SI
SI
discoversearch

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: jttmab who wrote (4981)7/16/2001 6:12:27 PM
From: Lazarus_Long  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 93284
 
I think there were certain members of Congress that were determined to kill any health care proposal that came out of Hillary. Good or bad it didn't make a difference.
There are certain members of Congress who would kill any health care proposal regardless of who authored or sponsored it. If Barry Goldwater or Trent Lott brought it in, they would oppose it.
OTOH if you think the powers of gov't should be limited, maybe that makes sense.

There is no plan that could have been created that wasn't subject to criticism, even honest criticism.
Not so. No plan would be subject to no criticism.

I recall that prior to the health plan, there was at least a public perception [a pretty accurate one] that lobbies have more impact on legislation then is particularly healthy.
Amendment I.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I think this comes under "abridging the freedom of speech" and " petition the Government for a redress of grievances." At what in the wealth scale do you lose freedom of speech? $50 bil? $5 bil? $100?

And among those lobbies with vested interests are AARP, NEA, Sierra Club,.....
Shall they be shut up too?

So Hillary took a tact in the health care initiative to isolate various lobby interests from the drafting of the plan. That tact, logically, I agree with. Politically it was a disaster
Yes, politically that is disaster, as she found out. You cannot realistically expect to ignore people who have an interest in legislation. Particularly if they have $50 bil, and particularly if they are the people and companies directly affected by your legislation. Her thinking she could ignore the entire US medical and pharmaceutical establishments was idiocy.
Addendum: She MIGHT have gotten away with it if she were backed by massive public outrage; she wasn't. People would benefit from a socialized medical system backed her; everybody else (and they are the majority) didn't. So she went down in flames.

Actually, nearly all legislation is drafted in secret; we just don't like to acknowledge it.
In secret from all those vested interests? I doubt it. Not if they can help it. Which they usually can.

There is a current article floating around that address the Administrations consideration of an amnesty program for illegal Mexican aliens;
Apparently Bush wants me to be a Democrat.
Actually, I'd be 100% in favor of freely allowing Mexicans to come to the US and work- -if the Mexican gov't would allow US citizens to do the same. Which it has no intention of doing. It much prefers a one-sided arrangement.

Great! Which team is yours?
The one that's stealing votes from yours. :-)

"Now HERE'S a novel concept! The Veep picking the Prexy!
That was tongue in cheek. I didn't think the brackets would allow you to overlook it though."
Actually, I understood that. It was just TOO GOOD to pass up.

Just a thought. <s>
I did enjoy the British elections, just 5 short and sweet weeks of campaigning. It was a real relief. And very few campaign commercials at that. No one that I heard, in the electorate complained that they didn't get enough information or that it wasn't a long enough campaign season.

Ah, heaven! That would be an excellent British import!