Democrats & Liberals Archives

Advice to Republicans

For a long time, Republicans, who lost the previous election, were giving advice to Democrats, who won the previous election. Don’t do it…don’t pass healthcare reform… the whole country is against it… listen to the Teapartiers… you will suffer in the next election… Republicans will win big. We Democrats did not take the Republicans’ advice. We preferred the advice of the transformative leader of our country: President Barack Obama.

After 14 months of chameleon Republican obstructionism that took more shapes than the stories about hell - a constant plethora of colorful and outrageous epithets that would make Sarah Palin blush, months screaming NO to everything Democrats proposed, months in ersatz negotiations, months of Tea Party drivel and months of advice to Democrats - the Democrats in the House passed Healthcare Reform with zero votes from Republicans.

Today, Democrats are proud, happy and thrilled that they have finally enacted healthcare reform, something that had eluded presidents in the 20th Century. President Obama is the genius that guided us through the storm of conservative and Tea-Party brickbats to the sunny skies of universal healthcare. The job is not done, but it will be when the Senate finishes the job.

Back in July of 2009, Senator Jim Demint proclaimed with reference to healthcare:

If we’re able to stop Obama on this it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.

Even now, after the House passed the healthcare bills, Republicans still don't understand what has happened. They think they have a winning political message! All Republicans do, except David Frum, who was a speechwriter for George W. Bush. He has a tough, robust and realistic message for Republicans:

We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat. [...] So today’s defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it’s mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, it’s Waterloo all right: ours.

Which brings me to my advice to Republicans. After all we Democrats won the previous election and we won the healthcare "debate." Losers should take their advice from winners, not the other way round. My advice is:

Listen to serious conservatives like DAVID FRUM
Posted by Paul Siegel at March 22, 2010 8:14 PM
Comments
Comment #297748

The Problem for Republicans is that they’ve built thier modern party around a philosophy of opposition to the Democrats. As Democrats have embraced more centrist positions, Republicans had to go fringe to maintain the conflict.

As Rove made his influence felt over the politics of the Right, he set the Republicans on a perpetual war footing, an exhausting, alienating, bridge burning exercise.

Republicans need to read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. He said that natural studies showed that those creatures that got into fights constantly weren’t necessarily the winners in evolution, because they wasted energy, got injured or killed more often, and lost opportunities to survive and to mate after a time. You might be able to dominate sometimes, but much of the time you end up battered, bruised and tired, while the folks who pick their battles and work cooperatively with others save their energy and keep themselves in good shape.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 23, 2010 3:33 PM
Comment #297749

Republicans might do themselves a favor and admit sometimes that they’re wrong, rather than hiding behind charges of bias.

I mean, is the Senate Parliamentarian really the guy you want to get ticked off at you? Make him your friend.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 23, 2010 3:36 PM
Comment #297751

Kinda like pissing off the night cook when you’re on duty in the military…no amount of righteousness will get you that sandwich.

Posted by: Marysdude at March 23, 2010 4:08 PM
Comment #297769

Marysdude,

Rove really doesn’t need another sammich, and Jim Demint does look a little like the Soup Nazi.:)

Pissing off anyone cooking your food is not a good idea. There’s a lesson about being pissed off being better than being pissed on.:)

Posted by: gergle at March 23, 2010 6:35 PM
Comment #297788

If only it was that easy. No, Independent Republicans are suffering because their leaders would rather circle the wagons instead of keeping their word about building a Better World with Americas’ Democratiic Party.

Hopefully though they may find that rare Comservative Candidate in 2010 that can convince the No-Nothing and Tea Party that the Status Quo of Washington and Wall Street was known to be Politically Wrong 30 years ago.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 24, 2010 3:25 AM
Comment #297795
I mean, is the Senate Parliamentarian really the guy you want to get ticked off at you? Make him your friend.

Given the fact that the GOP senators fired the previous parliamentarian because he wouldn’t condone the use of reconciliation on their tax cuts, I don’t think the GOP is afraid of pissing this one off. Never mind the fact that this is the parliamentarian the GOP hired in order to jam their tax cuts through the senate back in 2001 & 2003.

Posted by: Warped Reality at March 24, 2010 9:32 AM
Comment #297816

Mr. Daugherty wrote; “As Democrats have embraced more centrist positions,…”

Wow…what an outrageous statement. For that to have happened the center would have had to move dramatically left. Is that true? Prove it!

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 24, 2010 5:44 PM
Comment #297819

Since there was zero input by Republicans for the recent HC Reform package, yet it ended up with several conservative add-ins, we must determine that the left moved right in order to accommodate. Many on the left, including myself, believe the public option will be necessary for economic recovery, but it was not included…by extrapolation then…some conservative measures added, some liberal measures not added…centrist. How much proof would it take?

Oh, that’s right proof is not your issue is it?

Bah!

Posted by: Marysdude at March 24, 2010 6:18 PM
Comment #297821

“Since there was zero input by Republicans for the recent HC Reform package, yet it ended up with several conservative add-ins…”

HUH…that doesn’t make sense.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 24, 2010 6:23 PM
Comment #297824

Over, and over, and over…bah!

Conservative ideas have been spoken for decades.

This bill contains several (up to 200) of them.

While the current process was being debated, the only input from the right was…”NO”.

Thus, even without input from the right several conservative ideas were included by the left, thus the left has become more centrist than I would prefer. Unlike those on the right though, I DO recognize the value of bargaining and debating in good faith, and without all the vitriol…until now that is.

Bah!

Posted by: Marysdude at March 24, 2010 7:12 PM
Comment #297825

Dude…you’re hilarious…thanks for the laugh.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 24, 2010 7:17 PM
Comment #297843

Royal Flush,

The health reform bill that was passed is modeled after the health care reform championed by the self touted fiscally conservative Republican, Mit Romney, when governor of Massachussets. It is an approach designed to preserve the private sector health insurance industry. Indeed, it provides them a potential windfall. If liberals had their way, health insurance financing would be socialized like the rest of the industrialized world. This is a centrist compromise.

Posted by: Rich at March 24, 2010 8:36 PM
Comment #297855

Rich,
Why I agree that the current Healthcare Reform Act is modeled after the Republican Plan of the 90’s, I have to respectfully disagree as an Unlearned Unbridled Anti-Authoritarian Child of the 70’s by Freewill and Self-Nature that it is a Centrist Compromise.

No, I have no problem given President Obama and the Democratic Party their due in coming up with a plan to revamp Americas’ Employer Healthcare Insuramce System; however, seeing they stop short of allowing the Children of the 21st Centuey upgrade their Parents and Grandparents 911 Services so the American Commerce could sell me a Personal Medical Reference Desk Librarian and a Daily Health Monitor. I say they haven’t gone far enough o the Center.

Something some Conservatives and Republican apparentlly are still in denial about.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 25, 2010 2:35 AM
Comment #297857

An unfortunate behavior of humans is we automatically look for input that reinforces our beliefs. Even though some of the stupidsit anti-reform myths/lies have been put out of our misery,like death panels,coverage for illegal aliens etc, more will spring up. This is especially true for those holding strong beliefs. Ironically,actual information to counter these beliefs often leads to strenghtenning them as people overcompensate mentally in attempts to refute the facts of the matter. What this means is that we will be stuck with listening to these falsehoods for a long time to come. This is hard concept for those accustomed to logic but it is true. Even after the whole of the HC bill takes effect and people start to have personal experiences useing the benefits and protections involved, it will still be a slow process. Example: “Keep the governments hands off my medicare!” We are going to have to protect the small advances made even harder than we had to fight for the HCR bill in the first place. Take a look at the red side. The myths/lies are popping out like maggots on a dung heap.

Posted by: bills at March 25, 2010 6:29 AM
Comment #297858

Bill,
Why not all the Kids Today are Informed Patients, I do know they naturally know how to access the National Library of Medicine. The question is who is going to tell them that they have the power to talk with their Local and State Leaders in order to upgrade their Parnts 911 Services. Provided they don’t take away their Parents and Grandparents need for a Golden Healthcare Policy.

Thus, seeing Americas’ Candidates and Incumbents on the Right want to believe their followers are Ignorant and glad to prove it to the World. I want to hear Today’s Radio and TV Pundits ask them how saying no to Health Care, Economic, and Energy Reform will lead to a Better World. Let alone America winning the War of Ideology and Terror.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 25, 2010 8:04 AM
Comment #297867

HS
That is pretty much what David Frum had to say in the link in the post. How are the Reps going to get any votes to kick junior off his parents policy again or remove coverage of kids born with birth defects ,yes even Palin’s. Part of me hopes they will get on board and help fine tune the act but my partisan devil hopes they go all out for repeal. Hell,we have too many political parties already.(DR shrieks at this point)

Posted by: bills at March 25, 2010 10:28 AM
Comment #297872

For those lib/dem/socialists who applaud government being able to force them to purchase something, such as health care insurance, I suggest you prepare to be forced to purchase other things in the future.

The great and powerful Wizards of Ozland will soon be sending the IRS or EPA to your home to be certain that you are not wasting energy with insufficient insulation or leaky doors and windows and to inspect your car to be certain you are not polluting more than you are entitled (Al Gore has an exemption).

You will have no defense and no rights against this personal invasion of your freedom.

The education police will come to your home to be certain that your children have the proper computer, desk, lighting, pencils, etc. If not, you will be forced to purchase government approved devices.

The Obama, Pelosi, Reid inquisition will come to your local doctor and hospital to be certain that you are not receiving more health care than you’re entitled to based upon your age and value to society.

Embrace this new world coming to your neighborhood soon.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 25, 2010 11:51 AM
Comment #297873

R.F.
I guess none of them read George Orwell’s “1984”

Posted by: MAG at March 25, 2010 12:25 PM
Comment #297874

They did read it MAG…and liked the way it turned out.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 25, 2010 12:51 PM
Comment #297876

lib/dem/socialist…flipside…neocon/rep/demigogue? Oh well, what’s in a name…?

Posted by: Marysdude at March 25, 2010 1:00 PM
Comment #297879

Dude…glad you apparently embrace the name.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 25, 2010 1:07 PM
Comment #297880

Does anyone wonder why Obama has to run around the country selling this HCR after it has passed? What’s that all about?

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 25, 2010 1:12 PM
Comment #297881

All of you that think this bill is so great and wonderful for this country explain to me again why being FORCED to buy something I may not want is good for me or this country? Why are the liberals not complaining this is a violation of my rights as an American?
Remember BHO campaign promise of bipartisanship? In this bill the bipartisanship was there to DEFEAT the bill (Reps. and Dems.) but not pass it (solely Dem. votes). One more lie by our great leader. I know (according to some) that Reps. are the only ones that ever bow to special interests but why did the dems not pass a tax on “Cadillac” plans? Is it because they didnt want to upset their union special interests?
There is good things in this bill. Does the good outweigh the bad? Not even close. SD before you write a 2000 word response I want to tell you that just because you write more words doesnt mean your points are valid.

Posted by: Clay at March 25, 2010 1:19 PM
Comment #297885

explain to me again why being FORCED to buy something I may not want is good for me or this country?

Did you drive to work this morning? Did you flush the toilet?, Did you brush your teeth? Did you know how to write your name today? Did you speak any english? Did you log on your computer?

You and your ancestors were forced to pay for these things. They were good for you. You could choose not to use them, but your taxes paid for them. You will be free to not seek out a doctor and die of an illness, but your taxes will benefit many who do use this.

Posted by: gergle at March 25, 2010 2:20 PM
Comment #297886
R.F. I guess none of them read George Orwell’s “1984” Posted by: MAG at March 25, 2010 12:25 PM Comment #297874

They did read it MAG…and liked the way it turned out.
Posted by: Royal Flush at March 25, 2010 12:51 PM

Just so you know, Orwell’s 1984 pales in comparison to Yevgeny Zamyatin’s We. We predated 1984 by two decades (it was published in 1927) and was written by someone who actually had to live under the horrors of Soviet Dictatorship.

Just to warn you, the ending of We (with respect to the narrating character) is much much sadder.

Also, it’d be more enriching for one to be familiar with Fyodor Dostoevsky’s The Brother’s Karamazov if one reads We especially the chapter entitled “The Grand Inquisitor”. Zamyatin borrows many of Dostoevsky’s themes and tries to answer some of the questions that Dostoevsky raised. It’d also be enriching to be familiar with the depiction of the Fall of Man as recorded in Genesis; there’s an allegory of this in We.

Of course the assertion that the left somehow desires a dystopia such as that appearing in Airstrip One, Oceania is laughable. One of the key elements that perpetuated the existence of Oceania’s government was its constant wars with Eurasia & EastAsia, which is much more like what the neoconservatives desire. Also, only the Right proposes legal restrictions on what people may do or may not do that have no impact on anyone else. I’m talking about: the restrictions on privacy in the name of national security; the various proposed prohibitions on free speech; anti-abortion policies; anti-homosexual policies; and weakening the separation between Church & State.

Clay,

All of you that think this bill is so great and wonderful for this country explain to me again why being FORCED to buy something I may not want is good for me or this country?

The individual mandate is needed in order to ban denials based on preexisting conditions & similar things. Otherwise people would go without insurance and then proceed to buy insurance as soon as they fell ill. That’s not how insurance is supposed to work.

I’m open to the idea of offering the option of allowing someone sign a waiver to waive the right to be free from denials based upon preexisting conditions in exchange for the ability to go without insurance. Something like that may have been in the bill if Republicans were willing to support the idea of Health Care reform, but alas, they opposed the idea from the start and we missed out on this option as well as the chance to do some serious tort reform. Hopefully the GOP congress that takes over next year will add those things into the law instead of trying to repeal the thing when nearly all the policies of the law are widely popular.

BTW, I’ve been living under an individual mandate in Massachusetts since 2006 and not had any problems with it.

Posted by: Warped Reality at March 25, 2010 2:25 PM
Comment #297888

Clay…consider how socialism gains control. It is not by encouraging freedom of the individual, but rather enforcement of what’s considered best by government with the encouragement of the weak minded. To gain power, socialist must first create political division. It does this by instilling envy. It’s not difficult to convince the weak-minded that it is because some have more, that they have less. These poor unfortunate souls become convinced that life is a zero-sum game. That for every winner there must be a loser. The socialist goal is to emiminate the winners to appease the losers and thereby increase their power and control. Only when all experience the same life outcomes can we be equal.

The sheep want to be led, to be told that life is just a gamble with unequal outcomes and that making good life decisions is not within their control. Some relish being told that nothing is the result of their actions…just bad luck or because someone else has robbed them of opportunity.

We see this in education which lowers standards to create the impression of success. We certainly see this in action in our tax code where penalities abound for success and rewards given for failure.

Now we see this same political socialist philosophy at work in our nation’s healthcare. We will reward those who choose unhealthy lifestyles…the lard eaters, smokers, those who engage in risky sexual behavior, the druggies and the heavy drinkers. The socialist tells the sheep that nothing is their fault…they are just victims and that those nasty insurance companies are discriminating against them. How dare insurance companies consider risky behavior and evidence of existing health problems in calculating premium. Once again the socialist tells the sheep that it is unfair for them to pay more than the low risk insureds. They believe it is fair for the low risk to be charged more to subsidize the high risk. This will equalize outcomes.

Simply because I choose to build my house in a low lying area…prone to flooding, or on the side of a cliff prone to being washed away in heavy rainfall is no reason for my fellow Americans not to pony up with their money to bail me out when the expected becomes reality.

The socialist can’t survive where competition and freedom of choice exists…therefore they must control results, much like handicapping a golfer.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 25, 2010 2:57 PM
Comment #297889

Warped writes; “The individual mandate is needed in order to ban denials based on preexisting conditions & similar things.”

I am distressed that anyone would find it so easy to disregard our constitutional freedoms in the name of expedience. I understand you are in your 20’s Warped. Would you care to speculate what other expediant measures you might condone in return for your individual freedom by the time you are my age of 69? If not, perhaps I can suggest some.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 25, 2010 3:10 PM
Comment #297890

R.F.
Well put.
W.R.
You may be living under that mandate in Ma. but isn’t Ma. having problems with funding and your HC costing more than expected? If it is, think how much more of a problem it will be nation wide.

Posted by: MAG at March 25, 2010 3:10 PM
Comment #297892

MAG, the funding problems are because Romney was unwilling to raise taxes to pay for his proposal. There are several solutions currently circulating on Beacon Hill. Some call for new taxes and others call for spending cuts in other sectors of the Government. The Democratic process will sort through these and pick the best one.

The national health care plan, in contrast to Romney’s plan, is properly funded. Mostly this comes from new taxes on extremely generous health insurance policies, taxes on certain pieces of medical equipment and a surtax on the top 5% of incomes.

RF, I’ve already said that I’d support a waiver system as a way to not force anyone into doing anything they don’t want to do. It’s pretty clear that the GOP will take control of Congress in November, they’ll have a chance then to implement one. I find it hard to imagine the Democrats opposing such a move. It’s too bad that the GOP stopped negotiating with the Democrats, otherwise the bill would’ve been much better and it would’ve included more ideas from both sides of the aisle.

Would you care to speculate what other expediant measures you might condone in return for your individual freedom by the time you are my age of 69?
I certainly can speculate. It is awfully tempting to let the government tap telephone conversations in the name of national security, however I oppose that infringement on my liberty. It’s also awfully tempting to restrict a woman’s right to control her own body because a few people believe that there is an independent human life in there, however I oppose the concept of government control of something going on inside someone’s body. It’s awfully tempting to restrict marriage for gays & lesbians because the Abrahamic God opposes their relationships, but I oppose such efforts because I believe the fourteenth amendment assures us nondiscrimination from our government. It’s awfully tempting to prohibit desecrating our flag, but I know the first amendment protects all speech; whether or not I agree with it or not. The same goes for simulated child pornography (images made to look like children, but which involve no children in their production).

If you are truly concerned with your liberty, you have much more to fear from the right than from the left. The worst thing the left wants to do is impose a few taxes; the right wants control over your body, over you actions & over your life. I’d rather be poor freeman than a rich slave, so I don’t mind paying a few taxes.

Posted by: Warped Reality at March 25, 2010 4:00 PM
Comment #297893

Did you drive to work this morning? Did you flush the toilet?, Did you brush your teeth? Did you know how to write your name today? Did you speak any english? Did you log on your computer?

You and your ancestors were forced to pay for these things. They were good for you. You could choose not to use them, but your taxes paid for them. You will be free to not seek out a doctor and die of an illness, but your taxes will benefit many who do use this.

Posted by: gergle at March 25, 2010 02:20 PM

Agreed, me or my ancestors paid for these things. Is that what being forced to buy health insurance is then, a tax? I thought taxes were only going up for the rich. Is that who is going to be forced to buy this?
In order for gov. to be effective there must be some taxation. Obviously we wont always agree with how this is spent. However I think it is a long shot to call paying taxes and being forced to buy health insurance the same thing. If they are the same (as gergle said) then why did the Dems. not call the forced healthcare buy a “tax”. I am confused.

Posted by: Clay at March 25, 2010 4:08 PM
Comment #297894

>If you are truly concerned with your liberty, you have much more to fear from the right than from the left. The worst thing the left wants to do is impose a few taxes; the right wants control over your body, over you actions & over your life. I’d rather be poor freeman than a rich slave, so I don’t mind paying a few taxes.
Posted by: Warped Reality at March 25, 2010 04:00 PM

Warped,

Hear! Hear! Well said…

Posted by: Marysdude at March 25, 2010 4:14 PM
Comment #297895

The mandates are needed to expand the insurance risk pool. This may seem unfair to some, particularly the young and healthy. However, they are not going to remain young and healthy forever. We age, we get hit by a bus, etc. We all eventually encounter the risk, we should all share in the funding.

Posted by: Rich at March 25, 2010 4:15 PM
Comment #297899
why did the Dems. not call the forced healthcare buy a “tax”.

It’s called politics.

On paper, the individual mandate is just a sin tax. Nothing more, nothing less.

Ezra Klein has a good explanation of how it will work. Turns out, only a very tiny number of people are likely to be impacted; mostly young healthy people with above average incomes that had previously been going without health insurance because they believed they would not need health care for the foreseeable future. They will still have that option because the tax is a pretty nominal amount.

Posted by: Warped Reality at March 25, 2010 4:28 PM
Comment #297900

Royal Flush said: “For those lib/dem/socialists who applaud government being able to force them to purchase something, such as health care insurance, I suggest you prepare to be forced to purchase other things in the future.”

You mean like the Government’s military? How about the Interstate Hwy System whether one owns a car or not? How about property taxes to pay for schools whether one has children or not? How about being forced to buy the services of the U.S. Congress or President or Supreme Court? All these and much more the Government forces its citizens to buy. The precedent dates back to the founding of this nation.

Our nation was founded on both socialist and capitalist principles. The government has been taking land and money by force of law from some and giving it to others since the Articles of Confederation. The entire westward expansion was based on the socialist policy, rewarding individuals, companies, and regions with federal assets, the people’s assets, for the greater good of the nation and people.

Education is not hard to acquire in America, but, it does require an open minded and willing student. And those are getting a bit rarer these days amongst conservative supporters.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 25, 2010 4:47 PM
Comment #297901

Warped wrote; “The national health care plan, in contrast to Romney’s plan, is properly funded. Mostly this comes from new taxes on extremely generous health insurance policies, taxes on certain pieces of medical equipment and a surtax on the top 5% of incomes.”

Really, NHC plan is properly funded? I would ask…how many times can government “divert revenue” (as Mr. Daugherty said in his blog on the R side) from Medicare…once, twice, how long before no benefit money remains in Medicare to be diverted?

Today I read in the NY Times that SS this year will take in less in payrole taxes than it pays out in benefits. Nothing left to “divert” from that broken entitlement program.

The NHC plan calls for 4 years of increased taxes before benefits are paid. Does anyone believe this can be done more than once? How would that work. Out of every ten years of tax collection we only have 6 years of benefits. Oh yes…that’s a real winner.

How long can the tax on Cadillac Plans pay for anything? One would have to assume that many will continue to opt for these high dollar plans.

Tax on medical devices. I wonder if you understand or care about the impact on those who depend upon those devices to have some quality of life. The lib/dem/socialist portray themselves as compassionate. Is this compassion?

And of course, the lib/dem/socialist favorite…raise taxes.

Warped writes; “I’d rather be poor freeman than a rich slave, so I don’t mind paying a few taxes.”

My friend…wake up and read the handwriting on the wall, you will neither be free or rich given the course on which we are heading. You will be just a slave wondering what the hell happened.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 25, 2010 4:51 PM
Comment #297904

Some confuse the legal collection of taxes with the illegal demand by government of the purchase of an individual product. To compare the collection and use of taxes to support our militay, schools, etc. with the forced purchase of an individual product stretches credulity.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 25, 2010 4:57 PM
Comment #297906

RF, the insolvency in Medicare & Social Security is an issue separate from the health care reform bill. The diverted are being diverted current medicare fraud & waste. There will be no change in payments to current beneficiaries and no change in the time-line until the fund becomes insolvent.

My proposed solution to those insolvencies is simple. Remove the cap on payroll taxes (do not exempt incomes over $100,000). Also, raise the retirement age significantly and index it to life expectancy. Life expectancy in the 1930s was around 60 years, nowadays its just short of 80 years. 80 years seems to be a good age in my opinion to start Medicare & Social Security benefits. The original purpose of these programs was to be a safeguard against longevity, against people living longer than they had expected. If you still want to retire at age 65, it’s fine by me; you just need to fund your own retirement for 15 years, which I think is reasonable.

Also, what’s the difference between paying taxes to support a school that delivers education as its product and paying taxes to support a hospital that delivers health care as its product?

Posted by: Warped Reality at March 25, 2010 5:05 PM
Comment #297907

WR wrote; “RF, the insolvency in Medicare & Social Security is an issue separate from the health care reform bill. The diverted are being diverted current medicare fraud & waste,:

OH my…none are so blind. Medicare and SS insolvency as huge entitlement programs should not be used as the prima facia evidence that we should not have another even larger entitlement program?

Warped…do you not recognize the old political flim-flam…talk about eliminating waste and fraud in this program to pay for another program which, it is presumed, will not experience even more waste and fraud. Warped, can you specifically identify even $100 billion of the supposed $500+ billion the lib/dem/socialists say will be found to help pay for their HCR package?

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 25, 2010 5:29 PM
Comment #297909

Royal Flush, the stretch of credulity is all your comment’s. All Tax Payers purchase the services and products of government BY FORCE OF LAW. Health Care is is just another service for the 10’s of millions uninsured which the private sector refused to cover or priced out of the market.

The very creation of a government is a socialist act. Our founders understood this, as they and their comrades immediately set about creating institutions and services which the public would be required to support like the Library of Congress, Patent Office, Post Office, Supreme Court, Congressional budget and place of business, and eventually a White House, and then another. And then all those land grants.

All tax payers paid for the Louisiana Purchase, but, the government gave out those parcels of land worth real dollars to individuals, company’s and regional governments. Taking from all to provide for a subset of all, is deeply engrained in our nation’s history, and practiced by the founders and their contemporaries.

Your illusions to the contrary are blinded by modern ideology which seeks to deprive its adherents of reality and real history to serve unreal ideological objectives.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 25, 2010 6:15 PM
Comment #297910

RF asked: “Warped, can you specifically identify even $100 billion of the supposed $500+ billion the lib/dem/socialists say will be found to help pay for their HCR package?”

I can. The elimination of overpayments to insurance companies. That will be good for a couple hundred billion over 10 years. Did you NOT do your homework before asking such a question? Effective debate strategy requires it.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 25, 2010 6:18 PM
Comment #297911

Mr. Remer…you keep pedaling apples while I debate oranges. Fini

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 25, 2010 6:18 PM
Comment #297913

London Times Headline…

Binyamin Netanyahu humiliated after Barack Obama ‘dumped him for dinner’

Barry Obama…no class…oaf.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 25, 2010 6:27 PM
Comment #297915

RF, thank you for your concession.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 25, 2010 8:41 PM
Comment #297920

All
Here is the new direction of conservatism, “Shut up or get out.” David Frum was fired from the American Enterprise Institute for last sundays article.

http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1601/groupthink-right-would-make-stalin-proud

On his way out he felt free to point out that AEI had supported mandated insurance with subsidies for those than could not afford it,in short Obamacare and was trying to hide that from the press.

Posted by: bills at March 25, 2010 9:40 PM
Comment #297926

RF, I’ll get back to you on Saturday. I’ll be traveling tomorrow and I need to pack.

Scott, you should voice your concerns by emailing the editor instead of spamming this discussion forum.

Also, camworld is not a pornography site.

However, the link has not been updated since Cameron moved to http://cameron.barrett.org

Posted by: Warped Reality at March 25, 2010 11:20 PM
Comment #297939

Bitching about the site and the site manager may be political alright, but I’m not sure it meets the standards of political discussion normally generated here. If you don’t like this house, either buy it or go someplace else…that’s a no-brainer.

Posted by: Marysdude at March 26, 2010 4:47 AM
Comment #297956

WR
I always blanch when people talk about raising the retirement age. What that means is increasing poverty for hard working Americans. Its fine to add a few more years to the career of a beancounter,engineer,programmer. How about underground miners, constuction laborers,loggers,carpenters,long haul drivers and the hundreds of other trades we all depend on? 65 is already too long for these occupations. Some can move into management but just how many supervisor jobs are there and how many companies are willing to fill them with senior citizens?
Another thing to consider is that when people do retire they usually leave a job opening for a younger person. In an economy like the one we have now that is an important consideration.

Posted by: bills at March 26, 2010 10:43 AM
Comment #297964

RF, thank you for your concession.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 25, 2010 08:41 PM

Concession? Withdrawal from a debate with each side speaking on a different subject.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 26, 2010 2:20 PM
Comment #297984

Clay,

You are also required to buy liability insurance for driving. Clearly, you can opt to not buy a car, so there is a difference, but not much. Why should I be forced to buy a product of a business? If I run over someone, I’m willing to attempt surgery on my own.

In the real world, most of us need cars. In the real world, most of us already have health insurance.

Since even healthy young people benefit from having an emergency room and ambulance service available to them, in most places in the US. We even have a Coast Guard, and Ambulance choppers available, being required to participate in funding these is hardly a stretch. Reorganizing the health care system to more efficiently utilize it’s services, since it IS a major economic expense in both the private and public sectors seems like a natural fit for the Commerce clause.

While this mandate is not by reasonable use of English a tax, and will mostly effect people simply opting out of having insurance because they believe it’s unnecessary…until they need it…and offer subsidies for small businesses, you may call it a tax if it suits you.

I don’t recall anyone denying there are costs associated with this. The long term savings have also been explained. Hearing only what you wish isn’t a problem of the proponents. Perhaps you may need a hearing test. See a doctor for that.

Posted by: gergle at March 26, 2010 5:57 PM
Comment #298063
I always blanch when people talk about raising the retirement age. What that means is increasing poverty for hard working Americans. Its fine to add a few more years to the career of a beancounter,engineer,programmer. How about underground miners, constuction laborers,loggers,carpenters,long haul drivers and the hundreds of other trades we all depend on? 65 is already too long for these occupations. Some can move into management but just how many supervisor jobs are there and how many companies are willing to fill them with senior citizens? Another thing to consider is that when people do retire they usually leave a job opening for a younger person. In an economy like the one we have now that is an important consideration.

bills, I’m sorry to inform you, but SS is not a retirement program. SS is an insurance policy against old age. The beneficiaries off SS were always supposed to be people who lived longer than they were expecting to live and consequently had already consumed all their retirement savings. If the worker doing physical labor must retire at age 65, that means that laborer should save money in a private account over the years to live off of for fifteen years until he/she turns 80. If you want a public retirement welfare system, then that’s something different. Such a system would conflict with the Constitution and set up a state whereby outcomes would be equalized instead of opportunities, which is not something I agree with.

RF, the GOP members of the Ways & Means Comitte have a list of Medicare Cuts. I don’t know whether it’s accurate, but the characterizations of the cuts is definitely slanted. But it at least shows that the cuts are real and will actually happen.
Another Source for a list of the new taxes and fees in the bill

Also, the Kaiser Foundation wrote a piece about the different possible funding mechanisms last July. It’s a little out of date with regard to the taxes/fees & the cuts in Medicare spending, but I still think it’d be a good idea to check it out.

Posted by: Warped Reality at March 27, 2010 5:43 PM
Comment #298462

WR,

A few of those cuts in Medicare are real, but the majority are contrary, not only to the law as written, but to common sense as well. The President never said Medicare would remain the same, he said the heaviest cuts would come in areas where it would affect the least numbers, and in plugging holes where the program was being taken advantage of by unscrupulous arse-wipes in the insurance, pharmaceutical and care giver groups. If the bulk of cuts come from there, we can absorb the rest, and be much better off for it.

Please remember that the people who put the list out are those same people who fought the program itself for twenty years, and have been trying for the last forty-five years to dismantle it. We really cannot expect much positive input from THAT bunch…expecting THAT would truly be ‘warped reality’…:)

Posted by: Marysdude at April 4, 2010 1:25 PM
Comment #298639

“Republicans need to read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. He said that natural studies showed that those creatures that got into fights constantly weren’t necessarily the winners in evolution…”

One can only hope. I see the Republicans getting crazier and crazier every year. I fear what some fringe, self-proclaimed revolutionary tea bagger might attempt more than I do some foreign terrorist (and just for writing that I’m sure someone will label me unamerican). Perhaps what rational thinkers are left in that party will break away from these brainwashed nut jobs. Perhaps…

Posted by: Rob at April 9, 2010 12:11 AM
Post a comment