The Conservative Principles Inherent in the Medicare Reform Legislation

Various sources, including Sen. Bill Frist's site, Sen. Rep. Policy Comm., and the White House ^ | 2/6/04 | My2Cents, and various sources

[My2Cents]

True. In this case, the government needs to spend money to save money, because it will be spending new money toward more effective and less-expensive treatment alternatives (i.e., medications) than Medicare has traditionally paid for (i.e., hospital stays and surgery).

[My2Cents]

To Edwards and his ilk, the "little guy" is the moron who spills hot coffee on his lap while pulling away from the drive-up window at McDonalds. The "little guy" deserves to sue the hell out of McDonalds so the price of Big Macs goes up for everyone else...or McDonalds starts serving lukewarm coffee. This is Edwards vision of the "American Dream."

[Ciexyz]

As an employer, I was hit with the excessive cost for insurance coverage for employees over 50. It is really easy to see why older workers are let go -- They raise the cost of the whole pool.

Thanks for helping me understand why I believe I experienced age discrimination and disparate treatment in the workplace.

[My2Cents]

All we've been seeing on FR is people screaming about the cost and threatening to bolt the party, with inflammatory language like "why should we pay for a bunch of old geezers."

This might be an appropriate place to vent....

The screamers you refer to -- the "purists" -- wrinkle their noses at this fact, but elections are won in the middle. The left is always going to vote predominantly for the Democrat. Conservatives (even if they grumble) are going to vote for the Republican. The independent voter in the middle decides elections. No hard-right candidate is ever going to win, just as no hard-left candidate is never going to win. I believe that the majority of the nation's swing voters are people who, for want of a better term, are "moderately conservative." They aren't conservative necessarily in ideology, because they don't think about the basis of their political convictions, if they think about politics at all. But while not ideologically conservative, I believe they are conservative in their instincts -- generally conservative in lifestyle, concerned about high taxes, traditional in their moral and cultural views -- but they also support certain government programs (e.g., Medicare, Social Security, and the welfare safety net, provided this safety net isn't abused by deadbeats). To win elections, we have to have a candidate who appeals to this moderately conservative middle...a candidate kind of like George W. Bush. Bill Clinton understood this, which is why if you go back and look at his campaign rhetoric in 1992, he sounded like a moderate Republican. We knew better, but the conservative middle felt comfortable with him.

The purists on the right never understand this. They sit in their ivory towers and look for reasons why they should oppose people whom they likely agree with two-thirds of the time. If the purists had their way, not only would we never elect a conservative as President, we'd never elect even a centrist with some conservative leanings. If the purists had their way, the left would win ever election. The purists aren't interested in winning elections, which is why they always threaten to "leave" the Republican Party. They get their jollys by sniping at those who aren't as "pure" as they are, which amounts to about 98% of the electorate.

We'll never get a pure conservative agenda out of GW Bush, because we'll never get a pure conservative agenda out of any candidate who actually has a chance to win. Even Ronald Reagan kept us in the UN, didn't eliminate the Dept. of Education, signed the Brady Bill, gave illegals amnesty, and signed a tax increase. The best we can hope for is to get someone in who will take care of the big issues -- appointing solid judges to restore the original intent of the Constitution; promoting American values and sovereignty in the world; resisting tax increases; holding of traditional values. We have this in GW Bush. The fact that these genuinely conservative aspects of Bush's instincts don't seem to impress the purists tells me that many of them aren't as "pure" as they try to appear.

Which brings me to this observation: Have you noted those occasional posts where some "purist" says that Bush isn't 65% of what they want – he’s more like 25% of what they want? The reason you see these curious declarations is that those "conservatives" care only about one thing -- government spending. What I've seen lately on FR are people who will skewer GW Bush on federal spending, and then will sniff at issues like the character of his judicial appointments, or his defense of American values in the world. These people are not conservatives. They are cranks who have adopted a lazy form of "conservatism", namely, "keep your hand out of my pocket!" All they care about, if you'll notice, is "their money," and their perception of what the government does with it. Have you ever seen one of these knuckleheads talk about the importance of judicial nominations, or the culture wars, or the defense of American ideals in a dangerous and hostile world? No. That is because they are not really conservatives. Frankly, I am very suspect of anyone who bitches about government spending, and then shows no alarm at the possibility of electing a John Kerry and giving him the ability to appoint up to perhaps four Supreme Court justices between 2005 and 2008. Anyone who shows no concern over this possibility isn't a "pure" conservative at all.

[WhiteGuy]

Please include me in your generalizations.

Please reconsider my point.

The original poster had pointed out that there were reforms in the new medicare entitlement that proved it was truly a conservative victory.

I suggested that these reforms could have been enacted without additional hundreds of billions being taken from the taxpayers and given to the recipients.

If I ever said that if we don't spend money on anything the country will be better off, (while sitting back, of course), then please cite the occurrence.

If you cannot, then you might just want to admit you're a liar and apologize.

Additionally, I might infer that because you feel that adding a new entitlement to already bloated budget is "something very important", you might just be one of those big government loving liberals, but that's not true is it?

[Tamzee]

then shows no alarm at the possibility of electing a John Kerry and giving him the ability to appoint up to perhaps four Supreme Court justices between 2005 and 2008. Anyone who shows no concern over this possibility isn't a "pure" conservative at all.

Whoa, Nellie.... Kerry would be a certain 2005-2008 but a probable 2005-2012. Folks thought it would be easy to knock Clinton out after one term, especially given all his fraud and scandal... it's actually very difficult to knock out a standing President unless you get help from their own side :-(

[My2Cents]

There you go. Frankly, I'm heartened by the jobs news today, and also by a post I saw on the US leading the world in a global recovery. If the voters won't turn out a corrupt and vile personage such as the "Big He," Bill Clinton, because the economy was going well, they're not going to turn out an honorable, decent, courageous, and decisive President when the economy is going well.

[Mo1]

What .. we're suppose to read the bill before complaining? /s>

[Neets]

The naysayers in their kneejerk opposition to the President's goals here should take a good look at who they are allied with on this issue

Wait!!!!

What's that I hear???

Chants from the naysayers????

SHHHHHHHHH, listen!!!

Oh, it's just the crickets.

Never mind.

[Neets]

Thank you!!

[My2Cents]

What .. we're suppose to read the bill before complaining?

This is a corollary to, "Don't confuse me with the facts!"

[My2Cents]

LOL....The sound of the howler monkeys picking fleas off each other.

[Tamzee]

These guys?

[Neets]

Well, more like these:

[arasina]

My2Cents: You've done an outstanding job of using the facts to remind everyone that this is a Conservative approach to solving a problem that isn't just going to go away.

I heartily agree with you that the first step in achieving these further goals is to re-elect Pres. Bush, and to put more Republicans in Congress this year.

Well done, my FRiend!

[My2Cents]

Thanks arasina. That's what we're hear for...to promote our conservative values, and to keep the 'Rats out of power.

[My2Cents]

hear = here....Sheesh.

[Tamzee]

Neets,

ROFL!!! THAT is one of the funniest things I've ever seen here... boy, you're good :-)

[Neets]

;-)

[gatorbait]

If there was a true interest in reducing the cost of prescription drugs, seniors would be given greater access to buy drugs on the free market from countries like Canada and Mexico

Non starter.Geez , you sound like NBCCBSABCCNNCNBCMSNBC here. Do you have the first clue why it appears to be so much cheaper outside the US and why your suggestion, though I am certain is heart felt, is head wrong? You can tell me because if you think about it, you have the answer.(hint-part of the problem is one of the Democrat Presidential wannabees)