Chicagoist: The Doctor is In!

guest

Thu, 02 Aug 2007 21:03:37 -0600

Three points: 1. Ward Up ... what deficiencies, exactly, are you talking about? 2. Dick Durbin is generally a good senator, and I will vote for him. One thing that bothers me about him, though, is his predictable sell-out to Illinois farmers on ethanol, a far more destructive solution to fossil fuels than the fossil fuels themselves. I wish he and the rest of our leaders would do some actual research on ethanol and realize it's not the solution. 3. As a lifelong Democrat, I feel qualified to say the rest of Illnois Democrats are crap. With one party in control, there's no reason we shouldn't have a budget. In state elections from now until I see a change, I intend to vote Republican. They certainly can't be any worse than this crop of morons.

Ward Up

Thu, 02 Aug 2007 19:11:06 -0600

"....I am pretty sure that Ward-up was being sarcastic--his post clearly wasn't serious...." Nope, I wasn't. I have seen, first-hand, socialized medicine in a half-dozen industrialized nations. The expectations of American patients are high. To the point that they would go ballistic at some of the deficiencies of socialized health care.

guest

Thu, 02 Aug 2007 18:05:03 -0600

Durbin really is one of the good guys. Remember, Durbin represents our interests in DC, not Springfield. He has nothing to do with the current budget crisis. Illinois is too smart to let the second most powerful Democrat in the Senate go for an inexperienced, unqualified doctor who would rank near last. Plus, the way the national mood seems to be, 2008 should be another pick up year for the democrats, not the gop.

guest

Thu, 02 Aug 2007 15:37:26 -0600

Skaterina, You seem to be equating socialized medicine with government-provided health insurance. They are two different things. I am pretty sure that Ward-up was being sarcastic--his post clearly wasn't serious.

skaterina

Thu, 02 Aug 2007 15:11:22 -0600

Ward Up - I don't think that creating socialized medicine would discourage very low income people from working and cause them to become dependent on a welfare state. Many of the working poor work jobs that do not provide health insurance - they are motivated by putting food on the table. I'm sure they would like insurance too, but a government insurance program will not buy their groceries or pay their rent. Thus, they will need to keep their jobs. If anything, with government-provided health insurance, low-income people can become more productive workers. My work does not provide its hundreds of seasonal laborers with insurance. When they become sick they miss a lot more work that full-time employees because they have to spend hours and hours waiting in emergency rooms and free clinics, or just suffer through the illness, versus making an appointment with their family doctor and getting well.

guest

Thu, 02 Aug 2007 14:50:44 -0600

Guest #2-4-9-11-maybe-12-and-now-15, Your textbook definition of the word "few" is beside the point, as the textbook definition of democracy as explained by the U.S. Constitution says that NONE of our senators are untouchable. All can lose an election and many more than 25% eventually do. Which is the problem with this statistic you've taken from ... um, where? The way you've stated it suggests that in every election for the past hundred years or so, 75% of incumbents have won. Okay, let's break this down. This would mean that in 1908, 75% of incumbents would have won. The same would be true in 1914, but they wouldn't necessarily have been the SAME incumbents, would they? Someone who won re-election in 1908 might have lost in 1914, while someone elected for the first time in 1908 won again in 1914. 75% of incumbents still would have won, but they would have been different incumbents. Does your source tell you how many incumbent senators were NEVER beaten over the course of their entire career? Probably not. But you seem the type who enjoys bleating a useless point with weak support, probably because it makes you feel smarter, so I'll leave you to that. You win. Enjoy yourself and your false sense of superiority.

guest

Thu, 02 Aug 2007 13:57:47 -0600

guest

Thu, 02 Aug 2007 13:48:34 -0600

You obviously didn't read what he wrote. He wrote that "few Senators are --especially after 10 years" untouchable. "Few" is an adjective meaning that something is small in number. This is simply counter to fact. Why are you wasting so much time arguing a subjective statement with weak support while claiming this weak support as "fact"? If 75% of incumbent Senators fend off their challengers--hence, being untouchable--how in the world could anyone claim that "few Senators" are untouchable? It is just bad editing, writing, and argumentation. Sheesh, some people need to just stick to the porn sites, I think. You might want to invest in a dictionary, if a simple three letter word is giving you trouble.

Ward Up

Thu, 02 Aug 2007 13:46:46 -0600

I've Steves Sauerberg several times through work. He seem like a decent guy. Very calm, considerate and friendly. Sure, he's against socialized medicine. But not for selfish reasons. He simply understands that such a system would result in mediocre care for the middle class and the lower middle class. See? It's not the rich who will be hurt. It will be the hardworking people out there trying to raise families. With socialized medicine, those at the very lowest income levels would get an improvement in their care, but with a lowering of quality of care for the middle and lower middle class. However, improving the free care---through socialized medicine---for the very lowest income level citizens has an additional unintended consequence. Specifically, the very low income persons--with their improved health care--would have even less incentive to work. They won't need to get health insurance via employment. We all know that such handouts--especially disincentives to work---wind up harming very low income peoples by creating a culture of dependence that does no good for them and their children. To repeat what I wrote above, with socialized medicine, those at the uppermost income levels would not be hurt. Those people would pay top dollar out of their own pockets and thereby get the same top-shelf care that they are used to getting.

guest

Thu, 02 Aug 2007 13:31:20 -0600

God, guest 2-4-9-11-possibly-12, get over yourself. Why are you wasting so much time arguing a subjective statement with weak support while claiming this weak support as "fact"? The fact that 75% of incumbent senators have won doesn't mean ANY of them are or were "untouchable." And what the heck does "untouchable" mean, anyway? That losing is impossible? The 25% of incumbents who have lost prove that to be counter to fact. You want to bash an amateur blogger over the head with a baseless argument of semantics, then at least do so with an actual fact or two that makes sense. Sheesh, some people need to just stick to the porn sites, I think.

guest

Thu, 02 Aug 2007 12:57:44 -0600

Position Available: It doesn't pay but Chicagoist is looking for a new writers in the Politics department. Must have your facts correct.

guest

Thu, 02 Aug 2007 12:21:00 -0600

I must respectfully disagree. You've raised some great points, and you are correct that the effect of incumbency is powerful, it doesnt mean that Senators are untouchable. It just means that they are difficult to unseat. I am not raising "points"--rather facts. My problem is not about your characterization of DURBIN as "untouchable." I am assuming that you mean by "untouchable" the capacity to be re-elected. Rather, when you say that "few Senators are [untouchable] after 10 years" you are stating something that is FACTUALLY INCORRECT. The success rate for incumbent Senators running for re-election in the US over the past 100 years is around 75%. I guess it depends on how you define "few," but in most conventional understandings of the term, 75% of a group IS NOT FEW. If, historically, three out of four Senate incumbents have won re-election, it shows that MOST INCUMBENT SENATORS ARE UNTOUCHABLE. as well as 37 years of holding elected office Of course, facts don't appear to be your strong suit here--Durbin has only held elected office for 24 years. leaves an incumbent open to lots of critique (just ask John Kerry about how he voted for the war before he voted against it). Apparently logic isn't a strong suit as well. John Kerry has never lost a Senate race. Please re-read your American Politics textbook--it will show you that election dynamics are significantly different in Congressional elections than in Presidential ones.

Kevin Robinson

Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:58:59 -0600

guest #9: I must respectfully disagree. You've raised some great points, and you are correct that the effect of incumbency is powerful, it doesnt mean that Senators are untouchable. It just means that they are difficult to unseat. 10 years of votes in the Senate, as well as 37 years of holding elected office leaves an incumbent open to lots of critique (just ask John Kerry about how he voted for the war before he voted against it). If the state GOP were serious about challenging Democrats, they wouldn't let guys like this run for Senate. They'd use their resources to take on Blagojevich, Madigan and Jones, just to start.

guest

Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:43:56 -0600

guest #4 (and #2, I assume): It was fixed. Give the server a few minutes to catch up with the update. Ok, Durbin's tenure in the Senate is changed, but your assertion that "few Senators are [untouchable] - especially after 10 years" is still wrong, in fact. Dick Durbin isn't untouchable (few Senators are - especially after 10 years). This is just wrong. If you look at actual election results you will find that few Senators are vulnerable after being re-elected at least once. If you are interested in being accurate, you need to say that "few incumbent Senators are vulnerable to challengers." To say that Durbin is "untouchable" is subjective--which is fine. But when you tread into analyzing the effect of incumbency "few Senators are - especially after 10 years," you are implying some general trend that has absolutely no basis in fact [the facts show precisely the opposite]. Once again, Chicagoist editors are asleep at the wheel.

fishunderice

Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:29:57 -0600

guest 7; so since the doctor isn't for socialized medicine, he is entirely driven by corporate greed and money?? huh? I think maybe you should read or look into what his stand actually is before giving him one. I've found that doctors and medical practitioners who have juggled the healthcare system for as many years as he has, have better ideas on how the fix the system than either of the extremes. I think it's safe to say that virtually all doctor's who would put themselves through the medical profession do so becuase of a desire to help people coupled with the fact that they are strong in the sciences. By your logic it would make sense to say that since you are not a doctor, you do not want to help people when they are sick; I'd assume that is incorrect.

guest

Thu, 02 Aug 2007 10:56:07 -0600

Everytime I read "I am against socialized medicine" from a Republican hopeful, I understand it as "I am for corporatized medicine" As a Republican, it doesn't suprise me that that is this guy's stand. Some things in this world just do not lend themselves to the corporate model, medicine being one of them. If the profit motive is what drives this guy, he should have taken up investment banking instead of medicine. Oh, and he'll never win against Dick Durbin. Durbin's not perfect by any means, but he's definitely one of the good guys right now.

been hecht

Thu, 02 Aug 2007 10:36:36 -0600

Geez, the chicagoist writer certainly doesn't try to hide his anti-durbin, anti-democratic feelings here, does he? from the devo-head on durbin to emphasizing that this doctor guy is for 'unintrusive government [and] reduced government spending,' to not mentioning the doc's support of the war on iraq to his opposition to healthcare for everyone regardless of employment or income or insurance status, to the whole thought that its the democrats that are 'dragging this state down the drain,' to calling this guy a 'centrist,' this is one entry that should hold off the folks who write in occasionally to complain about the site's 'liberal bias.' well, i guess i'm on the other side, bugged not so much by an anti-durbin, anti-democratic, anti-equal healthcare bias, but more so that in order to get there, the -ist glossed over [albeit while providing a link to the source material] what the guy really said and what he really apparently stands for.

Kevin Robinson

Thu, 02 Aug 2007 10:17:58 -0600

guest #4 (and #2, I assume): It was fixed. Give the server a few minutes to catch up with the update.

guest

Thu, 02 Aug 2007 10:14:14 -0600

You've got me on the facts. I stand corrected. If you "stand corrected," how about correcting the post?

Kevin Robinson

Thu, 02 Aug 2007 10:02:37 -0600

guest #2: You've got me on the facts. I stand corrected. I agree that the incumbency factor works to Durbin's advantage (as does his general popularity with the electorate). My point was that the Illinois GOP should focus on winning where they can. You don't wake up one day and decide you're going to run for Senate, unless you're a doctor from the Western Suburbs, I guess. It doesn't add the the credibility of the party, that's for sure.

guest

Thu, 02 Aug 2007 09:55:03 -0600

Dick Durbin isn't untouchable (few Senators are - especially after 37 years). Please get your facts straight. Durbin has only been a Senator for 10 years. He was in the House for 14 years. Also, you might want to review your American Politics 101 textbook: the incumbency advantage in the Senate has grown stronger over the past 50 years or so. If you go back to 1914, there has been an 80% re-election rate for incumbent US Senators.

guest

Thu, 02 Aug 2007 09:53:13 -0600

Durbin's one of my favoritest politicians ever. And he's the only non-Chicagoan holding statewide office. He's always there protecting the interests of downstate folks who may otherwise get ignored in our very Chicago-centric government. Sauerberg doesn't stand a chance. Lamb to the slaughter.