Comments on: What’s the deal with Bobby Jindal?

By: StuBob

StuBob — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 15:23:32 +0000

I’m not saying “universal healthcare” is a good or bad thing. All I’m saying is that it isn’t “conservative” to make the government bigger, and there’s no way to universalize medical care without a zillion new regulations, government funding, and Big Brother making medical decisions.

Report comment to moderator

By: Chas

Chas — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 13:00:39 +0000

Llama, when the Bush twins run, I will be 112. I’m looking forward to it.

Report comment to moderator

By: Theon Deon

Theon Deon — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 03:55:41 +0000

Will Louisiana lose delegates and representatives when God finally reclaims New Orleans for the ocean? That nasty place should be abandoned.

Report comment to moderator

By: Peter L

Peter L — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 03:23:32 +0000

Llama- You forgot about another Bush that shows promise: Jeb Bush’s son, George Prescott Bush, an up and coming politico with Hispanic roots.

Report comment to moderator

By: hrw

hrw — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 02:45:56 +0000

Outside of the US universal health care is not considered left nor right but rather standard. The question which divides the left and right is the correct mechanism, the use of the private sector, funding mechanisms, extent of coverage etc. Only the odd think tank, the Fraser Institute in Canada for example, speaks out against universal health care. Even my Friedman loving friend supports universal health care since its one of several commodities that have barriers to normal market corrections — he named pipelines, transportation systems, airwaves, health care etc. All which need some form of greater gov’t intervention than other commodity markets.

Report comment to moderator

By: krm

krm — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 01:54:42 +0000

Stubob = we have a welfare system as a safety net for the general population. Yes, there is some ‘redistribution of wealth’ involved. We have many other safety nets that involve a degree of redistribution.

I am not by nature favorably disposed to more government. But the more I think of it, it seems to be a matter of minimal decency (or good Christian values) to provide at least a minimum healthcare safety net for the population. Perhaps we could provide a two tier system vaguely similar to Britain, or some sort of wide spread barebones health insurance reqirement (similar to auto insurance mandates in order to drive), with some sort of tax credit deal to insure adequate funds for the poor to purchase such insurance.

I don’t profess expertese in the health field, but I think that the sort of system we have now is not acceptable. There should be some better method than the current ‘dump the expense on the hospitals’ method we have now.

Report comment to moderator

By: NJLawyer

NJLawyer — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 23:31:34 +0000

This is probably silly, but what about letting people in on the plans the government offers their employees (there are a ton to choose from) and let people pay to be part of that pool?

Report comment to moderator

By: StuBob

StuBob — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 22:53:49 +0000

McCain might have preferred Jindal, but Jindal removed himself from consideration.

KRM, try as I might, I can’t conceive of any system of “universal healthcare” that doesn’t involve the forced redistribution of wealth. That’s why I can’t see it as consistent with any conservative philosophy.

Report comment to moderator

By: krm

krm — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 22:00:38 +0000

Jindal is even younger than Palin several years so.

Report comment to moderator

By: Harris

Harris — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 20:59:30 +0000

I think it unfortunate that McCain chose Palin and not Jindal. he would have brought more intellectual heft into the office and actually appeal to independents.

And last night? Saw the end with the old white guys talking (Fred & Joe). That’s why I want to see Jindal tonite.

Report comment to moderator