From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Plan
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 19:14:21 GMT

In <-wiDr*vX0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:

>In article <1992Sep4.174254.6522@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, fred j mccall 575-3539 writes:

>> In <fjQBr*+V0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>> 
>> >In article <1992Aug31.091852.19872@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>, Gerald Olchowy writes:
>> 
>> >You have some really strange ideas here.  I agree that there ought to be health
>> >care reform.  The quickest and best way to reduce health care costs is to do these
>> >things:
>> 
>> >  1.  Eliminate insurance.  No one cares what anything costs (on either side)
>> >      because "someone else is paying for it."
>> 
>> Gee, either you have relatives who are doctors or you're independently
>> wealthy.  If neither of those things, do YOU have health insurance?
>> If not, one almost hopes for a catastrophic illness so you can see how
>> well "without insurance" coupled with "without funds" and "sick" works
>> for you.

>Well, how nice of you to wish catastrophic illness upon me!  That really ought to
>bolster your position.

1) Does the English word "almost" mean *ANYTHING* to you?

2) So, would you like to answer the questions?

>I'm telling you how to reduce medical costs.  If you don't like the answer, that
>is your problem.

The problem is with your suggestion.  What do you propose should
happen to the vast majority of us who don't have the money to cover
medical care in the event of a catastrophic illness?  Let us die?

>> >  2.  Severely restrict extravagant malpractice awards.  I think that malpractice
>> >      should require compensation, but not the wildly extravagant jury awards of
>> >      recent memory.  These awards drive up costs which must be passed on to the
>> >      patients.
>> 
>> If you follow through on your first one, this won't be a problem.  One
>> malpractice suit will wipe out the doctor, and we won't have very many
>> people willing to practice medicine.

>You don't make any sense here, as usual.

It would make sense if you could bring yourself to pull your head out
and think for a change.  Presumably, "eliminate insurance" would
include MALPRACTICE INSURANCE.  After all, paying for malpractice
insurance is one of the larger expenses that a doctor has, and of
course that is going to get passed along.

If a doctor doesn't have malpractice insurance and loses a
malpractice suit, what do YOU think he's going to do after he loses
all his money?  What kind of incentives do you think that will create
for others to become doctors?

>> >  3.  Eliminate "no-fault" malpractice suits.  (e.g.  x percent of babies are
>> >      born with yyzzy syndrome.  Even though the doctor did nothing wrong, he
>> >      is sued for megabucks because there is a "bad baby."  In these cases, the
>> >      doctor has about a 50-50 chance of losing the suit even though he was not
>> >      at fault.)
>> 
>> Neat trick.  How do you propose to do this, since at no point is it
>> ever assumed that the doctor is not at fault in these suits?  It is
>> assumed that it IS his fault, which is why money gets paid.

>No, it is assumed that he is an evil, rich doctor.  There is the poor baby, so, the
>jury says something like "give them $5,000,000."

Bushwa!  [I got tired of using "hogwash" to respond to this sort of
thing.]  The assumption is that the doctor did something 'wrong'.
This is called malpractice.  There is no such thing as 'no-fault
malpractice suits'.

>> 
>> 
>> >> 
>> >> >  What about your other programs?
>> >> >
>> >> >[SW]
>> >> >  I'm going the make the rich pay for them.
>> >> >
>> >> >[Press]
>> >> >  What was that again?  If you take all the assets of the "rich" it won't be
>> >> >  enough money (and there won't be many jobs left, either.)
>> >> >
>> >> 
>> >> Marginally better than Bush's plan which is "I'm going to borrow the
>> >> money to pay for them".
>> 
>> >How, is it better?  "Taxing the rich" is equivalent to "let's get more people
>> >laid off."
>> 
>> Lay 'em off now or lay 'em off later.  Rather like the decision on
>> whether to change the oil in your car or not.  "Pay me now, or pay me
>> later . . ."

>Ok, would YOU rather be laid off now than later?

I'd rather not be laid off at all, which is the point.  For every one
you don't lay off now by 'borrowing' the money, you get to lay off 100
a little further down the road.  Eventually borrowing from the future
to finance today is going to break down.  We're quite close to that
point now, as a brief look at what percentage of the budget goes
simply to service current debt will show.

>> >> >[SW]
>> >> >  Oh, we'll take it out of the 'peace dividend' and spend it on...
>> >> >
>> >> >[Press]
>> >> >  What about the defense workers who will be unemployed?
>> >> >
>> >> >[SW]
>> >> >  Oh, we'll spend it on retraining.
>> >> >
>> >> 
>> >> Defense is going to be downsized...if you were a soon to be unemployed
>> >> defense worker, whom exactly would you trust to deliver a training
>> >> program.  The concerned of the worker isn't exactly how the program
>> 
>> >I am already a laid off defense worker.  I choose President Bush.  You ask
>> >me to trust a man like Slick Willie who lies almost continuously?  One of the
>> >few things that he is telling the truth about is the fact that he WANTS to raise
>> >taxes.  That is supposed to make me trust him?  He has already disavowed his
>> >promise to cut middle class taxes.
>> 
>> If you're already a laid off defense worker, then how in the world do
>> you expect Clinton to do WORSE by you than George Bush did?

>Because there will be significantly fewer jobs available after Slick Willie enacts
>his programs!

Short term, perhaps so (if you're interested in minimum wage kinds of
grunt jobs).  In the long term, investment creates MORE jobs, not
fewer.  How many jobs has George Bush created in the past 4 years?

>> 
>> >Look at this guy.  He was AGAINST Operation Desert Storm.  Now he claims that he
>> >was somehow neutral, but he understands why some were against it.  Then he has
>> >the GALL to say that if he was President, he would have given General Schwarzkopf
>> >another day to "get Saddam."  How stupid does he think the public is?!?!?!?
>> 
>> Judging by your knee-jerk adherence to the Republicans?  Pretty stupid.

>As usual, you can't answer, so you revert to your usual ad hominem attacks.

Not to be confused with YOUR stupid ad hominem attacks, which they are
in response to.

>> 
>> >By the way, what about Slick Willies promise to his wife when they got married?
>> >Why should I trust a man that can't even be trusted to be faithful to his own wife?

>> Why shouldn't you?  I mean, you're not talking about moving in with
>> him as his spouse, are you?  Personally, I don't care if he has group
>> sex with sheep; I don't see how that's germane to whether he can be
>> trusted in other areas.  Perhaps you should make up a list of
>> Presidents who have had extramarital affairs or who are rumoured to
>> have had them, and then see how you come out.

>If Slick Willie can't keep the single most important promise that most people make
>(i.e. marriage vows), how in the world do you expect me to trust him?  Are we to
>believe that he only lies about the "big" stuff?

And you don't consider the promise that Bush broke 'big stuff'?
Frankly, I'd rather have a President who sleeps around and governs the
country well than one who lies about how he is going to govern the
country. 

Have you ever violated a law, Jim?  *ANY* law?  Never been a few miles
over the speed limit, for example?  Well, then how can we trust you
not to go around killing people.  After all, you've already
demonstrated a willingness to break the law.  What, you say that those
two aren't the same thing?  Well, how about that.  Now perhaps you
could tell me again how you don't think you can trust Bill Clinton in
government because you think he cheated on his wife?

>> 
>> Let me help you get started:  George Bush, Lyndon Johnson, John
>> Kennedy, Franklin Roosevelt.  You can add from there.

>I don't consider that ridiculous rumor reported indirectly from a dead man (so it
>can't be verified) sufficient evidence to accuse President Bush of adultery.  I
>don't know about the others (except Kennedy.)

Oh, I believe it.  I also don't think it makes any damned difference,
insofar as what kind of job hes done governming the country (a bad
one). 

>> 
>> Besides which, if his wife doesn't have a problem with it, why should
>> you?  SHE, not you, is the one affected, after all.  

>I'm affected if Slick Willie is elected President!  That is why his lies are
>relevant.

How, pray tell, are you affected by ANYTHING between Bill Clinton and
his wife?  Ok, say Bill Clinton is President.  Say he screws some
starlet or other.  HOW ARE YOU AFFECTED BY THAT, JIM?

>> 
>> >Tsongas was as bad as Slick Willie.
>> 
>> Jim, you have GOT to be on some really heavy drugs.  It's the only
>> explanation for this kind of reasoning (or lack of it).

>I don't do drugs.  I have never even considered doing drugs.  It is a sign of the
>lack of intellectual basis for your statements that you would accuse me of such a
>thing.

No, it's a sign of the lack of intellectual ability reflected in your
statements.  Is English your first language?  Get a clue.  Get a life.
Get a brain.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh