From: lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Sick to death
Date: 3 Sep 1992 21:01:55 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co.

I am sick to death of the Republicans using the non-issue of "family values"
to distract the voters from the real issues.

I am sick to death of the lies distortions and half-truths being spewed from
Bush and his lap-dogs. Even when they are caught red-handed, they continue
to use them (Phyllis Schlafly on nightline is a great example).

Examples:

Bill Clinton's 128 tax increases. Distortion. Refuted numerous places.

Hilary Clinton believes children should be able to sue their parents for
limiting their nintendo playing (and other absurd things). Distortion, read
her paper.

The Canadian health care system is a failure....Canadians hate it....there are
long waits for basic care.... Lies and distortion. Every study I've read has
refuted these statements
and every Canadian I've talked to would not trade their system for ours.

I am sick to death of Republicans using crystal ball arguements (Bill Clintons
X policy WILL cause y). These arguements are usually overly-simplistic, devoid
of facts, in direct opposition to statements by experts, etc. Furthermore,
Bush hasn't given us anything close to the detail necessary to decide if his
"plan" is any better and he has had four years to do so.

As a scientist, I am particularly bothered by this kind of arguement because
it amounts to one huge speculation. During the depression Roosevelt admitted
that he had doubts about many of the programs he started to help the
situation. However, he felt that the only way to decide whether they would
work was to try them out. That is what I call proof by experiment.

Example: A national health care plan will be a failure because of the
government bureaucracy.

a.) How will it be any worse than the huge, uncoordinated bureacracy we have
already?  A bureaucracy being run by greed and corruption.

Despite
statements to the contrary, there is little market competition in health care.
Insurance, pharmaceutical and medical supply companies have driven up their
fees at four times the rate of inflation.
The reason this has happened is that there is plenty of business to go around,
providing no impetus to compete. In fact, it has resulted in
collusion by many of the companies. Abuse of claims by dctors has only provided
fuel for the insurance companies to "justify" their premium increases.
Fixing this problem, without a NHC system, would
require nothing short of bringing anti-trust laws to bear on these industries.
An extremely expensive proposition.


Insurance companies charge outrageous premiums for malpractice
insurance while ambulance-chasing lawyers bring ridiculous charges of
malpractice to our already over-burdened legal system. How much is this
costing us?

The poor are clogging-up emergergency rooms with cases of chronic stages of
easily-treatable maladies due to a lack of access to preventive care. This
is costing us, the tax payer, millions. Our high infant mortality rate is
an attrocity. Studies have shown the major cause of this to be due to low
birth weight. Most doctors I have talked to say that this could be circumvented
by access to prenatal care for all women.

b.) We have examples of national health care systems which work MUCH better
than ours. The tax incentive plan of Bush's merely delays the inevitable
because it treats the symptoms, not the disease.

c.) The word bureaucracy is itself a smokescreen. Using this kind of arguement,
you can argue for the shutting down of all government functions.

Why not choose a state and try NHC out, fine tune it over a few years, expand
it to a whole region, fine tune it again, get the Canadians to consult.
Let's start it up and see why it don't run.

What
are the republicans so afraid of? It certainly is not the only government-
run industry in the country (police, fire, roads, defense, etc). Some things are just
not amenable to free-market design. Do we really want police protection to
be free-market? If this happened, rich areas would be heavily policed and poor
areas would become war zones.

The fact of the matter is that we the voters need not depend on anyone's
rhetoric to make our decision (not even mine :-) ). Clinton and Bush have
records to be examined. Voting is more than watching a few sound bites,
listening to a few speeches, listening to a few media analyses and pulling
a lever. Responsible voting requires us to check the records of these men
and to demand detailed statements of their plans before making our decision.
Don't be a sheep or a random number generator, do some research and vote
responsibly.

Dr. Norman J. LaFave

Dr. Norman J. LaFave