From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Plan
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1992 20:53:03 GMT
 <1992Aug31.091852.19872@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>
Distribution: usa
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <1992Aug31.091852.19872@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>, Gerald Olchowy writes:

> The well-off are already receiving a free health care lunch with with
> the current massive tax-subsidy program for health insurance.  The
> health care industry through this tax-subsidy program is raiding the
> public treasury of billions of dollars...the theft is akin to another
> S&L scandal.  $100 billion dollars in public and private funds can
> be saved by health care reform, and it is absolutely essential for
> the competitiveness of American industry (other than the health care
> industry, that is) that this be done.  Health care reform is the
> single most important step that needs to be taken to bring the
> federal budget into balance, and is the single most important step
> to stimulate the US economy.  Bush's health care plan is a total
> fraud, and Clinton's is really an inefficient half-measure.  If
> the right doesn't seriously address the health care issue, they
> are going to end up with a health care reform package from the
> left that they don't like.   

You have some really strange ideas here.  I agree that there ought to be health
care reform.  The quickest and best way to reduce health care costs is to do these
things:

  1.  Eliminate insurance.  No one cares what anything costs (on either side)
      because "someone else is paying for it."

  2.  Severely restrict extravagant malpractice awards.  I think that malpractice
      should require compensation, but not the wildly extravagant jury awards of
      recent memory.  These awards drive up costs which must be passed on to the
      patients.

  3.  Eliminate "no-fault" malpractice suits.  (e.g.  x percent of babies are
      born with yyzzy syndrome.  Even though the doctor did nothing wrong, he
      is sued for megabucks because there is a "bad baby."  In these cases, the
      doctor has about a 50-50 chance of losing the suit even though he was not
      at fault.)


> 
> >  What about your other programs?
> >
> >[SW]
> >  I'm going the make the rich pay for them.
> >
> >[Press]
> >  What was that again?  If you take all the assets of the "rich" it won't be
> >  enough money (and there won't be many jobs left, either.)
> >
> 
> Marginally better than Bush's plan which is "I'm going to borrow the
> money to pay for them".

How, is it better?  "Taxing the rich" is equivalent to "let's get more people
laid off."

> >[SW]
> >  Oh, we'll take it out of the 'peace dividend' and spend it on...
> >
> >[Press]
> >  What about the defense workers who will be unemployed?
> >
> >[SW]
> >  Oh, we'll spend it on retraining.
> >
> 
> Defense is going to be downsized...if you were a soon to be unemployed
> defense worker, whom exactly would you trust to deliver a training
> program.  The concerned of the worker isn't exactly how the program

I am already a laid off defense worker.  I choose President Bush.  You ask
me to trust a man like Slick Willie who lies almost continuously?  One of the
few things that he is telling the truth about is the fact that he WANTS to raise
taxes.  That is supposed to make me trust him?  He has already disavowed his
promise to cut middle class taxes.

Look at this guy.  He was AGAINST Operation Desert Storm.  Now he claims that he
was somehow neutral, but he understands why some were against it.  Then he has
the GALL to say that if he was President, he would have given General Schwarzkopf
another day to "get Saddam."  How stupid does he think the public is?!?!?!?

> is going to be paid for (Bush lies on the issue, at least Clinton is

You have no evidence that Bush lied.  He did break his promise, but that is after
the fact, and under coercion from the House.  For Bush to have lied, he would have
had to intend to raise taxes when he said it.

By the way, what about Slick Willies promise to his wife when they got married?
Why should I trust a man that can't even be trusted to be faithful to his own wife?

> honest about his training tax).  Clinton's plan does offer the
> business the choice of deciding how to spend this money...
> upgrading work force skills is essential to American competitiveness...
> Clinton is basically telling business do it your way or you will 
> force the government to have to do it.  Germany is not exactly
> a basket case because of a similar training tax.

Slick Willie is not talking about ONE small tax.  He is talking about LOTS of new
taxes and mandated business spending programs (essentially equivalent to a tax,
although more efficient since the Government bureaucracy gets to waste less of
the money.)

> I would have much preferred Tsongas or Kemp to Clinton, but even

Tsongas was as bad as Slick Willie.

                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton