Dennis Kucinich

[GoodCallYouWin]

"
Dennis is by far the best semi-mainstream candidate to ever run for president."

Wrong!

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="purple">Dennis is by far the best semi-mainstream candidate to ever run for president. To me the other democratic candidates are lacking. Every position Dennis has I agree with. He NEVER voted for funding for the war. He won't take money from corporations. He is for NOT FOR PROFIT universal health care. He is the first true candidate running for president with integrity. How can you not love this guy? </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

I hear ya man, Dennis is smack dab in the middle ..... to you.

[Bob Moss]

[ QUOTE ]

Maybe instead of restricting freedom in healthcare, you should consider increasing freedom in healthcare. It's the restriction of freedom that has caused the problems that exist. There is massive restriction currently, and the trend has been an ever increasing buildup of govt involvement in the past 40 years. The results are telling of this govt involvement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's an interesting article on this history of the American Medial Association.

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How can you not love this guy?

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He is for NOT FOR PROFIT universal health care.

[/ QUOTE ]
So he's economically retarded. Why would we want him in any position of authority?

[/ QUOTE ]

<font color="purple">What's wrong with not for profit health care? </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

From the Financial Times:

[ QUOTE ]
Medical care involves far trickier challenges in balancing redistribution and incentives for quality care and innovation. It is one thing to guarantee everyone equal access to medical care when health expenditures account for 5 per cent of GDP, as they did in the early 1950s in the US. It is another thing to do so when health expenditures reach 16 per cent of GDP as they do today and it will be even more problematic if expenditures rise to 30 per cent of GDP, as some leading economists such as David Cutler, Robert Hall and Charles Jones have predicted. With healthcare at 30 per cent of GDP, efforts to maintain equality may begin to seem like Marxism.

[/ QUOTE ]

(Incidentally, i don't agree with socialized healthcare at any % of GDP - I just thought I'd point out the obvious pitfall to those who might not have considered it.)

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
From the Financial Times:


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Medical care involves far trickier challenges in balancing redistribution and incentives for quality care and innovation. It is one thing to guarantee everyone equal access to medical care when health expenditures account for 5 per cent of GDP, as they did in the early 1950s in the US. It is another thing to do so when health expenditures reach 16 per cent of GDP as they do today and it will be even more problematic if expenditures rise to 30 per cent of GDP, as some leading economists such as David Cutler, Robert Hall and Charles Jones have predicted. With healthcare at 30 per cent of GDP, efforts to maintain equality may begin to seem like Marxism.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



(Incidentally, i don't agree with socialized healthcare at any % of GDP - I just thought I'd point out the obvious pitfall to those who might not have considered it.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, these are problems with centralized universal health care, not 'not-for-profit' health care, no?


OP: I actually kind of like Kucinich, perhaps because he's like the only candidate (besides Paul, of course) who I think really has integrity. And while I'd probably support him over any other Democrat candidate, I can't say that I think very highly of his big government socialist "solutions" to the problems I think he (more or less correctly) discerns.

[reup]

kucinich reminds of the guy who didn't get picked for either side at recess. now he's storming back into the picture with luuuuv on his side, preaching world peace and unity. i like a lot of the things he says, but i question his manhood.

ron paul otoh, does not need to rhetoric love to prove he's gentleman

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, these are problems with centralized universal health care, not 'not-for-profit' health care, no?

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not just 'not-for-profit' health care. According to OP it's to be universal. Pretty unlikely that Kucinich's plan doesn't involve centralizing healthcare.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not just 'not-for-profit' health care. According to OP it's to be universal. Pretty unlikely that Kucinich's plan doesn't involve centralizing healthcare.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, yeah, Kucinich's health care plan really sucks; it just seemed like most of the responses were focused on the 'non-profit' aspect when they should be focused on the 'centralized state-provided' aspect.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's not just 'not-for-profit' health care. According to OP it's to be universal. Pretty unlikely that Kucinich's plan doesn't involve centralizing healthcare.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, yeah, Kucinich's health care plan really sucks; it just seemed like most of the responses were focused on the 'non-profit' aspect when they should be focused on the 'centralized state-provided' aspect.

[/ QUOTE ]


'Not-for-profit' instead of 'communist/dictatorship-style' is used because profit has been demonized. The intent is to portray profits as involuntary and not-for-profit as voluntary, where the reality is the exact opposite.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
Because he's an idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]
I would call him a lunatic rather than an idiot. This man's elevator does not go to the top floor... This of course says a lot about his supporters. I would also call him a stalinist. His has launched a full-frontal assault on 'free speech' with his advocacy of the fairness doctrine.

Many dems attack Bush for supposedly taking away their freedoms but Kook-cinich is the real power grabber trying to establish an Orwellian world of restricted speech on the radio....