I have seen and heard several times that Hillary would beat W handily if she ran in 2004. I just can’t buy that at all. I am not saying W wins 2004, but he wouldn’t lose to Hillary. Hillary is WAY WAY to far left to win a national election, plus she is absolutely detested by a lot of people….she is pretty much the lefts version of Pat Buchanan. We saw how well someone THAT far away from the center does. Granted she could be helped out by the “women” factor, but I would hope enough women in the country would vote based on beliefs, not gender. Then of course there is the Clinton Factor, Bill over the last few years has turned into a **** Midas, everyone he touches turns to crap. His own VP tried to stay as far away, but he could out run those “fast hands,” and now he is circling the proverbial tidy bowl. Maybe by 2004 the tarnish on Bill Clinton will have worn off, but I doubt it. ------------------
Hillary, IMO, would have a hard time pulling in female voters. She showed class by not publicly attacking Willy over the whole Monica thing, but to many women who looked at her as a role model it definetely changed their thought process. I'm a republican and I would feel very confident if she ran in 2004.
Chuckie how confident will ya be in 2008 She'll be 8 yrs removed from the Scandal and if she has done *anything* in the Senate She will be a strong candidate. If she can get a Strong VP [or maybe just run for VP] I think she has a shot. . . I'm an optimist Rocket River ------------------
RR- Hillary has as good as shot as anyone else who is generally unproven. If there is a war or a conflict perhaps another leader from the military will appear, ala Colin Powell. Hillary, IMO, is still a wild card, but she has an advantage because of her name, but generally I think the scandal will hurt her. At some point the womens groups will get a chance to ask her why she didn't do anything and obviously she probably did something behind closed doors, but she will need to show she is a strong woman and not just good 1st lady who lets her hubby play with interns.
Jeff, I'm in an HMO now so I'm not getting the best health care. Bill Gates gets the best health care. Me, I get the best HMO has to offer. The difference ... $$$$. He has plenty and I have enough to be middle class. Do I expect the same care? No. People with money can afford the best. That's the way it is. Is my life in danger? No. Do I have a lower quality of life? No. Look at our country. I don't know of too many people who say, "I need to head to England or Canada to get to this great Dr." Fact is most, if not all, of the great doctors are here in this country. If we go to a socialized medicine program, health care for the poor may go up, but health care for the rest of us goes down. What inspiring people are going to rough out 8 years of college plus a gruelling internship for lower wages. To me, socialized medicine is the begining of communism. 1 pay fits all. It's not fare to me and it's not fare to doctors. Tennessee has a program called TennCare that gives the same coverage (actually better) to low income and disabled people. I've seen their plan and I wish I could get on it. ------------------ [This message has been edited by ArtVandolet (edited December 08, 2000).]
ZRB In what ways has Hillary been a leader? Her pet project of U.S. health care reform failed miserably. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but simply trying to find out what she has done as First Lady that sets her above the previous First Ladies (aside from the fact she won a senate seat). ------------------
My personal opinion is that we will not see a woman or minority directly elected president for a long, long time. First, one will have to run as a VP (e.g. J.C. Watts in 2008). He/She will also have to be on a successful enough ticket to stay in the White House for at least 12 years (the first 8 as VP and then carry the party ticket as president). I think the one exception to this would be if Gore comes manages to win this election and Colin Powell were to run in 2004. ------------------
ArtVandolet, Im stepping in for Jeff on this one, but im sure he will respond to you better than myself shortly. OK Art, socialized medicine has existed in many countries for years. Most of the countries with socialized medicine are concidered "progressive". communism is nothing close to progressive. Also, many of these nations have existing monarchys(england, Denmark, Norway). A monarchy is based on the principle that some people are better than others, and that the lower class has a duty to serve the royals. ok enough on that. As far as doctors are concerned, and their right to make money is concerned, please continue reading. Almost universaly the doctors that are making alot of money are working in feilds that involve alot of elective surgery. Mainly Lasic eye surgery and cosmetic surgery. Most doctors work in hospitals for gruling hours and make middle class income. Another large population of doctors(the family doctor) makes good money off insurance already. The only difference is that the government will pick up the tab instead of some insurance company. Furthermore, I would like to think that many doctors are in it for the help they can bring to others. I say this because I doubt Collage professors go through the same kinf of education for the penuts they make. What about the Lawyers that work for the DA after all that education. If it was all about the money we would all be working for some computer company doing MIS work, if you can actually call that work. Lastly, that big tax hike, although scary, is not as painfull as you might think. as it is now, you bring home XXX number of dollars, but you cost the company much more. They pay for your benefits. If socialized medicine, or subsidized medicine were implamented, your boss would no longer have to fit the bill. that money would than make it home in your check. so you see its not all bad. ok i guess ive said enough. HAY there should be a thread to discuss this healthcare thing seperately. *PEACE ------------------ Hanta-Force Paintball http://www.hanta-force.com
My point, valid or not, is I'd rather have visit an HMO doctor than visit a doctor in a socialized medicine country. I'm sure there are cases where a socialized medicine doctor is better than a HMO doctor, but as a general rule I'd much rather stay with an average HMO doctor. I just don't like the socialized medicine concept at all. And unless my paycheck comes from stock - which it doesn't, I'm SURE I wouldn't see a pay increase that would even come close to offset the tax hike to pay for that service. Companies in general will pass any savings on to the stock holders, not the employees. Their bottom line gets the boost (which in turn boosts the CEO's and the Board's) - not mine. It's no surprise that I'm a Republican and I think I can manage my money and my affairs better than the government. There are other solutions to health care problems for the poor - case in point Tenncare. It had a few problems early on, but they have been addressed lately. Also, I'm not for any sort of tax cut. Government needs to keep the spending flat (or to a minimum) and catch up on the years of overspending. If I had a huge CC debt and I had more money coming in than I could spend, I wouldn't spend more and I would ask the boss to not give me so much money - I'd pay off my debts. ------------------
I used JC Watts as an example because he is probably the most high profile black congressman (senator or rep). ------------------
LP, Brain fart. TennCare is pretty close if not exactly as you spoke. It's a graded (free to most and extremely low cost to some - depending on factors such as income, dependents, etc.) that allows someone to the same doctors - for free, the same hospitals - for free, the same pharmacy - for free, etc. They just show their card. They get better care than I do since cost is no object to them - I still have out of pocket expenses and pharmacy costs. The state uses it's federal government medicare allotment to help pay for it. ------------------
The overly republican congress was the reason many of the Clinton administration's promises were not fullfilled. If the democrats had kept congress, this country would never have had such scandal, and would be far better than it is now. (not that it is that bad...) ------------------ "Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning how to put food on their family while being put to death?"
Hee hee hee Was "fare" supposed to be a play on words or was that some form of brain fart? Anyway, "beginnning of communism"? I think maybe you're being a little extreme. Do you know any of the specifics of this plan? It almost sounds like it borders on socialized medical care from your brief description. I partly agree with the people that don't believe in completely socialized medical care. The hospitals should determine what they can charge to some extent. On the other hand, I don't believe that just because someone doesn't have any money that they shouldn't have access to medical care. I believe that the government needs to allocate some funding to providing insurance for every income level. This could be done by providing low cost (and in some cases, free) insurance to people of low income levels or providing funds and tax right offs to small companies so that they could afford to provide insurance to their employees. ------------------
Launch Pad is right! I can't believe that the US cannot come up with a plan for health care that helps everyone. Why can't we come with something that uses the best of both worlds? There has got to be a way to take parts of socialized medicine and private care and come up with an equitable plan for all? Or is it all about the money? ------------------ 'Deeds, not words, shall speak me.'
So if Willy didn't get his cigar stuck in Monica we would be better oh huh? Maybe the problem was some of Clinton's ideas just weren't that appealing and his morals were low. Clinton had problems within his own party witht he health care plan. Particiulary there are alot of special interests (about all business groupls like the power of having healthcare to their employees which gives them power) who firmly appose a health care plan. Why would I want to pay more taxes for something I already get? Clinton is an intersting guy and the economy has done great during his term. But I think to imply Clinton's policies would have benefitted the country is off-base.
Why would I want to pay more taxes for something I already get? Because it is the humane thing to do. ------------------ Mmmmmmm. Sacrelicious.
Classic line. That's almost signature material. 4chuckie -- you should learn to ignore people like ZRB.
Freak, it's true. Democrats, if in charge, would've never put up with dollar after dollar being spent on a wild goose chase that ultimately led to the fiasco that was the Lewinsky scandal. I'm not saying this because they were Democrats, but because it was a Democratic president. Come on, $44 million? For conservatives who can't stand to spend taxpayers money on stuff like health care for the poor (just an example, I know it sounds stereotypical, just keeping with ArtVandolet's theory of communism), that's a lot of money. Wouldn't most of them have liked it better if that money was back in their pockets instead? ------------------ "He was under more balls than a midget hooker."-Bobby Hill visit www.swirve.com and, http://www.geocities.com/clutch34_2000 for great Rocket insight by some of your fellow BBS posters! [This message has been edited by Rocketman95 (edited December 09, 2000).]
Yes, I know it's true. But to insinuate that not investigating wrongdoing by our highest officials is a good thing is just laughable. Clarence Thomas sure didn't get a pass, I'm sure the ZRBs of the world don't have a problem with that.
