Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Al Gore vs George Bush: the moderate's perspective -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ColtonGang who wrote (1051)	10/2/2000 8:49:22 PM
From: puborectalis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10042

"What would be the implications of the Republicans controlling the entire national government? Major damage would undoubtedly be done in the Supreme Court. Three of the current justices are 70 or older. The new president will undoubtedly appoint two or three justices in the next four years. With two or three more conservatives, Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that legalized reproductive rights, would certainly be overturned. A recent report issued by The People for the American Way states that a conservative Supreme Court would outlaw affirmative action “even where it is shown to be carefully constructed to remedy past discrimination.” It would make “cigarette companies virtually immune from most lawsuits,” and would eliminate any possibility of electoral campaign finance reform. Months ago, the white conservative establishment decided that it would back George W. Bush for the presidency, because he was safe, stupid, and willing to serve as a frontman for its reactionary agenda. Bush can babble about “compassionate conservatism” all day long, while the Right prepares for Judgment Day against its enemies....."

To: ColtonGang who wrote (1051)	10/2/2000 9:21:32 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10042

I don't know how much you're getting paid as a doctor David, but the last time I checked, the US healthcare industry was a $1.1 TRILLION market, $500 billion of that from Federal spending alone. hcfa.gov Now if you think a mere $1-2 billion will resolve the problem, I think you need to reassess the data contained in that link. Again, that the liberal way... Throw money at a problem, especially if it's just the taxpayer dollar.. We don't have to account for that money, now do we? Why don't we just add a 10% tax licensing tax on practicing physicians and then set up an indigent fund.... Isn't that what we essentially claim to do with tobacco? Taxing it with the justification that smokers place a greater burden on the medical system than non-smokers? Too bad smokers die earlier than non-smokers, or else they actually might have a logical argument.