From: lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Sick to death
Date: 4 Sep 1992 13:57:45 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co.

In article <1992Sep3.225920.8244@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark Taylor Evert) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Sep3.210155.5765@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> 
> lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
> > Bill Clinton's 128 tax increases. Distortion. Refuted numerous places.
> 
> Still, he did raise them a lot more than he lowered them.

Proof please. Define "alot". Arkansas has the third lowest per capita taxes
in the country.

> I'm sick of 
> Democrats calling Bush a liar over "No new taxes".  I don't think he 
> intended to deceive anyone when he said that... and I think that he felt 
> that the circumstances that existed justified he change of heart on the 
> matter.  

Any person with as much experience as George Bush must know that making
promises like "no new taxes" is a cheap ruse. The economy changes in the
most unexpected ways and no promise of this type can be kept without having
a crystal ball.

> 
> > Hilary Clinton believes children should be able to sue their parents for
> > limiting their nintendo playing (and other absurd things). Distortion, 
> read
> > her paper.
> 
> I did, and to some extent, I agree that this has been distorted.   I think 
> Dan Quayle's "incompetance " has been distorted a lot by the 
> Democrats and media also.

How? His college grades are abysmal, his statements are laughable.... Even
people I know who agree with his philosophy groan every time he opens his
mouth. This is the man who implied that there was water in the canals on Mars
(our fearless leader of the space policy).

> 
> > 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 think the key to health care is to control costs, not socialization.   
> I'm not wild about Bush's position on this.   Someone sent me a proposed 
> system that had some neat aspects to it.  It sort of combined the best 
> features of a free-market system with some of the features of a socialized 
> system.  It's a little long to print here, though.

I'd like to see it, can you send it by e-mail?

> 
> > 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.
> 
> Good, let Congress implement some of Bush's programs that they have 
> bottled up for so long.  After all, when we elect a President, there is a 
> national mandate of sorts which I believe supercedes some of the 
> congressional interests which are often regional.  After all, the President is the only one elected on a national basis.  I'll say the same thing about Clinton if he is elected.  My message to congress is:  If you want the President to be accountable, you've got to cooperate.  Otherwise, no one is accountable...the situation that we are presently in, unfortunately.
> 

The idea of a "national mandate" is a hoax. The constitution
gives the president the power of the veto, not the power to give orders
to Congress. I don't want any one man running the show with impunity. That is
called a monarchy. If Bush wants to get his programs through Congress it is
his constitutional duty to work with Congress, compromise with Congress, and
convince us, the voters, that his programs are good and that we
should put pressure on our Congressmen. Even Ronald Reagan understood that
much. Personally, I have yet to see a program from Bush that was comprehensive
enough, imaginative enough, or aggressive enough for me to support it.


> > Despite
> > statements to the contrary, there is little market competition in health 
> care.
> 
> I agree!  I want more.

OK. How do you do it? The only way I can see is a massive antitrust suit
against the hospital supply, insurance, and pharmecutical companies; tort
reform; government sponsored health care for the poor, massive price
roll-backs,... For the cost of the bureaucracy involved in the implementation
of this vast program, we could implement a NHC system. I am not convinced that
NHC is the way to go either. However, 1.) we cannot go on with our present
system; and 2.) I see no definitive evidence that an NHC system could not work;
3.) much like fire, police protection, electricity, water, ...., health
care does not seem to be amenable to a free-market system in this modern world.
 
> 
> > 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?
> 
> You won't have an argument on this from most Republicans, especially 
> Quayle.  Unfortunately, Clinton's health plan will do nothing to solve 
> this problem and Clinton would seem to be the last person to advocate tort 
> reform.

Evidence please. The Clinton people I've talked to have said that he is
definitely considering tort reform as part of his program.

> 
> > What
> > are the republicans so afraid of?
> 
> I'd be willing to try it in conjunction with tort reform and some other 
> ideas which would make the industry more competitive.   One idea which I 
> think is workable, would be to give everyone a fixed lifetime budget 
> (entitlement) and let them chose their doctors.  This will encourage 
> competitiveness.  Certain safety nets could be put in place for 
> catastrophic things like liver transplants.  I have a copy of a plan sent 
> to me by a netter which though not perfect, has many good ideas and could 
> be the basis of a system.

Let's see it. However, this sounds like a limited version of Canada's NHC
system as described by several of our Canadian friends on this net.

> 
> While we are at it, why are the Democrats in Congress afraid to give the president a line item veto?

I don't know. I am all for it. When we elect Clinton, congress should
definitely give it to him :-). Seriously though, not having the line item 
veto is still no excuse for the abysmal record of Bush on domestic policy.
I will not allow Bush to use this as an excuse for his failure.
He has submitting simple-minded (brain-dead) domestic programs to congress
and complains when they don't pass them.

> 
> > 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.
> 
> I agree...and don't forget that the executive branch is not the only one 
> which implements and controls policy.   Research your congresscritters 
> while you are at it.  

I do.

> 
> Mark T. Evert
> Friendswood, TX
> 
> My opinions are my own.
> 
> 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot