2012 is where our focus should be as we should realize that 2008 is so wrapped up in Religion and Corruption that it should be ignored after the election. It matters little who wins the White House as no changes will be made. I’m willing to see what the Democrats can do with the mess with the war, the economy, immigration, foreign involvement and the uniting of Canada, the USA and Mexico which will go through unless we revolt. Neither party will stand up to it. Neither party will improve the academic mess unless it is pumping more money in a failed system.

My plan is two-fold: Many here will be pleased with the Democrats who will redistribute the wealth and bring socialism into controlling the corporations and making Constitutional changes banning the lobbyists. The GOP has no one who can beat the Democrats because of the total corruption found all over the religious right and the social conservatives.

At this time there is only one man who campaigns on the Constitution and limiting its intrusive growth into all our lives. I had hoped that Dr. Paul will lay out his plans to return to the Constitution and ease out of the welfare programs that many of us have put lots of money into the system.

He has said that he will not cancel S.S. or Medicare at one time but would allow the younger workers to opt out of the plan if they wish. He has not been able to sell this new plan and his voting numbers are very low.

We must not try to run any candidate who wants a limited government, individual freedoms and personal responsibilities as the GOP gave these up in 1992. Dr. Paul may be too old in 2012 but his agenda could attract many competent candidates who have followed his messages of liberty. We need an Independent as the LP is split far too wide to nothing much more than a weak GOP.

Dr. Paul would be much more attractive to the voters if he would throw off the mantle of corruption in the GOP.

Sandra Price


  1. Pollchecker has posted a link about a suggested new Blue Cross program approach on his blog (Step One towards fixing health care) you might be interested in. I haven’t read it yet, so can’t comment.

  2. I’m not suggesting that we divvy up the capitalistic pie entirely by socialist principles — wherever possible, I think that things should be allowed to work themselves out naturally.

    But they don’t always. Sometimes things get out of balance, and that’s when the community needs to step in, through its elected government.

    Regulation isn’t always anti-market and anti-capitalistic. Nor is the social net, as paid for by taxpayers. It seems to me, with respect to health insurance, the insurance companies don’t want to cover the 47 million uninsured (or they would find a way to do it) — they’re just worried that someone else will come up with a plan that will compete unfairly with them and eat into their business.

    That’s a reasonable concern, but it’s simply not acceptable to allow the current situation to continue. The government is going to have to step in. Frankly, if I were an insurance company, I might be eager to let the government handle all basic health care coverage so I could be freed up to focus on high-end coverage, such as access to treatments not approved under basic state health insurance. (I know. Some people have difficult accepting that, at some point, life saving treatment becomes a luxury.) The insurers might still lose some business, but they might open more lucrative avenues for business at the same time.

    There is a way to work this out. No one needs to suggest that anyone deserves to go without health care coverage (especially children!), or that insurance companies need to go the Mother Theresa route. There could be a solution that meets everyone’s needs and brings everything back into balance.

  3. JoyfulC, I get your drift, as always.

    I just don’t think divvying up the capitalistic pie according to socialist principles will lead to nearly as robust a societal existence as you seem to believe. Welfare in America has produced an entrenched bureaucracy feeding a burgeoning underclass. Political spoils are being built on welfare, earmarks, pork, and the like. Gimme what you got! Sometime it will implode. I’m thinking that time is soon.

    As a delayed postscript, I agree with your statement: “The free market isn’t working.” In fact, we have no such thing, what with the heavy hand of government always trying to affect and effect “outcomes”. The “Dear Uncle Sam” blog in this forum is an eloquent, prime example. In fact, politics has just about ruined the market in general… crooked politicians, corporatists, lobbyists, all other manner of skimmers, etc., have clearly leveraged the system to get theirs before you get yours. A “free” market would, in fact, allocate resources better, but I don’t think we’ll ever see that hypothesis tested anytime soon. As the Mogambo Guru says… We’re freakin’ doomed !!

  4. Canada’s approach to universal health insurance probably is quite socialist, but then, the “free market” has had ample opportunity to prove it can do better, and it’s failed miserably.

    The “free market’s” goal is to profit. The community’s goal is to ensure that all members have access to adequate health care. We still have robust private health insurers in Canada, but where they fail, the community — as dutifully respresented by the government — steps in.

    If the “free market” is so damned competent, then why are there, what? 47 million uninsured Americans?

    Our daughter lives in the States. She changed jobs last year and was without health insurance for several months in the process. What if she’d been in an accident? Is she supposed to balance advancing her career off maintaining her health care coverage? That’s ridiculous. And her friend also changed jobs, although with her, it wasn’t a choice — the company she worked for folded — and a couple months into getting her next job, she began to believe she was pregnant. This would have been disastrous (although thank goodness, she wasn’t!) because her new health insurer would have viewed it as a “pre-existing condition” and denied her prenatal and obstetric coverage.

    The “free market” simply isn’t working.

    Okay, agreed. A mugging is a crime. What do they call it when “settlers” take land by force from indigenous peoples? What do they call it when greedy profiteers interfere with regional affairs to create conditions ripe for controlling mineral resources? What did they call it when railroad barons “lobbied” the government to take people’s private lands for their use — eminent domain, eh? But wait a minute… weren’t those guys capitalists?

    NOTE: Sandra, I’ve been meaning to share this David Horsey cartoon with you — the minute I saw it, I knew you’d appreciate it: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/horsey/popupV2.asp?SubID=3409&page=3&GTitle=David%20Horsey%3A%20The%20Politics%20of%20Religion

Comments are closed.