Bush Plans Destruction of Heatlh Care in America
Jenn
Bush has picked Thomas Scully, the president of the powerful for-profit
hospital lobby to run Medicare and Medicaid. Scully can be expected to turn
Medicare over to the HMO's, which get rich by denying needed care - and
cannot be sued because Republicans have blocked the Patients' Bill of
Rights. He will prevent the government from purchasing prescription drugs in
bulk, in order to protect the obscene profits of the drug industry. And he
will have the full backing of the New York Times, which has assigned the
media whore Robert Pear to cover this story. Pear is the reporter who
single-handedly pushed the destruction of the welfare system through
Congress with his purely propagandistic reporting............
--
Jenn
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/cta/progs/newsnight/palast.ram
http://democrats.com
http://members.tripod.com/classicliberal/classicliberal
"Bush speaks movingly of the hordes lined up at 3 and 4 a.m. for free dental
services offered by a religious charity in Texas, but he says nothing about
expanding funding to provide health care for the millions of uninsured
Americans. We shouldn't only be praising the few valiant dentists pulling
molars on their free time; we should be lamenting the fact that we consign
so many struggling Americans to scrounging a handout for care that in other
countries is a birthright.
Some of us don't need a Bible to tell us that's immoral. "
Debra Dickerson writing for Salon
Jenn
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/04/politics/04HEAL.html
"Jenn" <moon...@my-deja.copyright2001altrightsreserved> wrote in message
news:...
John S. Dyson
"Jenn" <moon...@my-deja.copyright2001altrightsreserved> writes:
>
> Bush Plans Destruction of Heatlh Care in America
>
The difference between extreme claims from the Demoncrats and those
from the Republicans is that the claims from the GOP are a direct
accounting and result of actual Democrat activities.
The Democrats have to make up weird stories against the GOP just so
that the GOP might be made to seem to be nearly as bad as the Democrats
really are.
The ONLY constituency that the Democrats might attain by the nonsense
that they espouse are the idiots and insane idealogues that they rely
on. There is an obvious self-hatred felt by the Demoncrats, and they hate
the life that our wonderful system has provided for them. The system
isn't perfect, but to try to destroy it won't solve the problems.
The biggest fear of the Demoncrats in the near future would be a result
of better education in the lower and middle income groups. With critical
thinking skills, the constituencies will be lost to the Dems. For
some evidence in that regard, note that the Democrats do fairly poorly
in the young, college grad age groups... The Dems are VERY fearful of real
people, who are aware of the world, and the Dems are very fearful of a
free person's critical thinking skills.
I remember the old complaint against the Rush Limbaugh crew that they
are mind-numbed robots. In reality, it is a diluded view of themselves
by the Democrat undereducated, and pseudo-aware (the typical Democrat.)
Given enough time, the very people that the Democrats have been able to
lie to for the last 40yrs will look back and realize what has happened.
The issue is even more clear when it is obvious that some of the worst
aspects of Jim Crow were continued and perpetuated by Democrat programs
in the 1960's. Those few people in the Democrat party who have honest
liberal values will eventually look at the damage that they have caused
to at least two generations of our 'brothers and sisters', and hang their
head in shame.
The GOP isn't a perfect party when it comes to 'liberal' values, but
the GOP is also a very egalitarian party, and expects people to stand
on their own two feet, respecting themselves primarily and the rest
of the country. The Democrats have planned the methodical destruction
of the Black middle class, and have maintained programs to make the
black man feel weak. Note that the very late 1970's and the early
1980's showed the first fruit of the Democrat destruction of the Black
family relationships (and some white families were also destroyed
as a side-effect.) NOONE gains from the destructive, personal weakening
policies of the Democrats.
A little bit of liberalism is good, but the aims of the Democrats have
obviously NOT been liberalism, but cynical control and manipulation of
the system. The weaker and more dependent that you can keep the Black
man, the better chances that he'll respond to a superficial offer of
help.
The GOP and other relatively more honest parties won't lie to people
in the intimate way of Demoncrats, and cheapen the constituency. The
Democrats' time is coming, and lies like this claim about the
destruction of the health care system only show the perpetuation of the
disinformation and manipulation of the stupid.
John
Steven D. Litvintchouk
>
> Bush Plans Destruction of Heatlh Care in America
> Bush has picked Thomas Scully, the president of the powerful for-profit
> hospital lobby to run Medicare and Medicaid. Scully can be expected to turn
> Medicare over to the HMO's, which get rich by denying needed care - and
> cannot be sued because Republicans have blocked the Patients' Bill of
> Rights.
Before democrats.com start fear-mongering, they should get their facts
straight.
Bush is supportive of the original BIPARTISAN Breaux-Frist approach to
Medicare (though perhaps with some tweaking).
http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/03/06/bush.medicare.ap/index.html
Breaux is, of course, a DEMOCRAT--but Clinton and Gore refused to
endorse the Breaux-Frist approach because he wanted to play on the fears
of seniors for political purposes. So now Bush supports Breaux's
approach to Medicare, in return for Breaux having voted for Ashcroft.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email: s...@mitre.org
Disclaimer: As far as I am aware, the opinions expressed
herein
are not those of my employer.
Jenn
"Steven D. Litvintchouk" <s...@mitre.org> wrote in message
news:3AA573DE...@mitre.org...
> Jenn wrote:
> >
> > Bush Plans Destruction of Heatlh Care in America
> > Bush has picked Thomas Scully, the president of the powerful for-profit
> > hospital lobby to run Medicare and Medicaid. Scully can be expected to
turn
> > Medicare over to the HMO's, which get rich by denying needed care - and
> > cannot be sued because Republicans have blocked the Patients' Bill of
> > Rights.
>
> Before democrats.com start fear-mongering, they should get their facts
> straight.
> Bush is supportive of the original BIPARTISAN Breaux-Frist approach to
> Medicare (though perhaps with some tweaking).
> http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/03/06/bush.medicare.ap/index.html
>
> Breaux is, of course, a DEMOCRAT--but Clinton and Gore refused to
> endorse the Breaux-Frist approach because he wanted to play on the fears
> of seniors for political purposes.
No they refused to support it because the Breaux plan is the republican
plan, and like most republican plans, it enriches insurance companies, and
reduces the quality of care for actual sick people.
So now Bush supports Breaux's
> approach to Medicare, in return for Breaux having voted for Ashcroft.
and you call him a democrat. Real democrats don't exist to compromise with
conservatives. You have stated yourself you don't want us to have any
power. One cannot compromise with this point of view. One can only oppose
it.
Mark Metzler
> that the GOP might be made to seem to be nearly as bad as the Democrats
> really are.
I noticed that you didn't provide any evidence to refute the claims.
Which pieces of information are you denying, and on what grounds?
*********************
Countdown to booting out the rancid right in the next election!!!
All it will take is 5 more votes!!!
F.E.P.O.
part of the 'reason' that blacks are arrested more often for so-called hate
crimes...
...and what 'evidence' did you provide? Nada. Nothing. Zilch.
Care to provide some evidence, before you ask others to do the same?
F.E.P.O.
Responding to: Blacks Arrested More for 'Hate Crimes'
"Mark Metzler" <mmet...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Could you be part of the reason???
JD
"Mark Metzler" <mmet...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:ydgp6.7808$qv3.3...@nnrp5-w.sbc.net...
> > The Democrats have to make up weird stories against the GOP just so
> > that the GOP might be made to seem to be nearly as bad as the Democrats
> > really are.
>
>
> I noticed that you didn't provide any evidence to refute the claims.
> Which pieces of information are you denying, and on what grounds?
>
are obviously bogus, with no backing information, this falls directly into
the Demoncrat disinformation syndrome.
Sometimes the Demoncrats do provide pointers to sources, but those sources are
almost never unbiased. The other dirty trick played by *both* sides is taking
statements and claims out of context. When carefully reading and keeping up with
the media and other information sources, it is quite clear that the Democrats are
the least accurate in providing information.
The incredible claim that Bush plans to destroy health care is typical of Demoncrat
disinformation. Such strong claims require clear and irrefutable evidence, and historically,
the Democrats who espouse such claims have either been rather dishonest, quoted dishonest
sources, or quoted incompetent sources.
My recent arguments against the Democrat strategy is clearly based upon the fact that
their rhetorical appeal is directed towards those who are essentially incapable of critical or
independent thought. By being a Democrat constituent, it is becoming more and more
clear that an individual is admitting to mental and/or political incompetence.
The only Democrats who I currently applaud (and probably other honest, middle of the road
people can likely applaud) are those who are working within the party to improve the
standards of the philosophy, rhetoric, honesty and behavior. It is very wrong to hurt
those in the party who are really trying to improve the standards of the Democrats. If
a person is generally a GOP partisan, for example, it wiill do the GOP long-term good to
have a more honest opponent.
The entire country will win IF the Democrats play a more honest game, thereby raising the
criteria of both (all) parties. I am not satisfied with the GOP either, but it is doing as well as
it can in the honesty arena as long as it's primary rival is so very corrupt. IT IS NOT the
Democrats fault that the GOP has it's problems, but the GOP does have a goal of participating
in the government, and if there will be even a slight amount of honesty in the Am. government
and politics, the GOP will have to be a significant participant.
Even the (honest) Democrat constituents must realize that the GOP is keeping the Democrats
from being absolutely powerful and absolutely corrupt. The corruption is essentially a result
of a 'roll of the dice', and the Reagan victory caused enough fear in the Democrats, they realized
that they couldn't win in fair, legal and equitable elections, with honest rhetoric and agenda.
Being wonderful at tactics, and having some of the best experts at pshchological manipulation,
the Democrats have even been effective at manipulating the parts of society that have been
the worst damaged by the Democrats: The Working Class, Admirable Black Man.
With a little bit of faith, and a serious house cleaning (including using Clorox where Clinton
had been left alone :-)), the Democrats can again be a party where high-quality, slightly left
of center, caring individual can honestly participate. As it is, if people actually reflected
on what the GOP is today (not 50yrs ago), an honest liberal person can participate in the GOP,
and be listened to. There is little that the GOP hates except liars, traitors, un-repentant felons,
and other creeps like that. If you want to look for an inclusive party that is TRYING to improve
itself, the Democrat party isn't it.
There is NO NEED for one party to be totally polarized against the other. In the case of the
GOP, you can easily find that there are many UPSTANDING centrists and near center liberals.
Dishonest people in the GOP, who 'do the wrong thing', often do get punished or drummed
out. I am not talking about SEX, or other silly things like that. All by itself, SEX is neutral,
and the GOP knows that. It is the weirdness and corruption that seems to be associated
with Democrat sex that causes apolitical problems for the Democrats. As a side-effect of
the apolitical (legal) damage that wierd behavior causes the Democrats, the GOP will certainly
take advantage of it. Frankly, having an unbalanced or emotionally immature person as
head of state isn't a 'political' problem (in the sense of elections and competition), but it
is a serious problem for the rational and reasonable management of the country.
It is so funny to see the comparisons between Bush and Clinton, where the complaints
about Bush usually sound SOMETHING like this: (Bush did this 20yrs ago... Bush's kid
did this or that... Bush was born with a silver spoon in his mouth... Bush's wife did this
or that when she was much younger...) About Clinton it is more about crimes and/or
behaviors within the statute of limitations, within his most recent political jobs: (Clinton
cannot keep his pants on in the Oval office, messing with a young EMPLOYEE... Clinton
pardoned someone who has renounced his US citizenship (asking for no more US rights)...
Clinton wants an expensive office in NYC (of all places $$$.)... Clinton still lies about
helping Blacks... Clinton still calls himself Black... Clinton has recently taken huge gifts
from rich people who he has helped, obvious quid-pro-quo... Clinton has taken money from
serious non-friendly gov'ts... Clinton has started international actions, killing civilians,
during times of HIS OWN political problems MORE THAN ONCE... Using bad judgement, he
pushed the Israel/Palestinian peace process too hard before the end of his term -- seriously jeopardizing
the outcome...).
So, the argument is somewhat like:
Bush did some silly/stupid things when he was younger. Bush finally grew out of most of
his problems.
Clinton did some silly/stupid things when he was younger. Clinton might be a little better
(not commiting more rapes), but he still has serious problems.
When comparing the two, Bush isn't so awfully bad. Admittedly, Gore might be a creep,
but he isn't a perv like our previous president was.
John
jer
weddings, but when push comes to shove, I find I pretty much have to go with
the GOP in most elections. We've only just begun to read and hear the off
the wall stuff come from the Dems due to their inability to shed bill from
their history, and also because of their confusion over Bush. I find it
highly entertaining and wonderful again to watch the news shows...(g)
"JD" <dy...@jdyson.com> wrote in message
news:jOhp6.207$l5.5...@news1.iquest.net...