My understanding of the problem of NAFTA that is causing most of the immigration is that the US subsidizes its farmers much more than Mexico. US food exported to Mexico is so much cheaper that small Mexican farmers cannot compete. They go bankrupt and come here.
That is the sort of change that reforming NAFTA must accommodate so that small Mexican farmers can continue to economically exist.

Posted at October 5, 2007 10:38 AM in response to What Mexico Must Do

Most or all of the changes you suggest seem reasonable and necessary. However, one thing I know about Mexico and the US is that migration of poor people to the US from Mexico increased substantially after the ratification of NAFTA. All of the problems you list were there before NAFTA, yet immigration was a lot less.

So how about reform or repeal of NAFTA at the top of the list of changes that should be considered?

Posted at October 5, 2007 9:36 AM in response to What Mexico Must Do

Most or all of the changes you suggest seem reasonable and necessary. However, one thing I know about Mexico and the US is that migration of poor people to the US from Mexico increased substantially after the ratification of NAFTA. All of the problems you list were there before NAFTA, yet immigration was a lot less.

So how about reform or repeal of NAFTA at the top of the list of changes that should be considered?

Posted at October 5, 2007 9:36 AM in response to What Mexico Must Do

Grover Norquist has been implicated in some of Jack Abramoff's money laundering schemes. As such, he is an unindicted criminal. He is only slightly more trustworthy than GWBush or Karl Rove.

As such, I assume everything he writes is packed with lies unless it is proven otherwise.

Posted at September 20, 2007 2:45 PM in response to The Case of Colorado

It seems to me that the big news in Hillarycare is that Hillary had to offer something good so that Edwards could not accuse her of caving to the insurance industry. I do not know all the details of either her or his plan, but it reminds me of his a lot.

I do not have much trust in Hillary because of the way she handled the war in Iraq. If she is elected, I hope she follows through.

Posted at September 17, 2007 1:27 PM in response to Update: Hillary's Plan

Hillary has taken more money from the insurance companies than any other Presidential candidate, Democrat or Republican. Of course she will not cut out the insurance companies.

Posted at September 16, 2007 5:10 PM in response to Clinton's New Health Care Plan

All of this knowledgeable and concerned commentary leaves out one basic fact. When insurance companies provide medical insurance, 20-30% or more of the dollars go into overhead and not into paying for health care.

In California, where I live, Arnold proposed that 85% of insurance go into premiums and the insurance companies fought it.

Cut out the insurance companies, go to Medicare for
All. Medicare spends 3% on overhead. It seems like a simple solution.

Posted at September 16, 2007 1:46 PM in response to Clinton's New Health Care Plan

I understand that Representative Kagen has refused the medical coverage that is standard for members of Congress and will do that until all of us in the US are covered. I appreciate that symbolic stand.

But why is it that most elected officials are afraid to say that the insurance companies are a major problem and until we get rid of them health care in this country will be a mess? Does it have anything to do with the gobs of money that insurance companies spend on lobbying and campaign contributions?

In California, our "post-partisan" governor attempted to put into law that the insurance companies must pass on at least 85% to actual care. The insurance companies are fighting that tooth and nail. That means that insurance companies put less than 85% into actual care. How can we possibly cover everybody at a reasonable cost when we are giving 20%, 25%, or even 30% to the insurance companies. When I worked as a financial planner, I am ashamed to say that I received 20% commission in the first year and an ongoing stream of 10% over ten years for insurance that I sold.

Yet, Medicare has an administrative cost percentage of about 3%. That means 97% goes to actual care. If Representative Kagen attempted to substitute his complicated plan for Medicare, he would never be re-elected. So why is he trying to foist this system on us that ultimately has the effect of protecting the insurance companies?

There is an editorial in the New York Times today titled "World's Best Medical Care?" Statistically, the United States tends to come in much lower on the majority of measures of health when compared to the other industrialized nations. The difference is that we are the only nation that does not have a single payer system. Go see it at:http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/opinion/12sun1.html?bl&ex=1187150400&en=eafa08e3e1315044&ei=5087%0A

Posted at August 13, 2007 8:13 AM in response to Universal Access To Affordable Health Care: Common Sense Deductibles And A Renewed Commitment

Do not compromise!

I live in Richmond, CA. I have watched closely the debate about health care.

AB8 would not help me nor would it help my family.

I watch the MSM, such as the Chron, not cover Sheila Kuehl and her single-payer health bill. They will do their best to trumpet AB8, should it pass, as a way to keep the insurance companies in the game.

Finally, as long as the insurance companies are in the game, it insures that costs will continue to rise quickly. They will find every way they can to not cover those deemed as poor risks. Until we get insurance companies out, health care will be a mess.

Posted at August 13, 2007 7:47 AM in response to Do No Harm