Letters to the Editor
cstrother
Published Letters: 28 Editor's Choice: 4
-
I think we ought to change the primary system
[Read the article: Poll: Clinton's national lead "collapsed"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]When states were scrambling to keep or get early primaries, I was indifferent thinking "how much of a difference can this really make?" I was wrong. Looks to me like Iowa being first, as a caucas, not even a primary state, is having untoward impact on New Hampshire. New Hampshire ought to be embarassed. Its voters had months and months of close exposure to the candidates, and thus should have had something more of an independent of Iowa view of the candidates than it seems to show. With that kind of close contact with candidates, nothing should be changing on this much on the eve of voting. Also, I am not usually down on the "press," again thinking how much impact can the press really have, but this Hillary slide seems press driven. Obama just makes for the better story right now.
Frankly, at this point, I should not have to care that much what Iowa or NH thinks about Hillary, BO, Huckabee, McCain, or Mitt. I find Obama "exciting" and likable, too, but what he says seems like so much pie in the sky to me. Seems like Jimmy Carter all over again, which means that President Obama will be followed by, say, President Huckabee, when the public can't stand all the idealistic, nicey, nice, BS and wants a leader that can get it done. Maybe I am wrong, but I think he will get torn limb from limb in the general election, and if he is not, will find it very hard to be at all effective, unless he shifts to being as pragmatic as Hillary would be. And if he has to do that, why would I vote for him rather than Hillary. I suspect she is better and more experienced at this point. He has a long future ahead of him, if he does not blow it. Huckabee has a nice pitch is is also very likeable, but I think his role will be to take out Mitt to free it up for McCain. I do not think that in the end Huckabee can get the Pub nomination or win the general election. If McCain can get the nomination some how, I used to think it impossible, I think he can win the general election. I used to think not, but now I think if Hillary gets the Dem nom, she will win the general, and that McCain would be the toughest opponent. Obama is who the Dems love. Not who the country wants. By the way, I think Hillary is quite "likable," and Obama better have a better line about whether she is or not or he is going to come across as petulent, which he may well be. For that matter, it seems to me that the reasons Mitt is struggling are the reason why he could win the general. I do not think the general public is concerned about him being a Mormon, except to the extent they think that is a plus--the Mormon's have a well-earned, awfully good and reliable reputation in my circles and I doubt that I am unique in thinking this--and the general masses are not going to think that a Mass Gov could be as far right as he is saying he is.
Sorry to ramble, but I just do not see any reason for a big fall off by Hillary. She seems to me to be a reasonable and strong choice across the board. Good enough in every catagory. Of course, my support is probably enough doom any candidate!
-
these clinics seem like progress to me
[Read the article: Wal-Mart can be good for your health]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The article is exactly correct that these clinics are a step forward in convenience and cost savings, and that the consumer should surely have this option. It is parternalistic to force consumers to go to highly trained incredibly expensive professionals for the most minor of maladies because of the off-chance that something might less minor than it appears or to encourage people to get regular check-ups physicians or whatever the theory is. I do not take my car to a highly trained mechanic to have the oil changed.
And I know people that have been involved with medical reform on the legislative level who clearly conclude that the medical establishment in the United States intentionally limits the number of medical school graduates in order to limit the supply of doctors and thus maintain high fees. Sure it takes an enormous effort to become a physician in the United States, but this is somewhat artificial. The medicial establishment makes it take an enormous effort in order to limit supply. Being a physician is still relatively highly paid and prestigious. Requiring medical schools to produce more physcians would increase the overall quality of medical care and reduce its cost. There is nothing inherent in medical school that requires that it be as selective as it purports to be--medical school like everything else has its preferences, of course, such as for the off-spring of doctors.
Most doctors are bright enough, but they are not geniuses and it does not take a genius to do most medical work.
If clinics make in-roads into the control the medical guild has over the most minor of "medical" concerns, it will be to society's advantage. I think folks that use such clinics on some level recognize this, too.