Now, there was no reference in my post nor in the attached piece by Robert Samuelson to recipients of expanded healthcare as bums or as anything else. It seems to me that Liberals, generally speaking, think Conservatives are mean.
Not so.
Speaking for myself, I think we need to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves. But simply offering free rides is a mistake, and I'll echo Ganem in saying that allowing consumers to pay 10 cents on the dollar for healthcare is bad business and bad for the country and that it is close enough to "free" so as to encourage bad behavior.
In the 90s, welfare reform was necessary because welfare had become a lifestyle for too many. Similarly, the healthcare system that has existed and the new system now being created has in the past and will in the future waste enormous amounts of money and drive bad consumer behavior in the populace. Reform was in scant evidence in the new legislation, although there may have been more reform than there was honesty as relates to the full future cost.
Personally, I hardly blame Obama and Pelosi. Their goals were clear to me during the election, and the American public got what they deserved because it was their votes that brought the bastards in. Obamacare isn't what people voted for, but Obama is, so the People own it.
I think the real root of the problem was the horrendous job Bush and Republicans did when they had there chance. Conservative principles were abandoned.
Conservatives must reassert themselves, and I believe they will, big-time, in the fall. But, we need to explain that our goal is not to be mean, it is not to turn our backs on those that need help; but it is our goal to use free market principles to grow the economic pie so as to be able to fulfill our obligations to one and other and to enthusiastically pursue happiness.
Hags
9 comments:
But...
There is no denying that Conservatives swung and missed.
However, the "adults in the room", did the same thing to Conservatives that they are now trying to do to the Liberal/Progressives/Socialists.
How soon we forget the L/P/S screaming about the Bush administration trying to limit the growth of government. Hags, don't forget, they tried! In fact, I dare say that you may have bought in to the Conservatives are just tying to help their "rich" friends stuff...a little.
Now that the L/P/S have done away with any legislative rules, hopefully next time we get a chance KBTD.
Good post
Sorry, Hags. I'm not a liberal. I'm a Libertarian. I would do away with medicare and federal pensioner medical benefits tomorrow morning. (As an offset, to absorb the shock, I would provide monthly cash payments for a generation, to wean the elderly off the system.)
Insurance companies do not exist by right. They are permitted by statute to pool the bet only because it is socially beneficial. If they decide not protect all wood buildings and insure only brick buildings, then their socially beneficial purpose is negated.
Likewise, a health insurer that excludes pregnancy isn't a health insurer at all. It's just an unlicensed casino operator raising funds for commercial real estate investments.
Obamacare, which is an undesirable outcome, happened because ten of millions of employed and self-employed persons have suffered from ridiculous major medical provisions. A little timely regulation would have prevented this from happening.
I don't know what Obamacare is going to be like. But as a self-employed independent voter, I am not going to be eager to repeal it. For me, nothing, nothing could be worse than the status quo.
I see politicians on both sides responding to lobbyists. I see politicians on both sides that are afraid of the polling numbers.
These politicians have ignored the abuses of the health insurers for decades. And yes, turning away those in need, actual physical pain, is mean.
I've listened carefully. I heard bullet points, not actual proposals.
Darrell Issa wanted to let people buy into the federal employee's plan. I liked that one!
Hags ~
Good post and I agree with a lot of it.
I am one that believes many conservatives are, in fact, mean, though I am not including anyone on this board. There is a certain large "I got mine (after growing up in an affluent home), now you get yours (after growing up poor)" element on the right. Looking at the signs at Tea Party functions, you can't believe these are all well adjusted folks operating in good faith.
In an earlier post you downplayed the results of a Research 2000 poll showing that many Republicans held very radical views. Harris Poll just had very similar results in their recent survey. Hags - you are a well educated, magnanimous, conservative guy. Unfortunately, you are sharing space with some very intolerant, seditious, radical souls that are attempting (with some success) to completely take over your party.
I supported welfare reform as well and believe that government needs to set the "rules of the road" such that poor behavior is not encouraged. The status quo healthcare incentives are all screwed up with patients second to last on the list (the working poor are dead last). We spend far to much to insure too few and WHO says that our system ranks a very mediocre #37. The rest of the world is not petitioning their leaders to change to the American healthcare model.
To effectively change our system and get a handle on delivery and costs, we had to go to effective universal coverage. Obamacare is far from perfect and much is left to be done. The good news is that there are a lot of opportunities for improvement and the wheels are in motion. This is a very exciting time.
I agree with your analysis of the root of the "problem". I completely disagree with Dr J - the GOP did not try to limit the growth of government when they ran the show. Rhetoric doesn't count - as Mark C would say, what did they do? What were the RESULTS? It seems that Hags and I agree on the Bush Administration, just not the way forward. Looking ahead, I expect we will both have moments of disappointment as well as satisfaction.
Hags ~
With respect to a conservative renaissance - what would the economic platform be? I have asked for specifics from the GOP bloggers as to what spending they would cut, or if they advocate increased taxation. To date, I have not received an answer other than "Just raise the age" or "Cut waste, fraud and abuse."
Mark C proposed not-quite-across-the-board cuts of 10% to solve this 35% problem. Riegel advocates a 50% cut in spending and 25% cut in taxes, with no specifics whatsoever. Apparently, he thinks the country withe the lowest taxes in the western world should lower them 25% more in light of massive deficits.
So - looking at the budget - and the huge disparity between spending and receipts - how would you close that gap? How long would it take?
What presidential administration would serve as a budget balancing model?
Libertarian?
You know buddy, you and I may be heading for a dinner date sometime and well...bullshit.
Insurance companies do not exist by right.
Well, actually, yes they do.
Or are you the government control of everything part of the Libertarian party?
Your problems with the current insurance mess is the outgrowth of government control. Your belief system is correct, your interpretation is...not.
What frustrates me about Libertarians is that they understand 2+2 but get = blue.
And I am on vacation and no have not "spell checked"
Why would you spell check on vacation? You don't spell check at home...
Post a Comment