| Summary: | I • I 1 January 17,1992 Opinion 7 Inadequacies outweigh benefits in healthcare debate War of the Rose Todd Rosencrans Several days before the November 1991 election, the pollsters knew a political coup was going to lake place in Pennsylvania. Democrat Harris Wofford, appointed to finish out the term of Republican Senator John Heinz after Heinz *s tragic death, had orchestrated a dramatic campaign that saw Bush-favorite Dick Thornburgh's 44 point lead dissolve and partially reverse itself. ' Besides the advantage given by his opponent's arrogant 'Thank God for Dick Thornburgh" campaign, Wofford had a lock on the issue that by election day had Pennsylvanians in a lather: national health insurance. Wofford had no concrete plan, but that didn't matter. Wofford was scarce on details, but high on conviction he delivered with a folksy populist flair that eventually sent the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee back to the Beltway briar patch licking their wounds. By now the statistics are almost common knowledge: over 35 million Americans lack any form of health insurance. Unlike its industrialized Western companions where health insurance coverage is inherent in citizenship, the United States has shied away from providing a government financed universal health care system. Instead, the American hybrid combination public and private system has evolved into a paradoxical system of excess and deprivation. The decade of the 1980s saw a dramatic increase in the share of national expenditures devoted to health care, while at the same lime a dramitic decrease in the number of people who arc protected by health insurance. The share of the gross national product (GNP) devoted to health care rose from 9.1 percent in 1980 to Today's music deteriorating fast Deke's Diary Derek Wolden ,11'f.v/f o;•••'-• 0(8§roemberplaying the recorder in fourth grade. I think I was the greatest kid to ever perform "Hot Cross Buns." Then came that precious tune "Camptown Races." About 15 years later I found myself "cutting a rug" at a local establishment to some dude named Hammer telling me I'm "too legit to quit." It's 1992 and I am afraid the evolution of music has started to completely deteriorate. We are ia the age of rap, sex ^nd (I hate to admit it, but) country. Could someone please tell me where rock'n'roll has gone? In 1971 the great lyricist John Lennon challenged us to imagine what the world would be like to have "a brotherhood of man" living together in peace. About the sqfne time a couple of fellas commonly kftown as Simon and Garfunkel discussed "people talking without speaking, people hearing without listening. within the sounds of silence." Two decades later America is listening to such poets as Vanilla Ice and Hammer. I was watching Saturday Night Live a couple of weeks ago and this guy with a really bad haircut was dancing on the floor, while his compatriot-in-arms behind the keyboard was telling the crowd to say "sing Ice, Ice baby." Andthat was about the extent of his tune. Hammer tells us that some family friends of his v/ill say what they want to say, play what they what to play, do what they what to do, because they are none other than the Addams Family. Of course this is the same guy who is too legit to quit and has been working hard hammering this and that because this is not Miller Time, it's Hammer Time. This guy is so cool that he has dropped his initials M.C. joining such celebrities as Cher, Madonna and Morrie. I bet I would be on a Hammer-Deke basis and I doubt if he even has his doctorate. Everyone likes some form of music whether it be rock, jazz, classical or whatever. My parents gave me Paul Simon's "Concert in the Park" from last summer for Christmas. Of course that was because I bought myself the 77-song box set from Crosby, Stills and Nash in November. You see, I'm one of those guys who listens to those classic hits from the past since there isn't a whole lot of decent music being created today in my mind. There is a single culprit which has sparked the deterioration in music. The television. That same nasty mass medium which helped JFK defeat Richard Nixon. More specifically, the culprit is music television. Pictures allow bad musicians the opportunity to become famous. The trick to overnight success in the '90's is to have more sexual connotations, more skin and more women. It isn't too hard to accomplish. I would imagine the production of a Paula Abdul video would have a number of high-angle takes so the home viewer can see enough of Paula's cleavage before her breasts actually fall out of television into someone's lap. It seems ironic that in 1968 Graham Nash was kicked out of the Hollies for j writing "Sleep Song" which talked about 1 disrobing and lying down with someone j that you love. I think it's illegal for today's stars not to grab their crotch at least a couple of times per song. Country music is also making a revival with network appearances by such stars as Garth Brooks. I guess I don't prefer a guy with a twangy voice telling the story of some poor soul sulking in a bar after losing his job, wife and car (not necessarily in that order). Oops, I just got the Montanan's mad at me - again. Popular music has ridden a generational rollercoaster. We have gone from the big band era, through Elvis, past the Beatles, over disco and have become entrenched in rap. I hope if there is a nuclear holocaust is in the near future that somebody takes out the MTV satellite - first. nearly 12 percent in 1990, while at the same time, the number of the uninsured increased from 24.5 million to nearly 34 million people. While the problem is easy to define an acceptable solution is as elusive as Jerry Brown's 800 number. There are about as many health care reform bills in the 102 Congress as there are congressmen and the Democratic presidential candidates come replete with proposals of their own. However, these promises of a government-run universal health care system should be viewed with skepticism before you cast your ballot First, what arc the consequences of a greater government role in health care? Though polls indicate that Canadians and Britains by and large like their health care systems, it is doubtful that Americans would tolerate a government role to the extent seen in cither country. A govcrnment-run health care system necessarily means the creation of a huge budget driven government burcacracy that brings with it political decision making with respect to allocation of resources. For example, in Canada new facilities, equipment, major hospital renovations and other capital expenditures have to be approved by the minister of health. Moreover, when the demand is greater than the supply of health services, the result is long waiting lists. In Newfoundland, Canada, there was one functioning CAT scan team in 1989 resulting in a wait of 2.5 months. For citizens in New Zealand's system of government health care the waiting list for a mammogram is 2.5 months; hip replacement, 6-10 months; CAT scan, two months, and; PAP smear, 2- 5 months. But perhaps most telling, up to 9000 people die in Great Britain each year because they cannot get kidney dialysis. All of this leads to speculation of just how well Canadians would view their system without the safety valve of the United States for health services. If we can agree that government should take a proactive*step in extending universal . coverage to all citizens of the United States, wouldn't the massive outlay of funds be more efficiently utilized in the private sector? A government can still establish a social contract with its people, but that contract docs not necessarily imply a government takeover of health care insurance and delivery. Finally, do these Democrats have the political wherewithal Jo enact a sweeping health care reform? Without much thought, the answer is a resounding "NO." National health care proposals have been around for a long time. A version of the "play or pay" proposal ihc Democratic leadership is currently touting had its birth in the Nixon administration. But has Congress ever acted on any of these proposals? Last election cycle, organized health care interests gave $60 million in campaign contributions*!© preserve the health care status quo. The vast majority of this money was committee specific and incumbent oriented. To enact reform, the entrenched political class would have to sever the thick umbilical cord that refuels their constant campaigns. Going into a tough 1992 election year, I do not think they arc ready to sharpen the scalpel. Conservatives cheering Buchanan From the Far Right Jeff Peterson Pat Buchanan comes from a middle-class, Catholic family of nine children with no history of political involvement, yet he came to prominence serving presidents Nixon, Ford and Reagan. Buchanan is known as the pit bull of the American right. Why then would Buchanan want to run for the Republican nomination for President against Bush? Pat Buchanana's mission: to put America first, to make America first and keep America first The time when America could ship off $300 million a week in foreign aid to third world regimes and not miss it is over. Americans need work not welfare. They want to be challenged. They want to be led. Who does this strike a chord with? True conservatives. Why would a republican challenge an incumbent Republican president? Because many conservatives feel Bush has left them out in the cold. Last November, the Bush administration cut a backroom deal with Congress and gave Americans the largest tax increase in American history-$167 billlion over five yeras. Huge new regulatory measures in the form of the enormously costly Clean Air Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act and the new racial quota bill make it that much more difficult to do business in the U. S. What is Pat Buchanan's agenda? Buchanan believes in a limited government that balances its books, keeps taxes low, provides incentives for business investment, growth and - entrepreneurial expansion. The presidential veto would become his best friend on wasteful and excessive spending. He sounds too good to be true you think. What then is Buchanan's downfall? Protectionism and isolationism. Buchanan favors protectionist trade measures, sharp limits on immigration, and an isolationist foreign policy, all of which are opposed by people who claim they arc as conservative as Buchanan. Why are conservatives, like myself, overlooking Buchanan's downfalls and cheering him on? Because Buchanan will make Bush respond to his ideas or force him to convincingly state his own. Buchanan has strong convictions and wants to act The question is does Bush have convictions and if so, is he willing to make a few enemies for the sake of winning the re-election? All Bush has done is speak of some vague new world order. No one knows exactly what that is. What do I think will happen? Bush will move farther to the right, to shore up the conservative votes he is missing. Buchanan will then concede the nomination to Bush and support him for the 1992 election. Bush will then get re-elected to the presicdency. What happens to Pat Buchanan? 1996. Lodes like 24 years of republican presidents.
|
|---|