3rd District Congressional Run

I have decided to run for Congress in Texas' 3rd District as an independent. I have established my campaign web site at http://www.jenkins2004.com and have also set up an independent political forum for people in the 3rd District or those interested in 3rd District politics and views [or my campaign] at http://www.texas3rd.com

I invite you all to visit my campaign site and the Texas 3rd Forums should you wish to join in our debate from an independent viewpoint.

1) thanks :)

2) yes, whacky in that it returns care to the producer/consumer of services and removes an inflated middle-man who neither provides services, nor receives benefits! The general welfare clause is the basis for the power, still figuring out how best to approach that as a campaign issue, but I'm looking for solutions that (a) do not require massive tax and spend government programs and (b) cover all Americans. To date, the only ideas put forward by either party relate to massively expanding the federal programs, I believe there must be a better way...

I'd be interested in more "non-whacky" approaches if you'd care to put them forward, again the goal I have is the reduction of the federal tax/spend approach to problems and issues that we face...

I am far from a consitutional scholar, but I disagree with your interpretation of the general welfare clause.

" provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;"

The implication is that "general welfare" pertains to the country as a whole (like defense) rather than the citizens of the US.

The middleman (the company) does provide a service - they can purchase healthcare in bulk; providing it to their employees at a cheaper rate than the employees would be able to get individually. Company-provided healthcare is no different than other company-provided perks such as vacations, club memberships ect. Regardless, it is not the governments place to eliminate "inflated middle-men". Don't the consumers have a choice now (even if it is lousy)?

Reforming health care should probably start with reforming malpractice suits (& litigation in general).

Additionally, don't your a) and b) contradict? How do you plan to have a health plan that covers everybody (bad idea) without paying for it? What sorts of services do you want to provide for "all Americans"?

And guess what? You...are...going...to.....WIN!

Not a chance. Ann Richards could probably win the 3rd if she ran as the Republican. On top of that, Sam Johnson has not made many enemies.

An independent might be able to beat out a democrat for second place in the 3rd (a few years ago, the Dems didn't even bother to contest the race - It was Sam or the Libertarian.)

I'll predict Sam with at least 60 per cent of the vote, and I wouldn't be surprised if he breaks 70.

If I was going to go after Sam, I'd run to the right of him, rather than on a version of Hillary Care with regulated fees for doctors based upon Marxist philosopy. ("from each according to his abilities")

regulated fees based on the income level of the patient....Those that can not afford the care outlined under the minimum payment guidelines for their income level would be covered by the General Welfare Department.

This is true, Sam Johnson is a respected member of the Republican party and a good person from what I can tell. I just think he is part of the problem in Washington (the Medicare vote as a prime example) of ever-increasing government spending and no real solutions on reducing the size and scope of the federal government and programs. His 12 terms in office has yielded little in terms of concrete measures to reduce the federal government.

FWIW, Sam got over 70% of the vote in 2002, and over 80% in 2000, so he is firmly entrenched in politics, and not going away (I know one of his accounting people, she lives in the neighborhood, and really supports Sam)

On the health care issue, that is hardly a Marxist philosophy, but I'll consider your comments on how it appears that way and attempt to address those in upcoming whitepapers on the subject. I believe that the current approach to health care is completely wrong, and that something a bit radical is required to revamp health care in this country for the benefit of all [and I consider it one of the areas we should strive to provide a minimum of care for all people, regardless of income, so I guess I'm a bleeding heart liberal in that particular area. Take immunizations for children, I support 100% immunizations, and if a child's family can not afford immunizations, they should be provided by the doctor or pharma supplier at no charge].

What I am for is trying to solve the problem in the private sector by novel ideas getting back to the patient/doctor relationship that no longer exists, and to reduce the overhead and costs associated with medical care.

There are a variety of other things that go along with this, including working with the medical community on reducing costs for equipment, procedures, etc,. and in reducing malpractice lawsuits against doctors to be against doctors, and not insurance companies.

On the malpractice front, I'm working on a plan to limit malpractice insurance to doctors only such that the maximum penalty the doctor would pay is very limited, and it seeks not to monetarily compensate the patient, but rather to punish the doctor with regard to his/her license and ability to perform procedures in the future.

Anyway, I understand that most will poo-poo my campaign, as most already have that I have told. They all pretty much sum it up as "you have no chance" and "why?". My answer is pretty straightforward, I want to bring about real change in the way this country is run, and on the mentality of the country in confronting problems, such that we solve problems with our heads rather than with taxation and ever increasing money-pits of programs that we call "government" today...

I don't disagree with your comments about Johnson. My comments on the predicted outcome were not aimed at you personally, but were based upon historic results.

If you are running to try to raise issues which need to be discussed, my guess is that the media will not even give you a forum. Unless you have about $5million in cash available, you won't make much of a splash. Have you considered running for the state legislature on Robin Hood?

Here's some free political advice (worth every cent you paid for it):
Health care is an issue, which if framed right, would actually resonate with laid off former tech workers in the 3rd. It needs to be framed in terms of the need for affordable, available insurance. If you give specifics, you are just giving folks targets to shoot at. Get specific after you get elected.

With regard to the immunization of children (and that's an issue which would probably be better for the 30th than the 3rd) - why should a doctor who has spent $100,000 or $150,000 for an education be forced to give away his services? Should computer programmers be forced to give away services to those who need then but can't pay? What level of service should an indigent expect? Something more than Dallas County gives at Parkland? Something less?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.