Re: substance over style -- world

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

05/18/26 9:26:12pm

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, [4], 5 ]

Subject: Re: substance over style

Author:
krz

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 10/31/04 1:32:19pm
In reply to: pjk 's message, "substance over style" on 10/30/04 11:57:44pm

Thanks pjk - I'm not sure I agree with all of the positions you articulate, but Kerry reluctantly has my support as well. I say reluctantly because I actually do favor Bush on some of the issues. I need to make some points of clarification on the health care issue:

>3) Health Care: If the Republicans (who�ll control
>the house and senate) agree to pass legislation
>initiated by Kerry and the Dems, it will certainly not
>be some socialized revamping of the HC system. To
>speak to krz & geo � I just don�t see democrats
>forcing families like your own into poverty through
>new legislation that removes coverage for dz. The
>coverage that exists right now is most likely the
>product of democratic leadership, not republican.

Actually the coverage that currently exists for Danny (at least the legislation that enacted our benefits) comes from the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) of 1982 - signed by Ronald Regan. I don't recall whether we had a Dem or Rep majority in the House and Senate at the time. The legislation allowed considerable flexibility in how states could structure eligibility requirements - and as a result of WI's structure, Danny (not the family) is eligible. The federal legislation was enacted in part to deal with the issues of providing care to children with disabilities living at home (spurred in part by the Katie Beckett Story - a young lady who's parents could not get the same care through private insurance that a child on Medicare could receive in their state). The legislation was primarily meant to address the rising issues of long term care for the elderly - an issue we continue to face today.

I'm not sure when the legislation was changed in WI to include the Katie Beckett provision - but the Governor of the State in 1982 was Lee Dreyfus, Jr. (Rep).

>A vote for Kerry is a vote for someone who is
>approaching health care with ideas that begin to
>address the enormous problems facing Americans and
>their children. A vote for Bush is a vote for puny
>thoughts that do little to make much of a difference
>in people�s lives.

Where I agree that Bush did not do an adequate job of researching the impact of change in the Medicare legislation to include the full cost of prescription drug coverage, I really don't agree that a vote for Bush represents 'puny thoughts'. In the frightening world of health care provision, funding, and policy - neither side has cornered the market on managing to get a handle on the complexity of the issue. The real problem, as I see it, is that our health care desires are greater than our abilility to provide coverage. Our desires may not be in line with good fiscal policy - and neither side is terribly interested in asking Americans to re-order their desires.

IMHO - Kerry is no great savior, Bush is no great evil.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject	Author	Date
My Take	geo	11/ 1/04 8:38:51am

early election results: ___________ wins	tjm	11/ 1/04 10:39:56am
Re: early election results: ___________ wins -- geo, 11/ 1/04 11:04:09am