Ever dream of what things would be like if Gore were president?

[rurallib]

One of the worst aspects of the B*** admin. is what might have been had we had even an average president. Although I think Gore may have aspired beyond average.
Here are some things I think may have happened:
- I doubt 9/11 would have happened. If it had the planes would probably have been intercepted before hitting their targets.
- No war in Iraq.
- Oil prices would probably have risen to @$35 a barrel, not the $62 we have now. There would not have been the rises caused by fears and disruptions.
- Following a short recession in 2001, the economy swings into high gear on an 'Apollo program' to develop new sources of energy. New companies jumping on the bandwagon offer hope to end reliance on Middle east oil.
- US commits to Kyoto treaty. Gore takes leading role in world effort to stem greenhouse gases. This also leads to new industries in the US.
- NAFTA is revised with an eye toward keeping jobs in the US.
- Following an overwhelming victory in 2004, President Gore introduces a rudimentary universal health care bill with a good chance of passage.
- As a result of the landslide election the right wing of the republican party appears to be marginalized within their own party. Their emphasis on a religious government is drawing little popular support.

Oh well - a boy can dream can't he?

[BlueEyedSon]

1. Every f'in day

[wli]

2. too depressing to think of how good it could have been

How bad it is now is already depressing enough.

[Ron Mexico]

3. Kyoto

The Senate vote on it was 98 or 99 against, zero in favor. I don't think Kyoto would have been ratified under Gore because it never would have made his desk.

I don't think bin Laden would have called off 9/11 either; it planned for years and back when it was conceived I don't think anyone, including bin Laden, would have guessed that Gore would have lost - much less to such a brainless dickhead. You may or may not be right about intercepting the planes, although I'm pretty sure the first one would have gotten through.

You're almost certainly right about the oil, probably right about NAFTA, and it's sure fun to dream that you're right about the Republican implosion.

If that health care bill is mandatory participation with lack of doctor choice, though, this is the only thing on your list in which I say "damn, I'm glad that didn't happen."

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

7. How exactly can you be against universal health care?

Money? It's cheaper than the current system if we're all buying into it with taxes.

Service? Ask any of the other industrialized nations what their health care is like. I'll save you the hassle - it's far better than what we have now.

So where's the hang up?

[Ron Mexico]

8. I'm against mandatory participation.

Where's the harm if I'm paying into the system but don't want to be treated by it? Where's the harm if I choose to get treated outside the system?

I'm very familiar with Canada's system and want no part of anything like it, especially since I'm so close to 45. I lived in England and don't want anything like their system, either. Also, where you get this "cheaper" idea is something that interests me - have a source?

At any rate, what would be wrong with taking care of those who need it and not forcing those who don't need help to participate?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

9. here's a quick article.

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2005/may/pressure_for_univers.php

But if you don't buy it, google it yourself.

[Ron Mexico]

12. Okay, thanks, when I asked for a source

I wasn't kidding or being snide. I was being quite serious.

In any case, before I read this (and even after, whether it convinces me that Canada's system is cheaper or not): although I am all for helping the poor, I will never vote for a system that doesn't allow me to choose my own doctor.

I do appreciate the article, though. Usually when you ask for a source on any board you're cordially invited to pork yourself, so it's nice to be taken seriously instead of as if I'm just being snide.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

13. No one's proposed a plan where you don't get to choose a doctor.

:hi:

[Ron Mexico]

15. But the very definition of

universal health care is that everyone has to participate. In Quebec someone had to sue for the right to spend his own money outside of the system. That's what I fear.

If you can preserve doctor choice, then you still have my interest. However, if someone else is to make that choice for me, I'll swallow the bile and wait for a good bill.

The 1993 bill supposedly had something like 15-year jail terms for seeking care outside of your assigned HMO. That's the sort of crap I expect from the Repugs.

I still say help the poor and leave everyone else alone every day except for April 15th.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

16. Are you telling me we can't tailor our own legislation?

No one is saying it's going to be EXACTLY like the Canadian plan. In fact, if we have half a brain, we'll analyze their system, keep the good, tweak the bad, and be on our way. You sound very closed to this whole idea for no good reason at all.

[Ron Mexico]

18. No good reason?

I'm not against making sure everyone is covered. I'm against everyone being herded into one plan with no choices outside of it.

As recent events have shown, Repugs can win elections (honestly or otherwise) - and that fact alone makes me against anything new and "universal." To me, that's all the reason I need to want to make sure I never lose what choice I currently have.

[sandnsea]

30. Most of Europe isn't mandatory

Mandatory pay your taxes, but not mandatory where you get your treatment. There are private hospitals and health care providers in Europe. There is also private insurance that covers gaps (yes there are gaps) in European coverage, OR pays for coverage in the private hospitals. 50% of surgeries and cancers are done through private hospitals. I wish people understood there are other options besides a massive VA program.

[Ron Mexico]

32. There are always other options, but that doesn't mean that

our government will choose them or offer them to us. It's not as if I'm against helping the poor, I just don't trust the government to make decisions about me or my family - and I do not want to be in any "mandatory" program when and if the Repugs ever grab all three posts again.

Again: I get to choose my own doctor / treatment rather than having a politician / bureaucrat do it for me, and if I still have the option to spend my own money outside of the system, then I'm open to it. If ANY of those options are unacceptable, I'd vote against it.

[Pithlet]

11. We all have our free choice of doctors now?

A majority of insured people do not have that choice, however, and many are severely limited in that choice. I don't see how it would be definite that universal health insurance would limit our choice of doctor further than it already is.

Bin Laden may not have called off 9/11, but it is arguable that 9/11 might not have happened under a Gore administration. His administration may not have ignored the evidence that it was coming, for one thing, and that could have gone a long way to thwarting Bin Laden's efforts.

I have no doubt that things would have been better, it's just to what degree that's speculative. I do feel things would have been significantly better.

[Ron Mexico]

14. If I can afford my own health care and am willing to

help those who don't, why should I lose the choice I have? Just because not everyone has choice doesn't mean nobody does. The day a politician, a bureaucrat or a roulette wheel picks my doctor for me is when I throw in the towel, stop working, binge like a mo-fo and completely let myself go.

[Pithlet]

17. How are you helping those that don't have it

by fighting to prevent everyone from having it under the misguided notion that you will no longer have a choice? What makes you think that health insurance for all means less choice? Every single person I've ever known that lived in a country with UH had far better choice than I, and I have damn good insurance. The number of Americans who can claim they have great coverage and lots of choice are dwindling by the month. And you and I are not exempt from losing that.

At least you can vote for politicians. There isn't a damn thing you can do about it if the powers that be at the cushy insurance plan you have now decides you can't see the doctor you're seeing anymore without paying for it yourself. You'll either have to suck it up and pay the entire bill, or switch insurance companies. Your perception that you have a choice is an illusion.

[Ron Mexico]

20. So if I'm understanding you correctly,

and I admit I might not be, I'd have MORE choice under a mandatory program outside of which I can't seek alternatives?

I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be snide - I really don't understand what you're saying.

[Pithlet]

23. If everyone

is insured in the exact same way, then how would you be limited in what doctors you choose to see more so than you are now? If there is one coverage for everyone, then everyone would have the same choice of doctors. Fragmenting coverage to thousands of different private providers is exactly why choice is limited for most in the first place. If private insurance is done away with, and everyone has the same plan under one provider, then everyone has access to the same doctors as everyone else. Making health coverage universal would greatly increase the list of doctors just about everyone could see, regardless of the plan. Are you telling me that your plan allows you to see whomever you want, and they'll foot the bill 100%? If that is the kind of care you have, then you are very much the exception. I don't think society should have to capitulate to that very small percentage so that small percentage can maintain their status quo (that can be taken away at any moment), and others have to go without.

Under the health care you have now, through a private entity, you have no control over what doctor you see. You really have no choice. You perceive that you have a choice, because the health insurance is letting you make that choice. As long as they're footing the bill, however, there is nothing to stop them from telling you you can't go to that doctor anymore unless you want to pay for it yourself. Basically, that's the case whenever any 3rd party is paying the bill for you, but it is particularly true when that 3rd party is a private entity who's bottom line is profit.

Not to mention the fact that your private carriers can drop you, or refuse to take you in the first place, something that couldn't happen under UHC, because everyone is guaranteed coverage. Some people are un insurable under the current system.

[Ron Mexico]

25. My plan allows me to

pick any primary doctor on a list of about 260. Granted, that isn't the world's most overwhelming choice, but what it also does is allows me to fire one and pick another at will. Does it cover everything 100%? Of course not, but I don't believe that it should.

The Canadian system which doesn't allow you to spend your own money to save your own life is absolutely horrifying to me. And if we ever have anything like that in place and a Repug wins the White House...

All I'm saying is that I woyld vote against any system in which someone other than me chooses my own doctor and my own treatment. And if I have the money to spend on top of whatever this coverage is and / or want to go outside of the system to get treatment, I want the right to do so. If we agree that this is okay, then we're only debating finer points. If not, then we'll never agree.

[Pithlet]

26. Life saving procedures

almost always means tens of thousands of dollars at the least. Often they are amounts that would bankrupt just about anyone who isn't fabulously wealthy. It horrifies you that when people get deathly ill in Canada, they aren't bankrupted by the medical bills? That's crazy!

Guess what? Someone other than you picks what doctors you see and what procedures you get. You don't really have a choice. You can only see who THEY dictate you can see. They're ALLOWING you to pick and choose from a list of THEIR making. So the list is nice and pretty looking because it's long. There is no guarantee to you that that list will stay that way, even if you stay with that provider.

Your sense that you have control over your own destiny medically speaking is an illusion.

[Ron Mexico]

33. You still haven't answered my question about how a mandatory

system gives me more choice. I know I don't get my choice of ANY doctor, but I'm running out of ways to say that I don't want a choice of just one. If I don't like my current doctor, I can pick another one. If I don't like my current plan, I can pick another one. How does being in a mandatory plan give me more choice than that, or even as much?

Canadians come over here a lot for health care, and there has to be a reason for that. The wait for an MRI up there can be months. Every day the list of things the government doesn't have to pay for grows - about a half a year ago, BC just excluded its government from covering autism in kids. I have never seen any universal or socialized health plan that I would want to be a part of, period. I'm open to different avenues of helping the poor, but if participation in anything other than your fair share of taxes is mandatory, I don't want any part of it, period.

[Pithlet]

34. I did answer that, but I'll expand on it.

I may not have been clear, though, so I'll see if I can do better: If everyone has the same coverage, then choice would be far greater for everyone because the pool of doctors wouldn't be sliced up by thousands of different private exclusive plans. Since there is only one plan, any one doctor could see whatever patient he wants, and not just the patients that are in his system. The reason why most insurance companies are so limited is there are so many different plans out there.

It isn't just doctors that insurance companies limit. It is often hospitals, and facilities as well. For instance, there are two major health care systems in the area I live in. Baptist and Methodist. Many doctors and providers of care belong to either one or the other. Many insurance plans around here belong to one or the other, but rarely both. So, if the best doctor in his field for whatever procedure I need is not in the Methodist system, and that is the one my insurance provider uses, I can't see him under my insurance plan. Edited to add that it doesn't matter how long the list of doctors approved if I can't see that one that I need to. With UHC, systems like that would disappear, greatly increasing my options.

I've simplified it for space, and there are so many ways that the private insurance system limits us that I could go on and on. The fact that a majority of privately insured individuals are insured through their workplace can be limiting to life choices, for example. We simply aren't all that free under the system we have now, in many ways. There may be an extremely small segment of the population that would be more limited by a move to UHC. But even then, it wouldn't limit them by all that much more than they already are. Certainly not be a large enough degree to justify refusing it for everyone else.

[Ron Mexico]

39. Apologies, I didn't phrase that well.

I meant to say "you didn't give me an answer I liked / fully understood," to be honest, not "you difn't answer.

I understand your point, I'm just not convinced. UHC (what versions of it there are out there) have pretty frightening histories of long waits in line, not to mention abuses of the system. Until I see a system that I truly think will work in a country of our population (not to even begin to mention those here illegally), I still stick with "help the poor, leave everyone else out of it." From everything I've seen, I have come to the conclusion that you can have health care for all, but not GOOD health care for all.

My main problem is that once you turn anything over to the government, you can never go back. Like it or not, we're not always going to have control, as evidenced between the Dark Ages of January 2001 to Present Day - and I'm not willing to sign on to ANY version of UHC (suppose the Repugs whipped up a version right now - what are the chances that the two of us would be happy with it?). The Repugs couldn't even handle flu shots properly, for God's sake. Again, for me this is a deal-breaker: I have to be able to seek health care outside of the system if I'm not happy with what the system offers. In other words, I want the option not to use the system (or, if you will, to opt out of it in every way except for taxpaying responsibility). If I don't get that, I can't bring myself to vote for it.

All I have is my opinion, but there's no way that a bad universal plan is better than none, even if it's our side creating it

Apologies for the bad phrasing, though. You did in fact answer me.

[Pithlet]

44. I'm not saying that UHC would be perfect, without any problems

I've heard the stories, too. I'll take those stories over people who've died because they couldn't get the care, period. Or lost their homes and their livelihoods because a private insurance beholden to no one but their shareholders made a decision not to cover them. Or people who have no access to coverage to begin with.

I can understand your reservations, but I don't understand your total unwillingness to ever sign on to one. Bad coverage is indeed better than no coverage at all. Anyone who's gone without health insurance will tell you that in a heartbeat, particularly if they ever fell ill. It is unconscionable that there are millions of uninsured Americans. The problem is bad and is only getting worse under our private system. Your unwillingness to sign onto it, and the fact that there are many out there like you are what prevent those millions of Americans from getting coverage. We should have had UHC a long time ago.

To me, this shouldn't even be an issue. While details would need to be hammered out, I can't see why ANYONE is completely against the idea of UHC. To live knowing that you never have to worry about your medical bills, and being able to see the doctor you want to see, and know that if you ever get something like cancer you'll never have to choose between chemo and your house payment, or even being able to get it at all, is well worth the change from the convoluted expensive system that leaves millions out in the dark.

I'll also add that evidence suggests that many of the fears that people have and the horror stories they've heard about other countries are greatly exaggerated by parties who have a keen interest in making sure UHC never happens, but that's another thread for another day.

[Ron Mexico]

49. I don't believe that

a system in which you NEVER have to worry about your medical bills is possible in a country of this size and population. There's no such sense of security in England, and in Canada the list of things not covered continues to grow. The system you describe - no bills ever again, seeing any doctor, etc, is something that sounds great but I can't see it as feasible. I also see it as working only as long as we have the White House and the Hill.

I further disagree with your "bad coverage is indeed better than no coverage at all" IF the bad coverage is the only legal option I have. If you think it can never come to that, then the Bush Administration has taught us nothing. I may be a bit Oliver Stonish on this, but I don't trust the feds to run this right especially if participation (other than taxpaying responsibility) is mandatory, and regardless of what nice and sweet promises we're given at the beginning (like the benefits you claim we'd get), the end product would be the result of continuous tax increases and cuts in benefits. Look at the original promises of Social Security and look at it now - all those tax increases and benefit cuts later.

You may think my fears are tin hat, but with all due respect (and I mean that), I think your dreams are pie in the sky. We'll eventually have a program in which everyone has to participate, but the doctor choice and lack of bills you cite is just not realistic. I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, but I really do enjoy the talk.

[Ron Mexico]

21. I should add

that if you look at my post overall, I'm not arguing with the notion that things would be better, I just had a couple of reservations about the original post. It's had a fair number of replies and nobody has taken issue with my remarks on Kyoto, for instance. But nothing - NOTHING - scares me more than the idea of a politician or insurance company deciding that I don't qualify for such-and-such a treatment.

The list of things that the Canadian system no longer has to pay for grows every day. I don't want a part of being forced into anything like that if I can afford to pay the taxes to support it AND still want to go somewhere else to be treated.

[Pithlet]

38. I undertand

That notion scares me as well. But, you'll have that whenever you have a third party paying the bills. I'd just rather have that party one that's held accountable by everyone, and not a bunch of suits out to make a buck where we can do nothing if we don't like the choices they've made.

[Ron Mexico]

42. I understand you, too, but

I think our fears are slightly different (or the way we would prioritize them is). The current government, as we've seen, is accountable to nobody. Imagine if we had passed a version of UHC in 1993 and then tell me you believe that Bush wouldn't stoop to things such as "talk, or your family gets cut off." That's just the surface of what these guys are capable of. "Outlaw naked statues or your state gets no health care funding." Admittedly not likely, but would it really surprise you that much if he did something like this? Not me.

Greed doesn't scare me nearly as lust for power - heavily seasoned with shortsightedness and stupidity - does. Until I see a system that truly benefits everyone and has plenty of safeguards against abuse by government or hypochondraics, I'm afraid that even the Rams cheerleaders couldn't talk me into it.

[Pithlet]

46. The government is indeed accountable.

I don't know what you mean by as we've seen. We can vote them in or out. Sure, it doesn't mean you'll always get what you want, but that's politics. And it is better than a board appointed by shareholders, which we absolutely have no control over.

Your fears that you discuss are getting into the realm of tin foil possibilities. While their might be a slight possibility of some of those scenarios, I hardly think it's worth leaving millions to die from lack of insurance to guard from those unlikely scenarios.

That lust for power can be bad, but it can also drive people to do the right thing. Don't think that half of the benefits we enjoy as a society weren't brought about by a politician who brought them about to get votes. There are so many things we enjoy that would crumble to dust or become available only to the affluent if left to go private. Your arguments against UHC are also many of the same arguments used to dismantle public education, for example.

[Ron Mexico]

48. The simple fact is that

I don't trust the federal government anymore. Granted, I didn't use good examples, but even if "millions" of lives are at stake, I have a hard time giving the federal government that much power and responsibility without a guarantee that we don't get another administration like this one.

By "as we've seen," I meant that the current government can drag our asses into war and do whatever else it wants, and nothing really happens. Rove will skate, as will any other major figure in the administration. "We can vote them out" isn't enough accountability for me when gerrymandered redistricting gives incumbents on the Hill a 90%+ chance of reelection, and it's not as if every government lawbreaker (or even a hundredth of them) is actually held accountable legally. Was "we can vote them out" enough for you last November when Kerry conceded? The amount of damage an administration can do in four years is staggering, and I'm not willing to trust any aspect of my health decisions to a government that is run by Bush now and could be run by another similar asswipe in the future. Like I said: help the poor, but unless I get every guarantee I want, leave me out of it.

The more we've discussed this, even with some admittedly excellent points from you, the more against UHC I actually am. Bush has changed the way I view lots of things, and trust in the federal government is at the top of the list. It's not as if I ever trusted them completely before, but man, letting even the possibility another type like Bush pull the strings on health care when everyone is forced into the system is unthinkable to me. No thanks, count me out.

[BlueEyedSon]

36. Maybe the airforce would not have been grounded that day if Gore were CIC

[Ron Mexico]

40. Possible, but I still

doubt that the attacks would have been called off. Just my opinion.

[BlueEyedSon]

41. Oh yeah, and maybe the POTUS wouldn't have taken a

month-long vacation after seeing this:

[Ron Mexico]

43. Well, on this one you definitely

have a killer point. I'm amazed that I didn't remember that.

[BlueEyedSon]

45. If I had the time I could "remind" you of a few dozen goofs from the

oval office on down that made 9/11 a shoo-in....

[Ron Mexico]

47. When you have time, please do...

...I'd like to think I remember most of them, but if that one could slip through the cracks, who knows what else I forgot.

[garybeck]

4. One Word: APOLLO ALLIANCE

OK, that's two words.

but if Gore was prez, this is what we'd be doing instead of dropping bombs on kids in Iraq:

http://www.apolloalliance.org

Gore is still my choice for 08.

[B Calm]

5. Everybody would be driving solar powered flying cars!

[swimmernsecretsea]

6. Almost daily.

And then, I come back to reality and get very very depressed. Makes me wish I could stop, but it's automatic now. Sometimes I even avoid the news because the "Gore is President" fantasy starts up.

[malmapus]

10. Just about every day

The thing that tops my list is that untold thousands would still be alive today if he were President.

[etherealtruth]

19. Every time the Chimp opens his mouth ... n/t

[SammyWinstonJack]

22. Daily, for four + years now.

:-(

[Lefty48197]

24. Let's see....

...the media, both right wing and "mainstream" would have pummeled President Gore for letting one of his friends drive a navy ship and kill some Japanese fishermen. They would have beaten him up for bombing that Red Cross bread storage facility in Afghanistan. They would have 'gored' him for wasting the people's surplus, and running up a huge deficit. They would have screamed at him for pissing off the Venezuelans, and allowing oil to rise to $62 per barrel. They would have tortured him for allowing 911 to happen, and for subsequently failing to kill Bin Laden. They would have dragged President Gore out in the street, hanged him, and set him on fire, for lying to the American people about Iraq, and starting a needless war.

[proud patriot]

27. Nope .. Way too depressing doing that

:hi:

[LittleClarkie]

28. I dream more about what a Kerry administration would have been like

and then I burst into tears.

[GreenPartyVoter]

29. I dream about a socialist/populist utopia as a goal for our country

[Javaman]

31. When you are living in hell, it's hard to imagine heaven.

[Zorra]

35. Only when I breathe. n/t

[Uncle Joe]

37. Basically the difference between Bedford Falls and Pottersville.

I cannot stress enough the vast gulf seperating the corrupt incompetent naked wonder posing as Emperor that was installed during the 2000 coup and the brilliant visionary that is Al Gore. I believe that Al Gore would have been the greatest President that we ever had.

[kodi]

50. Of all sad things of tongue or pen, the saddest are: It might have been

Of all sad things of tongue or pen, the saddest are these: It might have been. John Greenleaf Whittier ...