Matthews' hypothetical suburbanites: Wife wants woman president; husband cares about finances
On the October 21 edition of the NBC-syndicated The Chris Matthews Show, while discussing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) proposal to roll back a portion of the Bush tax cuts to pay for her health insurance plan, host Chris Matthews stated: "I think it's time for me to get in trouble again. ... I'm thinking about a woman who lives in the suburbs; she may not work outside the home. They're talking around election time -- the husband and the wife." Matthews, speaking first in the voice of the hypothetical wife, said: " 'I sort of like this Hillary, the first woman president. She's pro-choice.' And the husband says, 'You know, dear, you know, this is going to kill our tax bracket. You know that tuition thing we pay every couple of years for the kids, every year, we can't do that if we get a higher tax bracket. We have to pay more money.' " Matthews then asked Washington Post Writers Group syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker: "So, could the tax issue -- Hillary's threat to raise taxes -- throw a lot of women and men from the suburbs back into the Republican column?"
From the October 21 edition of the NBC-syndicated The Chris Matthews Show:
MATTHEWS: I think it's time for me to get in trouble again. Kathleen, I'm thinking about a woman who lives in the suburbs; she may not work outside the home. They're talking around election time -- the husband and the wife -- you know, she says, "I sort of like this Hillary, the first woman president. She's pro-choice." And the husband says, "You know, dear, you know, this is going to kill our tax bracket. You know that tuition thing we pay every couple of years for the kids, every year, we can't do that if we get a higher tax bracket. We have to pay more money." So, could the tax issue -- Hillary's threat to raise taxes -- throw a lot of women and men from the suburbs back into the Republican column? Am I being too tricky here?
PARKER: Yeah, you may be too tricky. First of all, I don't know what your assumption is here that I would know about women in the suburbs who don't work.
[laughter]
PARKER: I don't have any recent poll material.
MATTHEWS: Those club members that come in, you know, late in the afternoon.
PARKER: Oh, those guys. Yeah, well, nobody wants to pay more taxes, let's face it. But -- and, yeah, I think it's not helpful for Hillary at this point to say that. And you don't necessarily need -- there are other ways to go about this health care issue. I mean, what if one of these Republicans would sort of cut through the clutter and say, "Look, I'm going to give you your own money to buy health care, and I'm not going to tax that money," that would be a whole new scenario and a different talking point for people, and that, I think, has a lot of power.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
Countries with universal health care and college never worry about this crap (unless they themselves choose private hospitals and/or private schools/colleges). Now, like Ann Coulter, Chris Matthews degrades women as being the less valuable voter to have. Many of us here remember when Ann Coulter said that the Democratic party should be "hanging its head in shame" for "having trouble to get women to vote for it (which is TOTALLY false). 99% of women are smart enough to know that you shouldn't vote for Hillary just because you want a woman for president.
I agree that it was degrading of Chris Matthews to assume that the hypothetical woman would only be concerned with electing a woman as president.
Matthews should have had the hypothetical woman say something like this:
"I am concerned that Hillary is raising money from Chinese sweatshops on the backs of poor people. The Los Angeles Times reports that 'Many of Clinton's Chinatown donors said they had contributed because leaders in neighborhood associations told them to. In some cases, donors said they felt pressure to give.' Honestly, as a hard working mother I just don't think that I can honestly vote for that b*tch!!!"
Too bad Chris didn't give the woman some credit for having the brains and courage to denounce HRC for her corrupt fund raising activities!!
By the way, you can click on that link to find all the details of HRC's corruption in the lib Los Angeles Times!
To say nothing of the complete scum balls who are underwriting Rudy, or the insane people he has advising him on the Middle East.
There's a question unanswered: who is laundering their contributions through these men?
The main foreign policy advisor to Rudy is Norman Podhoretz who warns that Iran bomb Israel, starting World War III, if it gets a nuclear bomb, therefore, the US should bomb Iran now. Podhoretz also sees Bush about once a month and gives the same advise. In his last press conference, Bush explicitly mentioned this.
" the lib Los Angeles Times!"
That's a joke, right? Even as delusional and whacked out as rightwingers are these days, even THEY cant believe a rancid rightwing rag like the LA Times (a paper that fired Robert Scheer for having the audacity to be correct in 2003 about the Imbecile-in-Chief's diversionary war on Iraq) is in any way "liberal"!
What exactly does liberal mean to the 28% who support Bush? They have their heads so far up their a** they call a hardcore conservative like Hillary Goldwater Clinton a liberal and a paper more concerned with appealing to the lunatic Republican minority fringe like the LA Times "liberal"!
With the undeniable dominance of the rightwing over the entire US media for the past decade (TV, newspapers, and radio) and the victimhood whining which is always at the core of every rightwing argument despite their disproportionate influence on the media, it's amazing these imbeciles still have the balls to call everyone to left of Mussolini a "liberal"
"liberal" "left" and "progressive" are becoming anti-concepts to the cultic 28%. They don't have to make sense...it's said with a wink and basically means "enemy".
Coulter, Horowitz, and others have been working for the last decade to create the idea that "liberals" are the cause of every bad thing in history. See bizaro world history at Horowitz's "discover the network". The words "left" and "right" only mean something in the context of a political spectrum that has an identifiable middle and clear properties. The cult is fed the line that both Stalin and Hilter were leftists....think about the philoposhical acrobatics it takes to come to that conclusion and you'll see what they are trying to do.
NIGHT, time to change the bong water.
Tweak. LONG PAST time for you to obtain some functioning brain cells
From today's "Lib L.A. Times" ( I still get the Sunday. sentimental reasons, learned to read from the LA Times comics and Mad Magazine, and need something to go with the Sunday morning coffee);
Regarding the Repubes attempt to reconfigure my states electoral votes to award some to the GOP, The times main editorial stated that the GOP , under the failed initiative, would be able to pick up some electoral votes "instead of simply watching, like witnesses at a traffic accident, as the Democrats scooped up every one in the nation's largest blue state."
Yeah, of the two parties and their recent performance, I don't think the Dems are the ones I think of when I hear "car wreck".
Billiy the Troll hides behind an imaginary woman's skirt in order to call Hillary a "b*tch".
Classy.
That is so unfair. I truly thought long and hard before using that specific language, and then I made the decision that for the sake of the character I had to be real.
For the sake of the character you had to be real!? Who are you, Norman Mailer? Here's a tip for you: Next time you find yourself thinking long and hard about calling a woman b*tch, don't.
And by real you mean the lying moron you REALLY are. Gotcha
"I truly thought long and hard before using that specific language, and then I made the decision that for the sake of the character I had to be real." - BilliyBobJones
I'm sorry, BilliyBob, someone should have broken this to you a long time ago. You are not Descartes! It seems your "thinking" has greatly misled you. You are, in fact, a complete fiction.
"I truly thought long and hard before using that specific language ["b*tch"]"
That you thought hard about it makes it even worse.
You truly rank with the most moronic trolls ever to visit here, and that's saying something.
You guys made me go back and read bibbybob. I had no interest until I hear him calling a woman the B word. He's a real gentleman and probably claims to be a Christian too, right?
It's so true. My wife is German, and although they pay more taxes they actually see the result of their taxes.
No one wants to give more, especially under current conditions where so much money is wasted by the fools at the top. The current administration loathes the government and has been applying the "starve the beast" strategy. I always love it when our leaders critcize the government as if they are not a part of the problem.
The Republican Tax break has always been a transparent campaign tactic. Lower taxes for the rich, on capital gains, etc...agree to a time limit (because its done with 9/11 as a pretext) then describe the expiration as the Democrats trying to raise your taxes. Any attempt to return to the way it was is a tax raise. The people this melodrama is intended for is not really the rich, but the middle class and poor Americans who always seem to vote against their own interests.
Please open one of your windows and let the smoke out so you can see better...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/18/opinion/meyer/main3379624.shtml
If you want all of the goodies you and the poor are going to have to start paying their/your way...
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2006/09/jec_releases_to.html
Please obtain a functioning cerebral cortex before further making a fool out of yourself. Americans WANT to care for the poor. Overall we do not WORSHIP Ebeneezer Scrooge the way YOU do
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0309-03.htm
''The American public as a whole takes a fairly coherent position. They favor redirecting a portion of defense spending to deficit reduction and social spending and look for savings by cutting spending on large-scale Cold War style capabilities,'' said PIPA director Steven Kull.
Defense spending received the deepest cut--an average of 31 percent or the equivalent of around $134 billion--with 65 percent of survey participants doing the cutting. The second largest area to be cut was the supplemental spending for U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, with two out of three respondents opting to cut the funding, by an average of $29.6 billion or 35 percent.
Some 63 percent of respondents said they favored rolling back tax cuts for people with incomes in excess of $200,000. Opposition to the tax cuts was strongest among the 62 percent of respondents who said the budget deficit was large. The survey found there would be greater support for the tax cuts were they not specifically limited to the wealthy.
The largest increases were for social spending. Education was increased $26.8 billion or 39 percent and respondents proposed boosting job training and employment by $19 billion--or 263 percent.
Medical research was given an additional injection of $15.5 billion or 53 percent. Veterans' benefits were raised 40 percent or $12.5 billion and housing was buttressed with a 31 percent budget raise, or $9.3 billion.
In most cases, PIPA said, clear majorities of respondents backed those increases: education drew extra support from 57 percent of survey participants; job training, from 67 percent; medical research, from 57 percent, and veterans' benefits, from 63 percent. Only 43 percent of respondents favored increases for housing.
You wingnuts who think selfishness and greed are the highest public goals are a minority. We GET that you dont care about anyone but yourself but people like you are NOT the majority.
Thoughtful, I appreciate your writing.
Thank you I apperciate that.
Solon,
Thanks for posting the link. Unfortunately the article you quoted did not give a link to the original survey. I checked the PIPA website but did not find it online. (Maybe I missed it.) Can you find a link to the survey itself?
Thanks,
I have done so before on this site. I have to take my wife to lunch and cant look it up right now. The poll had the people say where they would add and where they would cut spending. The scenario made them be revenue neutral for every dollar they gave to one policy they had to take one from another. Maybe that will help you google it.
AA,
I believe I found the correct page. Solon can correct me if I am mistaken. Here is a link to the main page. It is written in .PHP, so there is no direct link that will help you. First, go to this website. Then click on the Defense Spending folder. Here are the links from that section for the pdf files:
Report of findings: http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/DefenseSpending/FedBudget_Mar05/FedBudget_Mar05_rpt.pdf
Questionnaire: http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/DefenseSpending/FedBudget_Mar05/FedBudget_Mar05_quaire.pdf
Press Release: http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/DefenseSpending/FedBudget_Mar05/FedBudget_Mar05_pr.pdf
Hey Tweak, how much of your income last year came from Capital gains?
I'd guess zero, which make you one of the poor saps who not only votes against his own interest, but wastes his time preaching against his own interests as well.
Tweaky, what exactly were you trying to show with your links? How nice it is to be rich?
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
99% of women are smart enough to know that you shouldn't vote for Hillary just because you want a woman for president. - tman418 / Sunday October 21, 2007 01:21:47 PM EST
Is this a prayor??? Are you praying?? Wishing on the Wishing Stone?? Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha.
We could get Mr. Ed the Horse in this election, so rhethoric aside, see ya in "09 in the Democratic version of one party rule.
It's in reverse of the Republican version, we restore civil liberties, restore the constitution, restore the military's might, restore peace in the world, restore fiscal responsibility, restore honor and respect for America to America and the world, and bring our troops home!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
P.S.: Quoting Ann Coulter for election expertise is hilarious since the woman has never ran a campaign for anything. She was a staff attorney that got fired for her big mouth, and her standing as an attorney is a joke as well. She was essentially a speech writer that wrote speeches that politicians could rarely speak in public!
"I'm going to give you your own money to buy health care, and I'm not going to tax that money,"? How incoherent is that? The Republicans are going to give you a tax break, and they're not going to tax the tax break? And what if the non-working wife says 'But my husband had cancer and now no one will insure us for pre-existing conditions."? "I'm going to give you you're own money that will go right into the maw of a health insurance company..."
Yeah, people will fall over themselves to get that one.
Tonight on NBC! Chris Matthews is Sexist, episode 582. Where the laughs never stop.
Did anybody see Matthews on the Bill Maher 'Throw the Bums Out' episode. He offered nearly nothing for fear of losing his insider status.
I live in the suburbs and handle our money. In fact I think it's been shown that women do better with credit than men. Chris Matthews obviously doesn't get out much. He is just too hard core DC inner circle for me. I wish they would dispense with these pampered talking heads like Chris and Tucker that don't seem to know the reality of regular people's lives. He is just showing his great ignorance here.
Flighty females will vote for Hil
Or just 'cause she's married to Bill
That's the media meme
Their talking point theme
From pampered media shills
That political pundit named Chris
Tried to sell us a house-wifely Ms.
But it reeks of D.C.
He's an A.D.D. flea
In a fake conversational hiss.
Tweety doesn't know that Bush's tax cuts did NOT benefit the middle class? Is he really that stupid?
Bush's tax cuts probably didn't even benefit Tweety. Just the oppostie...the Fed spending all our money on Iraq has forced local goverments into deficit spending. Real estate taxes have gone through the roof and that is BUSH's fault. The middle class has really been hurting under this administration...and no amount of spinning and lying will convince them that they're really better off.
Once again, someone paraphrases their own hypothetical...Some visiting MMFA will have to wait for the party line to come out tomorrow on this one.
That thinking stuff seems very difficult without Mr. "I Get A Rush" Limbaugh doing their thinking for them. Be back tomorrow around 3:00pm.
You are right of course Prince when they try to post before they recieve the daily talking point they seem disjointed, and scattered.
I'm sure by tomorrow the "phrase that pays" will be posted ad nauseum, once the King of hillbilly heroin Lush the Limprod tells them what it is.
The fundamental flaw in thinking that tax cuts can offset healthcare costs is the assumption that healthcare is a consumer transaction. It ain't. Healthcare is a fundamental human right.
Exactly a right you have not a commodity you buy. A fundamental difference in our points of view.
Wouldn't it be great if Democrats had the stones to make Progressive arguments?
Given the meteoric rise of the cost of insuring a family in the health care insurance market (+59% from 2000 to 2005), I'm failing to see what the prevailing Republican strategy of using tax cuts and savings accounts is supposed to do about the rate at which insurance is going up.
Do they think they can keep giving people deeper and deeper tax cuts every year to match the increases in costs that are sure to come? My family income certainly hasn't increased 59% over the last five years.
Maybe there's something I'm missing, but it just doesn't add up to me.
Taxes are a tough issue for Democrats, no doubt about it. I wish Democrats could come out with some middle class - up to $200,000/income - tax cut proposals rather than the "Eat your peas" attitude about taxes. Romney has a proposal to eliminate income taxes on incomes up to $200,000. That is very appealing to a lot of people. Thats real money, real tax savings. The Democrats really need something positive for most people to vote FOR. Most people have health insurance and if you have it and have no problem with your health insurance - the case for most people - the Democrats are not offering you anything appealing with their healthcare proposals. Maybe the opposite, actually.
A 70+% public approval of Schip is unapPEAling?
I don't think people who are unaffected by SCHIP are thinking about it much and its not going to be eliminated, anyway. It has to be reauthorized next month and will be so no one who has it will lose it and go out to vote to get it back. Its really hard to make an issue of it.
Contrast that with the Romney tax elimination on investment income for under $200,000 income --- there are LOTS of people who have a few thousand a year in income on Certificates of Deposit. Especially people over 60 who are more likely to vote than other demographics. If you're getting, say $7,000 income on CDs and you're in the 15% bracket, thats over a thousand dollars in taxes that you'd save. Pretty easy for people to understand that savings, too. As I said above, I would love to see the Democrats do something like that because they are really not offering anything to most middle class Americans, even as they run on "Middle class, middle class, middle class."
I'm sure many conservatives would love to see Democrats run as tax cutting Republicans. But tax cuts do absolutely nothing to mend the wounds infoicted by a profit before people health insurance industry.
I would love to see Democrats run as empathy and responsibility Progressives. Mostly, I see empathy and profitibility Neoliberals. So, maybe you and the insurance industry will get your wish and get a Democrat that will not interfere with the profit first insurance industry.
I won't stop pushing in the opposite direction of conservatism though.
Its a huge vulnerability for the Democrats. They've gotten themselves into a bind where they can only propose spending money in ways that don't benefit the majority of Americans. Probably would actually hurt the majority of Americans with higher taxes and regulations. As with the original '93-4 Clinton healthcare plan, when it hits Congress, it dies because the Congress isn't going to go along with hurting most Americans.
And your evidence that providing universal healthcare like a large majority of Americans want, like the rest of the industrial world does, is WHAT? Oh you dont have any? Imagine my suprise.
Yeah, thats why Americans were marching in the streets to get the Congress to pass Hillary Clinton's original healthcare plan in the early 90's.
Healthcare costs is a complicated issue. People complain about costs but they will be very wary of national healthcare bringing them higher costs to cover more people as well as affecting quality. The Clinton healthcare plan failed and then Democrats lost both Houses of Congress. They badly need something - tax cuts - to make the party look like it wants to do something for the majority of Americans rather than special interests who want something (to be paid by the rest of us). The party has been cornered into a stupid position on tax cuts.
So why not just SAY you had NO instead of continuing to pull nonsense that someone has fed you out of your nether regions. Americans DO favor universal healthcare.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9e06e7d71631f931a35750c0a9619c8b63
A majority of Americans say the federal government should guarantee health insurance to every American, especially children, and are willing to pay higher taxes to do it, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.
Only 24 percent said they were satisfied with President Bush's handling of the health insurance issue, despite his recent initiatives, and 62 percent said the Democrats were more likely to improve the health care system.
Americans showed a striking willingness in the poll to make tradeoffs to guarantee health insurance for all, including paying as much as $500 more in taxes a year and forgoing future tax cuts.
The poll found Americans across party lines willing to make some sacrifice to ensure that every American has access to health insurance. Sixty percent, including 62 percent of independents and 46 percent of Republicans, said they would be willing to pay more in taxes. Half said they would be willing to pay as much as $500 a year more.
Nearly 8 in 10 said they thought it was more important to provide universal access to health insurance than to extend the tax cuts of recent years; 18 percent said the tax cuts were more important.
So now we have heard you repeat many of the rightwings most cherished delusions but in fact Americans DO prefer universal healthcare to more tax cuts and DO prefer Democrats to Repubicans on the healthcare issue.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/10/beta-testing-their-product-by-digby.html
Says it better than I can:]
"This Gallup Poll on SCHIP shows some very interesting data on people's attitudes on health care. If Democrats think this issue is in the bag, they'd better think again. Remember, most people in this country have health care and even if it's inadequate they aren't faced with the problems with the system unless they get sick. And they see no reason to spend money on people who they think should be able to "take care of themselves." In other words, they don't understand the health care crisis."
"Its a huge vulnerability for the Democrats. They've gotten themselves into a bind where they can only propose spending money in ways that don't benefit the majority of Americans. Probably would actually hurt the majority of Americans with higher taxes and regulations. " Andra
Alright, you're entitled to that opinion.
You do know however, of the cost to tax payers that are created by a deregulated market? Consider the cost of the bailout for the housing market. That cost can be attributed directly to unregulated predatory lending practices.
There are also the costs of environmental deregulation. Think of the valley of the drums, [link to www.epa.gov] .
Keep talking about deregulation, keep skinging it's praises. Conservatism is it's own worst enemy. Deregulated markets cost the public more in bail-outs, clean-up and public health than it costs companies to do business. But if you believe the role of government is to foot the bill for catastrophic market failures instead of promoting the general welfare, then by all means vote Republican.
Lets not forget about the largest taxpayer soak of all time. The Savings and Loan scandal which was DIRECTLY attributable to deregulation.
You are correct, sir. How could I forget?
We could fill a good many pages citing examples of the ways in which cowboy capitalists rob the commons, but I don't think a strong enough point can be made to sway the hearts and minds of market fundamentalists like Andra.
and it was bipartisan
Eliminate income tax on incomes up to 200,000$ and replace it with WHAT? I am willing to bet at tax not nearly as progressive as the income tax. If someone offers you a 100,000$ Diamong ring for 10 bucks, you can be sure if you buy it you will have a ring not even worth 10 bucks.
Sorry, I left out eliminate taxes on "investment income" (dividends, interest, capital gains) not on all income. Just didn't catch that.
Right, in other words completely eliminate the tax on income people make with their MONEY and leave alone the tax I make on income from my LABOR. Another HUGE tax cut for the rich is just what we need, in bizarro world.
If thats the way you look at things - "Whats in it for me?" - why should someone who has reliable health insurance want to see hundreds of billions of taxpayer money put into a national health system? And most people have health insurance and will quickly find out that if anything, they will pay more for the Democratic candidates' proposals.
My original point was that Democrats have put themselves in a foolish bind about tax cuts which they should be able to use as a political sweetener. Instead, they are actually offering absolutely nothing to MOST Americans. There aren't enough national health ideologues in Congress to go along with that.
So, in your perfect world, somebody like Paris Hilton would be exempt from federal taxes for life?
$200,000 income and under, i.e., middle class, even according to John Edwards.
Your original point is YOUR delusion. As to your question why are some people so selfish? I do have health insurance GREAT health insurance. Even if it costs me more money I want to be sure my neighbor has health insurance. Why in the WORLD would that be so hard to understand do ALL of you conservatives worship Ebeneezer Scrooge?
1. I'm not a conservative and that should be obvious. You still haven't gotten my original point, that Democrats need political sweetners. As in "Politics is the art of the possible."
2. It doesn't matter if you are as saintly as Mother Teresa, you represent only yourself, right? You're not going to get the rest of America to go along with what you want just by being mad at them or wagging your finger at them.
why should someone who has reliable health insurance want to see hundreds of billions of taxpayer money put into a national health system?
Well, if they're in the investor class, it would result in healthier workers, which means less sick time and more productive employees. It also results in healthier families, which means mom and/or dad won't be staying home as much, perhaps, with their sick kids. Or at the very least, mom and dad (the employees) won't be as stressed out about paying for whatever is ailing their little one.
And most people have health insurance and will quickly find out that if anything, they will pay more for the Democratic candidates' proposals.
Yeah, I call bullhockey. While we have one of the best health care systems in the world, we also pay twice what other countries pay for theirs. Result? Lower life expectancy for one. Our current system isn't working, and in part that's because we've got an insurance racket on top of it all taking its cut like a casino.
If people have health insurance and can get taken care of, then they'll use it for the smaller stuff rather than waiting for problems to turn into big problems. This alone reduces costs.
Medicare and SS both run with really low administrative costs. Administrative costs an insurance company can only dream of. That too will save money.
Granted, Clinton's plan and some of the other plans involve existing insurance companies, so we don't get rid of the waste with those plans. Kucinich's plan takes insurance companies out of the loop, I believe, so that would save even more.
So you're advocating/supporting that investment income shouldn't be taxed at all? That this burden should be fully shifted to those that actually WORK for a living?
Yeah, that's a great plan. *shakes head* Sure, make the labor class pay ALL taxes, good thinking. A hallmark of a free society is when one class pays all taxes, sure! And those that make more than $200K will pay every single dime they owe, right? Sure they will, uh huh! Tell me, what color is the sky on your planet?
You're advocating an ever-increasing tax burden on those that can least afford to bear that burden, while at the same time excusing those that can MOST afford to pay. Great plan, really, one that'll further upwardly distribute income, and further impoverish our rapidly-shrinking middle class.
Great, that's *just what we need*- the absurdly rich to get EVEN RICHER, while the rest of us get to pay their bills!
Typical conservative attitude- "I gots mine, screw all the rest o ya!" while you stick US with YOUR bills, complaining that it's too much for you to pay, cuz you're rich. Therefore, you should pay less. Poor people are poor because they're lazy, and don't work like you do.
Typical white is black, Slavery is freedom, and war is peace lunacy from the right.
Sheesh!
Think a little. Who is the target audience of that tax proposal? Retired people with their money in CDs. Their pensions are still being taxed; withdrawals from IRAs are still being taxed. They're still paying state and local taxes. Its very appealing to a targeted audience of people who tend to vote.
The TV commentators seem to find the most conventional stereotypes their stock in trade. I suppose there would be significant penalties for actual and intelligent discussion of these critical issues. I have met no one content with the health care system. It is a disaster. Further it is severely damaging the nation competitively. There needs to be a change. Shouldn't the various networks provide some kind of commentary that appeals to intelligence?
Where do you live? We have AETNA HMO and live in New Jersey and are satisified with the plan. What is lacking in your healthcare experience?
I know people complain about costs but we're getting a lot for those costs. My father became very ill in the late 60's and passed away after 8 years of suffering from that illness, at age 53. I have a perspective that I can appreciate the advances in medicine, particularly in diagnosis. In those 8 years, we had a half a dozen different diagnoses about what was wrong with him and it mattered because they kept changing the drugs and the drugs affected him so much. Today, with the same illness, I wonder how much longer he would have been able to live and with what quality of life. I know people who are "surviving" cancer for years who would probably have died in months back in the 70's. My sister-in-law just had a procedure for kidney stones that broke up the stone --- years ago (not too many years ago) she might have had to have an operation, which would have been a lot harder on her.
I'm all for smart ways to lower costs, too.
Right, so you're anecdotes prove that everything is everything. It's all FINE, for everyone, since it's been OK for you, allegedly.
Sorry, but your stories prove NOTHING- anecdotal evidence isn't real evidence.
We pay more for healthcare than any other civilized nation, yet are ranked 40th (or so) right behind Cuba. Doesn't this raise any alarm bells with you people at all?
Horse, water, drink- all that.
Since you are talking about surviving Cancer. Lets talk about perhaps the most important cancer drug to be discovered in the last half Century. Taxol. It was discovered by a program from the National Cancer institute testing the efficacy of different plant extracts on cancer. It was then developed by grants to universities primarily Duke a land grant university. That means that the very TAX DOLLARS spent by NCI AND NIH is 100% responsible for this drug being available to save lives, the very taxes you denigrate. Taxes are the price we pay for a society. People would be dying today of Cancer they are surviving if those of your ilk had their way. Taxes by the way have been BEING cut virtually every election cycle since 1980 and still you feel you are being taxed too much because of DEMOCRATS. The fact is that the RICH have been getting the benifits of those tax breaks and we now OWE about 7 trillion in national debt. The service OF the debt will soon take about 12% of the budget. Yet here you are touting ANOTHER tax cut that would overwhelmingly benfit the wealthy. The truth is we are among the lowest taxed countries in the industrial world about on a par with TURKEY. The difference is our tax system is less progressive than most. A situation you seem hellbent to excaberate
I'm advocating MIDDLE CLASS tax cuts. Even according to Mr. Poverty Issue, John Edwards, a $200,000 income is not "the wealthy." Why are Democrats so entrenched in being against tax cuts that they get themselves cornered by the Republicans every time? How many of them went along with Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy because they can't oppose tax cuts? Why not get out in front and offer real middle class tax cuts that extend into a range where people will vote for them? Then you have something to argue against the Republican tax cuts for the wealthy. Instead, Democrats seem to have a vision of Americans they want to appeal to that stops at maybe $50,000 income. And then they expect the $50,000 - $200,000 range to support programs - like health insurance coverage - out of the goodness of their hearts.
Well, it hasn't worked in the past and its not going to work in the future.
Why don't we try REAL trickle down economics. Give everyone some relief of their healthcare payments and provide healthcare in some form to those who need it. This way, I will have additional money to spend which will trickle down to the business moguls of America( God Bless them) and we can all live---better----and happily everafter. It sure beats the Reagan trickle down AKA "pee on my back and let it trickle down" voodoo economics.
P.S. To answer the question where will we get the money for Government healthcare?....the same place the Iraq occupation money is coming from. For that, just ask the President or should I say President Cheney.
The tax debate is one thing, but why are Matthews and all these other conservative bobble heads hung up on Hillary's gender? Seriously what difference does it make if a suburban stay-at-home mom votes for a woman or an African American from a major urban city votes for Obama? We all know most tend to view the world through a biased lens depending on what culture or race they are. All that matters is in about a year "The Administration" or, "Religious Cowboys" as I like to call them, will be out of office. Someone put me in a time capsule and wake me up when it's all over.
I would still like to know where in the Consitution of the US it says that congress even has the power to mandate insurance for every american?
Also, why is it in the rest of the markets out there technology makes prices go down and in health care new tech makes prices go up?
Let me give you a clue insurance companies make it go up because they refuse to pay the prices the doctors are charging so they raise the prices to make the margin go up this is a cycle that will continue until we people say enough and make the market work like it should and negotiate prices and pay for it that way. Insurance is not the answer prior to 1942 that is how things worked and things were good government controlled health care is not the answer either.