<<Richard you are talking nonsense.Break down your sweeping assertions about Gore one by one - wuth some evidence for your wild claims>>
Hardly as wild as you claim.
Here is proof Gore would have had the Government take over the entire delivery of Health Care in the US:
"Saturday, February 22, 2003
Gore Endorses Canada's Medical System
by William L. Anderson
[Posted November 29, 2002]
In a recent newspaper interview, Al Gore finally came out of the socialist closet and declared that the "solution" to what he deems as a "crisis" in U.S. medical care is for the government to impose a "single payer system." While some folks might consider Gore's remarks a setback to the possibilities of actually establishing free market healthcare in this country, actually I believe it presents an opportunity for advocates of freedom and private property to make the case that should have been made all along.
It would seem to the casual observer that Gore's remarks come at a curious time, his party having suffered some terrible electoral defeats in the last election cycle. Furthermore, a proposal to create a Canadian-like system in leftist Oregon was defeated 80–20 at the polls. Surely if Oregon voters, many of whom are as left-wing as their counterparts in San Francisco, were not willing to impose a socialist system in their state, I doubt that the majority of American voters are going to imitate Canada. Then again, never underestimate the awful possibilities that democracy can create, especially since the driving force of modern politics is raw envy.
At the same time, it seems that Gore has forgotten that the present Republican majorities in Congress are due in large part to the failed "HillaryCare" initiative of nearly a decade ago when the Clinton Administration attempted to de facto nationalize the health care industry. Therefore, it might seem that Gore might be fighting an uphill battle, but I have no doubt that no matter how flawed a proposal he presents, one can count on entities like the New York Times, Washington Post, Time, and the various television news outlets, along with "Public" Television to carry some of the water for socialist medicine. In other words, no matter how bad the argument for government healthcare might be, there are still people out there willing to make it.
Before going further, I need to point out that in politics, marketing an idea is everything. In 1990, Harris Wofford won an upset victory in his bid for U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania, as he campaigned on the theme that since prisoners in Pennsylvania's prisoners received "free" medical care, then all of Pennsylvania's citizens also were deserving of such "free" care. That medical care in prisons is second-rate and is administered to people whose freedom has been taken away did not seem to connect with the enthusiastic voters who somehow believed that they were receiving substandard care while prisoners were having favors lavished upon them.
(Apparently Pennsylvanians conveniently forgot that they, too, could have all the luxuries of prison life, including free housing, three squares a day, and "free" healthcare. All they had to do was to violate the increasing number of criminal statutes churned out by the state legislature or Congress and such luxurious comfort could have been theirs.)
Henry Hazlitt remarked in Economics in One Lesson that the lessons of the "broken window fallacy" must be learned by every generation. Since I doubt that any generation has learned the proper lessons regarding socialist medicine, those of us who understand the real damage that government does in this area must be willing to explain and explain again just why intervention by the state into medical care will result in making things dangerously worse for all of us.
Despite the many disasters of socialized medicine, there are a number of reasons why even the idea of socialized medicine remains popular. I will list some of them, and also give reasons why they are still bad ideas, despite the almost endless procession of advocates.
Socialist Medicine is Egalitarian
It is no secret that most Canadians and Europeans consider themselves to be morally superior to Americans, especially when it comes to their medical care policies. While the actual technical delivery of those policies might differ from country to country, the results pretty much are the same.(cont)
mises.org
Washington
The federal government (with the active support of the Clinton-Gore Administration, Janet Reno, and the U.S. Justice Department), under a recent federal court decision upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, has ordered sixteen Indian Tribes in the Puget Sound region of Washington State to confiscate the property rights and privacy of 200,000 private beach property owners who have lost the quiet use and private enjoyment of their front yards along with the right to exclude others from their property due to a ruling by Judge Edward Rafeedie which granted tribes the right to take privately-owned shellfish from more than 2,000 miles of both public and privately-owned tideland beaches.
unitedpropertyowners.com
For Immediate Release
January 13, 1999
Al Gore Embraces Federal Land Use Control
As Presidential Platform
WASHINGTON (DC)-Vice President Al Gore’s "Livable-Communities Initiative," the final details of which will be announced next week, leaves no doubt that a Gore Administration in 2000 would pose an unprecedented threat to private property rights. The Initiative is a three-part agenda which would entail the use of a federal grant program doling out $10 billion a year of federal tax dollars allowing states and local governments to purchase now privately owned land for public open space areas and parks. It would create federal tax incentives (costing taxpayers another $500 million to $1 billion) for creating more local open space and parks. Last but not least, Gore wants to launch a whole new federal regulatory and administrative regime designed to slow local growth. This, of course, is the heart of the anti-property rights proposal.
This initiative follows Gore’s October 1998 proposal to "save" the Everglades by flooding 170,000 acres of fertile farmland. This plan was just another attempt to confiscate private property without the owners’ consent. The Vice-President’s $8 billion plan to trade farms for swamps will put a severe dent in America’s agricultural productivity.
According to Nancie G. Marzulla, President of Defenders of Property Rights, "This proposal should strike fear in the heart of anyone who believes that the people who live in a community know best how that community should be developed. The notion that a federal bureaucrat in Washington, D.C. should be able to tell residents of Dripping Springs, Texas or Ely, Minnesota whether they can build a grocery store or have a new video store in suburbia is ludicrous."
There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that authorizes federal control over zoning or local land use. In fact, this Fifth Amendment’s Just Compensation Clause demonstrates the opposite. Namely, to the extent that the federal government wishes to control, i.e., act like an owner of private property, it has to purchase property.
Defenders of Property Rights is the only national public interest legal foundation designed to protect private property rights
defendersproprights.org
need I go on? |
