Posted on 03/05/2009 5:23:07 AM PST by CASchack
It's been a win-win the past few days for Democratic and Republican loyalists, but what about the rest of us?
You know. Americans who either don't think that (a) spending nonexistent trillions is quite the way to proceed in an economic crisis, or that (b) Rush Limbaugh is the messiah.
Oh wait, that's right, Barack Obama is the messiah. I get confused sometimes, what with so much deification going on. Limbaugh's 85-minute speech at last weekend's Conservative Political Action Conference, frequently interrupted by grateful applause from a slightly star-struck audience, was, dare we say it, Obama- esque.
But where there's deification, there's bound to be demonization. Thus, Rush told conferees that Obama, in essence, is Stalin. And Obama, via chief commando Rahm Emanuel, anointed Limbaugh as leader of the GOP, calling him the "voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party."
Talk about damning with praise.
El Rushbo can't have minded much, despite his protestations that he was being manipulated and maligned by the White House to distract Americans from the "plunging economy." What could be better for a talking head than to be chosen by a president as his worthy adversary?
At least finally both sides certainly should agree on one thing: The Fairness Doctrine is a terrible idea! Who wants fair and politically balanced commentary on the airwaves when being "unfair" is keeping both armies in their Humvees?
The body politic, meanwhile, resembles a tempest-tossed ocean liner on which passengers scurry across the deck as the ship pitches. On one side is the president, promising to build a new $3.6 trillion ark. On the other is El Rushbo, clutching the conservative tablature: Thou shalt not raise taxes.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
Mitt Romney is quietly showing leadership (BARF ALERT)
__________________________________________________
Oh, yeah...
Romney is such a quiet widdle boy...
So shy..
Wouldnt say BOO to a goose...
/s
CATO at least is solid libertarian on economic issues. Therefore, they are going to get behind hands-off govt execs & legislators and their going to slap the hands of tax-and-spend types.
(You don't have to know "all truth" to recognize a tax-and-spend governor, do you?)
If an individual contracts an infectious diseases, and then leaves it untreated because he can't afford to pay his medical bills out of pocket, because he acted irrsponsibly and failed to purchase insurance when healthy, that affects us all.
So long as Federal law (signed by Reagan) requires hospitals to treat everyone who comes into an emergency room, it affects us all when people fail to purcahse insurance and then get sick.
So long as a breadwinner's children can become wards of the state should the breadwinner get sick and incapable of providing for them, his refusal to purchase insurance affects us all.
The case for an individual health insurance mandate is at least as strong as for an auto insurance mandate.
Spoke in favor of abortion after supposedly undergoing a pro-life "conversion." Allowed same-sex marriage on his watch. Spoke out of both sides of his mouth re: the issue of adoption and same-sex parents. Favored domestic partnership benefits for homosexuals. Followed thru on his pre-election promise to the Log Cabin Republicans that $ going toward gay youth programs would become a "model" for the rest of the nation.
All of that is false.
Favored domestic partnership benefits for homosexuals.
So?
Followed thru on his pre-election promise to the Log Cabin Republicans that $ going toward gay youth programs would become a "model" for the rest of the nation.
Also not true.
You are not truthful about Romney.
...
Since you are an economist in the State of Washington,
what gives you the basis to dispute what people report;
people who are familiar with what Romney actually did
on the other side of the country in Massachusetts?
Nope. That would be you and others on this thread.
Since you are an economist in the State of Washington, what gives you the basis to dispute what people report;
I was a graduate student living in Massachusetts during all four years of his term.
At it's core it is intriguing, Romney's plan that is, but like many things exposed to the real world it proves to be less than ideal.
Yes, it is true that an individual who is ill can effect the rest of us if untreated, but it is not up to the government to demand all of us to help him nor demand he help himself. This is different than mandating auto insurance for there is no charity to give such service and driving is not a necessity of life in the grand scheme of things, modern life not withstanding.
We can also isolate the infected if need be, those such Draconian measures are unnecessary.
See I, like may others, have elected to support efforts to help those less fortunate than myself. Indeed one side of my family has endowed a number of such efforts over the generations. Elected is the operative word in this. Demand a little responsibility from the irresponsible and one day they may demand we be fully responsible for them.
Wait...
Too late...
And I have not touched the demands on small business and the subsidies...
I appreciate your POV and the fact that you are at least making a case instead of just demanding we accept Mitt's idea is conservative because you says so. But as has been discussed ad nauseum here, this is not, in reality, a conservative approach.
You ignore his impositions of his socialized medicine
and gay agendae, and his love for federal bailouts,
and his coverup of the BIGdig, and his penchant for
liberal murderer-freeing judges.
.
Now why would that be?
And also I have this from my old cut and paste file, the shared points between the two:
They both require that individuals obtain insurance and also require employers provide it.
They both provide government subsidies for those with low incomes.
Both expand the number of people covered under Medicaid.
There were others I never bothered saving since they were oft repeated here.
So again, good effort, but the facts have supported a much different conclusion.
Not true. Hillarycare put the mandate on employers. Romeny's plan put the mandate on individuals. There is no employer mandate in Romney's plan. That's a major difference.
Hillarycare had the government dictate the coverage employers were to provide and the premiums to be charged.
Romney's plan requires a miminum level of catastrphic coverage for individuals. Beyond that, individuals have a lot of choice (deductible, out-of-pocket-maximum, co-pay, etc). It also allows insurance companies to set whatever premiums they want and to compete.
If you can't see that's a fundamental difference, there's no helping you.
They both provide government subsidies for those with low incomes.
That's true. The similarities pretty much end there.
Another major difference you fail to note, Romeny's plan involved no price controls on medical services. Hillarycare had massive ones.
Poor Romney. This “endorsement” is the worst thing that could have happened to him.
So when is Kathleen Parker going to pose nude in Playboy with Arianna Huffington to you know make it all official?
but not necessarily health care which effects the irresponsible individual only.
I have to disagree with you on this one. I do not have health insurance. I am not irresponsible. First, my health problems and pre-existing conditions are such that private health insurance is prohibitive (about 1500 per month) and that is more than I spend on health care. Second, I prefer alternative health care and only choose to go to a doctor when it is absolutely necessary.
I see much of our “Doctor worship” in this country to be idolatry. I put the money aside rather than give it to an insurance company. I am also vehemently opposed to Nationalized health care.
not everyone who does not have health insurance is irresponsible. Both me and my SIL have been turned down by health ins. companies because of pre-existing conditions.
I go to the doctor if I am contagious but do not go for every little thing. I had a miscarriage and went to the hospital, it cost me 6k of my own money (not eligible for state funding, nor would I take it)., while the illegal aliens use the emergency room for every little thing and the state pays for it.
Don’t lump all of us in the same category, please.
I know you are not, but you also have taken charge, a proactive stance over your care, so even in that there is a difference between you and the average who fails to have coverage for various reasons. You weighed that risk and are acting accordingly.
Here are reasons I will NEVER vote for Romney:
1. He is a gun-banner. He signed 2nd Amendment restrictions in Mass.
2. He signed socialized medicine into law in Mass. Do we not think he would do the same to the country?
3. He approved (tacitly or not) of gay marriage in Mass., and thus apparently does not know the true definition of “marriage”.
4. He attracts people who virulently oppose Gov. Sarah, whom I love and respect, because we come from a similar background, and because of her policies.
5. K. Parker has just endorsed Romney.
Notice that “he’s a Mormon” isn’t on the list? Yep, that’s right. Give me a Conservative Mormon, and I’ll vote for him. But Romney ain’t conservative. Not by a long shot. He’s another RINO.
thank you, dear. :)
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.