Posted on 02/22/2008 4:42:09 AM PST by torchthemummy
Regarding the Clintons, I believe your analysis is spot on. They are criminal leftists. They also have a syndicate that’ll make them doubly tough when the opponent is the evil neocon and not a fellow democrier.
Also think about the political viability of Obama is his father was still alive. That would have been interesting. What are his dad’s brothers and nephews saying about Obama?
This guy will be a easy candidate to defeat on the general election once we force the media to do the interviews in Africa. The trick is getting him past the Clinton machine. They would roll if they got the deal because the machine would roll. And ‘evil’ neocons would be the enemy not fellow democrats.
Criminal leftist is redundant. Apologies. You can’ be a true leftist and not believe it’s alright to criminally infringe on someone else’s basic human rights in order realize your goal.
File under “Hucklock” or “Hucklocked” (maybe even “Fredlocked”).
If you can’t explain your “free market” solution to health care coverage in a few paragraphs, then you are supporting a complex unworkable pie in the sky solution akin to Hillary’s 100-page 1994 debacle.
But just for curiosity, I went to your cato institution web page, and quickly discovered it looooong on identifying the problems, and short on actual solutions.
Here are THE solutions proposed by one of the cato hotshots on how to solve the dilemma whereby the govt pays for millions of people who refuse to buy health insurance, and instead rely on MediCaid, MediCare, and bankruptcy.
For example, here are the “solutions” as proposed by Cato supported Tom Miller.
>tax credits available to everyone that could be used to purchase highdeductible insurance coverage.
>greater emphasis on expanding the safety net system as an alternative to covering all of the uninsured.
>improved funding and accessibility to high-risk pools.
>greater flexibility in health insurance regulation, provided by promoting inter-state regulatory competition to attract insurers.
>changes in the incentives that now encourage choice of employer-based coverage over individual coverage.
>tax incentives to encourage voluntary contributions to agencies serving the uninsured.
Notice how all these solutions take more money out of the pockets of taxpayers.
Like I said, can you just explain your solution in a few paragraphs.
Or if you just want to declare that America should never pay anything for anyone who doesn’t have private health insurance.
That is a reasonable stance. Not one politician in America would go along with that.
Oh, by the way, Romney DID propose health care tax free savings plans — which Cato thinks will solve the health care problems.
Which brings me to the main point.
Romney, and others involved in debating the health care problem, is mainly trying to cover the millions who are currently NOT covered and instead rely on taxpayers to pay their bills.
Romney is not, as Cato seems to be doing, trying to lower costs or improve drug access, etc.
Romney recognizes that American will not allow sick people, no matter how poor, to go untreated.
Politicians will never just let the poor people die because they can’t afford a hospital room.
Again, I read through the Cato stuff and STILL can’t tell exactly what they propose to get these people covered.
Cato is one of those organizations who is certain what they DON’T want to do, but don’t have a specific proposal of things they DO want to do.
My goal is to keep Karl Obama and Hillary Marx out of the White House.
It’s his money and a Free Country, he can do what he wants. More than likely is getting a head start on ‘12.
Pray for W and Our Troops
The solution is simple. Leave health care to the free market without government intervention. It worked for 2,700 years of western civilization. The high costs in the current system are because of government intervention.
GregP, that is so simplistically naive as to be ... dumb.
Does the government have no role in making sure doctors are licensed?
Or that pharmacutical companies don't scrimp and sell cheap drugs at exorbitant prices?
Or that companyX doesn't simply buy knock-offs from China?
Should doctors sell OxyContin on the street corner for pain??
I am as conservative as anyone, but I am practical and realistic enough to see that, in today's high tech market, the government has a signifigant role to play in the American health system - if only to safeguard the public "collective" health.
2700 years ago, doctors were sticking leeches on people to drain blood. Is THAT your solution?
The main point being that this debate is not so much about keeping prices down, which I agree is better done through free market solutions.
It’s about how to cover those who either refuse, or who don’t have the money to pay for their doctor bills.
Since America will not allow these people to die in the streets, or to lay in the streets with infectious disease, the question is how to pay, and who will pay.
Your claim of “free market” is meaningless.
Do you have a solution or not?
Only the hand of God can rescue America from the dewil’s choice looming before us.
Hope he blocks the McCainiac and somebody else gets the nod.
The Media put McCain in front.
“I am as conservative as anyone...”
What’s so funny is that—you really do believe what you say. ROTFLOL!
By the way, your vaunted Cato website just has more taxpayer funded solutions to pay for the uninsured.
They just switch it from the front door the public tax pie to the back door of the tax pie through “credits” and by monkeying with taxable and non taxable savings accounts.
And then, of course, they feel better about themselves, I’m sure.
Are you really 12 years old, or is that just the part you play in the internet?
Well said.
I would like to vote FOR somebody.
I cannot as it stands.
“Are you really 12 years old, or is that just the part you play in the internet?”
Your posts are always entertaining. Constantly calling people who disagree with Flip—haters—calling people who disagree with your liberal solution to health care—dumb—and then telling us you as conservative as anyone else—what a joke. By the way, Flip lost—get over it.
And the real question is—are you really a conservative, or is that just the part you play on the internet? I think we know the answer to that question—don’t we?
Typical comment.
You presume that you speak for others.
Same attitude the wackadoodle libs have.
It’s hard to respond to someone that completely rejects the idea that a free market can successfully provide complex goods or services without government involvement. The problem is that there are too many arguments and examples to be made, all of history and all of free market philosophy. I recommend F.A. Hayek’s “The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism” (1989).
Never said I reject the free market.
I just made the point that the government can and should play a role in oversight, and to protect the 'collective' public safety.
From unscrupulous non-licensed doctors, to tainted drugs that harm, to price-gouging hospital network monopolies -- there are a myriad of things that the "free market" can do to screw the individual.
When you're talking life and death situations, it is not good enough to say, 'well, just don't use that doctor" or "just don't trust that hospital" or "just don't take that medication".
Once someone's life is taken away by a "free market" crook - it's too late to change, dontcha think?
The government can and should be there as a backstop of sorts to assure that we as individuals can "pursue" happiness without being at the mercy of false medicine.
America performs at its best when there is a vibrant free market system, coordinated so to speak by a government which occasionally intervenes, but attempts to be as unintrusive as possible.
But yes, the hand of government sometimes has to intrude -—
If not, we as individuals and as a society would still be at the mercy of smokestack monopolies, of bathtub sterno bootleggers, of heroin dealers on the streetcorners, of hospitals that demand pre-payment before emergency room treatment, of foreign companies who use cheap lead paint on their toys...... and on and on.
You can argue with my examples, but it’s hard to argue that the “market” should just be left 100% to the conscious of any businessman or entity which has the money and clout to dominate (or restrict) a particular market —
If you want to live by the ‘law of the jungle’, then move to the jungle and take your chances.
America has a unique system of checks and balances which has made us the safest, most prosperous country in history.
And yes, government sometimes plays a vital part in our prosperity.
If not, we would be living under law of the old Wild West which, although it sounds romantic, is far from it ... especially when the “free market” bad guys snuff out the lives of your wife or children.
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.