Posted on 03/10/2012 7:48:30 PM PST by Steelfish
You know, that’s some really sick stuff you’re putting out there... Newt has gone to God with his sins, he’s sought forgiveness, made reconciliation, and there is no evidence of any of his past behaviors in his current life. And you just can’t let it go. You just have to get down there in it, because you can’t compare him with Santorum on the level that really counts - ideas, achievements, history making advances for conservatives, and leadership. He’s a 68 year old man, in a loving marriage for 11 years, and happy and changed. A new creature in Christ Jesus. Sorry you don’t get that.
I hadn't considered that Rick didn't choose the "christian candidate" in '08, but that does offer some evidence against those here who want to accuse him of being a Catholic zealot who'll do things beyond the law in service to his faith. I don't see that in his record anymore than I saw it in Sarah's. Both have obeyed the law, at least until they could change it through the normal legislative and legal systems, when it conflicted with their faith. Rick would use the bully pulpit very differently than Obama, but unlike Obama he'd follow the law.
that is it, isn't it? all those little touchstones that older docs are comfortable with or do habitually, don't mean that much to today's young practitioners, who don't attach the same value system to specifics...
Certainly EMRs make more sense for younger docs, especially those just entering practice. Although the added capital expense, on top of student loan debt, would make starting a practice from scratch a bitch. If we warp the economics so that only larger practices are viable how are we going to offer care to rural areas where there aren't enough patients to support such? And my experience against EMRs isn't just in my field and from my age. A younger cousin married an FP, who first tried one right out of residency. She said then it added 1-2 hours to each day for her. Now my own FP uses one and makes it seem easy, but says they keep having to change their software vender.
I have heard some docs say they consider the EMRs another member of the practice, that has to be catered to, updated, considered like any partner, and they must stay involved with, and I think more than anything they resent the required involvement.
Having worked with computers since I was 13 and watched their evolution I think this can be made to work eventually and become a 'good thing', but will take much longer that EMR proponents want to think and likely end up significantly different than they imagine.
and if enough people wander off while it is all still in this sort of nebulous state - not quite codified or seriously mandated and still somewhat experimental - some might find their own hybrid solutions of sorts...
And it will get there sooner and better if it is permitted to evolve rather than mandated from above. One size fit all 'solutions' should be rejected out of hand.
I don't know anything specific about Santorum's take on EMRs either, but wouldn't expect him to be a hard core promoter of them based on his overall health care philosophy. I do know that like Newt, he's a proponent of "lean six sigma" reforms - they both state that often- although I don't understand much specifically of what's in that.
It supposedly does remarkably transformative and reformative stuff to stacked systems, which just makes me very skeptical, also.
Philosophically I'm leery of making government TOO efficient. As were the Framers. Governmental inefficiency is one of our protections against too much governmental power.
that is very interesting. I never thought about it that way, I wouldn't mind a dash of competence amidst the inefficiency, though.
As those values have been abandoned in favor of the moral code of secular humanism our personal liberties have suffered.
Just letting you know in case you hadn't noticed.
Your sainted Rick broke the law in Pennsylvania.
Santorum’s charity “Operation Good Neighbor” (2001-07), doled out just 36% of income as grants, far less than the 75% of responsible causes. It can only be coincidence the charity which spent most of its money on lobbyists, aides and fundraisers closed after he was defeated for reelection and it was never registered as a charity with the State of Pennsylvania as required by law.
Rick Santorum is a damned liar and dishonest. He is not Presidential material, period.
You are confused. While laws should be made by morals men, that it not the same as “laws = morality”.
And that’s what is so vile about Santorum. He believes that it is the role of the governmemnt to enforce his morals. And the only way government can do that is to legislation his morals into law... and be powerful enforce to *make* you comply with them.
Which is just a “photo negative” version of Obama.
I wonder how happy they'd have been if their President worked to built a state as controlling as King George's... all to make them follow Puritan law.
Methinks there would have been a second rebellion right quick.
Consider the choices. The other choice was McCain.
I'm amazed...you really think Santorum is hell bent on imposing some type theocracy, aren't you? Secularist thought has brought us to the point where we have federal government food inspectors rooting through kids' brown bag school lunches, and your biggest fear is Santorum is going to try and make you eat fish on Fridays during Lent.
Excellent post.
Oh, please. Desperation is settling in. Rick is drunk on power - look what he has done to our veterans in #202. He cares about life?
No, nanny-state do-gooderism got us federal government food inspectors. Can't trust the people to do the right thing, you know. We know whats good for you, so we'll make you do it.
As for why I think Santorum is in the exact same mold... here's why, in SANTORUM'S OWN D@#$ FRIGGIN' WORDS!!!!!!!!!
Santorum: “This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. You know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone.”
Santorum: What was my vision? I came to the uncomfortable realization that conservatives were not only reluctant to spend government dollars on the poor, they hadn’t even thought much about what might work better. I often describe my conservative colleagues during this time as simply ‘cheap liberals.’
---
I like Reagan's view on Conservativism. It's best summed up below.
Reagan: "I'm convinced that today the majority of Americans want what those first Americans wanted: A better life for themselves and their children; a minimum of government authority. Very simply, they want to be left alone in peace and safety to take care of the family by earning an honest dollar and putting away some savings. This may not sound too exciting, but there is something magnificent about it. On the farm, on the street corner, in the factory and in the kitchen, millions of us ask nothing more, but certainly nothing less than to live our own lives according to our values —at peace with ourselves, our neighbors and the world.
Since they cannot defend a deplorable record of repeated “mistakes”, they just “relax and accept it”....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiQo3pRmr-4
...then hold the only real alternative to go against Romney (and eventually King Hussein) to a higher standard.
It’s going to be increasingly difficult for them to promote a candidate who claims to have solutions to problems that “their guy” was so influential in helping to create. Therefore, personal attacks and slander will be all they have left to promote their flailing candidate.
>> In case you hadn’t noticed, when our government officials practiced some modicum of Judeo-Christian morality and the general public held them to those standards we did pretty well with personal liberties.
That may be true, but it shouldn’t be the rule. What is society to do when public officials fail on morality?
A current dilemma. Citizens should not be prosecuted for refusing to support the fallacy of ‘homosexual marriage’; a violation of the 1st Amendment. This is the form of govt we have now.
It’s a govt grown out of control, Joe; a govt that does not deserve the authority to dictate morality. When we defer to Congress/Justice to define morality, we ultimately grant it the means to limit our Liberties.
I believe the path to Liberty that permits morality to thrive is one that involves smaller govt; one that adheres to original law.
>> I’m amazed...you really think Santorum is hell bent on imposing some type theocracy, aren’t you?
No, but many of his supporters are hell bent, those that embrace the campaign’s air of moral vanity.
Ironically, Santorum is very much towards the middle of the political road, a Bush reincarnate as I often describe him. Contrary to the slurs, Rick would not rule with an iron, theological fist. He respects individual liberty.
The immaculate mandate that’s in part propelling Rick’s campaign, however, will go unfulfilled. What else is Rick bringing to the table? Whatever it is, it’s not obvious save the highfalutin campaign rhetoric.
Joe, I like Rick Santorum. He’s an accomplished, intelligent individual, and obviously a great family man. It’s just difficult for me to envision him leading this Country out of the rapid descent it’s on.
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.