Posted on 11/30/2003 1:28:53 PM PST by Killborn
Et tu Dubye? Why this massive piece of socialism? What good can possibly come from having Big Guvmint putting its mitts in where it doesn’t belong?
Many of us conservatives are disheartened by this latest big fat expansion of the federal government by Pres. Bush. He sure looked like a good ole conservative man when he ran for President. Many conservatives put this man into office because they are sick of all the degeneracy and lies spewing out of the most evil Administration in US history. But now, Rush Limbaugh has said that the Medicare deal that Bush signed is worse than all the leftist expansion of government combined during the “Raw Deal” of the Clinton years. How can this be?
One of the most disgusting lies the evil leftists, or as George Clooney like to say, the “schmuck” leftists, is that Republicans want to dismantle Medicare (Correct!) so they could force the old people to pay high prices for drugs, prices so high that they are forced to eat dog food. (Now hold on a sec!) Along comes good old Dub with his compassionate socialis… Erm, I mean conservatism that promises to reform Medicare. Thus our grandmops and grandpops could pay for medicine and eat gourmet meals.
Why Medicare? Two angles, the personal and the political. The Dumbocruds kept promising to “fix” Medicare, that is making it less effective and more costly. In their complacency of the Clintoon Admin, they just sat on their behinds and did nothing, thinking “the Pubbies will NEVER touch my precious money, I mean seniors.” Even with Dub in charge with his campaign promise, they thought, they’ll get Medicare back by the next Communist Presidency. Nope. Dub took it from them. So by taking a socialist issue that attracts the sheeple, Bush makes it not as socialist and even more attractive to the sheeple! In that move, he accomplishes several objectives, securing reelection votes, taking away a Dem issue, and encourage bipartisanship, like he does in his Governeerin’ days in Texas. Remember, some of the more ideological Dems really want Medicare and did sign on it. On a more personal level, in the speech he made before he vetoed the Medicare bill… Sorry I meant signed. Wishful thinking. Where was I… ah yes. In that speech, Bush talked passionately about repaying the seniors with his bill, and you know what? I believed him. He is a genuinely great President and a conservative (ok so he’s left of most of us) guy. I don/t know how many Repubs signed the bill out of the, very misguided, goodness of their hearts but I know that George Bush is one of them.
That’s my opinion anyway. To make things more interesting here are a few theories tossed around within conservative circles:
Bush is doing it to bankrupt Medicare, forcing the whole system to go down and making people rely on private institutions, not government run organizations. In other words, Bush created a Dubyan Horse and some of the Dems are taking it into the city of Medicare.
By giving the Dems what they want, they’ll concede in other issues, allowing Republicans to railroad in more conservative legislatures.
Medicare has to be reformed one way or another, either he signs this…uhhh… socialism or he has to sign the Dem one…you know…the communist one. The dreaded ITCare, aka HillaryCare, The program that doesn’t give a rats hiney about your grandparents and mom and dad. The program that only cares about the Communist takeover of the American government.
Bush is sacrificing on this issue so he could concentrate on more important matters, i.e. getting conservative judicial nominees into the Clintonized system, where “justices” make the laws, not the legislatives.
Bush is not done with the Medicare bill. There will be many more revisions to come to make it more benign.
In any case, there are fundamental differences in the Republican Medicare and the Dumbocrud Medicare.
Cost: Okay so $400 Billion is a lot of money. But how much do you think ITCare is going to cost? 600? 800? You wish. Try 5 Trillion or some other ridiculous number. The name of the game is to make the evil whiteys dirt poor and the poor, repressed “special people” filthy rich.
Illegal Immigrants: Medicare grants $1 Billion to hospitals along the Mexican border so hospitals could handle the illegal onslaught of free health care seekers, theoretically. I’ll bet that ITCare not only grant illegals free health care but possibly their own savings account! “Oh no can’t just give the poor latinos freebies, gotta pay them too!”
Private or Public? : The biggest complaints Tommy “Yes I’m Sad” Daschle, Ted Chappaquidich (sp), and IT has about the Republican Medicare system is that it tilts towards free enterprise. It “rewards” companies to keep people on their health plans and encourages the elderly to seek private health plans other than the one the Guv offers. ITCare will make sure everyone is totally dependent to Big Guvmint. Everything will be taken care off by public facilities just like good old Stalinist Russia. Hmm… Hillarist… (Shudder)
Choice: How typical. Liberals love to say they are pro-choice but everything they propose is the opposite of that. Seniors can choose whether they want to be on Medicare or not. ITCare? No deal. “You can pick any health plan you want. As long as it’s the Guvmint’s.”
Fiscal Responsibility: Bush’s plan encourages seniors to open bank accounts and save money. Dem plan? Every single cent for the seniors comes straight from our pockets into the Guvmint’s. This way they can give it “charitably” to the seniors.
Looks fine and dandy, but it is essentially, buying a broken piece of junk and attempting to fix it instead of discarding it. Here are fundamental similarities between the two:
It shouldn’t exist to begin with.
It expands government power.
It is unconstitutional.
It is ineffective in the long run.
It does more harm than good.
So without Medicare, how do we take care of our seniors? This is my proposal:
Duty: For those of us with elderly parents, when you were young, your parents raised you and made sure that the majority of their money goes towards your future. Now it is time to repay that debt. Give your parents money at regular intervals, just enough so they always have sufficient money in their accounts. No this isn’t Medicare because you are only paying for your parents, and no one else’s. I think that’s a fair deal.
Charity: Hey libs and sheeple, CHARITY DOES NOT START WITH THE GOVERNMENT!!! It’s very, very simple. I am a nice guy. I like to donate money. What I don’t like is having some guy come into my door and take away my money and pay it to someone else who I may deem as less deserving. If my money is going to an old man whom you guys fawn over because he’s aged but in reality he spent his entire life partying and contributed nothing to society, I’ll be very, very, very unhappy. If you REALLY want to help, establish an organization that gives assistance to those elderly people who can not help themselves. Do volunteer work. If your cause is worthy of my support, I will gladly pay. Is it foolproof? Will everyone contribute? No. But if you work really hard in name recognition and heartstring pulling, you’ll get lots of donations. See Salvation Army. Instead of the lazy way out, let Big Guvmint do it, try the American way, getting off your behind and doing something useful.
Fairness: If the drugs are THAT expensive, it is up to us to bring it down. First, we look into the practices of pharmaceutical companies. Is what they are doing criminal? Is there any illegal activity? Yes? Pick up the phone and call in Johnny Law. No? Boycott and find other ways to hit their piggy banks. All industry survives on dollar$. Without it, they will go bankrupt. Pretty soon, after being hit hard in the pocketbook, they’ll succumb to the demands of we, the people. Just make sure you stay inside the line. If the companies called Johnny Law on you, it would make your cause illegitimate and set back all that you have accomplished to Square One.
But the most important thing for all us “young ‘uns” to do is to take Fiscal Responsibility. We will all grow old. And we will all get sick once we are old. It is best to start collecting money for a rainy day ASAP, so you don’t have to worry about income when you hit retirement. Establish a savings account. As soon as you hit 14 - 16, start. Accumulate money and gain interest. Don’t withdraw too often. Use large sums of cash only in an emergency. You should have a sizable sum by retirement time.
Oh yeah, don’t forget to use your company’s health plan in conjunction. You can never have too much money.
But should we get rid of Medicare now? It doesn’t come into full effect until the year 2006. It is best to sit back and see what happens next. If it is devastating to the liberals, let’s keep it awhile. If it is devastating to us, take care of it now. It is only a matter of time…
You wrote: One of the most disgusting lies the evil leftists, or as George Clooney like to say, the “schmuck” leftists, is that Republicans want to dismantle Medicare...
I think you might have meant to say something like "like to tell" after the third comma.
But in all seriousness, I'm glad you're hammering home the point about government charity. Any time a liberal says that we should be providing for the needy in some way, he should be reminded that that's going to involve a cost that will come around to him. If he says that he wouldn't mind bearing such a cost, then he needs to be grilled as to exactly why he's not already bearing said cost on behalf of the needy.
So by taking a socialist issue that attracts the sheeple, Bush makes it not as socialist and even more attractive to the sheeple!
You claim Bush has made Medicare "not as socialist" without offering anything to support that position. Increasing the size of this program, by 40% is hardly reining in socialism. And before you claim this new bill will privatize Medicare, remember that competition is limited to 6 metro areas, beginning in 2010, and that Congress is not obligated to act upon the results of this test. Indeed, history suggests the program will only expand going forward.
Medicare has to be reformed one way or another, either he signs this...uhhh... socialism or he has to sign the Dem one...you know...the communist one. The dreaded ITCare, aka HillaryCare, The program that doesn’t give a rats hiney about your grandparents and mom and dad. The program that only cares about the Communist takeover of the American government.
Another claim I've seen repeated often. Considering the GOP holds majorities in both houses of Congress and the White House, why do you claim the only alternative is HillaryCare? There are many additional options: do nothing, offer reforms without the addition of a prescription plan, limit the prescription plan to a smaller section of the population, etc. That statement is a logical fallacy in that it claims there are only two choices when a third exists (in this case, many more exist...)
Bush is sacrificing on this issue so he could concentrate on more important matters, i.e. getting conservative judicial nominees into the Clintonized system, where "justices" make the laws, not the legislatives.
Again, who says it's an either/or proposition? There's little doubt that Bush has invested considerable time and energy in fighting for this bill; that time and energy could just as easily have been invested in fighting against it, pushing an alternative, or simply doing nothing.
Bush is not done with the Medicare bill. There will be many more revisions to come to make it more benign.
What is it that makes you believe that? Throughout the passage you argue that Bush needed to offer this bit of socialism in order to head off a worse bit of socialism, yet here you expect Bush to reduce the size/scope of Medicare at some future time? Your claim argues against the remainder of your article.
I think that is the key. That is historic, in fact. It's the first time private enterprise has gotten a toe in the liberal wasteful government health schemes.
What I think you missed is that the president is fighting a war right now. That he has accomplished tax reductions, has the teachers' unions screaming to high heaven about testing kids AND teachers, AND he has shoved the private enterprise wedge into Medicare -- is little short of a miracle and speaks volumes about this president's truthfulness and determination. And he's doing it all while fighting this little war on the side to keep us all alive. I'm underwhelmed by the Limbaugh quotes in your article. He has been a tremendous force for good, but he is first and foremost an entertainer, as he often says, and taking a stand against Bush right now, when conservatives are trying to sort out what's what about the drug bill, is a sure-bet for getting attention. I forgive him, but he needs to grow up.
As for the pharmaceutical companies and fairness....a huge part of the cost to us of the drugs goes into research and development. As better writers than I have pointed out, if you are willing to let future drug discoveries that may save your life go undiscovered, then by all means demand price-reductions!
I enjoyed the article and hope plenty come to the thread to argue or agree.
That appears to be the heart of your argument: "This plan is not as bad as some imagined Democrat Plan". Except the GOP is in control and you haven't demonstrated how this alternative plan would even come under consideration. You're essentially arguing that this bill is a positive only to the extent that it's better than a possible future alternative, which is practically an impossible case to make. If you want to argue that the bill has some intrinsic merit, we might be able to debate how much. But simply arguing "it's not as bad as HillaryCare" is really not a persuasive case.
I would like to explore in more detail with you the basis for your following remark:
"It is unconstitutional."
Just so you know, I consider myself a strict constructionist when it comes to constitutional issues.
With that being said, I see nothing in the U.S. Constitution that does not delegate the power to tax all citizens equally and distribute the revenue from to the citizens as largesse.
Could you point out to me what section of the U.S. Constitution that would make the Medicare program unconstitutional?
Right. GWB promised to return honor and dignity to the White House and I think he did.
He never promised to govern on principle, though, and he has not.
I voted for him once. Not again.
As I am, however I am very heartened by the market returns of late, and considering the state of the world and terrorism right now, what Dubya' has been doing, hasn't hurt. (unless one is a proponent of a liberal agenda)
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.