Posted on 09/03/2004 5:21:05 AM PDT by OESY
My memory says he said a health clinic in rural counties. I'm open to correction on that.
I sort of like the idea.....like a public library. I see it as one way for the government to keep their promises to veterans for lifetime health care.
We should offer a deal -- healthcare for 2 year's service at a very low rate of pay in a vastly expanded Border Patrol....not a draft, but for volunteers. Work for deferred pay. It fits conservative principles.
We've heard of WorkFare instead of WelFare. How about WorkHealth instead of FreeHealth?
I'm for good health care, let me get that out. But I thought he said these centers would be in urban areas too. And the sound of government health care brings visions of bad care and big government with GREAT expense.
I remember the point he said it last night...I definitely caught the RURAL word, but something caused me to miss what came right before or after...
He could have mentioned certain urban areas.
Point holds, though. Clinics are far better than some kind of bureaucracy overseeing national health insurance policies.
Clinics could be doctor driven and could be under the US Surgeon General, VA, and DOD.
The truth is that he didn't give details, so he can design it however he wishes at this point. I like the WorkHealth idea.
Anything saying "government health care" scares me
I have military retiree health care at the military clinics and VA clinics, and it's ok. But, it's not FREE. I earned it.
Yes you did Sir
Thank you.
Sir... it's been a while. (I think I like you...:>)
IMHO, this whole business of dividing conservatives into social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, crime conservatives etc etc is a load of crap, and only serves to benefit the liberals.
That's absurd. I don't begrudge you're belief, or the importance you place on the pro-life plank. However, you're not doing anyone a favor when you reinvent the language to suit your own needs.
We have a perfectly useful term to describe the pro-life position. We call it pro-life. Conservatism does not mean pro-life, but a whole host of issues, and I think most would agree that conservatism does embrace the pro-life plank. No arguement there.
However, when your definition hinges on the plank you wind up making a fool out of yourself by calling the guy who's anti-tax, pro-gun, pro-freedom, pro-military, ant-socialist, a liberal. Obviously, the liberals would drive this guy out of the liberal camp with torches and pitch forks.
Like it or not, conservatism is the sum of a lot of issues. When you find someone that embraces most (not all) of those issues, you've found someone who's more conservative than not. Period.
Which completely belies the liberals arguments about making a deceptive presentation, yes? ...Which I think is Mr. Limbaugh's point.
Yep, it's broken. You are competing for healthcare with your own money, and paying for mandated services you'll probably never use - not even if an accident befalls you, as well as paying by installment for others medicine (rather than purchasing insurance).
Until third-party payment is gone, the system has no chance of working well for more than a few months - if that.
Actually, I wouldn't call "life rejecting" pro-gun, pro-military, etc. guy a liberal. I don't think he's a conservative, but I don't think he's a liberal either.
I do believe he rejects the clear language of the Declaration of Independence, and the most important part of it, that God has endowed us with rights which include "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
But, who cares if he's pro-gun if his parents took his life when he was 7 months old?
What should we call him? I'd probably call him a libertarian or a pro-liberty republican. But, I don't think he can possibly be a conservative.
Ah, I see. I think we're agreeing, just using the language differently. In my lexicon, the pro-liberty Republicans are most definately, the good guys.
Yes, there's every reason to cooperate with liberty republicans, but the definition of conservative, "preserving positive values of the past" certainly must include the value of life itself.
Therefore, at a minimum (imho, of course), a conservative must espouse a "rape,incest,life of mother" pro-life position.
This is just sad. Just a couple of years ago Rush was an honest conservative, not afraid to offend any GOP hack. Now, he's such a shill that he'd make Michael Medved puke.
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.