Posted on 08/12/2012 10:42:36 PM PDT by Praxeologue
You’re good.
For example, from Kaiser Health's article of March 25th, the day after Ryan's announcement:
Ryan’s new budget would provide a set amount of money for future Medicare beneficiaries – those currently under the age of 55 - to purchase either a private health plan or the traditional government-administered program through a newly created Medicare exchange. That would begin in 2023. All plans, including traditional Medicare, would submit bids for how much they would charge to cover a beneficiary's health care costs. The government would pay the full premium for the private plan with the second lowest bid, or for traditional Medicare, whichever is lower. Beneficiaries would have to pay the difference if they chose a plan that set rates higher. There could be one less expensive plan option, and beneficiaries who chose it would get a rebate for the difference. Private health plans would have to be at least actuarially equivalent to the coverage offered in the traditional, government-administered option. That means that the benefits could vary, but the value of the plan would have to remain the same. But some critics are already arguing that the government-administered option would not be affordable and that it could cause doctors to leave the program. Critics have argued that the government-run plan would attract the sickest people, driving up its costs, while private plans would lure the healthiest.
“Do you not think that insurance companies will do a far better job of recognizing and effectively dealing with fraud, waste and inefficiency than the federal government ever could? “
Ain’t that grand, either the Feds or so called “insurance” companies in the game for the consumer’s FORCED interests.
If we begin to grow the economy, perhaps we can grow ourselves out of the deficit.
Mitt Romney is in charge and he is going to repeal Obamacare!
Ryan has no power on this on the ticket and his health care plan was simply a proposal chained to the same CBO budget restrictions that caused all the twists and turns of Obamacare. Ryan was trying to edit Obamacare to a more free market ideal in case it could not be totally repealed—it has no standing under a Romney Administration.
This article is scurrilous mendacious propaganda from the Evil Left.
“Mitt Romney is in charge and he is going to repeal Obamacare!”
Not complete: “AND REPLACE IT” (see his website)
The old “progressive” strategy of how can we fool ‘em next. I’m shocked that Romneycare would come with Romney!
And “The Exempt Ones” and their Fascist sponsors, are now on the run to insulate themselves from it affecting them, and only them.
That is our only choice besides ruinous inflation or default is growth. We may not even have that choice, but we have to aim in that direction. That's why it is critically important to get R/R in office. If there are drawbacks to their being in office they will pale in comparison to federal government default and/or massive inflation.
As for Wenzel's article, it comes from a libertarian/Paul direction, if anything, but certainly not the Left. The Left find it useful to stir up trouble, but it was written from a small government perspective. Our previous flag bearers, Palin, Gingrich, etc., are now towing the party line. I can't blame them. It's the right thing to do. That leaves the Paulites, etc., to ask the difficult questions, which makes for strange bedfellows.
“They are both Keynesian dbags. And you want to send the message to Romney that he can ignore that he can totally ignore conservatives? You want to tell them they should govern from the left?”
You do realize that if Romney/Ryan changed nothing but held the line at no increased government spending that they would not pass your test for being conservative, despite the fact that it would be the single greatest act of fiscal conservatism accomplished in the past 50 years?
I’m not saying they are going to do that, mind you, but what I am saying is that we already ARE a socialist country - and because of our socialist extraconstitutional programs and benefits.....we already ARE governed from the left (whether GOP or Dem) - so it is a positive step if you make it LESS socialist.
Less socialist is better than more socialist. It doesn’t have to make anyone happy, but the fact is we aren’t at the point where we can even contemplate, in any real sense, “conservative” anything, when it comes to our government. We stupid conservatives are just now figuring out how far down the river we’ve been sold.
I think that’s whats got most of us conservatives pissed off - that we are impatient for a return to conservative government. We’ve waited decades for even a hint. It will take at least that before we can reach anything that we can call “conservative” if we are honest in assessing it.
So be happy with “Less Liberal” for now. It won’t get any better than that. That’s politics.
“There is no Constitutional reason for the government to be involved in healthcare. None at all.”
This is absolutely true.
However, if you were to insist that this be the platform of even the most conservative candidate you could find, I don’t know....let say a “Palin-Paul” ticket, that they would not put the obvious truth - that government healthcare is unconstitutional - into their platform. They would leave intact medicare, medicaid, social security, largely untouched (from an expenditure perspective) - because if they did, they wouldn’t be elected because we are a socialist country.
So why are we (from a political point of view) insisting Romney-Ryan to suddenly be actually “conservative” when “less liberal” is the only way they can be elected in this land of big government entitlement programs?
It won’t get any better than that.
So it won't get any better than that? So the GOP serves no purpose?
“So it won’t get any better than that? So the GOP serves no purpose? “
The GOP serves, at present, no conservative purpose, this is true.
I’m not telling you who to vote for. I’m telling you that no matter who was on the ticket - pick your most conservative choices by whatever measure you choose - that if they actually attempted to really cut socialist programs, cut the federal budget, and return to actual conservative governance, they would not be elected.
We are THAT socialist a country already.
The best we can do, at this point in time, is strive to be LESS socialist. That would be the first step to achieving some modicum of conservatism in the next decade or two.
We’re not going to do it this election cycle - no matter who is running against Obama. So why not elect someone who is at least less liberal/socialist?
There are no conservatives running, after all.
Ever heard of the US Congress and the excellent chance at getting big TEA Party majorities this November.
With a REAL conservative congress RINO Presidents like Romney will be dealt with the same way liberal ones are—no more Bush43 rubber stampers.
This article is designed to suppress the conservative vote for Romney and nothing else—it shares the same agenda as the the Left so if it looks quacks and waddles...
A true conservative who can inspire and lead with ideas will be able to propose and implement policies that are far more conservative than someone perceived as weak and unprincipled, who concedes half the field before the battle begins.
...because from now on til the election the radical Libertarians are gonna be ankle-biting Romney and making Obama smile!
“A true conservative who can inspire and lead with ideas will be able to propose and implement policies that are far more conservative than someone perceived as weak and unprincipled, who concedes half the field before the battle begins. “
Thank you for stating the obvious. We are a socialist country, as such we are going to elect no leader who will actually implement policies that are conservative.
We might get there over time, but this election, we’ve got to decide between a leftist and a challenger who is less liberal than that.
Idealogically speaking, we’re probably substantially on the same page.
Our problem is that we have no conservative to vote for. Nobody vying for the presidential nomination would have been significantly less liberal than Romney.
We could have picked someone less Mormon than Romney - which seems to be the only thing that matters on FR these days.
So it’s “shut up and join the RR train” or get tarred, is it?
No, you are free to vote for Obama/Biden...
In the real world of this election it is either Romney/Ryan or Obama/Biden. You can vote Green, Lib, Constitution or Write-in, and you will get Obama/Biden!!!
BTW, That would be the same as getting Tarred.
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.