Tuesday’s political round-up

Related to “the Lord”? And what does the primary calendar have to do with the Constitution?

It’s very complex. You’d need Bill Richardson’s wealth of foreign policy experience to understand.

That, or his batteries need replacing.

It didn’t count for much, and none of the top-tier candidates took it seriously, but the Texas Republican Straw Poll was held over the weekend. Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) came out on top, winning 534 votes out of about 1,300 cast. Fred Thompson came in a distant second, followed by Ron Paul.

And it appears that the hardcore Texas GOP didn’t take the “top-tier” candidates seriously either.

Still, 217 of Texas Straw Poll voters cast their votes against American Imperialism and in favor of U.S. Armed Forces Veteran, Dr. Ron Paul.

But loaded, antiquated, Corporate Military Industrial Media-blessed, landline telephone polls count for much? Obviously, the GOP does not have a monopoly on hypocrisy.

Ron Paul is cool:

He’s a pro-lifer who actually introduced legislation defining that life begins at conception.

He’s for defederalizing healthcare – the end of Medicare and Medicaid – that’s no federal healthcare, period.

He wants the US to get out of the UN – The John Birch Society’s most famous advocacy issue.

He will end the solvency of Social Security by allowing workers to choose to opt out of the program.

He supports “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” and opposes any federal support for gay issues.

He voted “yes” on the Fence Bill in support of his anti-immigrant agenda.

I could go on and on about this right wing crackpot, but why bother? He’s cool and I should just get over it.

How badly does Bill Richardson want to compete in Iowa? So badly that he told a Hawkeye crowd yesterday, “Iowa, for good reason, for constitutional reasons, for reasons related to the Lord, should be the first caucus and primary.” Related to “the Lord”? And what does the primary calendar have to do with the Constitution?
And what “good reason” does Iowa have to insist on being before anyone else?

This one is gonna backfire bigtime. — Castor Troy
Doubtful, because it’ll appease the “me first!!” whiners in Iowa and New Hampshire for this (and hopefully the last) time. And the republicans are doing it too.

Maybe Bill Richardson was trying to lampoon the other side, and be a character? Sort of a, ‘If they throw out all these kitchen-sink arguments every time, then I can do it too’-thing? Anyway, Richardson has finally jumped the shark for me.

I wrote off Edwards a while ago, as those who read the comments may remember, and he hasn’t really come nack for me although he’s definitely gotten better, in my opinion, from what I’ve seen since then. I guess the answer to the ‘or what’ is, that you don’t get covered. It seems kind of different from what we’d like, because if state sponsored medical becomes like a right or an entitement, then we don’t like the idea of being required to go to the doctor- we traditionally think of there being a right to refuse medical care. But, as a rhetorical point, it’s good. It’s lets him counter arguments about the cost of the system by letting people know that there’s a way people can be discouraged from driving the cost of the system up by sort of opting for much more expensive corrective care by neglecting their health. It makes him sound tough, to people who are skeptical about state sponsored health care. And at any rate, he can always throw the position away and concede ti to the left of the party later on down the line if everything goes his way. I’m not sure I’d make the same move if I was in his position, but there’s kind of a makes-sense way to look at what he’s doing. If there’s a big problem with it, I don’t see it, right now.

While it makes all kinds of sense that preventive care should be a component of any health care system, Edwards may want to explain what happens if you don’t get that kind of care in the system he is proposing. Maybe it’s higher co-pays or a higher deductible, to cover the inevitable higher cost of care for those who don’t stay on top of things. There are a lot of people who will reflexively resist anything that requires them to do anything they regard as a matter of choice – seat belts and motorcycle/bicycle helmets are an example.

As for Ron Paul – the only issue I can agree with him on is Iraq, and that’s just not enough. I admire him for at least being consistent in his pro-life position by opposing the death penalty, but I cannot support someone who is opposed to women being able to make their own reproductive choices. He may be an OB/GYN, but unless the male docs’ medical licenses are handed out with female reproductive organs, Ron Paul is still just another man with an opinion about something he will never experience and never have to make a decision about.

Over the weekend, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards pledged not to campaign in Florida, Michigan, or any other states trying to leapfrog the 2008 primary calendar.

I hope that Dennis Kucinich can seize upon this opportunity to differentiate himself from the aforementioned establishment candidates in the states that they plan on sitting out. For example, he should emphasize his vote against the “Patriot” Act, whereas Hillary Clinton voted against the “delicate sensibilities” of the Constitution and in favor of the Enabling Act II (I guess that’s what she calls “Strength, Experience”).

We need leadership like Dennis Kucinich has demonstrated in his submission of House Resolution 333 to impeach Richard Bruce Cheney for his unlawful threats against Iran, to restore the Constitution, and to hold the Bush Laden Crime Family responsible for their capital crimes.

Haik Bedrosian, #4

Brilliant! Isn’t Richardson pretty much toast by now? How many gaffes does it take?

Edwards is everything I’m look for in a candidate. First and foremost is his concern for working families, struggling as his own did. Next is his proven capacity to slay the dragons of our contemporary world: mammoth corporations which spit on ordinary human beings. After that comes a host of other issues which he’s learning to take out the right claims on. Behind it all is a sort of personal courage in facing his family’s personal crises.

My only hesitancy is that I think he’s wrong on gay marriage (or whatever that will be callled once our country has grown up). But who knows? I may be wrong, too. And he admits his opposition is based on his early religious training, not some focus-group say-so. I take comfort from that, though I’d wish he’d try a little harder to follow JFK’s lead and insist on separating state and church.

Paul at #15 – Dr. Paul has said that whatever he does, it would be purely transitional.

Transitional to what? Private health insurance companies? Please. These are the people who do their damndest to exclude people from coverage, to deny benefits to as many people as they can, who don’t want to have to compete in order to lower prices- they want profit, and the only way to make it is on the backs of the insured.

The more people who are uninsured, the more people whose medical conditions and treatments are excluded from coverage, the more expensive the drugs are, the harder you make it for people to get the care they need at a cost they can afford, the sicker the population will be – and is. The sicker the population, the more the burden for their eventual care has to be borne by those who have insurance, by hospitals, who provide care and then have to spend millions trying to collect payment, who end up raising prices for those who pay out-of-pocket. The states get hit for more and more of the cost of the uninsured. The cost spirals up while health spirals down – and that is not something that will change if federal programs are privatized – in fact, I don’t see how it would not get worse.

Forget “health savings accounts” for people to go out and buy provate helath insurance – one has to actually have the money to put in those accounts in order to take advantage of that. If it’s all you can do to scrape by month-to-month, you don’t have the money for an HSA, and if the insurance you buy has a high deductible, you still have to go out-of-pocket to an extent that people are likely to forego the care for lack of affordability. Healthy people get sick and the sick people get sicker.

It’s time we, as a nation – as people, not health insurance companies and drug comapnies and stockholders – decided to do what was best for us as a nation, decided what was important to us. If it’s money for the few at the expense of the many, I think we’re headed in the right direction with a GOP president. If it’s healthier people who have more to contribute to society as a whole, we need to make the choices that take us in that direction.

Free health care at a doctor chosen by the government likely during working hours so you’re losing that pay unless you have vacation time you can eat up even if you feel fine.

If you refuse, Edwards hits you with a “healthy tax” for not taking up a doctor’s limited time for no good reason and squandering tax dollars on what amounts to a doctors’ welfare program for those who couldn’t get patients any other way.

The poor will get the worst health care at the highest cost, at gunpoint.

This message brought to you by “Speculators-of-Future-Republican-Sound-Bite Campaigns”

Has Edwards screwed chances for national health care for another 14 years post-Hilary’s-major-frackup?

I have not looked to see how Edwards would plan to structure his plan, but consider a few things: when the electric company offers you a discount for using appliances and such at off-peak hours, and when your car insurance offers you a discount on your young driver for being a good student, and your homeowner’s insurance offers you a discount for having an alarm system they aren’t putting a gun to your head and forcing you to do anything. They are offering you the opportunity to pay less in exchange for doing some things that reduce costs overall – it’s a choice you can make, or not.

Do you scream that you are being forced to use less electricity, forced to make sure your child maintains good grades, forced to get an alarm system? No, I don’t think you do. Do you believe that the overall quality of the goods and services you receive will be less because you choose to do some things that will save you money? I don’t think so.

So, if the health insurance company – whether it is a single-payer, federal system or something private – offers you lower co-pays or premiums or deductibles if you get a physical every year, or have a mammogram or colonoscopy, get your kids vaccinated on schedule, etc. – what’s the problem? You choose – pay more and increase your risk, or pay less and reduce it.

I fail to see how the poor end up with the worst health care, since the worst health care is no health care at all. And the worst health care is probably being driven by private insurance companies, who have little interest in your good health as much as they do in making sure they can keep as much of your money as possible, even at the expense of your health,

Anne, #24: Very well said.

Richardson was clearly joking. Having followed Richardson and noting his sense of humor I had no doubt that this was a joke as soon as I heard this. If there was any doubt, his campaign verified that it was a joke afterwards. — Ron Chusid, @25

Not so “clearly”, if it had been misconstrued to the point where his campaign had to clarify it to the people who are less familiar (than you are) with Richardson’s sense of humour. And,even if one does accept it had been a “joke”, he sounds like he was yanking the audience’s chain, making fun of the unsophisticated boobs who still care about things like “Constitution” and “the Lord”. Not very clever, unless we assume that everyone there was already very familiar with him and his “sense of humour” and able to interpret his words “correctly”. Yet, those meetings are supposed to serve as an introduction to a candidate, not as a mutual adoration society gathering…

Whichever way you slice it… as a “joke”, it was a bomb. Not a stink-bomb the way Shrub’s fart “jokes” are, but a bomb nevertheless. I am also surprised that you would compare this situation to that of Gore’s, unless you can prove that Richardson’s words were not only misconstrued but misquoted as well.