<p>“What shady deals?”</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html?_r=2&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html?_r=2&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin</a></p>
<p>“I don’t know the above for sure (and knowing for sure doesn’t seem to matter much), but it seems more likely than the Kazakhstan hypothetical. I mean, the Clinton’s may throw away a trillion or two because of Kazakhstan. I don’t think so.”</p>
<p>I’m sorry but I don’t get what you mean here.</p>
<p>Both want to spend $120-$150 billion additional on health care when, with a flexible, single-payor system, they could cover all the uninsured without spending a single dime more than we do now. And we’d have better care. Wait times (for those with insurance) for cancer surgery would no longer be greater than that for elective surgery in Canada. Folks could really choose their own doctors on the basis of quality rather than have some insurance ‘underwriter’ (undertaker?) choose them for us. There really could be competition among providers. (Competition - that’s a strange idea, isn’t it?) Care would no longer be “managed to care less” - we wouldn’t have the health care rationing we have now under corporate socialism. And there would be no uninsured. </p>
<p>But we can’t get there from here. So a modest proposal. Pay the health insurers $120 billion a year for five years TO DO NOTHING. Yup, more than half a trillion. We actually do that now - it’s called medical underwriting, where we pay them to deny care, to make folks wait longer for care, to cut people off from care. Pay them to NOT provide care. And pay their lobbyists too - big time - give 'em all million dollar bonuses, throw in a couple of Beemers. And then set up a system that really works - for everyone.</p>
<p>It would be cheaper than what we have now. Quality would improve radically. And, believe me, all the insurers would take it - no health insurance CEO lasts more than five years now, and short-term profit is what it is all about.</p>
<p>Does anybody know how business is done in this country and the world? Somebody used Clinton’s connections to make money. Clinton used his connections to make money. I thought that is one reason why everybody want to go to the top schools. One reason is connections.</p>
<p>If people stopped using connections to make money our economic system would collapse.</p>
<p>Bill Clinton is a private citizen.</p>
<p>“Bill Clinton is a private citizen”</p>
<p>And if Hillary is elected, he will be a private citizen of questionable ethics who has total access to the president. There is no reason to believe that his outsize appetites will be put on hold if he became First Laddie. Does anyone think that Hillary’s election and his return to the White House would subvert the intent of the Consitutional term limits?</p>
<p>Zoosermom, did the Bush family sever all ties with Saudi Arabia? The hijackers on 9-11 were Saudis. Somehow, we ended up attacking Iraq.</p>
<p>Odd.</p>
<p>“Does anyone think that Hillary’s election and his return to the White House would subvert the intent of the Consitutional term limits?”</p>
<p>I don’t.</p>
<p>“Zoosermom, did the Bush family sever all ties with Saudi Arabia? The hijackers on 9-11 were Saudis. Somehow, we ended up attacking Iraq.”</p>
<p>WHAT? I asked you to clarify your post. How did you get from there to here?</p>
<p>That is very, very true, but I’ve never known anyone to accuse Laura Bush of peddling access.</p>
<p>"“Does anyone think that Hillary’s election and his return to the White House would subvert the intent of the Consitutional term limits?”</p>
<p>I don’t."</p>
<p>I do because I do think it would be a co-presidency and nothing in the campaign has indicated otherwise. But you know what? Nice people can disagree.</p>
<p>I am saying we are in Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia due to the fact that the Bush’s had friends and economic interests in Saudi Arabia. It is going to cost us over 1 trillion dollars.</p>
<p>And you are worried about Bill Clinton’s peddling access? Bill Clinton is minor leagues compared to the Bushes.</p>
<p>"I am saying we are in Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia due to the fact that the Bush’s had friends and economic interests in Saudi Arabia.</p>
<p>Have you started TGIF libations already?</p>
<p>Dstark:</p>
<p>Much as I disagreed with Margaret Thatcher’s policies, I was never ever in doubt that she owed her career to herself and not to her husband; she never traded on his connections–and he never traded on being the PM’s spouse.
Mitterand lost my support not because of his having a mistress and a love child, but because of his son’s corrupt dealings in Africa. Bill is like that son, but even more powerful.</p>
<p>And yes, it is a third presidency. Unless he decides to move to Ireland where one of his sweeties resides.</p>
<p>As for the Bushes, I’d be the last person to support them, so I don’t see how relevant they are to a discussion of Billary.</p>
<p>“And you are worried about Bill Clinton’s peddling access? Bill Clinton is minor leagues compared to the Bushes.”</p>
<p>Hmmm. Not sure about that. Technology to China?</p>
<p>And see, now you got me arguing hypotheticals instead of real issues. 
I am defending Bill Clinton against hypotheticals.</p>
<p>He is not even running. </p>
<p>What a ridiculous way to choose a candidate. Based on her husband’s possible behavior.</p>
<p>No wonder the population keeps voting against their economic interests.</p>
<p>“He is not even running.”</p>
<p>I think he is.</p>
<p>On subverting the intent of Constitutional term limits, I agree with dstark that Hillary’s election would not. I don’t doubt that she is her own “decider,” despite the influence Bill would have. But the possible Presidential sequence
Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-Clinton does bother me.</p>
<p>Speaking of Margaret Thatcher, whom I admire and met, the only political position she held before becoming PM was four years as Secretary of State for Education and Skills.</p>
<p>Take that as you will re: Obama’s qualifications.</p>
<p>“Based on her husband’s possible behavior.”</p>
<p>Probable behavior would be more accurate.</p>
<p>Dstark: “He is not even running.”</p>
<p>Zoosermom: “I think he is.”</p>
<p>On the basis of his behavior during this campaign, a WHOLE LOT of people think he’s a lot more invested in the outcome of this election than that of a mere candidate’s spouse. I entirely agree.</p>
<p>Dstark: “What a ridiculous way to choose a candidate. Based on her husband’s possible behavior.”</p>
<p>The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. Bill’s track record raises legitimate concerns.</p>
<p>update- LA TIMES- endorses Obama—Mccain</p>