long.

I hope he lands somewhere else, even when I disagree with him at least I feel that he is making his own arguments, not just toeing the party line.

1) Indicated by your language, you haven't thought about this. Isn't it odd to you that you start by calling Kucinich disingenuous and end by calling him intellectually honest? Is it that you think a liberal is honest when dishonest? Goes to show there's no way liberalism can win with you. The game is fixed.

It's neither disingenuous nor a cliche. The word "disingenuous" here is a cliche used incessantly for a decade by Rush Limbaugh. If anything, it could be the very opposite: ingenuous, which is worse. You don't seem to realize that the rank and file, if not the mainstream politicians, are utterly serious about this.

Bush talks about bringing democracy to Iraq. Since you know it's really oil, isn't he either being naive or disingenuous? He has allowed a very immoral and cynical policy, which you assent to: Oil first, and BTW, bring stability and democracy to Iraq. Morally, that's a revision of the white man's burden. Get resources, make a profit, and make the excuse that you're civilizing savages.
Can you or do you even note how immoral this is?

Our other goals: Keep Iraq from being a safe haven for al Qaida. No need to have troops over there for this. Iraq isn't safe for anyone. Iraq shows that even the strongest militia isn't proof against a IED. There are much friendlier countries to train in. For containing Iranian influence: Iran sees it exactly the way we do. Fight us over in Iraq so they don't have to fight us in Iran. Iran also sees us, rightfully as being neutralized and bogged down in Iraq.  

For restoring our respect throughout the world: forget it totally if the world sees that we're there for the oil justified by the White Man's Burden. In other words, if we fail we fail if we succeed we fail.

2) On healthcare: you're basing all of this on a dogma that the market always works best in all circumstances, and all other arguments are ad hoc.

Your statement that it only works if the government pays premiums to the insurance companies is puzzling. How did you come up with that? You're saying government intervention works best when it filters money to corporations. You are going to deny now that this is what you are saying, but it seems rather explicit.

You make the point that the government rationing health care is a very bad thing. It's very bad if it is done too much, but I would say right now 45 million people without health coverage is a lot of rationing already. (And even if it's half that number, it's still lot. I notice how conservatives have again create their separate facts.) Insurance companies seem to ration quite freely, and that's part of the complaint. I'm insured and, hell, I feel rationed. It takes me a month to see a specialist. Hence you have the people who are very rationed, the many people who are rationed, and also the very wealthy, who aren't rationed.

There are a few points about rationing that should be made. People don't tend to "self-ration" health care.  In other words, most everybody has aches and pains. If there are no major problems, people tend to then relieve every minor problem. Hence, in a free system, you have people going in for athletes' foot or because a mole looks just a little funny. This is something you have to contend with when the system becomes free. You might set up a point system for these problems.

As for competition, you could put it in there through a system of bonuses say on the number of successful procedures without complication and keep books on doctors for a for "consumers" to study. You could give bonuses to, say, radiology labs for efficiency and thoroughness and rate them for it. You could put a clause in for "supplemental funding." You could make education of doctors low cost or free to encourage competition there.

Why would the government cut down on choice if all doctors are under the same system? As long as there are enough doctors trained. Why couldn't you go to one of your choice?

If you ask me, Kucinich's numbers on the cost may be realistic. The US already spends more per person on health care with poorer results than any other country. But even if you are right about $2 trillion you're not looking at the other side of the balance sheet. An economy only runs on the vigor, health and energy of its people, which are also directly proportional to another intangible factor: brain power. By comparison, it doesn't matter now in world trade how much resources we have.  We have a country in declining health. That, along with education, is going to be a drag on the economy. I think it may be greater than $2 trillion worth of economic friction, easily.

Besides, it was government intervention that created our health care system and made it viable. It's insurance system is not free market, nor is it especially loaded with competition. Before it did, in the early eighties, I had a friend who went into the hospital with abdominal pain. He was insured, they examined him and put him in the hospital for five days giving him no treatment. He had to complain even to get them to do something. The hospital was raking in as much as they could on the insurance. In contrast, the uninsured were being turned away or dumped to public hospitals. The the government "fixed" it. The problem is the system the government has created is half-assed.

Even the Economist magazine, a pretty rigid champion of free enterprise, points out that the American health care system lacks competition at all levels, from doctors, to hospitals, to insurance companies, to the drug companies, and how it has inefficiencies shot all through it.

3) NAFTA: regional trade treaties are terrible things in general, creating hostile competitions outside and economic displacement and resentments inside. What you need is a wider pool for more benefits and fewer drawbacks. What we really needed was GATT, and unfortunately, it has all but been killed, to the detriment of the poorest in the world. I agree we should dump NAFTA and instead work on GATT.

4) Your theory about relinquishing your freedoms without giving up your rights is pure doublespeak. I'm not encouraged about the Patriot Act when I read this from a supporter. Nor am I encouraged that the War on Terror is meant to be a perpetual operation. This makes the Patriot Act only the initial attack on rights and freedoms. It even has a "Goldstein" in Osama bin Laden. I don't like the indications here. And the opposition has already been accused of supporting Osama. I remember that conservatives here said in all seriousness that liberals and Islamic Terrorists were in cahoots. That's one of the things that made me consider Canada.

As I said, Bush is hardly a Nazi, but he's ignorant enough that he's put all the necessary pieces into place for someone who is a latent dictator. He's even tested it with Guantanamo and the Jose Pedilla case. What more has to be done?

-- Modified on 9/14/2007 6:26:34 PM

...but the actual logic runs counter to free will.

Since, outside of the war-torn areas, we are talking about people who are more akin to anarchists

There's no excuse for holding somebody in a mock war without trial and without POW status. We say we want Iraq to become a democracy, but we don't want to practice it when it's inconvenient.

If they don't care, and we really don't care and demonstrate it, why would Middle Easterners really have any reason to favor us over them?

Let's admit something: were just cynical. The alliance with Josef Stalin in WW2 as a war against dictatorship was just a cynical alliance of necessity. The Nuremberg trials just put a good face on our cynicism. It was all show.

Perhaps the problem with liberals might be that we demand that the platitudes we're putting over a very cynical venture in the Middle East concurrently with the War on Terror be actually our real reasons for action. That's why conservatives are opposed to it.

The major problem is if we were really true to our expressed cause, we'd be taking totally different actions.

It's shameful to compare Bush to Lincoln. Lincoln had a real war to contend with, and he didn't consider laws and rights to be a mere formalities to work around.

-- Modified on 9/14/2007 2:01:12 PM

It never ceases to amaze me how you create a new train of thought, then attribute it to me and then chastise ME for it, when my words never even came close to your thought. You consistently do this. There MUST be a name for it.

First, I did indeed say Kucinich was the most intellectually honest Democrat, but that doesn’t make him PERFECTLY honest now does it? Ah, but you imply, nay, you say outright that I called him honest and dishonest simultaneously, when of course I did no such thing. He’s not perfectly honest and so I can point out cases where I feel he has been intellectually dishonest. Of course we will disagree about the specifics. You HAVE noticed that our values systems are different, right?

Secondly, Oil or democracy? AGAIN you do it. I never phrased it as, an either-or proposition and you know it. I’ll humor you for a moment; I suppose we COULD just conquer the middle east. We take total control of the oil and then worry about what to do next. Nah, that not be a very good long term solution. I got an idea. Maybe we could start a spark of a democracy flame that will spread to surrounding countries. If successful it would make it really easy to deal with them. I know it’s a long shot, will take a lot of work and require a huge amount of political cooperation here at home. You’re probably right that it won’t work. That thinking is far too forward and drawn out. The oil will probably run dry before those stars converge. Why try?

Health care:
Again you twist my words. I NEVER said it would only work if the government pays premiums to insurance companies.
What I said was “A single payer system MIGHT work if the ONLY thing the government did was pay the health insurance premiums.”
The key word is MIGHT. If we WERE to have a single payer system, then I proposed a system that might work (truthfully, probably not), but it MIGHT work if the ONLY thing the government did was PAY FOR IT, but NOT RUN IT. They would still screw up my proposed model since they would sooner or later impose price controls. They do it (regulate prices) already in Medicare.

Do you really have confidence that government won’t ration more than insurance companies ration?
1 – We already know they will ration it. They do it now in Medicare.
2 – We already know it will get worse. Just look at Canada
3 - We can assume rightfully it will get worse. They will have a goddamn monopoly. With private companies you at least have some, albeit few, choices. 1-Change insurance companies (pre-existing conditions are a barrier). 2-Change jobs (that won’t work in government run system). 3-Litigate (I think it’s clear that option will disappear as well in government system)

You said “People don’t tend to self-ration.” OH YOU COULDN’T BE MORE WRONG. People self ration EVERYTHING that THEY have to pay for themselves INCLUDING even more basic things like FOOD. Our system today already seems free to most, even with higher and higher deductibles and co-payments. If we want to put health care cost inflation back in line with the rest of everything else instead of being 3 to 4 times higher than the CPI, I have the answer. Not my idea though.

Create a system where everyone has to pay for health care out of their own pocket. They are then reimbursed from a fund that they have some kind of control over. How much they or others (employer, government, etc) pay into the fund needs to be worked out. Periodically, the individual is paid a hefty piece of the fund, simply because he saved it. Catastrophic expenses would need a separate formula.

You said “Why would the government cut down on choice. . .” ? You see, this proves our two brains aren’t connected the same. To save money? Because they CAN? It’s not a just the choice of doctors that the government would conscientiously reduce (although they would be free to do that), their actions to drive down prices and contain costs would indirectly drive health care givers out of the system.

Your ideas concerning “truth in advertising concepts”, scorecards, openness and transparency should be implemented TODAY.

You said, “If you ask me, Kucinich's numbers on the cost may be realistic. . . But even if you are right about $2 trillion. . . ”

My 2005 numbers ARE correct. It’s now $2.1 trillion. You can’t possibly think that ANY reform is going to knock over 90% off that cost. Even the “for profit” insurance companies’ profits are only in the 10% region. Now maybe you want to take the profit out of ALL of the delivery layers. Hmm, there’s a name for that. Let’s see? Nope, I’m dangerously close to employing your tactics. But of course, taking all the profit out of any of the remaining layers will reduce incentive for all sorts of positive things and increase motives to allow all sorts of negative things

When it comes to delivering the best products, give me free market dogma every time. Complex payment systems and Medicare’s intrusion have fucked it up and  as you quoted from The Economist, what we have today is far from true free market.

Patriot Act:
Even I won’t get into that considering your paranoia. Don’t leave for Canada. You remain a useful “canary in the cage”

OK, OK I can’t resist. Reduce is NOT relinquish and reducing freedoms is NOT shredding the constitution.  

NAFTA:
You said, “I agree we should dump NAFTA and instead work on GATT.” That’s a far cry from dumping NAFTA in favor of . . . nothing or protectionism

-- Modified on 9/14/2007 8:36:26 PM

-- Modified on 9/14/2007 11:07:29 PM

I know perfectly well what it means. His dishonesting is his use of the word "support" or phrase "support the troops" (by aborting their mission). It is truly double speak.

"I'm coming to the conclusion that if you listened to what you were saying, you probably wouldn't be conservative." LOL AND LMAO.

Your errors seem to stem from your perception that you think you understand what people are thinking. You travel beyond their words

Spare me the sequel. I've had enough.

I'll do better with it tomorrow.  

-- Modified on 9/14/2007 11:07:03 PM

"His support the troops mantra is actually his most disingenuous cliché... Sounds simplistic, BECAUSE IT IS, at least until...  ENERGY is solved, WE NEED KEEP THE OIL FLOWING ! ! ! Leave Iraq in the terrible mess it would be and pretty soon the rest of Arabia's gone and the oil stops."

You've clarified this to say that Kucinich is dishonest on this point. I don't find that very likely. I doubt that he wants the US legacy to be inducing terrible disorder into the Middle East, nor does he want to oil to totally stop flowing. Let's say for a moment he believes what he says. Every solution to Iraq is theoretical right now, but the theory goes that withdrawing will bring the Sunnis to the table with the Shia. What we're doing right now is protecting the Sunnis and keeping them from negotiating.

Iraq, though, is finished as a country, I'm afraid. There's no way the Kurds are going to rejoin it. It's illegal in Kurdistan to fly the Iraqi flag, did you know that? If we want oil, we'd station troops in Kurdistan along the border with Turkey and Iran, secure the city of Kirkuk for the Kurds, and recognize their state. At least then we would have friendly state to operate in. It will take far fewer troops and should save a lot of lives.

The problem with this is that it's openly colonial and mercenary, and would be recognized as such immediately.

That's the first bite, more later.  


-- Modified on 9/15/2007 8:48:14 PM

The only point I was trying to make here was: since the objective is to get the oil, you admit this, you should at least see that establishing democracy in Iraq **is not a goal.** If we could get the oil without the democracy, so it goes.  

Now, from that premise, you at least see that George Bush is either being disingenuous when he gives us speeches about spreading democracy in the Middle East, or he's too ingenuous to believe the line he's been given for it. This continues a discussion about Bush, and whether he should be impeached. Even after the fact to take away his sizable pension.

First I have to mention, it's your turn to misunderstand me.  I meant people don't ration IN A GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED SYSTEM. The point system I gave is a matter of controlling cost if we ever have universal insurance.

With controlling prices: the whole point of a universal health care system is to control costs. Period. I had a doctor tell me about how my health insurance company controls his prices. You'd be impressed just by the mere terminology they use just so they can say you're totally covered. What the doctor charges and what they actually pay are two different.  

I'll go from there to say that a lot of costs could be saved in medicine from malpractice insurance. My proposal would be not to do away with "frivolous law suits" like the Republicans. I can limit malpractice costs easily. Just make it so punitive damages can be imposed against the defendant but limit to a flat amount what can be collected by the plaintiff. The rest of the money goes into a general medical fund.

This will keep juries from rewarding based on sympathy, and only as fines.  

"We know it will get worse.  Look at Canada." You keep on repeating that. Sorry, it isn't enough. Talk to the people in Canada, in Britain, in Sweden, in Denmark, in Germany, in Belgium, in the Netherlands, in Finland, and in France among many others. They look at our system in disgust and disdain. It isn't just a matter of national pride, or wanting to suck the government teat, either.

Therefore, to your other points, I'll make a trump point here: if our government can't do health care while every other country in the industrialized world can, it's not because government in general can't do it, it's because OUR government can't do it.

Katrina and Iraq already tell us: our government is a crumbling ruin now. Whether conservative theory did it is neither here nor there, but conservatism does make the deterioration of our government system bearable, it is an opium, especially when accompanied by tax cuts.

IMO, Americans might be justified in distrusting government only because it's their government.  

Also, IMO, lousy government is affecting your political theory. Probably what you should examine now is whether your experience of government is colored by our government.

     

-- Modified on 9/15/2007 10:01:21 PM

If we have NAFTA instead of GATT, we might as well dump it. It has all the disadvantages of more barriers and tariffs and few if any of the advantages.

It's very funny. He's exactly the kind of politician Americans say they want. He doesn't compromise his convictions for power.

But when Americans actually see a politician like that, they recoil.  lol.