Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush and G.O.P. to Push for Medicare Drug Benefit (Socialists What rights will you give up?
nytimes.com ^ | 11/09/02 | By ROBERT PEAR

Posted on 11/11/2002 10:53:53 PM PST by USA21

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-37 next last

1 posted on 11/11/2002 10:53:53 PM PST by USA21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: USA21
Happy pills are here again,
The skies are bright and near again,
We will pop a pill and blear again,
Happy pills are here again!!!

2 posted on 11/11/2002 11:07:34 PM PST by Carry_Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: USA21
More evidence that there's not much difference between the two parties. The Goldwater-Reagan wing of the party is clearly dead. We have a $159-billion deficit, and the Republicans are about to spend a huge amount of our money on a new entitlement program that will saddle generations of young people with an enormous debt. I thought the idea was to restore the Constitution and eliminate entitlement programs. Instead, Republicans are sacrificing our long-term fiscal, economic, and moral health for short-term political gain.
3 posted on 11/11/2002 11:19:08 PM PST by Holden Magroin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Holden Magroin
and the New York Times is your liberal commie smear paper isn't it? So what they say really means nothing.

I week ago we just had a

Republican Landslide

What a week it has been! America spoke and we are going to send the democrats back to the stone age. Just Watch!
4 posted on 11/11/2002 11:28:27 PM PST by TLBSHOW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
Sounds like a good plane to me being self employed I love the idea of being able to finally write off medical expenses .
5 posted on 11/11/2002 11:35:13 PM PST by John Lenin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Holden Magroin
There's not much choice here politically. Prescription drugs for seniors is a HUGE isue and it has traction. Clinton even vetoed the bill once because the Dimmies wou;d rather have it as an issue than to help seniors.

We saw what happened to the Dimmies when they played only one side of the aisle. Republicans have to hold their nose and pass one or two on the side where people tend to vote the other way.

How sweet will it be in 2004 to campaign as the party that finally provided a prescription drug program? What does that leave the Dimmies??? Reparations to run on?
6 posted on 11/11/2002 11:48:45 PM PST by byteback
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: John Lenin
I will wait for a non ratty spin story. But I think all Americans should have health care available. No matter what!
7 posted on 11/11/2002 11:52:24 PM PST by TLBSHOW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: USA21
The Rove/Bush administration needs to get the economy growing if they want to pay for these things. They could make cutbacks in other programs, but there's no way that's going to happen in this new era of big government.
8 posted on 11/12/2002 12:14:19 AM PST by Moonman62
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: byteback
How sweet will it be in 2004 to campaign as the party that finally provided a prescription drug program? What does that leave the Dimmies??? Reparations to run on?

Why not campaign as the party that gave bread and circuses to the masses?

9 posted on 11/12/2002 12:16:13 AM PST by Moonman62
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
Touche' Moonman

Since the average life expectancy continues to grow while our reproduction rate stands below replacement (1.96), we need to blow the entire wad faster than bread and circuses. In the modern age, you have to run your Ponzi (I mean prescription pill) schemes much faster than the Roman Emperors did. Ah, progress.

Bush was the best we could get, but he is a RINO. Even the Great Bubba was able to bomb the Serbs into oblivion. We'll soon see whether compassionate conservatism was a brilliant ploy, or just another version of socialism lite.

10 posted on 11/12/2002 12:50:38 AM PST by FastCoyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
But I think all Americans should have health care available. No matter what!

Spoken like a true conservative!

11 posted on 11/12/2002 5:24:59 AM PST by RJCogburn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: USA21
imposing new limits on damages in medical malpractice cases.

Good. Cut off the DNC trial lawyer contributions. This is why health care costs are sky rocketing. Get rid of the frivolous DNC enouraged law suits, and the doctors can do their jobs the way they should be done.
The higher the cost of health care, the closer they get to their facist universal health care. Head 'em off at the pass.

12 posted on 11/12/2002 5:45:19 AM PST by concerned about politics
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: USA21
But the return of federal budget deficits, after four years of surpluses, could sharply limit the generosity of any drug benefits.

What? No "Free health care and proscription drugs for EVERYONE?"
Poor AlGore. His dreams of a health care take over are RUINED!
(I like deficits. It slows down social spending. Deficits go away, social programs do not!)

13 posted on 11/12/2002 5:49:28 AM PST by concerned about politics
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
But I think all Americans should have health care available. No matter what!

Someone should bookmark that one. Perhaps you'd be more comfortable over at DU?

14 posted on 11/12/2002 6:01:11 AM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn; NittanyLion; TLBSHOW
I, too, think all Americans should have health care "available". This is not a non-conservative position. The division between conservatives and liberals on this is what do we mean by health care (how much, what kind, who pays, etc.) and available (where, when, what, etc.)

I personally think the cost of health care is way too high for most people - simply because of the overhead costs of bureaucracies, litigation, and inefficiency. But basic health care is actually quite cheap.

Do I think we ought to foot the bill for the elderly? No. The elderly in general are not social contributors. If they wish to prolong their existences, they may do so as long as they pay for it themselves. (Oh gosh, what a harsh view.)

On the other hand, I think prenatal care ought to be totally free. Because it pays for itself. It is generally cheap, and giving prenatal vitamins to pregnant women, and making sure that the babies will be healthy when brought to term, costs way, way, way less than lifetime care of babies born stupid or with birth defects because of ignorant, careless mothers who will then abandon the babies at the hospital or draw SSI payments for the baby (which they blow on drugs.)

15 posted on 11/12/2002 6:56:21 AM PST by dark_lord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: dark_lord
Do I think we ought to foot the bill for the elderly? No. The elderly in general are not social contributors. If they wish to prolong their existences, they may do so as long as they pay for it themselves. (Oh gosh, what a harsh view.)

There was a time when people actually saved for their retirement. That idea went out the window when during the great depression the younger people needed a job. The elderly were "carried" by government (taxpayer) funds until the depression was over. Hello??? The depresion has been over for years. Social Security was meant to be a temperary aid. Since then, the Democrats have "volenteered" to do everything for them,with other peoples money,of course.
Now, the eldrely are stuck in the Democrat rut with no way out. They're held financial prisoners because they believed the "great lie."
"Vote Democrat. We'll care for you - forever."

16 posted on 11/12/2002 7:25:17 AM PST by concerned about politics
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: dark_lord
I personally think the cost of health care is way too high for most people - simply because of the overhead costs of bureaucracies, litigation, and inefficiency

While the cost is way too high, the cause starts with the government. The system in this country favors employer paid insurance which equates in most instances into a system in which the patient has little responsibility for cost or interest in how much various types of care cost.

The government restricts the availability of medical care through licensure and restraints of trade. It increases the cost of meds by a prolonged and expensive process. It mandates various coverage by insurance for select groups that increases the cost for all.

Is government the only reason for expensive medical care? Of course not, but it is cause #1.

I think prenatal care ought to be totally free

No problem if you and others of like mind wish to pay for it. To coerce others who do not share your view is not conservative, IMO.

17 posted on 11/12/2002 8:21:27 AM PST by RJCogburn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
I think prenatal care ought to be totally free

No problem if you and others of like mind wish to pay for it. To coerce others who do not share your view is not conservative, IMO.

I am a pragmatist. Consider we want to eliminate abortions. Now, the women who would otherwise get abortions are now going to carry those babies to term. But they don't want them. Therefore they are going to (a) be abusive to the "fetuses" (as they put it), and (b) not get any prenatal care if it costs them one dime, and then (c) when the baby is born they are going to abandon that baby as soon as possible.

So what are you going to do with all those sick, damaged, abandoned babies, hmmm? And you are going to pay! Of course, you could legislate that women who abandon their babies go to jail - so you can pay for them in jail and pay for their babies.

And who is going to adopt sick, damaged babies, hmmm? You? Or are you going to have some kind of govenment program to pay people to adopt them?

Sorry - any way you slice it, free prenatal care is VASTLY the cheapest solution. And since we are going to be forced to pay one way or another, this way we pay the least. At least this way when people adopt those abandoned babies they will be healthy.

18 posted on 11/12/2002 8:40:22 AM PST by dark_lord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
I will wait for a non ratty spin story. But I think all Americans should have health care available. No matter what!

This board is so funny sometimes.

19 posted on 11/12/2002 11:19:56 AM PST by jodorowsky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: byteback
"How sweet will it be in 2004 to campaign as the party that finally provided a prescription drug program?"

Probably about as sweet as the smell of the burning corpse that is Reaganism.

Alas.

"What does that leave the Dimmies?"

A leg up on nationalization of American health care.

20 posted on 11/12/2002 11:40:56 AM PST by Tauzero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-37 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson