I can almost hear the consultant’s brains churning into stupidland after seeing this gallup poll saying that healthcare is the top concern for citizens.
We win on healthcare, and it feels safe, but the two top issues this fall and for the forseeable future will be Iraq and Terrorism.
Your campaigns this fall? Iraq, Iraq, Iraq. Your superawesome healthcare ideas are a part of your campaign, but Iraq is the centerpiece.
I would imagine that the concerns expressed in this 1999 poll and this 2003 poll are still valid:
**BUT**
Unfortunately, other nations with universal health care have suffered from both these problems. And if you recall, one of the most unpleasant aspects of HillaryCare was that it criminalized the private practice of medicine, which didn’t sit well with a lot of people.
On the other hand, HMO’s pretty much force you to accept both of those limits if you are a part of their group. ( I watched my dad suffer for six weeks while his HMO screwed up his paperwork and denied him cancer surgery TWICE. So I don’t have a lot of kind things to say about HMO’s.)
Personally, I’m skeptical if any politicians, regardless of party affiliation, are smart enough (or have enough leeway in the political process, to be more accurate) to come up with a magical plan that eliminates those two problems.
But that doesn’t mean we should stop trying.
Yes, it pales in comparison to the Republican plan for the non-rich.
Aging population=baby boomers. The Grand Ol’ Population Bubble.
All wanker conservative acne-sufferers who haven’t the compassion
to begin your ideology with liberalism, will be hard pressed
to comprehend this simple fact.
More social welfare programs with an aging population and shrinking work force…yeah, that’s a winning combo.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12015271/site/newsweek/print/1/displaymode/1098/
And what could possibly be a solution to a shrinking labor force and an expanding retired population? Gosh, could it possibly include some kind of meaningful immigration reform that put guest workers on a track to citizenship? Of course not because, as we already know, Randy is ascared of the brown peoples.
Don’t be Fooled Again
Oliver Willis to the Dems ~ don’t listen to the issues polls this fall.
“Gosh, could it possibly include some kind of meaningful immigration reform that put guest workers on a track to citizenship?” Yeah, maybe kinda like France. I like the idea of really scarry brown people torching cities. Maybe then me and my mates can put on out white sheets and get some…
The issue for ‘06 is immigration. I hope the Dems have a tough time deciding whether they want to gowith Iraq and terrorism or healthcare.
They’ll wake up Wednesday morning, scratching their heads, echoing the dearly departed Chef: “What – de – wha’?”
Sweet screaming monkeys, that’s ridiculous. Is there anything you’re ashamed to try to pass off?
It will be interesting to see our liberal Democratic politicians trying to run on an immigration platform based on racism.
Dems absolutely should keep hammering National Security in the 2006 elections. The issue has been a proven winner for them in the past, dontchaknow.
You should also try to fold the NSA wiretapping into this push. May I suggest making Jim McDermott the point man.
Immigration is the issue for Republicans. Not for anybody else. Democrats have united behind the McCain-Kennedy concept of stronger border enforcement and a guest worker plan that provides a path toward citizenship. Yeah, it’s similar to Reagan’s amnesty plan in 1986, and it “rewards” illegal behavior. But unless somebody thinks we’re about to deport 11 million people, we might as well face up to reality and try to assimilate these immigrants into American society as best as possible.
elrod: You are mostly, but not entirely, right. There is no such thing as an issue “just for one party.”
This from Blogs for Bush:
Yes, let’s talk about the French, Randy. France libealized its immigration policies for precisely the reason I suggested: to shore up its flagging demographic numbers. Immigration policies may change, but the social/cultural resistants to new immigrants don’t always change with them. The riots in France, widely exaggerated by the right wing nuts in America for their own partisan ends, were born of long standing economic disparities that were exacerbated by simple, French racism.
Achievements of the French policy to integrate foreigners
Generally speaking, observers agree that the French integration model has been successful: the earlier waves of immigration (from Italy, Poland, Belgium, Spain, etc.) have been assimilated; the more recent ones (from Portugal and the Maghreb) appear to be being integrated socially, culturally and politically although their economic and occupational integration is not yet complete. Reference to standard integration criteria seems to bear this out:
# nationalization statistics confirm the model s efficacy: when immigrants’ children had to “manifest” the desire to be French, when applying for French nationality, the overwhelming majority did so; they now acquire it automatically;
# there are many mixed marriages (between French people and foreigners): according to the 1999 census, 9.6% of the 271,361 marriages celebrated in 1998 were with a foreign spouse;
# at school, according to sociologists, in comparable socio-economic and family circumstances, immigrants’ children are at least as successful as other young French people;
# as regards housing, there are not strictly speaking any ghettoes; “problem” districts contain vulnerable people from a variety of different backgrounds. It should nevertheless be borne in mind that close on two thirds of immigrants live in towns of more than 200,000 inhabitants (one third live in Ile de France).
Nevertheless, in some areas the French integration model seems to be running out of steam, although the causes of the problems faced by immigrants tend to be socio-economic (working class backgrounds, few vocational qualifications) rather than “ethnic” (foreign backgrounds, national cultures):
# schooling: young foreigners are less likely than others to follow a “normal” school career (collège [mixed-ability school for children aged between 11 and 15 approximately], general education lycée [catering for children between 15 and 18 years of age] and then higher education). French middle-class families also use various strategies to avoid sending their children to schools with a high percentage of foreign children (dispensations from school catchment areas, enrolment in private education, etc.). Schools may themselves be “elite” establishments or, on the contrary, de facto, “ethnic” ones catering for a homogenous group of disadvantaged pupils.
# housing: the most socially and economically disadvantaged, among whom immigrants are over-represented, tend to be concentrated in certain districts, estates, or high-density housing complexes;
# employment: in 1995, there were 1.97 million (7.8% of France’s total active population) active foreigners (i.e. those in or looking for jobs). 46% of these were manual workers (compared with an average of only 26% for the country as a whole). Immigrants tend, moreover, to be working class whatever their country of origin with particularly high levels among Moroccans and Algerians. The immigrant population has much lower job security (fixed-term contracts, temporary work). They also suffer badly from unemployment (20% of active foreigners were unemployed in 1995 in comparison with a national average of 12%). Non-European nationals are the worst affected: in March 1998 their unemployment rate, based on the International Labour Office (ILO) standard, was 31.4% in comparison with 11% for French people. Young foreigners (aged 15 to 24) are in an even more difficult position: their unemployment rate rose from 22% to 43% between 1992 and 1996, while the rate for young French people increased only from 16.2% to 21% over the same period.
The causes of these integration problems are not only economic and social (lack of education and qualifications, few financial resources, social problems, etc.), but also have to do with mutual cultural perceptions.
# Discrimination against immigrants is seen particularly when they are looking for jobs. Openly discriminatory job offers are illegal, but many other, more discreet practices escape the clutches of the law. Consequently, the number of legal convictions (74 in 1995 and 81 in 1996) does not show the whole picture.
# Racism is targeted in particular against peoples whose presence evokes a conflict-ridden colonial past: immigrants from the Maghreb are the main targets of hostility (more so than other Africans and far more so than Asians, and particularly the Portuguese). Support for Islam, which many people consider impossible to integrate into French civilization or at the very least to be incapable of embracing a secular culture, but which is nevertheless France s second religion, is perceived in the worst of cases as a challenge to the national tradition of integration. This feeling of foreignness is fuelled by differences in customs (women s status, lifestyles, family authority, etc.).
Looking at this from a historical perspective, it is important to remember that all groups of immigrants, whatever their original nationality, religion, skin colour or customs, have been victims of racism. Xenophobia is often linked to periods of economic depression and the notions of “tolerance threshold” or “inability to integrate” are devoid of any sociological meaning.
http://www.ambafrance-us.org/atoz/immigration.asp
>>The issue for 06 is immigration.
Yes, I wake up every single morning worried about about those illegal immigrants streaming across our borders, trying to make a living, and a lousy one at that.
Frank’s issue for 06′ isn’t immigration. It’s constipation. Mental constipation.
JK
Well, look…Republicans beat up welfare Moms last decade, they need a new group of people to make the new “enemy” of freedom, democracy, and the American way of life.
That’s not to say welfare reform wasn’t needed. It was. But the way in which the right blew the issue out of proportion was extraordinary. They made it sound like the sole reason their taxes were so high, was because scheming welfare mom was buying potato chips with foodstamps.
So, illegal immigrants are the new “welfare Mom.” You’ll hear stories on talk radio about how an illegal immigrants have ruined their sad, pathetic right-wing lives. Jay Severin, local Boston talk radio right-wing nutcase, calls illegal immigrants “Crimaliens” on his show. You get the picture. The demonization started a long time ago.
(Of course, if lying about winning a Pulitzer Prize were a crime, Mr. Severin would be in jail.)
So, been there, done that, Red State America.
Go fry a steak.
JK
Illegal immigration is the 2006 “wedge” issue to get the racists and fundamentalists all in line.
Keep worrying about some Mexican taking a $6/hr dishwasher job, while $25/hr manufacturing jobs go off shore. Real smart.
I’d like to see a balance sheet that shows the FULL COST of healthcare compared to the amount actually RECEIVED by healtcare providers, i.e:
The sum of all premiums paid to health insurance companies, plus out-of-pocket payments made directly by patients to healthcare providers, in the form of co-payments and payments by those self-insured,
versus
The sum of all payments actually received by hospitals and caregivers from individuals and insurers.
The difference would give some useful information about the corporate overhead and profit involved in the equation. How can someone say that a different system would be better or worse if we do not have a good grasp of the large slice now being taken by the insurance industry under the current system?
People on Welfare
Gays in love
Immigrants looking for work
Liberals, always liberals
What other domestic groups have the honor of being the target of a GOP hate campaign?
Illegal immigration is the 2006 wedge issue to get the racists and fundamentalists all in line.
God forbid waves of homosexual illegal immagrants storm the borders and get married to our children!
Insurance companies=Organized Crime
I’ve poured over the RICO statute looking for some way to connect the two.
JK: It is better to be quiet and to be thought a fool, than to open yiur mouth and remove all doubt.
Read a paper, watch the news, listen to the radio. The issue is immigration.
And, BTW, O frameone the self – absorbed one! What the hell do immigrants have to do with liberals — except for the fact they haven’t a clue as to what to do about them and (based on JK’s simian comment) couldn’t care less.
I’m sure that France, the Land of the Burning Autos, can tell us a lot about immigration.
Quaker,
The Clinton Health Care Plan redefined “health care fraud” to include any practice of medicine outside the dictates of their proposed National Health Board. In other words, if you practiced medicine outside the government system, you would be guilty of a crime. Hence, private medical practice was criminalized. That wasn’t what most people wanted.
__________________________
One aspect of this debate that people seem uninterested in discussing is the fact that “health insurance” isn’t really insurance at all, at least not in the traditional sense.
Most “insurance” exists to endemnify the insured in the case of a catastrophic accident. That usually includes providing financial relief in the form of a lump-sum payment, and legal counsel. For example, if you have a car wreck your insurance company pays for vehicle repairs and medical costs to other injured parties, and will represent you in court if you are sued.
And you become “high risk” with respect to the claims you have filed. Either your premiums increase, or future policies will exclude certain coverages, or your coverage will be terminated.
But that’s not what most people want from “medical insurance.” What most people want is the illusion of “free” or very low individual cost health care, with someone else picking up most of the bill. That’s not insurance. And as such, in my opinion, health care should not be handled by insurance companies.
Then there is the deliberate confusing of health insurance with health care. These two are as different as apples and oranges. A person without health “insurance” is still entitled to health care from public hospitals and government health clinics.
Yes, but will Australia take him? How about Iraq? Listening to the cons, you would think it was paradise, I mean look at this street scene
http://www.democraticunderground.com/img/06/sm_DowntownBaghdad.JPG
I hear they are painting schools, too!
Gee Frank, when I turn on the TV, or radio, all I keep hearing about is dead bodies in Iraq.
You, and your ilk, are PRAYING that the issue in 06 will be immigration.
Let’s talk about emmigration. Your departure from our hallowed soil would make me a very happy liberal.
JK
That’s some impartial, even-keeled, non-hysterical source you found there in the “Future of Freedom Foundation,” Mike:
“President Clinton says health care in America costs too much-that it’s a national disgrace that 37 million Americans have no health insurance and that tens of millions of others have inadequate coverage. Clinton’s “solution”: a total government takeover of all medical care in the U.S.–1/7 of the entire U.S. economy. As you will see, what Clinton is really talking about is a government takeover of your life.”
Could you guys at least pretend that you aren’t miserable hacks?
JK: I am fairly certain that nothing would make you a happy liberal — it’s an oxymoron.
And emigrate is spelled with one “m”.
Duros: You and I might actually agree on something — Insurance companies and banks make money, no matter what the economic situation is.
‘And emigrate is spelled with one m .’
Just the kind of nitpicking one would expect from a guy who’s gets the major facts wrong in just about 95 percent of every argument he makes.