As the 2008 election year approaches, the candidates are each scrambling to create their plans of action and we can already see some difference between the republicans and democrats. The two parties seem to be sorely divided over whether health care should be a national, state or individually centered program.
On the democrats side, Hilary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama require all Americans to have health care. According to the “Wall Street Journal” Edwards seems to have the most liberal plan because his idea creates a basis for national health insurance. Meanwhile Obama’s plan differs from his competitors because the mandatory health insurance only applies to children. On the other hand, republicans like Mitt Romney and Rudy Guiliani have decided that tax breaks and individual insurance is the best policy. (According WSJ republican candidates John Mcain and Fred Thompson haven’t released detailed plans).
--Kelsey M.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Brand new article about Hillary Clinton's plan: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-clinton18sep18,0,7920987.story?coll=la-home-center
A plan proffered in 1994 by a Hillary-led task force went down in flames in the US Congress and probably contributed to the GOP election rout that November, so she has a history with this policy area, one that I predict will net her new plan more attention than the rest of the field.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iCuWwRgWCiIEtApLVsrE6aXMnYwg
This gives a little bit more insight into McCain/Thompson's views on health care, as well as other candidates views.
It's good b/c it's really short and to the point.
I feel badly for Al Gore and John Kerry. They would each be nearly shoe-ins for the 2008 election. At this point, it seems that Bush has screwed up enough to make it nearly impossible for a Republican candidate to win the '08 election. However, when a conservative republican looks at the democratic candidates, he or she sees a woman, an African American, and John Edwards (nothing personal against Edwards- he is just way too liberal to stand a chance with Republicans). I personally think Hilary and Obama are very strong candidates. But you have to wonder if the Republicans are ready for them?
I had to check out Angela's link after I realized I knew very little about one of the country's biggest current issues. From the policies I saw it seemed that Democrats are actively pursuing more health coverage, while Republicans don't really want to change the health care system that much. To me it seems obvious that it would be a good idea to expand health care coverage at the expense of increased taxing on the wealthy, but what do I know? Some information the link doesn't have is how substantial the increased taxes on the wealthy would be.
In response to Ben's question- on SNL, Chris Rock asked himself a similar question of whether republicans are ready for a woman or black president. Without hesitation he responded, "Yea, I don't see why not. We just had a retarted one."
-Hank Moody
I agree with Ben. Although Bush has made it practically impossible for a Republican candidate to win the 2008 election, the leading Democratic candidates are either female or African American. Although this is certainly not a bad thing, and this sort of change is the next step we must take as an evolving nation, there are some people that are still not ready for this change. Many Republican voters have gotten fed up with the Republican Party and are probably considering voting Democrat, but the novelty of a Female or African American president might be too much for them to handle at this point in time.
just an update:
John Mcain's proposed plan promotes prescription drug coverage for older people and expanded insurance for children. His plan, like many other rupublicans does not provide for universal coverage.
Fred Thompson has anounced a plan for a market driven system to provide individual coverage...
these republican plans fit right in with the somewhat hands off ideas of the other republican candidates.
(thanks for the website Angela)
--Kelsey M.
I disagree with the thought that the republicans can't win the presidential election. As long as the candidate proves himself to be different from Bush, he will have a definite chance at becoming president. People's dislike of Bush doesn't necessarily make them dislike all republicans. There are republicans that dislike both Bush's policies and democrat policies.
In response to Justin's argument, I agree that Bush's poor job in office will not lead to a sure win for the Democratic Party, but it is hard for an average American citizen to not feel some disrespect towards the Bush’s party as a whole. Despite what some may think most people do not separate the Republican Party from those who represent it, which will therefore make it at least harder for the Republican Party to win. In my opinion, when people presently think of the Republican Party the think of the bad decisions Bush has made, and where these decisions have left America.
Did Mr. Silton not say that Republicans think that Bush is not conservative enough? He pushed for the No Child Left Behind Act. He "diversified" his cabinet. Yeah.
Here's an op-ed by Richard Cohen applying the term Neoliberal to Bush:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/28/AR2007052801053.html
Well, it is true that some people who call themselves "conservative" think Bush's spending spree was neither wise nor "conservative." However, on social policy, he's been pretty steadfast, he hasn't instituted any new economic regulations to speak of, and there are more self-described conservatives who believe in an interventionist, globalist foreign policy (i.e. like Bush's) than there are self-described conservatives who wish for either an isolationist or humble foreign policy.
Alan Greenspan's new book and the reviews thereof do a good job of covering this perspective.
Post a Comment