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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Selectric II who wrote (50787)	10/23/2000 12:27:58 AM
From: puborectalis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

ST.LOUIS POST today.......Al Gore for president ELECTION 2000 THE AMERICAN PEOPLE should elect Al Gore because he is far better prepared to be president than Gov. George W. Bush and because he believes that government can be a positive force in people's lives. Mr. Gore has prepared for this daunting job for three decades. He served as one of the most influential members of Congress, taking the lead on arms control, the environment and -- yes -- the development of the military computer system that was a precursor of the Internet. Then, as one of history's most active vice presidents, he led the effort to cut the size of government. Mr. Bush, his likable opponent, doesn't have what it takes. His resume is thin and his command of issues is thinner. This is a man who governs the biggest state in the lower 48 from 9-5, with two hours out for lunch. Working stiffs should have it so good. Ralph Nader is an attractive alternative. There is some truth in his analysis of how corporate America corrupts the political process. But his opposition to free trade runs against the tide of history. A vote for Mr. Nader is, effectively, a vote for Mr. Bush. Mr. Gore believes in an activist government that helps teach the poorly educated, treat the poorly cared for and level the playing field between the haves and have-nots. Regrettably, Mr. Gore sometimes sounds as though he is passing out candy. He should better explain the uniting vision behind the many programs. Mr. Bush's compassionate conservatism is a welcome departure from the hard-right slant of the GOP. Mr. Bush is to the GOP what Bill Clinton was to the Democrats -- a moderating influence who makes the party presentable in public. If Mr. Gore loses, it will probably be because of a smarmy streak and lingering doubts about his ethics. Mr. Gore isn't nearly as likable as Mr. Bush. Moreover, the GOP and their propagandists have done a spectacular job making out Mr. Gore as a liar. During the debates, much was made of Mr. Gore exaggerating how long a girl had to stand without a desk in a Sarasota, Fla. school. The local newspaper reported that the girl was one of 12 children in a science classroom without a desk and that the school district had a serious overcrowding problem. Yet, somehow, Mr. Gore is the "serial exaggerator." Meanwhile, Mr. Bush said in the debates that Texas spent $4.7 billion on the uninsured, when the amount was $1.2 billion. He said he engineered passage of a patients' bill of rights in Texas, when he body-slammed it. He smirked in the second debate when talking about executions, and then denied he had. What's important is what the men would do as president. It matters that Mr. Bush doesn't support the Norwood-Dingell version of the Patients' Bill of Rights because it has the broadest coverage and strongest right to sue. Mr. Gore is for middle class tax cuts rather than the $1.3 trillion cut that Mr. Bush admits would benefit the rich. Mr. Gore would create a Medicare entitlement for prescription drugs, while Mr. Bush would rely on private firms that could leave their members high and dry by getting out of the business. Mr. Gore would use the national surplus to bolster Social Security; Mr. Bush would divert some of that money through partial privatization. Mr. Gore opposes school vouchers; Mr. Bush supports them. Mr. Gore would address global warming and bar oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, while Mr. Bush doesn't know if global warming is real and is ready to drill. Mr. Gore favored the use of the military to stop ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, while Mr. Bush had reservations. Mr. Gore would spend more on the military than Mr. Bush, but Mr. Bush claims, falsely, that the military isn't prepared. A crucial issue is the Supreme Court, where changes in the makeup of the court can alter our fundamental charter of government. If Mr. Bush clones Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, the court will read the right to abortion out of the Constitution, knock holes in the wall between church and state and continue to cut back Congress' power to promote equality. We cannot let that happen.

To: Selectric II who wrote (50787)	10/23/2000 12:32:31 AM
From: puborectalis	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Gore's bold step on mental health By Thomas Oliphant, Globe Columnist, 6/6/2000 CHEVY CHASE, Md. George W. Bush has come up with a new one, requiring the establishment of a new category of campaign babbling that might be called the politics of condescension. Not daring to attack an important initiative by Al Gore on an issue that hits 10 million American families every year - mental illness - the Texas governor let it be known that he ''appreciates'' the vice president's move. To give a nice twist to his condescension, he made clear that he ''appreciates'' Tipper Gore's involvement as well. His campaign pointed out that the proposal the Gores made resembles 31 state laws in the crusade to give serious mental illness ''parity'' in insurance coverage with other diseases and that one of those laws, in Texas, was ''signed'' by Bush - another astonishing attempt by Bush to claim credit for legislation originated and fought for by others. Behind this junk, however, lies the fact that Governor Bush does not support what the vice president advocates. Bush isn't aboard this bipartisan bandwagon for two reasons - business and ideology. Big Insurance and its Big Employer allies have the false belief that discrimination against the mentally ill saves them money, and Bush's conservative ideology opposes expansion of insurance coverage via any mechanism other than tax credits that block that expansion for all save the already comfortable. The result leaves Gore with an opening for what might be called the politics of advocacy. Because of Bush's commitment to cutting the top income tax rates and the huge revenue implications, his campaign is silent on scores of domestic issues which moderate Republicans typically support. Mental health is a classic case in point. As Tipper Gore notes, about one in five Americans experiences the symptoms of one of the major mental illnesses each year, but more than two-thirds of them get no treatment. More specifically, 8 million people each year (3 million of them children) suffer acute manifestations of these illnesses, and insurance industry discrimination is at the root of nontreatment. Like all discrimination it is pound foolish, given the enormous costs that untreated illness generate on public budgets and the private economy. ''If we talk about a child with diabetes,'' Mrs. Gore says, ''We have to talk about a child with bipolar illness or schizophrenia.'' As a former clinical depression patient, she has provided an excellent illustration for, as she puts it, ''turning private experience into public action.'' She is not unique. The president of the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, Jackie Shannon, is a San Angelo, Texas, activist whose son was diagnosed with schizophrenia 15 years ago; and the leading Senate sponsors of full parity (with 28 supporters to date), Senators Pete Domenici of New Mexico and Paul Wellstone of Minnesota, come to their activism via family experiences. The Gores propose focusing on discrimination against children that would take two forms. One would make the kids brought into the insurance system via the federal-state partnership to expand coverage to working poor and modest-income families eligible for mental health coverage no different from so-called physical health. An additional $2.5 billion over the next 10 years would pay for this as well as more support for community mental health clinics. Gore also advocates a $3,000 annual tax credit against the costs of long-term care. But the biggest change would ban insurance discrimination against all children. The Gores' initiative spells out what it means: The proposal focuses on the most severe and disabling illnesses that have discernible impacts on the brain and are as responsive to treatment as many other diseases. That means bipolar disorder, major depressions, obsessive-compulsive conditions, schizophrenia, and attention deficit and hyperactivity disorders. The Gore proposal would outlaw any insurance restriction on children's care - such as number of doctor visits or days in a treatment facility, or copayment and deductible requirements for care or drugs - that isn't applicable across the board. The push against discrimination is at least a decade old, and is inspired by the battle waged in the 1960s to outlaw insidious cancer exclusions in insurance policies. It began in the states, with parity for government employees, and the pioneer in 1991 was Texas under Governor Ann Richards. There are now 31 state laws requiring full parity, this year's new ones coming in Kentucky, New Mexico, and Massachusetts. Nationally, Domenici and Wellstone won a law banning annual spending and so-called ''lifetime'' caps in policies covering mental illness. And President Clinton this year ordered that the federal workers' insurance program observe parity, affecting 9.5 million workers and retirees. Gore is now pledged to take the next big step. It's nice to know Bush appreciates that. Thomas Oliphant is a Globe columnist. This story ran on page A15 of the Boston Globe on 6/6/2000. © Copyright 2000 Globe Newspaper Company.