Newsgroups: bit.listserv.xcult-l
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 16:18:25 CDT
From:         "Patrick Christian" <AEZPATR@UICVMC.BITNET>
Subject:      Who's rich, and how do they get that way.

 First, on your PAC examples, thanks for elaborating.

 I can accept the Defense PAC argument to a degree.  I'm sure you would agree
 that a National Defense has some importance.  I'll bet that we would disagree
 as to how much money to spend and for what purpose.  Those arguments aside,
 how would you suggest the military replenish and resupply themselves?
 Equipment wears out.  The military buys more than just multi-billion dollar
 planes, they also buy the most ordinary and mundane things you can think about.
 I grant that some items are far to costly.  Some of that extra cost is military
 contract requirements that require more manpower to push paper in order to
 track costs and prevent overcharges.  Some is just overcharging.

 The medical PACs.  I'll start this off with an editorial comment.  This is just
 my opinion, nobody else's opinion.  I don't want National Health Care for
 simple reasons.  I don't want the government to have that kind of knowledge
 about me.  In order to control costs and prevent abuse, the government will
 have to track treatments and match them to individuals so that dishonest
 doctors can't charge treatments to fictitious patients.

 Also, Socializing medicine will eliminating incentives to practice and causes
 Doctors to leave their practices.  Yes, I do believe that some doctors are in
 it for the money, probably more than would want to admit it.  If you limit a
 doctors income through socializing the process, and some will through up their
 hands and leave.  That will cause a shortage and patient service will be even
 worse.

 Finally, I have asked people what a national health care system is like.  I've
 spoke to an British-American colleague, a Swiss-American colleague, a number of
 present and former military people, and all but one thought it was a bad idea.
 They thought the private system was superior.

 >>The politicians take the money (Studies have shown that incumbents and those
 >>who raise more money win some 80% of elections) and use it effectively to
 >>put soundbites on TV boasting what they will do when they get elected and
 >>distorting their opponents records to get elected.  Its immaterial and
 >>really silly to believe them but they say it often enough with great
 >>acting skills that people do believe them (atleast the 50% that bother to
 >>Vote).

 The tactics you describe are age-old.  If you look back, political advertising
 may be slicker and more polished now than then, but dirty politics has existed
 for hundreds of years.  It's nothing new.

 >>      Bush said he would not raise taxes, that he would be the EDUCATION
 >>president and that he would be the ENVIRONMENTAL president....none of them
 >>was true....
 He signed the 1990 Environmental Protection Act, so that argument is makeable.
 He proposed his Education 2000 plan, and IMHO he has some good ideas.  As for
 taxes, nobody's perfect, and he did apologize.:-)

 >>Now he has another 8 Million dollars to bombard us with ads. about how
 >>he is going to change everything once he gets elected....and enough people
 >>may believe it.... or they will elect Clinton and four years later they
 >>will find disillusion again....  If like Carter, he does dare to try, he
 >>will be sabotaged or worse...

 Do you know the old saying, "Better the devil you know than the devil you
 don't"?  Mark Twain once said that Politicians are the only native criminal
 class.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)