Comments on: Hidden Danger in Political Advertising

By: Curtis

Curtis — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 21:58:49 +0000

Bob,

As usual, the claims are bland, without specifics and simple political rhetoric.

But, let’s assume the candidate can get something done about these issues (which as one of your astute readers already pointed out are not really consitutional)…

…where will the money come from?

I don’t want to pay more in taxes…do the other readers who would support this candidate?

As a pharmacist who works at a community health center I can assure the readers that we are about as close as you can get to socialized health-care.

Frankly, bluntly - it does not work. It is a strain on the system financially. Medicaid in my state was going bankrupt because of it and had to cut back on mediations covered and up the copays charged.

Unemployment in my patient population is sky high. Young, able-bodied adults walk in daily when they could be working. But what motivation is there to work when things are given to you?

I know my comments may seem harsh to some - but it is simply the reality of the situation.

BTW - I was in Canada last year (Sask.) and the residents I spoke with railed against the health care system. Perhaps this was an isolated incident? But then again, maybe not.

Best,
Curtis

By: Riel Langlois, comic book writer

Riel Langlois, comic book writer — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:24:49 +0000

I’d rewrite his commercial, because it’s the equivalent of the generic Miss America answer “I’d like to make the world a better place.”

I’d pick one specific issue and set a specific goal for it.

For example, “I’ll work to open four free clinics in these four areas:…”

You can’t please all of the people all of the time. But I believe people respect a realistic goal over vague, feel-good comments - even if they don’t expect to directly benefit.

By: Steve Slaunwhite

Steve Slaunwhite — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 21:59:05 +0000

I agree with Gloria.

I’m an entrepreneur. A conservative. But I love the free healthcare I get here in Canada.

We may have to wait in line for some services. (A problem the government is under pressure to fix.) But we never have to worry about hefty insurance premiums or having some HMO or insurer say No to a treatment option.

And, Bob, the doctors are paid very well. And their administrative costs are much lower than their American counterparts.

By: Michael

Michael — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:11:16 +0000

Sounds like what a liberal Democrat would believe in, but it’s really just thinly disguised socialism. Whenever people declare that things should be free, they always seem to neglect factoring in just “who” is going to pay for whatever they feel should be “free” (Notice that when they say things should be free, they always want some third party to pay for it. Free education? Free housing? You get what you pay for).

By: Michael Roach

Michael Roach — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:40:17 +0000

I’ll just echo Jim Logan’s 4 answsers… and maybe add to #3 that I couldn’t vote for him anyway.

By: Gloria Hildebrandt

Gloria Hildebrandt — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:21:02 +0000

As a Canadian, I have the experience of living “free” and enjoying excellent health care and getting help with a good education, which can lead to a good job and affordable housing. There are still parts of the country where house prices are reasonable. There is nothing to fear from a socialist agenda, only a chance at good basic treatment for all. Try it — I think you’ll like it.

By: Dianna Huff

Dianna Huff — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 09:50:02 +0000

Bob,

The only inalienable rights Americans have: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

No one promised us a rose garden, good jobs, or decent housing, although John Adams did write in free education into the Massachusetts Constitution — a point with which I agree.

The state / fed government should provide all of us with a quality education. Then the remaining points listed above would take care of themselves.

Live Free or Die. Death is not the worst of evils.

By: John Dumbrille

John Dumbrille — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 06:25:53 +0000

He does fit the bill of a social democrat! Sounds like someone interested in more than the rights of provate property, but socialist - you’ve got to be kidding. ‘Afforable housing’ sounds ominious - does he have any idea how much that could cost? I’d have him run on - being anything but a Bush republican!

By: Jim Logan

Jim Logan — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 01:58:28 +0000

You asked four questions at the end. Here are my answers:

1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. No.
4. Impossible. Leopards can’t change their spots.

The best post you’ve written yet

By: John Dumbrille

John Dumbrille — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 22:34:18 +0000

Inalienable rights are tough - if not impossible - to prove. They are based on values beyond the rights of property so I’d say this places him as a liberal democrat. I don’t see any socialist connotation, the term is entirely pejorative anyway, isn’t it?
And yes, I’d vote for him.