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 : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ecommerceman who wrote (1736)	2/9/2001 12:09:01 AM
From: TimbaBear	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

Al Gore would be President today instead of President-select Smirk if Clinton would have controlled himself.... You don't honestly believe that do you? It had nothing to do with the man who was in the Oval Office, it was all about getting a Republican into it by any means possible. The "Independent" scoundrel, oops, I mean counsel wasn't doing anything but increasing the pressure until something could be found. Look at the results: Whitewater, no findings of any criminal nature for either of the Clintons; Travel-gate, ditto; 900 FBI files, ditto. So they got him, in desperation because the American people were finally getting really sick of all the baselessness, on an ambush....but don't kid yourself, if it wasn't that, it would have been the gifts, or whatever else they could cull together that had some kind of chance of at least appearing plausible if enough Republicans of power chanted the same thing in the national media enough times. Gore got more votes than any President in history with the exception of Reagan, but it wasn't enough to stop the machine. The office of the presidency wasn't hurt so much by it's occupant as by the assault that was mounted against it by the opposition who couldn't win it by popular vote in two elections(and still haven't). Now we will all have to bear with the results of those efforts. I hope all will be well but so far, it's not a very auspicious start. We have a president who was not elected by the majority of the voting citizenry, so he has no mandate to guide him, for his platform was rejected in favor of another. So he is not responsible to the voters, which begs the question: who is he responsible to? He is the president, so he has whatever loyalty I can muster, but I've seen nothing in his actions that gives me more hope for the country's well-being than fear for what harm a puppet-presidency will do. You can demonize the Clintons all you want, and some of it is deserved, but you cannot take away the fact that under his stewardship this country has prospered like never before , and the average American is far better off economically now than when he took office. I hope I can still say the same thing about the effects of Bush's presidency in four years.

To: ecommerceman who wrote (1736)	2/9/2001 9:57:37 AM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

as I wrote earlier, Al Gore would be President today instead of President-select Smirk if Clinton would have controlled himself.... The conservatives were obsessed with trashing and degrading Clinton. If it hadn't have been one thing it would have been another. Don't believe for a moment that Clinton is a victim of his own humanity, he was the victim of a partisan witch hunt. TP

To: ecommerceman who wrote (1736)	2/9/2001 10:21:08 PM
From: Mephisto	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

Gore could have run on Clinton's strong economic performance for the past 8 years. Americans have prospered. Gore wouldn't even let Clinton campaign for him in Arkansas or so I hear. Clinon was wrong when he had an affair with Monica. And his personal behavior is often self-destructive. But when I look at my neighborhood, it has prospered over he past 8 years, and we have a budget surplus instead of a huge budget deficit that Reagan created.

To: ecommerceman who wrote (1736)	2/9/2001 10:22:47 PM
From: Mephisto	Respond to of 93284

Bipartisanship on Patients' Rights February 9, 2001 George W. Bush pledged on the campaign trail to bring Democrats and Republicans together on behalf of a patients' bill of rights. But his failure now to back the sensible bipartisan bill being sponsored by John McCain, John Edwards and others in Congress calls into question the sincerity of his pledge. The legislation, which sponsors say is supported by solid majorities in both chambers, would make it easier for Americans to resolve disputes with their health maintenance organizations and other insurance providers and to seek redress when they have been wrongly denied needed treatment. The House passed a similar bill in the last session, but the effort died in the Senate, strongly opposed by the insurance industry. The bill, called the Patient Protection Act, covers the 160 million Americans who have private health insurance and establishes guidelines for H.M.O.'s and other insurance providers to process requests for coverage. It would grant the insured a right to receive emergency care, visit pediatricians, ob-gyns and other specialists and obtain an outside review by medical experts of any benefit denials. Patients dissatisfied with the outcome of this review could sue their health insurance providers in state court in cases that entail a "medically reviewable" claim. These suits would be subject to any applicable damage caps under state law. Contractual claims against an H.M.O. would have to be brought in federal court and face a $5 million cap. This is a sensible jurisdictional division, reflecting the fact that states have traditionally entertained medical malpractice suits. The Bush administration supports the right to sue in theory, but would like to steer all lawsuits under a patients' bill of rights, whether medical or contractual, to the more defendant-friendly federal courts and impose a lower damages claim. This is an unworkable position that would unnecessarily federalize a whole new area of the law. The White House seemed surprised and a bit riled that Senator McCain would upset the carefully orchestrated theme-of-the-week presidential agenda by jumping ahead to patients' rights during tax- cut week. In fact, that bill is not much different from the Texas law that Mr. Bush lauded on the campaign trail, albeit with a higher cap on punitive damages. On Monday, in another sign that its actions have been less bipartisan than its rhetoric, the administration persuaded Representative Charlie Norwood, a Georgia Republican and the prime sponsor of the bill that passed the House last session, not to sponsor this legislation in the House. Though the congressman remains a supporter of the McCain- Edwards bill, he says he now believes the president ought to be afforded an opportunity to develop his own proposal. But if Mr. Bush is to be a successful president, he must learn to support Congress when it moves in a bipartisan fashion to address a pressing national need, as it seeks to do with this patients' bill of rights. From: The New York Times nytimes.com