I’m flat out unimpressed with any of the viable candidates left in the race. Call it “electile dysfuntion”, but none of them even comes close to arousing me. I just cannot see where all of this is heading. Take the Clinton campaign. There’s a summary here, but suffice to say that Clinton is dead-locked with Obama, ran a little short on matching his spending, “loaned” her own campaign money (why not just give it like Romney?), had staffers go unpaid, then decided to pay them again.
Maybe this is about health care. Would having unpaid workers mean they couldn’t have health care coverage? Probably not. And maybe this has nothing to do with health care or public image. I get the fact that the US is one of the only “civilized” countries that does not provide universal coverage. I’ve heard the pros and cons of both sides of the argument. I’ve watched consumers of said plans extol the virtues of the coverage and simultaneously whine about how long they have to wait, what will or will not get fixed, how it will get fixed… and then participate in the national sport of tax evasion. But everyone is covered. I’ve seen people in the US head over to the UK to get treatments that our beloved FDA will not allow. I’ve seen folks from Europe come here and fund their own procedures because their universal coverage cannot or will not provide the service. I dunno which is better. I don’t like the idea of having to pay for everyone else’s unhealthy habits and I feel equally ungood about other folks subsidizing all of my maladies. But I like the idea that when somebody gets very sick or hurt and doesn’t have a pot to piss in… they get covered. I *think* that’s the way it works now in the US, but apparently not for all. In the Houston area are several “public” hospitals. Get shot or stabbed or start puking up pea soup, you go there and wait. Triage works to treat the most serious cases first, so it may be a good long wait. Eventually, you get fixed up… even if you have no insurance. Whatever.
