Replies

IMO, the question here is do you want the unobtainable ideal, or the obtainable good (or at least, "least bad").

Many conservatives may want a program that appeals to to posters here, but what they need need is a program that appeals to a majority of voters - otherwise they might just as well stay home on election day.

And if one of those voters, or a friend, or someone in their family is (for example) a woman having to decide between bankruptcy and a course of radiation treatment after cancer surgery because after 25 year in the workforce she had been laid off and is uninsured, and you tell her:

It's simple: "The federal guvmnt should be out of the picture completely. I believe that supply and demand market works to provide the most "equal" opportunity for all."

You are going to get asked, "How, exactly, will that solve my problem?"

And if conservatives don't have a realistic proposal to do so, or at least a convincing argument about why any of the realistic alternatives are worse than her current situation, IMO they have little reason to complain if such voters prefer someone who does appear to have one.

[And if one of those voters, or a friend, or someone in their family is (for example) a woman having to decide between bankruptcy and a course of radiation treatment after cancer surgery because after 25 year in the workforce she had been laid off and is uninsured, and you tell her:]

First, I tell her bankruptcy is the least of her worries and she needs to work hard to save her life. America supports her, she gets the treatment, if she is lucky, she survives the ordeal and has to start over in life financially. America has thus provided for her, any healthcare she could not afford, as they cannot refuse treatment, legally. Now liberals would argue that it is not fair that her financial life is ruined and America should also pay to make her life easier. I would argue that America is paying as there is a Social Security Program and prescription drug benefits, and welfare programs, etc. that will allow her the minimums required for her most basic needs.

Undoubtedly, she is in for a tough run of it. We don't all get dealt a full house straight from the deck. Most of us start out drawing for better cards. And some of us will even have to play more than one hand. But we must all play the cards we are dealt and do the best we can with them. LIFE IS NOT FAIR, though liberals are out to convince us that it is.

A better social program that provides equality for all that we could debate is Social Security. This is closer to what I am talking about as there has been national debate on the looming disaster and how to mitigate it. President Bush made a mistake IMO buy trying to avoid calling it privatization. HE got so wrapped up in arguing about whether or not it was "privatizing" it, that he failed miserably to explain what it was and how obviously it would help. He should have stood in front of America and said,

"The government manages money poorly and social security is no exception. Unfortunately, the government owes many workers money that it will have to default on someday. There are millions of folks in this country that manage money for profit and this plan would engage their services to manage a small percentage of your social security in the most conservative investment accounts, at your discretion. Even the most conservative return on the small portion that is to be invested would outpace anything the federal government could fathom after the cost to manage the program is factored in."

HE did not say this. But it would have been a move to get the government out of the pockets and welfare of citizens. As it stands now, I am paying for promises the government has made to make things more equal for those that otherwise would be less fortunate enough to have saved for their own welfare in retirement. By leveling the playing field, they have brought a segment of the population down (taxes) to prop a small segment of the population up.

All that said, there is nothing the government could do to immediately revert back to "privatization" of healthcare and education. It would have to be a long and storied period of adjustment over 15 to 20 years. This will never happen because no politician cares about the state of affairs or the opinions and welfare of citizens 20 years down the road (unless you are Bill Clinton).