[ApparentlyNothing]

I seem to be the only one around here that I've noticed express any interest in Kucinich for president. I wouldn't say I'm 100% decided, but so far, he seems to be the one candidate that lines up with the issues I believe in the most. He's the Ron Paul of the Democratic side. I wouldn't mind seeing Kucinich vs. Paul in the primaries at all.

I'm of course open to persuasion, but at the moment, he's got my support.

[Jeffrey]

A good friend of mine supports Kucinich, though he admits that Kucinich's time as mayor of Cleveland was "disastrous."

I like the guy as a person (he and Dr. Paul are apparently good friends), but I don't agree with or am fearful of his approach to several issues in his platform:

* Creating a single-payer system of universal health care that provides full coverage for all Americans by passage of the United States National Health Insurance Act.

* Guaranteed quality education for all; including free pre-kindergarten and college for all who want it.

This is socialism, and it terrifies me. It won't work. How are we going to pay for it?

And for education, how are we going to establish a quality system of education in a non-competitive market? Don't kid yourself, the richest areas will find ways to obtain the best teachers. Even in today's education system, I know many public education teachers who feel guilty for not teaching in lower income areas but prefer to teach in middle class or upper income areas because they have more students of good discipline who love learning, and more opportunities to delve into their craft.

If Kucinich can spearhead the technology to offer robotic instructors plugged into a central data processor that has the capacity to interact with each student in challenging ways, then I'm all for it. But with humans? He's offering fairy tale dreams.

My apartment not too long ago implemented a legal water-sharing system. The amount of water usage is divided by the number of apartments - meaning that one pays part of the total, not necessarily her or his share. What's happened? Water wasting has increased, water usage has increased. Socialism does not hold the individual accountable to preserve and further the quality of her or his own life.

* Fostering a world of international cooperation.

While I agree with the face of much of his foreign policy (though we share different philosophies), such as his opposition to the North American Union, this is way too vague.

* Creating a cabinet-level "Department of Peace"

This is cute, but what does it mean? I certainly want a government that voids its bowels of the parasitic military-industrial complex that seeks contracts and pensions, but there are many in the military and diplomatic spheres who find violent action to be the last resort. The idea of a "Department of Peace" rather than an overhaul of diplomatic procedures seems childish and insulting.

* Strengthening gun control.

Kucinich has proposed an outright ban on handguns for all private citizens. This is terrifying. I think he completely misunderstands the cause of crime and violence in the United States, and misunderstands the Constitution he loves so much (you can buy a copy from his website that he has autographed) to propose this.

This is not to say that I agree with all of the platform issues I left out (though many I do, I just disagree with his underlying philosophies) but I think Kucinich is at best the sort of burr-under-the-saddle that Washington politics needs. I think he'd be completely unable to handle the responsibilities of the presidency, and I think many of his positions are outright wrong.

[tht00]

I alluded to him in my 'Political musings' thread.

He, like Paul, sees many of the issues head on. He's honest, understands the issues (which is huge), and has a plan.

My biggest problem with him is that he's way too Social for my taste. Universal health care and the like.

He is a lot like Paul, but a lot different. The easiest I can summarize their differences is as such -- Both want to end the Iraq war immediately, but they have differing ideals from there. Paul wants to eliminate other government agencies and cut taxes. Kucinich wants to use the saved money from the war and reinvest it.

I don't particularly agree with his economic views, but he'd be my second choice for president... simply because of his understanding of the issues, his honesty, and his integrity.

[JerryLove]

This is socialism, and it terrifies me. It won't work. How are we going to pay for it?

1) It's not Socialism, as it's not the distribution of property or wealth.

2) It does, in fact, work in a plethora of successful first-world countries who currently practice this.

3) We are going to pay for it with taxes.

But "3" seems to beg more. Firstly : We already pay for this.

3/4 of the money going to hospitals is from Medicare. Add in government employees, including the military, and their dependents, and the medicade people, and you'll find a great deal is already government-run (interestingly, the government-run medicare is actually 10% cheaper than the average private company-run medicare).

What we are not paying in taxes, we are paying in direct premiums. Do you have healthcare? Well, it ain't free.

Finally, we pay for it in terms of emergency care (and pauper funerals, and disability, and the like) for those without.

Given all that, and given that first-world countries with comprehensive social healthcare almost univesrally have not only better healtcare (on any objectiuve measurement), but also *cheaper* healthcare (Germany in particular is *half* the cost of the US), I'd have to conclude that is saves us money.

As to school. Compare the GDP of countries without public education to those with. College graduates pay back in taxes what they cost. It's an investment.

And for education, how are we going to establish a quality system of education in a non-competitive market?

Don't kid yourself. Competition doesn't lead to quality. More often the opposite, where lowering quality offers immediate gains to the bottom line.

I'll take the UCLA over the University of Pheonix any day for quality of education.

My apartment not too long ago implemented a legal water-sharing system. The amount of water usage is divided by the number of apartments - meaning that one pays part of the total, not necessarily her or his share. What's happened? Water wasting has increased, water usage has increased. Socialism does not hold the individual accountable to preserve and further the quality of her or his own life.

I agree that water-sharing systems are bad. So are such systems of almost any consumables.

Are you saying that people will start consuming more education that they waste? Are you saying that they will start getting sicker because the costs are shared? Then I suppose you oppose *all* health insurance. After-all, company-provided healthcare does the exact same thing.

This is cute, but what does it mean? I

Agreed. This sounds euphemistic and pandering.

Kucinich has proposed an outright ban on handguns for all private citizens. This is terrifying. I think he completely misunderstands the cause of crime and violence in the United States, and misunderstands the Constitution he loves so much (you can buy a copy from his website that he has autographed) to propose this.

Let me start by saying that I don't see the 2nd amendment as protecting handguns. Handguns are not useful to militias.

That said: I do agree with you that banning handguns will not prevent crime. The opposite appears to be the case: Arming the citizenry lowers violent crime.

[ApparentlyNothing]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

This is socialism, and it terrifies me. It won't work. How are we going to pay for it?

Ditto Jerry's response. Also, this from Kucinich's site...

"America's patchwork of for-profit, private insurers waste billions of dollars on spending that has nothing to do with paying for care. Elaborate underwriting, billing, sales and marketing divert huge amounts of money away from delivering health care. Huge profits and staggering compensation for the insurance companies' top executives and CEO's.

To cope with the endless bureaucracy of private insurers, health care providers maintain huge administrative staffs. The administration of the health care system today consumes approximately 31% of the money spent for health care. The potential savings, as much as $350 billion per year, are enough to provide comprehensive coverage to every American without paying any more than we already do."

This is cute, but what does it mean?

I'm assuming it has something to do with this.

http://www.thepeacealliance.org

I haven't researched it much at all, but on the surface, seeking peace when all the Republicans can seem to talk about is fear and war is quite refreshing to me. But you're probably right. An entirely new department would likely be unneeded, and instead just an overhaul of current departments and diplomatic procedures and policies.

Kucinich has proposed an outright ban on handguns for all private citizens. This is terrifying. I think he completely misunderstands the cause of crime and violence in the United States, and misunderstands the Constitution he loves so much (you can buy a copy from his website that he has autographed) to propose this.

Can you cite your source? On Kucinich's site, he doesn't say that at all.

http://www.kucinichonline.com/pdfs/K...h_Gun_Laws.pdf

In summary, tighter control, but not outright banning. Kucinich is very much a Constitutionalist, and I doubt he'd ever outright go against 2nd Amendment rights.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

1) It's not Socialism, as it's not the distribution of property or wealth.

Isn't it? Taking one person's property to benefit another? If I live a healthy life and don't rely on the healthcare system, I will still be paying for those who make willfully unhealthy choices. Their funds will not be covering their expenses.

The government is involuntarily taking funds from one's person's earnings and allocating them elsewhere. Yes, this does mean that any system with taxes has elements of socialism in it.

2) It does, in fact, work in a plethora of successful first-world countries who currently practice this.

I'm still researching, but I've been told otherwise.

3) We are going to pay for it with taxes.

But "3" seems to beg more. Firstly : We already pay for this.

3/4 of the money going to hospitals is from Medicare. Add in government employees, including the military, and their dependents, and the medicade people, and you'll find a great deal is already government-run (interestingly, the government-run medicare is actually 10% cheaper than the average private company-run medicare).

What we are not paying in taxes, we are paying in direct premiums. Do you have healthcare? Well, it ain't free.

Finally, we pay for it in terms of emergency care (and pauper funerals, and disability, and the like) for those without.

Given all that, and given that first-world countries with comprehensive social healthcare almost univesrally have not only better healtcare (on any objectiuve measurement), but also *cheaper* healthcare (Germany in particular is *half* the cost of the US), I'd have to conclude that is saves us money.

We are also a nation with a great deal of national debt. When you say "we pay for it," do you mean all payments have been made and we're not going into further debt to manage the healthcare system we already have?

Don't kid yourself. Competition doesn't lead to quality. More often the opposite, where lowering quality offers immediate gains to the bottom line.

When two or more companies compete for my dollar, I now have a range of choices. Some companies will attempt to get my dollar by lowering their prices - and obviously, by lowering quality. Others will maintain quality or raise quality in order to be noticed above the competition.

You don't think competition has driven a great deal of technological advances in recent times?

Are you saying that people will start consuming more education that they waste? Are you saying that they will start getting sicker because the costs are shared? Then I suppose you oppose *all* health insurance. After-all, company-provided healthcare does the exact same thing.

Rather than ramble about education (thread for another day, it's an important topic since I am a teacher), I would say for the healthcare system that finances keep many people honest. If the government is offering a system where people with obesity, high blood pressure, heart disease, lung cancer, etc. can receive "free" treatment, or at the very least drastically reduced in cost treatment, I imagine many people will feel less urgency to change their bad habits. Someone else will pick up the tab when it's time for treatment.

It's certainly an unfair leap to say that I oppose *all* health insurance, and I'm certain you were being facetious. When I applied for my health insurance, I had to disclose my own health history as well as current state (weight, smoking habits) and family history. It's a smaller group than a federally-run system would be (unless whoever manages universal healthcare breaks our government's bad habits of bureaucracy) and thus has more accountability. The group I have insurance with is a company that works with small businesses to ensure health coverage for their employees. My co-workers who've had to use it have had to provide clear documentation for each step, and also have dealt face-to-face with the same people who come each year to present any new changes or expansions to the policy.

Universal healthcare run on a localized basis might work, but I just fear federal government attempting to work it out. I can at this point in my life put more trust in a private organization than I can the federal government. But I still live my life without the assumption that I can depend on my health insurance - I save money from each paycheck and am active in my retirement planning already. I don't expect the average American to do the same, cynical at that may sound, and I'm worried about the mechanics of a healthcare system that doesn't take that into account.

A universal healthcare system would either have to admit those with purposefully self-destructive or negligent lifestyles, or end up being a fascist regime of mandating what one can or cannot eat, how much exercise one must get, etc.

[ApparentlyNothing]

Originally Posted by tht00

I alluded to him in my 'Political musings' thread.

He, like Paul, sees many of the issues head on. He's honest, understands the issues (which is huge), and has a plan.

My biggest problem with him is that he's way too Social for my taste. Universal health care and the like.

He is a lot like Paul, but a lot different. The easiest I can summarize their differences is as such -- Both want to end the Iraq war immediately, but they have differing ideals from there. Paul wants to eliminate other government agencies and cut taxes. Kucinich wants to use the saved money from the war and reinvest it.

I don't particularly agree with his economic views, but he'd be my second choice for president... simply because of his understanding of the issues, his honesty, and his integrity.

It seems that a lot of Paul supporters at least respect Kucinich a lot, and vice versa. While I disagree with Paul on issue, I do respect him much more than any other Republican candidate.... and probably more than most Democrat candidates too.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by ApparentlyNothing

Ditto Jerry's response. Also, this from Kucinich's site...

"America's patchwork of for-profit, private insurers waste billions of dollars on spending that has nothing to do with paying for care. Elaborate underwriting, billing, sales and marketing divert huge amounts of money away from delivering health care. Huge profits and staggering compensation for the insurance companies' top executives and CEO's.

To cope with the endless bureaucracy of private insurers, health care providers maintain huge administrative staffs. The administration of the health care system today consumes approximately 31% of the money spent for health care. The potential savings, as much as $350 billion per year, are enough to provide comprehensive coverage to every American without paying any more than we already do."

In the end, you and I (and Jerry) are going to have clashes of philosophy here. I tend to be more Objectivist.

Can you cite your source? On Kucinich's site, he doesn't say that at all.

http://www.kucinichonline.com/pdfs/K...h_Gun_Laws.pdf

In summary, tighter control, but not outright banning. Kucinich is very much a Constitutionalist, and I doubt he'd ever outright go against 2nd Amendment rights.

http://kucinich.house.gov/News/Docum...cumentID=62819

Kucinich is currently drafting legislation that would ban the purchase, sale, transfer, or possession of handguns by civilians. A gun buy-back provision will be included in the bill.

[ApparentlyNothing]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

http://kucinich.house.gov/News/Docum...cumentID=62819

Kucinich is currently drafting legislation that would ban the purchase, sale, transfer, or possession of handguns by civilians. A gun buy-back provision will be included in the bill.

Hmmm... well if this is in fact still his stance, then I'd agree with you. I don't think an outright ban would solve the problem of violence.

[JerryLove]

Isn't it? Taking one person's property to benefit another? If I live a healthy life and don't rely on the healthcare system, I will still be paying for those who make willfully unhealthy choices. Their funds will not be covering their expenses.

The government is involuntarily taking funds from one's person's earnings and allocating them elsewhere. Yes, this does mean that any system with taxes has elements of socialism in it.

So roads, ports, border-security, and the military are all socialism?

I'm sorry. You are just not meeting the English meaning of the word. However, I don't want push down into semantics. You oppose federal healthcare and you've said why. I disagree with your reasoning and have expanded on that.

I'm still researching, but I've been told otherwise.

The website is clearly after an agenda and its support is misleading. I took a cursoary look at their first statistic (that 12% of people wait a year or more for surgery) and have to harken back to when I did just that in the US.

Getting an appointment with many of my past doctors took weeks (months in the case of my Psyciatrist), and getting into Moffitt for cancer took months as well (months more to set up my BMT). That was all for-pay.

This, of course, doesn't address any number of issues like organ transplants... which routinely take years here.

Without objective numbers, and comparisons with other countries with other practices, the number is useless.

We are also a nation with a great deal of national debt. When you say "we pay for it," do you mean all payments have been made and we're not going into further debt to manage the healthcare system we already have?

You seem to be making an entirely different argument. Where before you seemed to be asserting "moving to universal healtcare will cost too much", you now seem to be saying "current healthcare costs too much"... in which case I have to ask "which part".

If you mean doctors and treatments (averaging over $5000 per person per year) cost too much, I agree. That is, however, the result of supply and demand as well as price-fixing by private healtcare providers. If you mean "we insure too many people", I would point out that the costs only go up without insurance.

Healthcare is not a consumable. It's a necessity. Everyone needs it and everyone pays for it. You seem to be positing that removing governmental heraltcare will make the costs go away. It will not. It may shift costs and that can be discussed.

As to the overall costs, the US is the most expensive in the world. Far more expensive than countries with social healthcare. Overall costs, based on the available data, would go down.

When two or more companies compete for my dollar, I now have a range of choices. Some companies will attempt to get my dollar by lowering their prices - and obviously, by lowering quality. Others will maintain quality or raise quality in order to be noticed above the competition.

Really? Why are all my toys made in China?

It rarely happens that way. The first example where it did (vehicles) was the result of governmental influence (the Japanese government taxed car companies and returned the money for infrastructure and research). Certainly the WalMart effect seems in full bloom here.

Sure, I can still get a quality plastic box; but now at a premium price far exceeding what it used to be.

You don't think competition has driven a great deal of technological advances in recent times?

You don't think that many have happened without competition?

Rather than ramble about education (thread for another day, it's an important topic since I am a teacher), I would say for the healthcare system that finances keep many people honest. If the government is offering a system where people with obesity, high blood pressure, heart disease, lung cancer, etc. can receive "free" treatment, or at the very least drastically reduced in cost treatment, I imagine many people will feel less urgency to change their bad habits. Someone else will pick up the tab when it's time for treatment.

Considering that we live in a capitalist economy without free healthcare that's full of obese people with high-blood-pressure, bad hearts, etc... and considering that there's not a bigger problem with that in countries with universal healthcare, and considering that countries with universal healtcare have a lower per-capita cost of healthcare than the US, your speculation seems to run completely contrary to observed fact.

It's certainly an unfair leap to say that I oppose *all* health insurance, and I'm certain you were being facetious. When I applied for my health insurance, I had to disclose my own health history as well as current state (weight, smoking habits) and family history.

No, I really was not.

You have a healthcare-cost sharing system just like you did a water-sharing system.

Of course, it's possible you are in one that excludes unhealthy people. As someone who would never get such insurance because I've had cancer (tell me how that was my fault), I've got to say I'm not interested. You are, indeed, opposing group helthcare.

But I still live my life without the assumption that I can depend on my health insurance - I save money from each paycheck and am active in my retirement planning already. I don't expect the average American to do the same, cynical at that may sound, and I'm worried about the mechanics of a healthcare system that doesn't take that into account.

My cancer treatment cost about a half-million dollars. I don't smoke and never have. I don't drink and never have. I exercise regularly.

So you are prepared to not depend on your healthcare? You really have a half-million dollars set aside? I doubt it. Of course, I've seen health-problems far more expensive than mine.

A universal healthcare system would either have to admit those with purposefully self-destructive or negligent lifestyles, or end up being a fascist regime of mandating what one can or cannot eat, how much exercise one must get, etc.

Or, heaven forbid.. those who have cancer.

So you support healtcare only for the healthy. I hope you never become chronically ill (you'll be dropped really fast)

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by ApparentlyNothing

It seems that a lot of Paul supporters at least respect Kucinich a lot, and vice versa. While I disagree with Paul on issue, I do respect him much more than any other Republican candidate.... and probably more than most Democrat candidates too.

You might find this interesting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qx9a4hNeIRo&NR=1

[ApparentlyNothing]

Originally Posted by slap_j

You might find this interesting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qx9a4hNeIRo&NR=1

If they were to actually be running mates and win, it would either be a big disaster or complete genius. I don't quite know which one.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by ApparentlyNothing

If they were to actually be running mates and win, it would either be a big disaster or complete genius. I don't quite know which one.

I don't see that happening. However, assuming one of them were president they would find a strong ally in the house of representatives (in either Paul or Kucinich).

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by ApparentlyNothing

If they were to actually be running mates and win, it would either be a big disaster or complete genius. I don't quite know which one.

I think it would be fantastic. I mean, I think Kucinich still believes in the State and so he hasn't gotten at the root cause of American empire-building, but a ticket like this could do a lot toward ending the blue/red dichotomy. However, I suspect that this pair would cause mass absenteeism among Republicans, resulting in a landslide loss for Paul/Kucinich.

[ApparentlyNothing]

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

I think it would be fantastic. I mean, I think Kucinich still believes in the State and so he hasn't gotten at the root cause of American empire-building, but a ticket like this could do a lot toward ending the blue/red dichotomy.

Yeah, that's what I see in the "genius" side of things. They may balance each other out, getting the best of both polar opposites.

My fear would be that they are just too different in their policies and beliefs, that in the end, not much at all would get done, or more division would be sown as opposed to the hoped unity.