You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #29: I agree Kerry has been there when needed - and has been early - but Kerry [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 08:53 PM
Response to Reply #8
29. I agree Kerry has been there when needed - and has been early - but Kerry
is unlikely to get a second chance as his image, deserved or undeserved, is of one that hesitated on Ohio, and on Swiftboaters, can not give a clear either/or speech because he always needs to nuance, often in hard to follow syntax, every thought, and can not tell a joke or control his image.

Feingold's proposal has no legs, in my opinion, and could never be passed (but heck - just cutting funding for any reason seems out for the next 2 years - so perhaps there is a point to proposing the Fiengold/Kerry position - given that no action will be taken on any position in the next 2 years and all we will see are speeches).

I do not know of Hillary ever not being a truth teller - in private or in public - so I do not follow your assertion that she is not a truth teller.

As to health care, Hillary fought for single payer in 93 and had to be stopped by our (I was part of the insurance legislative crowd at the time) lobbyist promises of insurance company support but only for the universal coverage without single payer. Bill bought "our" lie - as had Nixon in 73 when the same line was used by the health insurance companies to stop Nixon - and Bill ordered Hillary to start up the task force under orders that forbade her looking at single payer - a great victor for "us".

Over half of health payments are via insurance companies with their un-needed 30% overhead - so there is a 15% savings or 300 billion annual savings to be had from single payer.

Heck I'd even take the German 7% employee, 7% employer payroll tax set-up for single payer, although I'd prefer all the funds come from general revenues raised via the income tax, if that approach could be passed. The AMA can no longer stop single payer because of their failure to protect the economics of becoming a doctor - today's MD's come out with loans of $200,000 and are told to work the next 4 years for salaries under $50,000 as residents, with post residency years needed for most specialties. The kids can't even pay urban rents - making the AMA a pretty lousy union. Single payer has young MD support if the crushing loan situation is addressed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC