Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reuters)   Dennis Kucinich is looking to parlay his candidacy into a little boom-chicka-boom-chicka-boom   (reuters.com ) divider line
    More: Strange  
•       •       •

10403 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Nov 2003 at 5:14 PM (12 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



139 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2003-11-10 07:21:53 PM  
2003-11-10 05:23:42 PM geocacherphil
well he got to screw Cleveland when he was mayor, took the city into default


The electric company threatened to send Cleveland into default if he didn't cave into their demands and let them price energy as they chose. It nearly ended his political career, but he stood up to them on principle.

He's braver than 99% of the "public servants" we have in office now.
 
2003-11-10 07:24:59 PM  
You may not agree with his new age spiritualism, but at least he doesn't want the government to push his religion down everyone's throat. Our fearless leader Bush doesn't believe in evolution or global warming, and thinks the Bible told him that the planet and its nonwhite and non Christian people were created for us to exploit.

Vote Kucinich
 
2003-11-10 07:37:59 PM  
Wow, if the Dems nominated Kucinich, I think they'd even lose DC to Bush. Hell, Sharpton sounds more appealing than that guy.

Here is the cure to the Bush Presidency
 
2003-11-10 07:47:01 PM  
Vote Kucinich and you'll have no need for this -

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

Just the beautiful workers paradise. Like this -

http://www.1stopkorea.com/index.htm?nk-trip1.htm~mainframe
 
2003-11-10 07:51:11 PM  
So Mr. Dog Faced boy, how does OPPOSING the Patriot act imply that Kucinich wants to get rid of the constitution?

The unelected usurper's administration is attacking the constitutuion as we speak.

How does wanting full employment transition into a totalitarian workers paradise?
 
2003-11-10 07:53:47 PM  
The original song was "Chica Chica Boom Chic" performed by Xavier Cugat in the 30's.
 
2003-11-10 07:56:19 PM  
DogFacedBoy

Vote Kucinich and you'll have no need for this -
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html
Just the beautiful workers paradise. Like this -
http://www.1stopkorea.com/index.htm?nk-trip1.htm~mainframe


Yes, that's it, DogFacedBoy. Kucinich wants to turn the US into North Korea. :P

Man, the Dittoheads aren't even trying to make sense any more.
 
2003-11-10 08:01:31 PM  
SurfDork: Garunteed employment is a bad idea because workers will not have to compete for jobs and businesses will have their ability to rid themselves of unproductive workers greatly hindered.

Face it, Kucinich is too left-wing to even be considered a contender. He has as much chance of being President as Ann Coulter.
 
2003-11-10 08:25:36 PM  
Kucinich may be nutty, but at least he's more honest and straightforward than Wesley "I would have been a Republican if Karl Rove returned my Phone calls" Clark.
 
2003-11-10 08:31:30 PM  
Im gonna volunteer for kucinich's campaign. Kucinich > Clark > Dean.
 
2003-11-10 08:56:30 PM  
bluenovaman:

If the guy is a senator/congressman(whatever) and isn't getting his fair share of tang, he definately does not get my vote for president.


Actually, if you bother to look up his bio on his website, Kucinich has had a girlfriend for a while, so he must be getting his fair share....as if that's a prerequisite for office. He's looking for a *political* partner.

culov:

Im gonna volunteer for kucinich's campaign. Kucinich > Clark > Dean.


Good for you, culov! I've been volunteering since September. Howard the Dean thinks *his* campaign is grassroots - you should see the office here. It quite literally is a hole in the wall, but so much gets done just by people being willing. There's no budget to speak of, no glitzy receptions, just people with time and passion.
 
2003-11-10 09:11:49 PM  
So, the best the dittoheads can come up with against Kucinich is:

-He's given to newagey poetry attacks
-He looks like Gilligan
-He talks about "crazy" ideas like peace and employment and healthcare(quick, somebody get the straitjacket)

Sounds pretty electable to me!

Oh, and for anyone who actually wants to know about the guy, here's some more info:

-He's prochoice
-He's for freedom of religion(he's NOT gonna try and outlaw paganism like The Shrub would love to)
-He wants to cancel NAFTA in favor of trade agreements that are country-specific and fair to both sides
-That is not a toupee, but it might be dyed. You wanna see a toupee, check out John Kerry's roadkill!
-He's in favor of medical marijuana
-He's for gay marriage
-He's pro-bowling
 
2003-11-10 09:15:08 PM  
kilgore: Clark was never a Republican. He was an independent who voted for Reagan and Bush 1 (two presidents that many, many Democrats voted for BTW). After that, he voted for Clinton and Gore, registered as a lobbyist, and then registered as a Democrat. In his political beliefs, he is pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-gay, and pro-labor. Sounds like a Democrat to me.
 
2003-11-10 09:16:38 PM  
I was thinking [image from img.fark.com too old to be available]

Maybe even [image from img.fark.com too old to be available]
 
2003-11-10 09:35:59 PM  
Go Dennis!

If I was a little older and lived in Ohio it might be a possiblity :P~
 
2003-11-10 09:42:58 PM  
Socialized medicine? Oh boy! The gummint operating on your heart with the speed of the DMV and the precision of the post office!

And, after all, the current, for-profit system is working out so well.

I would hardly call the bureaucratic nightmare we have now a fair example of free market health care. As a liberal, feel free to ignore the 250 million dollars in Medicare fraud per annum (and that's JUST in commiefornia).


So Mr Food Mart how do you propose to give health coverage to the 40 million without?

First of all, the '40 million' is a myth. I'll let columnist Larry Elder take care of the facts and more, from the Sep. 2000 column titled "The phony health-care crisis." (Though if you're a liberal, facts are, of course, optional reading).

* 51 percent of the so-called uninsured go without insurance for only a few months, while between jobs.

* 72 percent remain uninsured for less than one year.

* Another 10 percent of the uninsured enjoy high-paying jobs, but decide that it makes more sense to pocket the premium money while running the rather minor risk of getting sick. This category consists of 3.8 million with average family incomes that exceed $50,000. On top of this, there are over six million more without health-care insurance, but who have family income in the $30,000 to $50,000 range.

* Many of the uninsured include young, well-educated, healthy people, who are unlikely to get sick. Their car insurance, they reason, will handle any medical-related vehicle injuries. These young people simply perform a cost-benefit analysis and conclude that it makes more sense to pocket the money than to send it to an insurance company. Is that a problem?

* For a modest amount, many working mothers and fathers can add their children to their employer-provided insurance. Why don't they? Many say they cannot afford it, but a shifting in family priorities -- yes, this is possible even among the "working poor" -- could pay for it. According to the 1992 Census Bureau, 92.2 percent of the poor own color televisions; 60 percent own microwaves; 7.4 percent have personal computers; and 41 percent own their own homes outright.

[All this] leaves about 10 million Americans without insurance -- who simply cannot afford it. And, among these, the government provides Medicaid, and most hospitals must admit patients on an emergency basis. Included among this 10 million are 2.5 million people defined as "other." Other? This includes prostitutes, criminals and illegal aliens. But, why quibble? Let's give them insurance coverage, too.

"To even suggest," says Martin Anderson (an economic advisor), "that the American taxpayers submit to higher taxes, lose the right to choose their doctor or be forced to carry around a national identity card in order to cover 10 million health insurance deadbeats is obscene."

But what to do about the truly needy? Answer: Dismantle the government-provided welfare/health-care system. But doesn't Medicare and Medicaid help the truly needy? In the 20 years preceding the Medicare Act of 1965, the cost of a one-day stay in a hospital increased three-fold. In the 20 years following the Medicare Act, the typical stay increased eight-fold. Today, taxpayers pay nearly 50 percent of the nation's health-care bill. This type of socialism drives up the cost of goods and services. Rules restrict the supply of doctors, and prevent nurses and other health-care practitioners from performing tasks that they are competent to do.

This country did the heavy lifting during the Cold War, sent troops to Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo for humanitarian reasons, spent nearly five trillion dollars domestically over the last several decades to alleviate poverty, and gives more money for foreign aid than any other country.

But the "It Takes a Village" crowd, against all historical evidence, argues this: that Americans only give because the government extracts their money in the form of taxes. Take that away, we become Ebenezer Scrooge. Let 'em eat cake! Never mind that nearly 70 cents on the public welfare dollar never gets down to the intended beneficiary because of salaries, costs, and the inherent inefficiencies of government. Never mind that organizations like the Salvation Army and United Way -- heavily dependent on volunteers -- deliver over 80 cents of the donated dollar to the intended beneficiaries.

More Americans, 75 percent, report some kind of charitable contribution. Contrast this with 44 percent of Germans, and 43 percent of the French. Nearly half of Americans volunteered within the last 12 months, as compared with 13 percent of the Germans and 19 percent of the French.

Moral to the story: Any country with people as generous as Americans will maybe, just maybe, care about their fellow Americans. But, as Al Gore might call it, this sounds like a risky faith-in-fellow-Americans' scheme.

****

Ever been to Russia?

No. Have you? I could be wrong, but somehow I doubt you're typing replies from Red Square.

Bet not because if you go there and speak to the people on the street many will say they MISS the Soviet days of full employment.

I believe some of the former reds probably think that, but then there were also American blacks who insisted as late as the 1930s that life was better for them under slavery.

Not included in your random Russkie poll of those missing "full employment" were the millions of people deliberately starved to death or sent to Siberia.

Freedom is difficult, but it beats the alternative.
 
2003-11-10 09:45:11 PM  
i didnt see the daily show episode everyone is talking about, but i've seen videos of him speaking and he struck me as actually very enjoyable to watch. i really get a kick out of him. and underneath the hippie bullshiat overtones he's by far the most legit candidate i know of. its a shame he apparently had a really off day on the daily show.

also, she goes boom swagger swagger boom boom swagger boom boom boom
swagger swagger boom boom swagger boom boom boom
 
2003-11-10 09:59:21 PM  
Obviously as the only vegan candidate I will have to vote for him.
 
2003-11-10 10:57:15 PM  
Sir Chevron Food Mart
Socialized medicine? Oh boy! The gummint operating on your heart with the speed of the DMV and the precision of the post office!


Versus some insurance guy who only wants to make a buck telling you what surgery you can or can't have? I'll take the government, thank you.

I would hardly call the bureaucratic nightmare we have now a fair example of free market health care.

Yes, don't forget that free enterprise applies to insurance companies, too. And they are the ones making the decisions.

As a liberal, feel free to ignore the 250 million dollars in Medicare fraud per annum (and that's JUST in commiefornia).

As a NeoCon, can you tell me how deregulated insurance is getting healthcare to the people? Is trickle-down your answer?

First of all, the '40 million' is a myth. I'll let columnist Larry Elder take care of the facts and more, from the Sep. 2000 column titled "The phony health-care crisis." (Though if you're a liberal, facts are, of course, optional reading).

Your NeoCon columnist might just be fudging around with the facts a little to support the NeoCon agenda, right?

* 51 percent of the so-called uninsured go without insurance for only a few months, while between jobs.


But the 40 million are an average over time, aren't they?

* 72 percent remain uninsured for less than one year.


And then another 72 percent join the uninsured. It's kind of like unemployment, right? We still have 6% unemployment, even though 125,000 jobs were created last month. Why? because 100,000 jobs were lost.

* Another 10 percent of the uninsured enjoy high-paying jobs, but decide that it makes more sense to pocket the premium money while running the rather minor risk of getting sick. This category consists of 3.8 million with average family incomes that exceed $50,000. On top of this, there are over six million more without health-care insurance, but who have family income in the $30,000 to $50,000 range.

Where is he getting these numbers? A family with income in the $30 to $50,000 range is considered highly paid??? I'd have to double-check, but I don't believe a family of 4 pays any income tax if they make $30,000 in income. Very little, if any. I looked it up, with the earned income credit, a family of 4 making $30,000 doesn't pay any income tax. They actually get a little bit of a payoff.

any of the uninsured include young, well-educated, healthy people, who are unlikely to get sick. Their car insurance, they reason, will handle any medical-related vehicle injuries. These young people simply perform a cost-benefit analysis and conclude that it makes more sense to pocket the money than to send it to an insurance company. Is that a problem?

I don't think there are many people doing this, and the ones who are doing it, shouldn't be. It would be nice if they didn't have to make that kind of decision. That is a problem.

or a modest amount, many working mothers and fathers can add their children to their employer-provided insurance. Why don't they? Many say they cannot afford it, but a shifting in family priorities -- yes, this is possible even among the "working poor" -- could pay for it. According to the 1992 Census Bureau, 92.2 percent of the poor own color televisions; 60 percent own microwaves; 7.4 percent have personal computers; and 41 percent own their own homes outright.


What's a color tv cost? $50? $10 used? I know I can get an brand new Apex 20" color tv for $99. Microwaves are what, $40 new? If 41% of the poor own their own homes, I want to see what the definition of poor is. Unless of course, we are talking about some shack or trailer that was inherited from great-grandad and they still have to pay rent on the land it sits on. I call bullshiat on that.

l this] leaves about 10 million Americans without insurance -- who simply cannot afford it. And, among these, the government provides Medicaid, and most hospitals must admit patients on an emergency basis. Included among this 10 million are 2.5 million people defined as "other." Other? This includes prostitutes, criminals and illegal aliens. But, why quibble? Let's give them insurance coverage, too.


The uninsured just go to the Emergency Room and end up costing the hospitals a LOT of money when the government doesn't reimburse them. Or they go to the government hospitals, which is why Cook County Hospital has more patients than any other hospital in the city. And that costs a LOT of money.

even suggest," says Martin Anderson (an economic advisor), "that the American taxpayers submit to higher taxes, lose the right to choose their doctor or be forced to carry around a national identity card in order to cover 10 million health insurance deadbeats is obscene."


Nobody is going to force anybody to take insurance they don't want. Any American taxpayer can go to whatever doctor they want. It's just that EVERYONE will be covered at a minimal level. The rich aren't going to have to give up their specialists.

But what to do about the truly needy? Answer: Dismantle the government-provided welfare/health-care system. But doesn't Medicare and Medicaid help the truly needy? In the 20 years preceding the Medicare Act of 1965, the cost of a one-day stay in a hospital increased three-fold. In the 20 years following the Medicare Act, the typical stay increased eight-fold. Today, taxpayers pay nearly 50 percent of the nation's health-care bill. This type of socialism drives up the cost of goods and services. Rules restrict the supply of doctors, and prevent nurses and other health-care practitioners from performing tasks that they are competent to do.


You ever notice how the NeoCons get upset and start calling things 'socialism' when they don't have a good argument. Social Security and Medicare have been GREAT programs for America. Knowing that you are going to have a minimum amount of care and income even after you are retired is a GOOD thing. Of course, if you want, we can go back to the bad old days of the 1800s when people just worked their ass off and then died at age 50. But with the new modern terrorist techniques and guns in every home, I don't think the rich NeoCons would last very long (or at least they wouldn't dare go outside of their gated communities)

This country did the heavy lifting during the Cold War, sent troops to Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo for humanitarian reasons, spent nearly five trillion dollars domestically over the last several decades to alleviate poverty, and gives more money for foreign aid than any other country.

But the "It Takes a Village" crowd, against all historical evidence, argues this: that Americans only give because the government extracts their money in the form of taxes. Take that away, we become Ebenezer Scrooge. Let 'em eat cake! Never mind that nearly 70 cents on the public welfare dollar never gets down to the intended beneficiary because of salaries, costs, and the inherent inefficiencies of government. Never mind that organizations like the Salvation Army and United Way -- heavily dependent on volunteers -- deliver over 80 cents of the donated dollar to the intended beneficiaries.


So, you don't want to support a 'socialist' government, but you don't mind supporting 'socialist' organizations like United Way or Salvation Army? What's the matter? Paying taxes doesn't give you that "warm, fuzzy do-gooder" feeling? You can just look at paying taxes as giving money to United Way, if it makes you feel better.

More Americans, 75 percent, report some kind of charitable contribution. Contrast this with 44 percent of Germans, and 43 percent of the French. Nearly half of Americans volunteered within the last 12 months, as compared with 13 percent of the Germans and 19 percent of the French.


Yes, 75% of Americans give money to their church. That's where your charitable contributions in the United States are going. Did you really think that we'd forget that the United States is a haven for the Christian cult, when our President is constantly throwing his 'reborn Christianity' in our face?

Moral to the story: Any country with people as generous as Americans will maybe, just maybe, care about their fellow Americans. But, as Al Gore might call it, this sounds like a risky faith-in-fellow-Americans' scheme.

Moral of the story: Everything isn't quite the way your NeoCon buddy presents it. If I can beat down his arguments off-the-cuff, his arguments aren't strong.
 
2003-11-10 11:00:28 PM  
He needs to read AskMen.com.
 
2003-11-10 11:00:48 PM  
brigid

-He's pro-bowling


He's pro-bowling??? What is he, Polish or something??? :D

Hey, Kuchinich sounds vaguely Polish. Alright, maybe Croatian. Still, he had me until the bowling thing. Now, I am starting to rethink the whole deal! :D
 
2003-11-10 11:13:19 PM  
Why are you guys trashing Kucinich? He has tons of support, he's not corrupt, he's enthusiastic, he's got some great ideas, and a solid platform. What the hell more do you want? I mean, I could really give two sh_ts if our future president is "hot or not", if he can banter well John Stuart, etc. That's frickin retarded.
 
2003-11-11 12:03:07 AM  
Sir Chevron Food Mart

Many of the uninsured include young, well-educated, healthy people, who are unlikely to get sick. Their car insurance, they reason, will handle any medical-related vehicle injuries. These young people simply perform a cost-benefit analysis and conclude that it makes more sense to pocket the money than to send it to an insurance company. Is that a problem?

Yes. They are gambling that nothing will go wrong but it's by no means a given. Every one of us knows someone who had a serious illness in their 20's or early 30's, they shouldn't lose everything, delay treatment, or lose their lives because they gambled.

Social health covers the elderly, the unemployed, students, everyone.

But what to do about the truly needy? Answer: Dismantle the government-provided welfare/health-care system.

Haaaaahahahahaha! *takes a breath* Hahahahahahahahah HA!

Oh you are too much. I don't like it so let's get rid of it. Don't look at ways to improve it, just axe it. Let them eat cake!

Same with Affirmative Action, same with social security, you say 'but but we just want to help them' - HOW does any of it help anyone? It doesn't, it hurts the poor and everyone else in the long run.

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

- John Kenneth Galbraith

But doesn't Medicare and Medicaid help the truly needy? In the 20 years preceding the Medicare Act of 1965, the cost of a one-day stay in a hospital increased three-fold. In the 20 years following the Medicare Act, the typical stay increased eight-fold. Today, taxpayers pay nearly 50 percent of the nation's health-care bill. This type of socialism drives up the cost of goods and services. Rules restrict the supply of doctors, and prevent nurses and other health-care practitioners from performing tasks that they are competent to do.

Which doesn't answer your question at all. Yes, it does help the truly needy. The rest of your statement just said 'it costs money'. This is news to whom exactly?

This country did the heavy lifting during the Cold War, sent troops to Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo for humanitarian reasons, spent nearly five trillion dollars domestically over the last several decades to alleviate poverty, and gives more money for foreign aid than any other country.

WTF does this have to do with social health again??

You may we well have said 'I love Mickey Mouse!' for all the relevance it had.
 
2003-11-11 12:09:27 AM  
ZipBeep

They don't like tax-funded charity because it goes equally to those gay aids lepers and on derelicts and other people that God hates and that should just die quietly and out of the way someplace.

If they can't spend it on cute white orphans who will look them in the eye and be sweetly grateful so they get their paternalistic benevolent feeling then they aren't interested.

"I want to choose who my tax money helps" is in the end a completely selfish proposition. Social welfare specialists identify the places we need to apply funds, not individuals with little grasp of the issues and their own personal agendas to feed.
 
2003-11-11 12:53:50 AM  
Tad3tte: I 100% agree with your last post. If the people decided where every dollar in taxes went, the government would collapse in on itself. Even in democracy, government has to say at some point "Yes You Will".
 
2003-11-11 01:03:55 AM  
The Democratic candidates may suck, but have you seen the Republican candidate? Talk about beoing screwed either way. But keep voting for one party or the other, you know 'cause anything else is a wasted vote. Keep repeating that bit of propaganda to yourself and maybe one day we can whittle it down to one party.
 
2003-11-11 01:53:37 AM  
why isn't anyone from the green party running?
 
2003-11-11 02:26:47 AM  
MikeWeath

But keep voting for one party or the other, you know 'cause anything else is a wasted vote. Keep repeating that bit of propaganda to yourself and maybe one day we can whittle it down to one party.

Unfortunately if people hadn't believed a third party was possible and voted Green (Nader) in the last election Bush wouldn't have been able to take the USA and put it in the loathed position it's in today.

Ferro_man I think that's also the reason they're not fielding a candidate this time. The country needs to get rid of Bush and it will be the Dems that do it this time. Since offing Bush is more important for the country than anything else they've chosen not to sap away any Democrat votes so they can avoid a repeat of last time imho.

If you had IRV none of this would be an issue.
 
2003-11-11 02:31:29 AM  
Someone earlier mentioned, in jest:

I, for the life of me, cannot understand why this vibrant, exciting handsome man is still single.
---------

Believe it or not, Dennis the Menace is actually divorced. That's right- a real live woman married him and had sexual relations with him, most likely. Unless it was one of those Russian mail-order bride Visa scams.
 
2003-11-11 11:19:00 AM  
Go Dennis!

He's the only peace candidate, but then not everyone wants peace now do they? Lots of people want war and money. Idiots.
 
2003-11-11 12:04:12 PM  
Think he'd go for a 20 year old from Minnesota? *cough*
 
2003-11-11 12:28:24 PM  

I am really glad to see that I am not the only person out there who thinks Kucinich is the BEST presidential candidate we have ever had.


Who cares about his new age-y religious beliefs? Or what he looks like? That man is a fighter, and he will fight for the little guy! He came up the hard way, dirt-poor, and he really knows the plight of the working man and woman.


I have been researching Kucinich for some time now. He has always been an outsider in the political arena. He is a real iconoclast. How he ever made it to Congress, I do not really know. But, people, that is what we need in a president-- an outsider who can unleash a little creative destruction on the political, corporate, and media elite.



I have already met with some DK supporters here in Houston, and I plan to do some blockwalking soon. I am just going to print up a bunch of flyers on my own dime and hand them out to people. If you care about this country, I recommend you do the same.


I have never been involved in politics, though I have been interested in it over the last 20 years. My political affiliations have ranged from Republican to Democrat to Libertarian to Socialist. Dennis is the type of person we need right now--a bred-in-the-bones liberal (i.e., a "Social Democrat") populist.



You want to know what kind of govt Dennis will try to build? Go look at some of the western european countries! There are some people here who will scoff at socialised medicine, but let me tell you, I have researched it. And I promise you that there are published studies online and people who have left comments online that indicate that the American system is almost a JOKE compared to most of the western european systems, especially the French system. Those people do SO MUCH MORE with much less money than we spend. And EVERYONE who is in France is covered.



Do not let yourself fall into the trap of helplessness--we CAN take control of this country. Look at some of western european countries. If they feel the govt is screwing them around, they shut down the country with strikes. They back each other up. They work together.


And the end result is that their quality of life for most of the people there is better than it is here. Trust me. I have researched this issue, and in fact I am thinking of writing a book on the subject.


I am not a Democratic Party loyalist. In fact, I believe this may be the first Democratic presidential candidate I have ever voted for. I have never really been involved in politics at this level. But I think it is time for me to get involved.


And you need to get involved, too. Do something. Now. Support Dennis Kucinich. Do it.


If you have any commments or counter-arguments, I will be glad to respond.....

 
dwg
2003-11-11 01:28:20 PM  
I think that's referred to as "boom-chicka-boom-boom".
pop-culture nazi.
 
2003-11-11 01:28:27 PM  
ZipBeep:

brigid:

-He's pro-bowling

He's pro-bowling??? What is he, Polish or something??? :D

Hey, Kuchinich sounds vaguely Polish. Alright, maybe Croatian. Still, he had me until the bowling thing. Now, I am starting to rethink the whole deal! :D


Got it on the second try!! He's Croatian. And what do you have against bowling? ;)
 
2003-11-11 01:33:25 PM  
Ferro_man I think that's also the reason they're not fielding a candidate this time. The country needs to get rid of Bush and it will be the Dems that do it this time. Since offing Bush is more important for the country than anything else they've chosen not to sap away any Democrat votes so they can avoid a repeat of last time imho.

Actually, Nader's not running because he said as long as Kucinich is running, he doesn't need to....they have very similar values. Now I don't know if that qualifies as an official endorsement, but I did hear that when Howard the Dean went looking for support from Nader, he got jack shiat. :)
 
2003-11-11 01:40:17 PM  
I am in love with Kucinich. Seriously. After I read his platform, I decided to volunteer for his campaign. If I weren't already married and only 22, I might try to win his heart. . .*sigh*
 
2003-11-11 01:52:55 PM  
cryofan: You want to know what kind of govt Dennis will try to build? Go look at some of the western european countries! There are some people here who will scoff at socialised medicine, but let me tell you, I have researched it. And I promise you that there are published studies online and people who have left comments online that indicate that the American system is almost a JOKE compared to most of the western european systems, especially the French system. Those people do SO MUCH MORE with much less money than we spend. And EVERYONE who is in France is covered.

Yeah, I don't notice all the other industrialized nations rushing to copy OUR healthcare system. That would be a BIG mistake.

I learned something interesting in my research into the single-payer issue. OK, so this is kinda how it breaks down now:

-Insurance companies have doctors and hospitals in a bind, because of malpractice insurance premiums that keep rising astronomically, so the hospitals have to raise their fees;

-Insurance companies step in and "help" consumers "afford" care by selling them policies that ALSO are expensive, in some cases MORE expensive than simply going to the ER;

-Employers then have to pitch in to help the employees buy the insurance, in a "group" policy where the employer pays on average about 8% of the costs, depending on the size of the company this insurance could be fabulous or craptacular(Anthem/Trigon Blue Cross, for example. They RIP YOU OFF)

-You STILL have to pay copays and deductibles before you can even USE most of the policy, and if you see a dentist, you pay even more up front

-Insurance companies get rich, while their customers - both the hospitals AND the patients - get screwed

I was trying to figure out how Dennis's single-payer plan would work in this insurance-based system, and this is what I've been able to figure out:

-While insurance fraud and bloat is industry-wide, Medicare is still miles ahead of private insurance companies in terms of efficiency(look it up if you don't believe me);

-The plan would expand Medicare to cover everyone unconditionally;

-Prescriptions would be bought in bulk by the government to save money;

-The insurance companies would have no part of this. The 8%(and up) payments that employers are making to help pay for their workers' insurance would be removed, and replaced by a flat payroll tax that is somewhere between 7 and 7.5%. So they would SAVE money.

-If Kucinich was President, you could get medicinal marijuana without having to look over your shoulder for Asscroft every 2 seconds. If you had chemo, you could get LEGAL POT. Glaucoma? LEGAL POT. And the list goes on...

Having not had insurance, and looking at having it for the first time since I got married(almost 2 years) and with a lifelong medical condition, I feel pretty screwed no matter which way I turn in this current setup. If I go without insurance and go to the ER - $120 to the hospital, and another $150 to the doctor, since he's a temp, and he wants his share too! If I pay insurance - at the worst point, the premiums were $300 a month, now they're finally dropping below $200 - I am still looking at about $12-1300 a year, plus deductibles and copays. The covered cost of my medication is the SAME as my uncovered cost, so I don't win anything there. The only advantage to insurance THIS time is that I can see the doctor as many times as I need to(and I may need to.) Paying cash, we could only afford to go when we were half dead!

Insurance is an industry that exists solely for its own benefit, it's a leech on the system. It does not help doctors operate, it does not make patients feel better.
It DOES NOT NEED TO BE IN THIS COUNTRY!

That said, vote Kucinich, or we'll be looking at 4 more years of the monkey flinging his own crap at us and the rest of the world.
 
2003-11-11 04:38:04 PM  
the elfin one admitted he never tried marijuana. for a firebrand liberal, to cop to this is to lose all street credibility, if he had any,,,
and he isnt gay, cause we know they love to partay...
 
2003-11-11 09:30:02 PM  
It's "bow chicka bow bow", dammit.
 
Displayed 39 of 139 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report