From: paul@hagar.tdd.sj.nec.com (Paul Gordon  x3856)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Is Clinton Wilson?
Date: 1 Oct 92 19:30:12 GMT
Organization: NEC-AM TDD, San Jose, California

In article <1992Oct1.135017.27650@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> cthorne@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.204152.29194@ttinews.tti.com> jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson) writes:
>
>>Some of us have noticed, and have remarked in this forum, that trends in
>>the US seem to bear a strong similarity to the events that we lived
>>through in Britain several decades ago.
>
>>In the news last week was the support given to Candidate Clinton by groups
>>of normally solid Republican businessmen. Clinton is stressing change,
>>government support for technology development, and the need for the US
>>to renew itself competitively. For me it was a case of deja vu all over
>>again. Back in about 196? we had Harold Wilson, bright young(ish),
>>academically inclined politician pretending to working class roots,
>>challenging the wizened, bleating heir to a long period of rule by an
>>administration which had become stale, tired and lost. (It is fun to draw
>>the parallels with MacMillan and Reagan, and Bush and Home -- the former,
>>however one disagreed with what they stood for, certainly had great style
>>and charm, while their successors conspicuously lacked both those
>>qualities). The Wilson campaign was using some phrase like helping Britain
>>with the "The white heat of a technological revolution" (perhaps someone
>>will provide the correct version) and he too had some business leaders
>>convinced that he offered a better way into the future.
>
>I suspect that Clinton, like Wilson does not totally recognize the magnitude
>of the problems he's proposing to solve (at least his speeches don't address
>them).  Just as in Wilson's time Britain thought that keeping "the bomb"
>would do something for their prestige while the economy was continuing to
>deteriorate--Clinton is proposing that the Reagan-Bush program of military
>power is spending money that could be better spent on health care and other
>social programs.
>
>Unfortunately a country is basically strong if it is productive.  When it
>subsidizes industries which should be turned out to pasture the economic
>costs of the inefficencies will overpower it.
>
>For example, in the U.S. at the present time, Government health care programs
>cost about 4 or 5 times per person what comparable private programs cost and 
>yet we are constantly bombarded by people who want the government to do more.
>

  Could you provide some hard facts to back up the above statement. I have
heard from a number of sources that Medicare/Medicaid some of the most efficient
health care programs in the US - they control costs and have very low
administrative overheads.

>If Clinton is elected, he will need to disassemble the programs that haven't
>been working to find funds to create the ones that need to be increased.
>Regardless of who is elected next month, the congress will be more conservative
>and spending more money without solving problems will not work politically.
>
>Charlie

 Paul
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:13677 rec.arts.books:17707