From: cthorne@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: Is Clinton Wilson?
Date: 5 Oct 92 16:41:40 GMT
Article-I.D.: magnus.1992Oct5.164140.15830
Organization: The Ohio State University

In article <1992Oct1.193012.21441@sj.nec.com> paul@hagar.tdd.sj.nec.com (Paul Gordon  x3856) writes:
>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.

>>>(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.

I doubt if any government program is "efficient".  In particular (in addition
to covering people who are not working and thus not particularly health) the
government covered health care is supplied to people who are not paying for
it.  No one is watching the expenditures.  With private health care (even if
paid by employers) both the employee and the ultimate payer has an interest
in keeping costs down.  This isn't the case with government programs.

>>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.

People have suggested that government spending on agriculture and military
could be cut to fund additional social services.  Neither of these are as
big as social services and they also have fairly substantial political backing.
Reagan was elected with a promise to cut taxes and increase military spending
and he did what he said he would.  In order to get congress to cut taxes, he
allowed increases in spending in other areas which is one reason the Federal
Government is spending at least 40% more than they collect in taxes.  This is
a serious problem for anyone who is elected next month.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,rec.arts.books