What do Republicans think of Howard Dean?

[deanfan]

I'm an Independent who votes for individuals, not parties. I'm from Vermont and my governor is planning on running for the Democratic nomination for president in 2004. Before anyone is automatically critical of him just because he's a Democrat, I'm going to ask folks to overlook the parties for a few minutes to give an honest opinion on what you think of him. He really defies labelling easily. Some have compared him to the old Rockefeller Republicans because of how conservative he is with money and how progressive he is with social programs. He manages to balance these really well. I really like this guy because he's sensible, practical, is a doer, straightforward, honest and he doesn't pander to special interest groups. He has an A rating with the NRA, which isn't very common for a Democrat. When he took the Governorship over 12 years ago there was a $65 million budget deficit. He balanced the budget, set aside a $100 million rainy day fund for emergencies and such, raised the minimum wage twice, lowered taxes 3 times, has insured virtually all Vermont children...96% and 92% of adults. As long as you don't make over 300% of poverty level, you are guaranteed medical insurance through the state for your family for no more than $50 a month. He's fought to prevent the drug companies from bribing doctors and hospitals to prescribe more expensive medications, and he really cares about the people he leads. That's pretty refreshing to me. As a doctor, he does feel abortion is between a woman, her doctor and her family...because he is a doctor. Likewise, he is adamantly against medical marijuana. The one thing that seems to turn conservatives off about Dean is the fact that he signed a Civil Unions Bill in Vermont. People mistakenly think it is gay marriage. It's not. Although I was really concerned about this law being passed at first, I support it now for a number of reasons. It hasn't led to an influx of homosexuals moving to this state...and it doesn't cost me any money. In fact, it potentially saves tax money. Personally, the civil unions law encourages gay people to be monogamous, and I think that's much better than not encouraging it. Monogamy is better than promiscuity for society. Since no one is going to stop people from being gay, it's better to have gay monogamous couples than not. Another part of Civil Unions is that with the rights come responsibilities. Heterosexual couples have to go to court to divide property, pay alimony, be responsible for each others debts, have their credit rating screwed up by irresponsible partners...so why shouldn't gay people have to deal with all that crap too? Why should they be able to mess around and run away from obligations? That's not fair! And we all know that AIDS is an awful disease that essentially cripples a person. Someone that sick can't work and pay for their own insurance, so it gets passed on to the tax payers. With Civil Unions, the person who gave them AIDS can be legally made financially responsible for those bills and be forced to buy insurance for them. I find that to be a much better deal for the rest of society. When I realized all this, it really put the idea of Civil Unions in a new perspective for me. I think the same rights are good too, and since it doesn't interfere with the church and doesn't force the church to perform marriages between gay people, it doesn't matter to me either way.

Dean also thinks Bush has done a decent job in Afghanistan. He had been really bothered that Bush didn't make the effort to build an international coalition on Iraq before saying things to the press that backs him into a corner and sort of instigates other countries. But he agrees we are going to have to do something and can't allow Saddam to have these kinds of weapons. He does think going to war should be the last choice, and not the first...and that we should at least make the effort to work things out peacefully if we can. Dean thinks that the tax cuts need to be taken back except for the estate tax (a minor adjustment to it) and the retirement things. He would add something for the lower and middle income people to help them plan for their retirement as well, though. With what he would take back in the cuts, he would use to Insure all children in the country and young adults up to 23. It would grow to include all uninsured Americans and allow small businesses to offer a government plan to their employees with a good drug benefit as well as any Americans who work but can't get insurance from their employer for whatever reason. His plan wouldn't touch or change anyone's current plans...they could keep it if they wanted and nothing would change. He's done it here, so he's already made it work before. He's very concerned about Bush's education bill as well. What we have discovered here is that the bill would end up forcing states to raise property taxes to pay for government ordered regulations in schools of your states. Some of the pieces within the bill are screwy too...like your state schools being penalized if they don't have mandatory school prayer. I'm all for allowing time for kids to pray if they want to, but having mandatory school prayer in AMERICA? I don't know what they are thinking on that one! Schools would also be required to give information on your 18 year olds to the military. That's an invasion of privacy in my opinion. I'm sort of disturbed by that stuff.

Anyhow...I think this guy is very reasonable and has some really great ideas. He's gotten up to 40% of Republican vote in this state during the various elections here. So obviously there is something about him that is at least somewhat appealing on a really broad spectrum. I read an article by a moderate Republican from NH (his name was Jessup or something, out of Portsmouth, NH) that was very flattering to Dean. That's what inspired me to come and ask what Republicans here think of this guy. I appreciate any responses...thanks.

[CB]

Personally; I think Governor Dean is a good man...however lacks the carisma needed to mount a Presidential campaign...him being from Vermont is going to be difficult to do so.

It can happen, but with Vice President Gore in the running, looks like he is a long shot.

[steve]

I agree that he is a good man. I spend time in Vermont and beleive that he has been a good gov for the State.
However, in a field of personalties that the dems will have in 04 he would be a real long shot.

The dems have selected Boston for their convention- i think the ticket will be Kerry/Pelosi, thats john not bob.


________
LovelyWendie99 (http://www.lovelywendie99.com/)

[joeschmo]

any politician from vermont is excluded from the main stream.. Bernie sanders is a socialist
(a democrat in disguise) Pat Leahy is a socialist ( in democrat clothes & radical extremist)

howard dean is far to the left, ridiculous vermont rules like act 250 , act 200 and others
he has accepted and embraced....no attempt to repeal those rules or act in any manner consistent with main stream america.

vermont is a hippie commune gone bad ( and i liked hippie communes)

NO FREAKIN WAY... keep em all ,dont even think about it...

[deanfan]

He's been compared to McCain. He's getting some press and there is a lot of buzz going on about him. I would like to see him get the nomination. I really like his sensible approach towards things. Since he's a doctor he is very straight forward and can explain things to people really well. I can post a couple of links if anyone is interested. I know that Bush has had a real uphill battle with 9/11 and all...and with the economy the way it is as a result, all the warring going on...those tax cuts are going to really hurt this country. Businesses are closing, people are losing their jobs and insurance. And when I found out about the stuff hidden in that Education Bill and Patriot Act I just think we're headed for serious trouble. I also think dealing with Iraq has to be put off for a bit until we take care of Al Qaeda. That's a bigger threat. Everyone is so caught up in patriotism that I don't think they are thinking about how some of these things Bush is pushing for could end up really hurting the American people. Patriotism is good, but we can't lose our sensibilities in the process of it. Schools shouldn't be penalized if they don't make kids pray and I don't like the idea of the military and government having personal information on high schoolers about to graduate without the consent of the parent. Parents have lost so many rights now that it's more difficult to actually be a parent. I don't want more interference. And we shouldn't have to pay property tax in order to pay for education mandates on a federal level that the government doesn't contribute towards funding. Am I the only one worried about this stuff?

[deanfan]

He claims to stand for one thing and then votes for others. I have heard some Democrats say that they don't want him because of his affilliation with Skull and Bones. They really can't afford to lose his seat, either. If he goes he would be replaced by a Republican. I think it's the same thing with Edwards. I think it will come down to Gore and Dean in the end. Since Gore has just come out in favor of single payer Universal Coverage I think that might hurt him with some who remember when Clinton tried to do that. Dean has a real "do-able" plan to provide everyone medical coverage while not messing with the current system that we have. Small business owners would get assistance and be able to buy into a federal insurance system as well as people who are self employed. If he can do it in Vermont he can do it nationally. All it would take would be to repeal some of the tax cuts. The estate tax would pretty much stay the same, as well as the retirement incentives, but something for middle class and low income would be added for retirement. It wouldn't be losing something and getting nothing in return, which is a good idea in my opinion.

[NassGuy]

Sorry that radical Vermont Communism wont fly anywhere but the cow country of Vermont. Keep your anti american socialistic "Dr." Dean to yourselves. You people are a bunch of freaks up there. Thank god his base is Vermont with all its 500,000 people.

[deanfan]

He's very conservative with money and finds a way to balance the budget, reduce deficits, support good programs and get things done. The Civil Unions decision was pretty liberal, but he really did have to do something. The Vermont Supreme Court made a decision he had to act on. The liberals wanted gay marriage but Dean wouldn't do that because he knew people would never be able to accept it. Civil Unions isn't marriage. It's more like Common Law partnerships...you get some rights AND some responsibilities but it's not called marriage. It hasn't caused an influx of gay people moving to Vermont, either. In fact, it seems like I see less evidence of gays in the community. That might be because the law encourages monomgamy and less people are being promiscuous since if they do and have a main partner they can face the same legal problems as a cheating husband or wife would. Once people get past the intiial shock and upset they notice that it doesn't make anything worse at all or harm them in any way. Then they are usually either neutral on the topic or support it. If he were that liberal the NRA wouldn't think so highly of him, either. Liberals tend to want to take your guns away. Although Dean is friendly to the Environment...he has included hunting on protected lands. The conservation lands in Vermont are open to hunters. That makes sure that sportsmen have a place to hunt deer in this state. Is there some other reason you consdier him to be liberal? He has refused to let Powerball come to VT, is against medical marijuana, and is tough on crime. I think he's quite moderate.

[deanfan]

Where on earth did you get that idea? We did just elect a Republican Governor and Lt. Governor. We're just independent people. It's mostly ski resorts, farms and small, close-knit communities here. Burlington might be a bit more on the liberal side, but the rest of the state is just like any other place you go. We're more prone to voting for good people regardless of their party.

[Dean]

Didn't Dean legalize gay marriages in Vermont???!!!

This isn't ancient rome....he's would never get my vote

[deanfan]

Dean didn't "legalize gay marriage". He opposes gay marriage because that is stepping too far beyond the separation of church and state. The Vermont law is Civil Unions...not much different than Common Law statutes. This is what is the truth, since I live in Vermont, I can provide you with a better picture of what the actual law is.

There was a case in the Vermont Supreme Court that declared it illegal to discriminate agaisnt homosexuals and not allowing them the same rights as married people. Dean is a very responsible leader. He had to address this. It's a matter of civil rights for all people. Dean knew that gay marriage was not going to pass, and he, himself, didn't support it. But he did feel that it was important that no American be discriminated against. So, he supported a Civil Unions Bill. The law clearly states that marriage is between a man and a woman. It also states that people who are not legally allowed to get married need to be subject to the same rights and obligations that married couples are suject to. To make a long story short, gay couples get the same legal rights and benefits a married couple gets except that they can't get married. They are also subject to all the negative aspects that come with marriage such as spousal support, division of property, being required to carry insurance on their partner, and being responsible for their significant other's debts should they not pay them. The law has NOT led to an influx of gays moving to Vermont. The law has NOT led to any negative impact on Vermont...it doesn't even affect the majority of people in any noticeable way. There are hidden benefits to this law. Civil Unions encourage monogamy in the homosexual community because this law makes it possible for a partner to have a legal recourse if their partner is cheating on them. This helps prevent promiscuity from not being held accountable for that behavior. At first the law seems like it encourages immorality...but when you look closer, it does more to encourage discretion and ethical behavior. Gay people won't stop being gay and denying civil rights has never proven to be an effective method in ridding society of something it's uncomfortable with. Also, there is no reason why gay couples shouldn't have to be accountable just like everyone else. The law isn't a big deal at all and the Courts essentially forced it onto the table. Dean provided a solution that the majority of people find acceptable.

[joeschmo]

give it a rest!...

like most vermonters, dean is looking for a job out of state.... he doesnt want to work
for ben and jerry or mc donalds

he's got NO shot at anything , end of story..... you must be a former staffer (dean) looking to get a job somewhere.... give it up !

when vermont rejoins america, maybe . for now, dream on.... you got a
better shot at getting struck by lightning or winning the lottery (mega millions)

the democratic nod is going to gore, if it looks like bush is going to kick ass in 04' otherwise
edwards of north carolina , because of geographic ( republican base ) considerations if the dems can win in o4'

bon chance

[HSsenior]

I'm a high school senior who is researching Dean for a government class project. What I discovered was interesting.

Mr. Dean gives as his strongest "vote-for-me" statistic his record as Governor of Vermont. He became governor when the current governor died in 1991.

For my project, I checked out both liberal and conservative websites so that I could get a balanced idea of Dean and his view on the issues.

Many Pro-Dean websites list all the great things he did for Vermont in his 11 years as Governor. However, a poll of Vermont residents - those you would think would be his strongest supporters if he was as great a governor as he makes himself out to be - shows that 56% would not vote for him for president; only about 36% say they would.

One pro-Dean website I checked out, www.votewithavengeance.com, gives lots of Dean links at the bottom of the page. One link is to his record as Vermont Governor. That link is to the official webpage for the governor of Vermont. I searched the website - there was nothing - NOTHING - about Dean on the whole website. I even searched for "Dean" on the page's search engine and nothing about him came up.

What that website doesn't tell you is that, before leaving his post as Governor in 2002, Dean negotiated a deal to keep his record as governor sealed for 10 years. The two previous administrations only sealed for 6.

My point is that the real statistics on his record can't be found because they were sealed before he left office. Thus, the only information we have about his time as governor is that which he publishes himself. And that information, obviously, will always make him look good to the voter who doesn't do the research I did.

Another statistic I found is worth mentioning. Dean has said that the tripling of the national debt between 1980 and 1992 caused interest rates to rise. However, the interest rate in 1980 was 13.35 (at the end of the Carter administration) and the interest rate in 1992 was 3.52 (at the end of the Reagan administration). Clearly, Mr. Dean does not let facts interfere with a good story.

If you don't believe me, do the research yourself. Always check out what the opposition has to say about a candidate before deciding, because the candidate himself will never tell you if he is lying through his teeth.

[NassGuy]

Way to go HSenior. Comforting to know that not all HS students are totally devoid of any intelligence. Dean is a horrible candidate, Democratic or Republican, he wont ever break 2-3%.

[skankin owl]

I was looking at some democratic websites and there is a ton of buzz about Dean. Mainstream America (dem or rep) don't know about him yet, but many independents and dems seem to like him. The thing that strikes me most is that he is very pro-states' rights. He's for states having almost complete control over their gun laws. Likewise, he is very states' rights supportive for education and at least a couple other issues. These things could appeal to some republicans. But before anyone has to worry about that, he'll need to survive the civil union thing and the democratic primaries. He seems more liberal then the rest of the democrats on a few things and more conservative on others. The one quality that does appeal to all is that he cuts through the crap and gives it to people straight...

[Harry]

We would all love him as the candidate so W can take 50 States including Vermont

[NassGuy]

Good one, but we could live w/o Vermont's massive 3 electoral college votes! Bunch of freaks up there.

[zoro]

not !!!!!! doesnt he still support saddam hussein

[The way I see it]

Tell him to shake hands w/Hillary. Losing ticket: Dean for Prez.; Hill as vice running mate. And I do mean vice.
________
Toyota 4500GT specifications (http://www.toyota-wiki.com/wiki/Toyota_4500GT)

[DT]

that's the way i see it too
________
dodge viper (http://www.dodge-wiki.com/wiki/Dodge_Viper)

[Eric Cartman]

nothing but a hippy and I ought to kick him in the n**s.

[Sassy]

Another good reason not to support him.
________
Honda NSR500 history (http://www.honda-wiki.org/wiki/Honda_NSR500)

[Sassy]

It looks as if celebrity politics on the national front are
getting bigger by the minute.

In the 2002 election, guess who provided the fifth largest
source of dollars for federal candidates? It was none other
than little old Hollywood. And as you might expect, 83
percent of the Tinseltown cash went to Democrats. So says
the Center for Responsive Politics.

Maybe this explains why there was such a big buzz when Rob
Reiner announced he was placing his fund-raising talents
behind the East Coast presidential candidate and former
Vermont governor, Howard Dean. After all, Reiner raised
more than $4.5 million for Al Gore in 2000.

Meathead already hosted a power lunch for Dean with some of
the largest contributors in Tinseltown, including film
producer Steven Bing, producer Norman Lear, writer-director
Nora Ephron and mogul Michael King. Martin Sheen has also
thrown his support Dean?s way.

The Left Coast Report routinely hears, why
should we care about what a Hollywood star or starlet says
or does? Well, here?s the big, fat moolah-soaked reason.
When celebrities decide to lend their support to a candidate,
the move can change a rarely recognized backbencher into a
well-known frontrunner overnight.

Provided by newsmax.com

_________________________
________
IDrive (http://www.bmw-tech.org/wiki/IDrive)

[Hollywood Politico]

If Meathead endorses Dean, where does Sally "Jabba the Hut" Struthers stand on this.

and how about Al Bundy? I tend to support candidates that get the Whoa Bundy seal of approval.

[marklooking]

are you kidding you are oppsed to this guy on these issues , you must have a tye in.

[lookingfornews]

are you serious just a note on your paragraph about interest rates and presidents. Reagan was out of office in 1988 and bush out in 1992. Hmmm makes me wonder about your point. Were did you get your interest rate number it appears mortgage rates were around 8%. what interest rate are you talking about. And in 1980 for a brief time mortgage rate hit 9% but then finished the year in double digits.

[Hackel]

Most of you made many very relevant points, but others resort to plain childish behavior--why? It doesn't matter -what- the issue is, saying things like that makes such a fool of yourself, it simply boggles my mind. Thank you to those adults (including HSSenior!) who actually have something insightful to say, unlike certain others I shall not name. It is you few individuals that cause people not to take conservatives seriously.

[Hackel]

you are obviously uneducated on the local policies and politics in the state of vermont. so do us and yourself a favor, think twice before you speak on things u have no understanding of, and spare yourself looking (and sounding) like a fool.....!!!!!!

[fools]

you people are all fools. go @#%$ your freedom away...

peace

[Sublime Muffin]

I dig Vermont. I went there a couple of times with my mom. The people are really freindly there in general. Dean sounds like a real smart, straight talking guy: I'm keeping an eye on him.

Cheerio

:)

Sublime Muffin

http://pub10.ezboard.com/bsublimemuffinspantry

[Texas Poster]

As a Republican I would have to say Dean is probably the only candidate I would switch over to vote for in a Presidential election. And I would do so only because of the way Bush is handling the economy. Bush has turned out to be a Borrow and Spend President. Dean on the other hand seems to be conservative on issues that are important to me (and to most conservatives).

[NYURepublican]

Texas Poster, are you nuts? Dean is a liberal's liberal, fiscally and socially. I could see a Republican maybe...maybe...crossing over to vote for Joe Lieberman, since he's a quasi-centrist (or at least pretends to be), but a "Republican" who would cross over to vote for Howard Dean wasn't a Republican in the first place. Edited by: NYURepublican at: 5/22/03 10:30:30 pm

________
Extreme q vaporizer (http://vaporshop.com/)

[Ken L]

A few problems with your research HSsenior:
1) It was the papers of the office of the governor that are sealed, not his record. The record is available in all the various reports and statistics issued by the state executive and/or legislative branches over the course of his term.
2) What is sealed is essentially all the various correspondence made in making policy. Correspondence that could not just be embarrassing to Dean but to others. It is not the "record" that is sealed.
3) Previous governors have done the same thing. The only thing controversial is that his will be sealed for 10 years instead of the typical 6 years.
4) George Bush has put his governor's papers under seal and is seeking to have them kept under seal IN PERPETUITY by having them moved to his father's presidential library. I imagine there is a great deal to hide in the great state of Texas.
5) It would seem that unlike Bush's papers which may never see the light of day, Dean’s record of correspondence will be available for historians and the public’s scrutiny.
6) The web site of the current governor of Vermont has a search engine for his press releases only. It would seem perfectly normal then that you can’t find a mention of Dean by using it.

While the internet can be very useful in research, please don’t be so quick to settle for its offerings.

[passerby]

Dean is going to win. He's skyrocketing upward in all polls, he has an internet presence that makes JFK's TV appearences seem inconsequentil by comparison, and his stands reflect majority opinion amongst Americans.

Dean is going to win. Sorry if that upsets you.

[NYURepublican]

What kind of dream world are you living in? Kerry now has a 10 point lead over Dean in New Hampshire. Nationwide, Dean's numbers are hovering in the single digits. And this is among Democrats, mind you.

Kerry Goes on Offensive as Lead Improves

"In the latest New Hampshire poll, Kerry has the biggest lead among likely independent and Democratic primary voters ? 10 percentage points over Dean, with Lieberman and Gephardt the only other candidates to break double digits. Still, 23 percent are undecided."

More Polls

SUMMARY
Among Democrats (n=301)

Lieberman 15%
Kerry 15
Gephardt 7
Edwards 5
Graham 5
Dean 4
Moseley Braun 3
Kucinich 2
Sharpton 2
(Else/Other) 8
(Not sure) 33
(Would not vote) 1


"Not sure" continues to lead the pack, and Dean is hardly gaining traction.
________
Live sex webshows (http://livesexwebshows.com/)

[Re: NYURepublican - You n]

Just checked your links - BOTH come from Fox News. LOL, "Fair and Balanced™" right? Sure!
Hey, it says so right on the TV screen.

As the motto goes...
"We decide. You Report it to your friends."

[NYURepublican]

All your polls are no longer current; mine are from June 20th. You're also aware that straw polls aren't done scientifically and are therefore useless in terms of making predictions, right?

Fox polls are all done by an independent polling corporation. But what's your point? Are you saying Fox has something to gain by saying that Kerry is above Dean in New Hampshire? Edited by: NYURepublican at: 6/24/03 9:31 am

________
PROBLEMS FROM ZOLOFT (http://www.classactionsettlements.org/lawsuit/zoloft/)

[Re: Howard Dean]

Dean is the closest thing the Democratic party has had to a socialist candidate since McGovern; an odd choice for a libertarian. This is the man who wants to repeal all the Bush tax cuts in favor of an enormous socialistic universal health care entitlement. I don't know what kind of libertarian you think you are, but in terms of fiscal policy, Howard Dean is very much a man of the Left.

[Mylezylez]

NYURepublican,

What exactly would be wrong with a health care system that benefits EVERYBODY, assuming it's well managed?

I think anyone who's not rich, and who's needed serious medical care would tell you that this country's health care system is a mess. HMOs consistantly screw their patients.

I don't understand how you wouldn't have enough sense of community (no, NOT communism) to agree that if everyone in this country chipped in a little (in tax dollars), everyone would be able to receive the medical care they need.

Privatizing the health industry any further would be a BIG mistake.
________
Male advice forum (http://www.love-help.org/male-advice/)

[NYURepublican]

Would you like a health care plan that was "compulsory" instead of "universal"? You know they're both the same thing, right?.

Universal health care would be a massive federal entitlement that the government could only afford by raising taxes through the roof. Not only that, but universal health care would mean the government's health care would be the only game in town, and if you don't like, that's too bad. This approach has been tried in Canada, with disastrous results. Patients wait weeks, sometimes months, to see their doctors for basic, needed procedures. There was a big scandal in Canada a few years back because it was revealed that dogs- that's right, dogs- were able to get certain medical tests like CT scans quicker than people. The reason is that dog health care doesn't come under the government's medical mandate, and so people can just pay in cash, quickly, at their local vet instead of waiting for their paperwork to wend its way through the massive government health care leviathan.

Thousands of Canadians don't pour through the border every year to see American doctors because socialist health care is some tremendous boon; it's a nightmare. What's wrong with giving people more options to manage their own health care, like managed savings accounts? Nothing, unless you're a big government goon like Dean who doesn't trust the American people to make their own decisions. Edited by: NYURepublican at: 6/24/03 10:16 pm

________
Live Sex Webshows (http://livesexwebshows.com/)

[Mylezylez]

Well, I've heard pretty good things about Canada's health care system in general.

Like if you get into a serious accident, and need immediate medical care, you can go to any hospital, and get treated right away without too much of a hassle.

But would you agree that this country NEEDS a health care system that benefits everyone? If you think other countries' universal health care systems are flawed, then why not fix the problems in THIS country? I think we're probably smart enough to come up with a health care plan that covers anyone and everyone, and works efficiently and compassionately.

But the chilling thing to think about is how many people (forgive me, but mostly republicans) seem to think that in order to give the most deserving people the best medical care, we have to deny it to everyone else. And of course, what better way to descriminate than monetarily. After all, if someone can't afford good medical care, it's always because they didn't work hard enough. Right?
________
Lovely Wendie (http://www.lovelywendie99.com/)

[NYURepublican]

Quote:Like if you get into a serious accident, and need immediate medical care, you can go to any hospital, and get treated right away without too much of a hassle.

News flash: It's already like that in America. You can be treated at any emergency room in the country if you've suffered an accident or serious injury.

Quote:But would you agree that this country NEEDS a health care system that benefits everyone? If you think other countries' universal health care systems are flawed, then why not fix the problems in THIS country?

Sure, health care needs reform. Nobody's arguing that. But you prove my point: other countries' compulsory health care systems are flawed; we don't need to make our own system worse by becoming more like theirs. For all the complaining that goes on, the US still has pretty much the best quality of health care in the world.

Quote:But the chilling thing to think about is how many people (forgive me, but mostly republicans) seem to think that in order to give the most deserving people the best medical care, we have to deny it to everyone else.

You really don't seem to be understanding what "universal" health care is all about. Yes, everyone should have access to adequate health care. But there is no such thing as a free lunch. "Free" health care is not free; it's health care that somebody else pays for. That someone else is the taxpayer. If you want universal/compulsory health care, you have to be willing to assume the massive costs associated with it; that includes tremendous tax hikes and putting a lot of doctors out of business because they won't be able to compete with the government. Again, look to Canda: that's exactly what's happening there.

If you want to see the effects of socialist health care in the United States, check out the government's Veterans health care plan. It's a train wreck. The government will only pay for the absolute cheapest doctors/hospitals/drugs/medical treatments, and since vets have no where else to turn, they end up waiting weeks and weeks for shitty care. More government tinkering in the health care system, like Dean wants, is not the answer.
________
Hurt From Paxil (http://www.classactionsettlements.org/lawsuit/paxil/)

[Mylezylez]

So you're denouncing of a universal health care system comes from your cynicism about the government????

Do you honestly believe this country would be a better place if corporations ran the everything? That's pretty insane if you ask me. If you don't think corporations are corrupt, you're probably a CEO, or at least fooling yourself.

But anyway, the major flaw in your reasoning is that the very reason why nations exist, is to pool people's resources so we can better ourselves. In other words, instead of me having to pay $100,000 (a VERY realistic figure) for a medical procedure, every tax payer shoulders the burden (and it REALLY wouldn't raise taxes that much. We already pay less taxes than any other industrialized nation), which is MINIMUM.
________
JUSTIN BIEBER (http://justinbieberfan.info/)

[NYURepublican]

Quote:So you're denouncing of a universal health care system comes from your cynicism about the government????

Why is that so hard to believe?

Quote:Do you honestly believe this country would be a better place if corporations ran the everything? That's pretty insane if you ask me. If you don't think corporations are corrupt, you're probably a CEO, or at least fooling yourself.

Did I say corporations should rule the world? All I'm saying is that I'd rather that private citizens have the final say on their on own health care, not the government. Think about the type of treatment you get at the DMV. Is that how you want your medical care to be?

You liberals seem to have this bizarre paranoia about the word "privatization". It doesn't mean handing control of everything over to big business, it just means letting Americans make their own decisions about their medical treatment, instead of being stuck with a one-size-fits-all government plan. That doesn't mean that the government can't play a limited, specific role in the health care process; however, universal health care will be an enormous entitlement that will be bust the federal budget beyond repair, and it will be impossible to scale back.

Edited by: NYURepublican at: 6/25/03 9:36 pm

________
PAXIL LAWYER (http://www.classactionsettlements.org/lawsuit/paxil/)

[Mylezylez]

Well first of all, corporations (in general) only care about profits. I think that's VERY evident today with the abominations that HMOs are capable of.

Isn't the government supposed to care about all of us? I mean, what good is government at all if it doesn't serve the needs of the people. These days it seems like a political office is regarded as a business opportunity (do you deny it?).

I really strongly feel that one of the biggest problems in this country is our corporate globalization.

I mean, the US have staged coups, started wars, engaged in "nation building", and all manner of other foreign policy disasters, all in the name of American business interests. And you think the country would be better if the government let itself dissolve and hand all of our most important publican services to corporations?

Have you WORKED for a major corporation?
________
Weed (http://wwweed.com/)

[NYURepublican]

I repeat:

Quote:You liberals seem to have this bizarre paranoia about the word "privatization". It doesn't mean handing control of everything over to big business, it just means letting Americans make their own decisions about their medical treatment, instead of being stuck with a one-size-fits-all government plan. That doesn't mean that the government can't play a limited, specific role in the health care process; however, universal health care will be an enormous entitlement that will bust the federal budget beyond repair, and it will be impossible to scale back.


________
Live Sex (http://livesexwebshows.com/)

[Mylezylez]

that's nice to say, but this administration's plan DOES include handing over public services to private corporations.

That's exactly what is happening!

And the "choice" that Mr Bush and yourself seem to covet so much sounds a lot like the choice between Coke and Pepsi. They both rot your teeth and make you fat.

Not an entirely innaccurate analogy, since there's so much corruption in corporate America today.
________
Prilosec Class Action Lawsuit (http://www.classactionsettlements.org/lawsuit/prilosec/)

[NYURepublican]

Quote:And the "choice" that Mr Bush and yourself seem to covet so much sounds a lot like the choice between Coke and Pepsi. They both rot your teeth and make you fat.

Let the record reflect that I am not in fact pleased with the Medicare bill that is working its way through Congress and that the President has endorsed. Originally, Bush's plan called for the government to stimulate market incentives, but now it seems both Republicans and Democrats are both on board in the Senate to pass a gigantic socialist scheme that indeed will give a lot to the elderly today, at the great expense of future generations who will be burdened with paying for it. It's all in the name of politics; both parties would rather hurriedly pass a crap bill with the words "drug benefit" in it so they can get the AARP vote rather than take their time and pass something that includes some real reform and sticks to free market principles. Unless something gives, we are on track to pass a huge, bipartisan blunder of a bill that we will all be paying for for a long, long time.
________
WASHINGTON MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES (http://washington.dispensaries.org/)

[theolock]

You know, I'm struck not so much by the pro- and anti-Dean arguments as I am struck by how repulsive (exception for the thoughtful contribution of HSenior) the tone of the anti-Dean arguments is. If "hippy," "communist" and "kick him in the n**s" is all you can manage to write, then you're really letting your ignorance show.

I'm not a Dean supporter, but after reading the superficial and petty way that his conservative detractors are reacting to him, I can only say that my skepticism toward George W. Bush's constituency grows.

Theodiclus Lock

P.S. HSenior, I believe Dean's argument was that the deficits accumulated in the 80s had a lingering effect on interest rates AFTER they occurred. That's what deficits do: force us to pay loads of interest after we've borrowed. So in that context Dean's comment makes more sense.

[ACELAW]

You're right that health care should be affordable, but how are you
|> >going to do that? Are you going to just tell every health care provider
|> >"Ok, you're going to get a pay cut"
|>
|> Some physicians make too much, but some, for example pediatricians and
|> family practitioners, are underpaid for what they do. Even if you cut
|> the salaries of all physicians in half, the savings would be eaten up by
|> inflation in one year. We get less than 10% of the health care dollar.
|> Pharmaceutical costs are about 4%, so keeping drug costs down may help,
|> but not much. The biggest chunk of the healthcare dollar, about half of
|> the difference between what we spend (about 15% of the GNP) and what the
|> Canadians spend (9% of the GNP) goes to administrative and insurance
|> costs that don't exist under a single-payer system.

Wrong. We spend twice the money per capita and in some instances get
10 times the service. Example CA has same population as Canada. Canada
has 40 MRI machines, CA has 400! Now, they may not "need" 400 MRI machines
in CA, but the fact is they are getting 10 times as much for roughly
twice the cost (assuming CA's expenditures are roughly the same as the
national average).

If there is "too much" service or machines or whatever out there, then
your plan will have to ration it in order to cut costs. This is where
you will find out if people "need" those 390 extra MRI machines or not.

I DO happen to think we do have "too much" avialable, the problem is that
the options are set by malpractice law rather than choice. If I wanted
to wait an extra week to get an MRI to save money (because say my low
cost hospital decided to line up for a local machine's use rather than
buy one of its own) that hospital would soon be trashed in the courts
the first time someone developed a chronic problem during that one week.
"Other hospitals would not have had to wait, thus your hosptial must
have been negligent" and so on.

We spend more PER CAPITA on admin/paperwork but deliver MORE CARE PER
CAPITA. Thus the paperwork per care delivered is what should be
compared. When I say more care, I don't only mean "we get sick/hurt more
often" but that when we do, we get more care (perhaps unnecessarily)
per sickness. "More care" includes things like not having to wait a
week or month for the same procedures. This of course, is NOT measured
by how happy people are with their level of care, but by how much
time, labor, machine hours, etc. we use per patient illness. You don't
pay for your level of happieness, you pay for the time/labor/machines.

Add in the fact that prevention (low cost) care has been driven out
by the government regulations, and you may well have a case that we
do in fact get sick systematically more often (or at least get worse off
before the sickness is treated). None of which is caused by the market.

|> If the goal of
|> health care reform is to provide universal coverage while maintaining
|> quality and controlling costs, it seems crazy to invite the insurance
|> companies to continue to have their cut. Those who insist that "the
|> market" will control costs better than "the government" can need to
|> explain where the salaries of all those folks working for insurance
|> companies are going to come from, and also explain why Medicare is one
|> of the most efficiently run insurance programs when compared to private
|> insurance.

The high cost of care comes from the high volume of care (measured in
nuber of tests given, waiting periods, quality of machines, quality
of hospital surroundings, ease of use, etc.) that is given per
capita. The market has already made this high volume of care cost
less than with single payer system -- in MRI's at least, the factor
is 5 (i.e. CA could offer 40 machines at about 1/10 their current spending
meaning 1/10 * 2 times Canda's cost = 1/5 Canada's cost to provide
the equivalent service.)

Sure we spend more, but we get more too, much of it preventable, or
unnecessary when compared to lower cost alternatives. My thesis is
that if the Canadian system tried to give the same level of care
to Canadians as the US gives to Americans, the Candian system would
be in far greater crisis than our own. It is a tribute to the market
that it has absorbed so much of the problems for so long that we
didn't notice what we were doing to ourselves until now!

________
M113 engine (http://www.mercedes-wiki.com/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_M113_engine)

[Jane Ross]

I'm an Independent, and I think Howard Dean is great.

[new2me]

I'm and independent and non affiliated voter. I think Howard Dean is a half step from being a full fledged communist. He is a danger for my country. This will make him popular with the controling faction of the Democrat Party the radical far left wing.
________
Yamaha ttr125 (http://www.cyclechaos.com/wiki/Yamaha_TTR125)

[Mr Bocce]

Sounds like you have no idea of what a Communist is. Also sounds like you don't know anything about Howard Dean either. I guess for some extremists out there their way is to attack any person who is from a different party than their own. People like that are sheep.

[Whatever]

new2me is right. if you look at Dean's platform and what he pledges to do as pres - repeal all the Bush tax cuts, establish universal health care, raise the minimum wage - it's clear that his agenda means increasing government power.

new2me's only flaw is in his/her choice of the communist label(a minor one, I might add, considering how the labels are used nowadays). true communism - as Marx defined it - is pretty much a utopia where everyone shares and a gov isn't necessary. however, lots of "communist" govs (China, former USSR, Cuba) are really socialist - aka lots and LOTS of gov control ad nauseum. considering that communism - in its pure form - has never worked and there are lots of socialist regimes calling themselves communist, new2me's error is understandable and easy to make.

back to Dean, seems to me what he needs is a lesson in basic economics. beats me how raising the minimum wage and repealing billions in tax cuts is supposed to help the economy, since history shows that raising the minimum wage = higher unemployment rates (which result in those unfortunate families saving $$ and not pouring it into the economy) and tax cuts = economic boost (since people who don't have much $$ are more careful about what they buy and they don't pour much $$ into the economy either)

Mr Bocce - it was careless of you to label new2me as a partisan extremist when new2me said that he/she was an independent and a non-affiliated voter. seems to me that you should also study up on some economic theory before accusing other people of mislabeling
________
Honda Cbf Series History (http://www.honda-wiki.org/wiki/Honda_CBF_series)

[small gov lover]

thankx, NYU republican, for your analysis of health care. it was exactly correct. the problem with gov - in general - is that there is no motivation to be efficient. anyone who knows anything about gov knows that it takes forever for the gov to do anything. legislation can be stalled for months (or years) before it is passed or tabled. red tape stalls the show...and what happens when a promised program runs behind schedule? parties blame each other for the hold-up.

now look at the private sector. if two companies offer identical products but one will arrive at your doorstep in three days and the other company takes a week to deliver the same item, it doesn't take genius to understand that if company 2 doesn't speed up delivery, they're going to lose customers to company 1. so in the private sector, efficiency is a life or death matter - since your company's profits are at stake. gov has no such motivation.

i'll go a step further. in comparison to gov, its common knowledge that when a product or service is put in the private sector, the market competition drives the quality and efficiency up and the price down. privitazation of health care will result in the repetition of the same trend.

[I agree with NYUrepublica]

so why do the republicans in new york act that way? why can't they act like real republicans instead of rinos?

where's the courage?

[bfp]

bring back rudy giuliani......

[number 6]

This republican thinks the Democratic party is headed for a political trainwreck if Howard Dean is the nominee. Northeastern Liberals do not play well with Middle American voters. In fact, we have not elected a Northeastern candidate of any stripe in 40 years. Look for Bush to repeat Teddy Roosevelt's big victory of 1904.

On election night, the biggest smile will not be on Karl Rove's face. That distinction will belong to the Clinton's.
They stand to be the true winners of the Democratic trainwreck. The party must turn to them to rebuild itself.
Their 2008 strategy is on its way, but remember one thing, Senator Clinton is now a Northeastener.

[Re The goodwill of Republ]

Not at all. I would be much more nervous if they were throwing their support to someone eminently more electable, like Joe Lieberman. Dean fever...catch it!

[The Nirvana of a Good Man]

Excellent...

[Re: The Nirvana of a Good]

Whatever made you think I had the Democratic party's best interest at heart? I hope Dean is the nominee. George Bush will win 40 states if that happens. In the interim, Hillary will take the Democrats far to the left,away from the mainstream.
In 2008, Gulliani, Ridge or Rice will beat Hillary and insure Republican control of the White House until 2012. So by all means , nominate Howard Dean.

[NYURepublican]

Number 6:

Here's hoping it's Condi in '08!
________
Nexium Class Action Lawsuit (http://www.classactionsettlements.org/lawsuit/nexium/)

[number 6]

Disgruntled, you forgot about Maryland, Mass, Rhode Island and the people's Republic of Washington DC.
The progressive wing of the Democratic Party just does not seem to understand that Northeastern liberals are not popular with the American voter. That's ok, let them continue down the path they have chosen.
Condi Rice is on the ticket in 2008( '04 if Cheney retires).
as VP or maybe the front seat. The question is, will the progressives view that as "diversity"? I don't think so.

[WantaghDem]

[condoleeza rice on GOP ticket in 2008]

"will the progressives view that as "diversity"?"

Will we view a lying half-wit with a speech impediment the size of Montana as "diversity"?

No, we'll view it as a "Dems Win in 2008"!

Bring ol' mumblin' condi on!
________
MERCEDES-BENZ SLR MCLAREN (http://www.mercedes-wiki.com/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_SLR_McLaren)

[NYURepublican]

The Dems would do well to be afraid of Condi as a future candidate. As a, female minority Republican, she could lock up the votes of many beyond the traditional GOP base. The black voting trend is already moving away from the Democrats, although they still need about 85-90% of the black vote to remain a formidable party. Condi could shatter that voting bloc, meaning instant GOP victory.

Then again, I guess if you can't impeach her credentials or her appeal, you can always childishly make fun of the way she talks. She always sounds very intelligent to me though, considering she does have that Ph.d.
________
CumIn5Mins live (http://camslivesexy.com/cam/CumIn5Mins)

[WantaghDem]

Then again, if you can't elect a single black person to a national - or even federal - office, you can just make up numbers to pretend that it isn't true.

Not only would Condoleeza Rice get almost NO votes from blacks, there is NO WAY that the "traditional" GOP base would EVER actually VOTE for a BLACK WOMAN, no matter how white she actually looks.

This "traditional base" is the same one that believes the wife should be obedient to the husband and place herself under his authority; the same GOP base that believes that cross-burning isn't really a hate-crime; the same GOP base that thinks that welfare is predominantly urban minorities (it's not; it's suburb and rural whites).

The same GOP that could list under its umbrella of affiliated organizations the KKK, White Pride, White Power, the Southern Baptist Convention, the Christian Coalition, and any other right-wing hate group.

Yeah, THAT traditional GOP base would fall all over themselves to vote for a BLACK WOMAN.

If there's one voting block in this country that sees through the BS of Republican politics, it's the black vote.

You never had it, you don't have it now, and you'll never have it.


And she WOULD sound intelligent to you. That's not a badge, by the way. It's a deficiency.

Did you go to Mass today - or are you as much of a hypocrite with your magic rituals as you are with promises not to respond to me?
________
red head girl Webcam (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/webcam/redhead-girls/)

[number 6]

Talk about self incrimination, you have exposed yourself as a classic "progressive". Where is your "tolerance" of those holding different viewpoints.
To you,ALL conservatives are uneducated Neanderthals that are incapable of any rational,cogent thought.To you all republicans have a white sheet in their closet and a copy of Mein Kampf on their nightstand. Oh, and I particularly enjoyed that anti Catholic jibe. Do you specialize in anti-Catholicism or are all religions for the "weak minded"?
By the way, when did the Black vote become the exclusive property of the Democratic Party? The fact is, Condi Rice is your biggest nightmare. When the Republican party nominates a black woman for national office, the Dems will have some explaining to do.

[Hooah]

"Senator Clinton is now a Northeastener."

With roots in Illinois and Arkansas.

Northeast, Midwest and South. Not bad roots for a presidential candidate. Remember, she only needs to sway 3% of the voters (The Hillary poll: 48% love her - 48% hate her - 4% are undecided). The current Democratic presidential candidates wish they had her numbers.

A running mate from the West could make for a formidable ticket. She could even do it as late as next February. Keep watching.