It does tend to make me furious that liberals think they, and only they, are compassionate, yet they are the ones who would have us leave Iraq and to heck with the Iraqi citizens and the bloodshed that will surely take place!
Last night on Bill O'Reilly, (sorry, don't remember what they were talking about) at the end of the program Hannity referred to himself as a "Compassionate Conservative." Colmes responded with something like "You conservatives always have to point out you're compassionate, whereas everyone knows liberals are!" (Not the exact words because it's from memory, but I'm sure you get my drift!) ARRRGGGHH! But of course I expect that from Colmes.
Where, pray tell, do they get off? I see liberals whom I know personally that could easily afford to help people that need help locally, and yet they do nothing. How come they believe they are more compassionate than conservatives? I spend a lot of time helping someone that they don't have time to give the time of day to! It's truly frustrating.
I can't answer all of those questions, Gayle. You're right to ask them, and I think you're right that conservatives are truly the most passionate and caring. Arthur Brooks has a book on that, "Who Really Cares":
http://www.amazon.com/Who-Really...m/dp/
0465008232
I just dislike Krugman, so we should really ask if these left-wing health care proposals would really help people. In the long run they won't, but suggesting that people should be personally responsible for their own health and well-being is "mean," in the left-wing worldview.
Thanks for visiting!
Ok...so use federal money to put nurses in schools to provide basic health care to children - shots, initial health review, eye charts - that sort of thing. Then public clinics that don't charge. But first they better subsidize medical schools so that we have more doctors, or I think there won't be enough to go around. And maybe require that a new doctor spends 5 years as a GP before s/he specializes. And while we're at it, how about scholarships for the qualified underprivileged that would allow them to work for the government for xx number of years to work off the scholarship - like the military does for the Academies... And nurses - why can't they progress to becoming doctors? Granted nursing is not "doctoring", but it certainly should give a leg up on the process!
Of all the misnomers in Krugman's column, this is the one that just annoyed me the most:
On the contrary, the leading candidates for the Republican nomination have gone out of their way to condemn “socialism,” which is G.O.P.-speak for any attempt to help the less fortunate.
I sense the Hammer of Geek is going to come down on this.
Hannity should have never used the term compassionate conservative (unless the context was appropriate) because all I can think of people who think they can run government better than liberals. Limited government types like me shudder when we hear it.
Of course, I am against any socialized medicine, but IF we end up with it, WHERE, OH WHERE are the Doctors coming from? If you don't have a primary physician - just try getting in to see a doctor now.
The reason NOTHING should be free is that people abuse anything free - taking it even if they don't need it or want it.
Check this NYT article out...sorry for the tinyurl, but it was _huge_! First few seconds are wasted by an ad to tell you girls are using drugs - then it proceeds to the article.
http://tinyurl.com/2562vj
Thanks Suek: I'll take a look at it!
And _this_ one!! _THIS_ is the government people want to put in charge of their health care??? _UNbelievable!_
(but an entertaining read!)
http://suitablyflip.blogs.com/su...ulls-
bookc.html
Flag Gazer,
Nothing is ever free. Someone is always paying, even if it not the recipient of those services.
Well, Geek: Check out David Brooks' piece in NYT today. He uses Burke to make some distinctions among conservatives on the proper role of government:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/0...&hp&
oref=slogin
Thanks Flag Gazer: I'm no expert on this, but I read stories of people waiting months and months for surgeries in countries with nationalized health care.
I am in no way in favor of nationalizing health care. However, there is a problem here that many people overlook.
If you have a child with a chronic illness, private insurers in many states will not cover your child, for any price. Period, end of story.
If you are also fortunate enough to be above the poverty line, but don't work for a company that has group coverage, you are SOL. You can't get any public aid, you can't get private insurance, and unless you are very wealthy you can't afford to pay out of pocket for what your child needs. It's not hard to rack up $25k in medical bills - a big chunk if your income is only $60k.
Yes, Bush has grand ideas to fix all this with HSA plans etc. His ideas are going nowhere. Meanwhile a lot of people are in a really tough situation. If expanding SCHIP isn't the answer, what is? There's no time to waste.
Patrick: Pelosi's talking points couldn't have made a better case for SCHIPs. Sure, there are problems. Perhaps policy could address insuring those with preexisting conditions. I'm no expert on this, although I think Dems aren't being honest about what they really want.
Donald, I'm not following anyone's talking points, especially Pelosi, whom I abhor for a variety of reasons. The Democrats are being disingenuous and have ulterior motives. No doubt about it. Nonetheless, there IS a problem with uninsured children. Congress and the president need to do something about it - sooner rather than later.
There is a remarkable change between the two parties on SCHIP vs the Medicare prescription drug bill a couple of years ago. In that case, Bush was insistent that every single senior citizen had to be eligible, no matter how wealthy, while the Dems wanted to limit the benefit to those under certain income amounts.
Now the sides are almost perfectly reversed. Bush wants to limit the SCHIP benefit to the very poor, while the Dems want to expand it to people who aren't quite as poor. Very strange.
Patrick: Bush was pandering to the elderly vote in 2004 on Medicare. The elderly are an extremely powerful political constituency, though Bush alienated many fiscal conservatives with the prescription drug giveaway.
As for the Dems and SCHIP, Bush agreed to an additional $20 billion or so to fund the program, but Congress wanted to increase the eligibility to lower middle class families.
Again, I'm no expert on this, but we can't turn everything into an entitlement. We should be cutting government, not increasing it!
Totally agreed, we need to cut government. How about eliminating some farm subsidies? Or tax credits for oil companies? Or road projects no one drives on? Or foreign aid for Israel?
The GOP has lost all credibility as a fiscally conservative party. How many spending bills did Bush veto in his first seven years? And which party controlled Congress for six of those years? And how much did non-defense spending grow in that time?
For all the good things Bush has done, a key part of his legacy will be this: he was glad to spend any amount of the taxpayers money on anything for anyone. The only time he could work up the nerve to say "no" was when the beneficiaries were the one group that can't vote or make contributions: children. That is a fact that will go down in history.
Patrick: I'm not anti-government, but I do think entitlements are a ticking time bomb. I'm a professor at a public city college, so certainly I have some interest in government spending.
Still, there are things that don't need expansion, and I think entitlement reform is the biggest budget buster of all.
That's right Don, stick it to 'em!
If entitlement reform is what you want, it should be obvious by now that the Republican Party has no interest in giving it to you. Nor do the Democrats. The two parties differ only in the particular groups they seek to please.
But back to the point - is it not odd that Bush chose SCHIP as the place to finally issue a a veto, thereby giving the Democrats a perfect opportunity to portray him as cruel and heartless? Of all the wasteful things government does, why choose this one as your line in the sand? As a purely political matter, it is stupid.
It seems to me that Bush backed himself into this corner. Had he not pushed his own massive spending programs (Medicare prescription drugs) and vetoed a few other things, he would have a lot more credibility.
Patrick: Bush is trying to get some mojo back with this veto. It's a good one as far as I'm concerned.
I wouldn't sweep all the Republicans under the rug. Bush did push for Social Security privatization, spending a year of political capital on the issue. I think he was sincere about reform, and his ideas for an "opportunity society" are phenomenal.
The war in Iraq has cost Bush a domestic legacy. Even the prescription drug bill was honorable in its intent, just way too expensive.
Again, I don't oppose all spending, but to say that the GOP's not going to be able to promote smaller government is a bit narrow. What until Clinton and Pelosi and Reid take over in 2009! That's some big government agenda coming down the pipe.
Ok...so how about a "Fannie Mae" health insurance company with strict limitations...deductible dependent on income. So if you make $20,000 a year, you pay the first $2000 plus 10% (not suggesting these numbers necessarily) of all medical expenses up to $1000, and the insurance takes care of the rest. If you make $100,000 then the deductible is $10,000 and 10% of the rest. Or change the numbers to reflect the IRS taxable income rate. Make it less desireable for those able to pay for another type of insurance, but providing care for the indigent or very poor.
And you know...the more I read about the demographics situation, the more I think the government better be taking actions that support families with children. The increasing numbers of adults who choose not to have children will be politically active in trying to prevent such benefits, but the fact is that they're being shortsighted if they do so.
Suek, re: " And _this_ one!! _THIS_ is the government people want to put in charge of their health care??? _UNbelievable!_
(but an entertaining read!)"
Agreed. It completely amazes me that the very same people who have spent the last 7 years complaining the loudest about the government and its policies are exactly the same people who want that same government to gain control of their very lives! The disconnect there is so yawning that I can't understand how they can leap from A to B so easily!
Our leaders in Washington must seriously consider new and innovative policies that promote a better, more confident, prosperous, and secure America in the 21st century. One of the things I think we can do to help make that happen is support American businesses and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (http://bit.ly/oanAT). They're doing things to reach out and show people that they can get involved, too.
Commenting by HaloScan
